Is this okay?

[Guest ratchethack]

I remember seeing the movie Titanic and thinking how they may have made a titanic blunder by scripting the command, 'hard to starboard' when the iceberg was centered to starboard side of the collision course.

The helmsman made what appeared to be the correct move of turning the wheel counter-clockwise.

As it turns out, it is all good and 'hard to starboard' means turn the ship to the left.

At sometime in history, I understand the command meant to the left and later it meant to the right. 

Confusing.

Dave, as a bit of a sailor and erstwhile crew of far too many sailing trips and yacht races to count (or even remember over 40 years) and former owner of my own sailboat (veteran of both happiest days of the boat-owner's life, thank you very much... ) and ASA Certified for Coastal Navigation, I've often encountered this classic confusion of landlubbers (and relativists) everywhere.

 

A helm design with a tiller is neither "old" or "new", though it harkens back to a time thousands of years before the existence of wheel helms on vessels - it's just an alternate design, and is found on many of the latest racing yachts today, posessing many advantages over wheel helms, particularly in racing. As correctly explained in the discussion at your "nitpicker" link, in the movie, "Titanic", the correct command was given and the helmsman made the correct move. The command, "hard to stab'd" has never changed meanings. The command is always followed as if the vessel has a tiller helm - whether the helm has a tiller or wheel. Throwing the tiller to "stab'd" or turning the wheel counterclockwise throws the rudder to port, resulting in the vessel turning to port.

IMHO when posting an image taken from the front of a land vehicle, it is prudent to carefully describe right and left and not assume that everyone understands universal conventions.

(sorry, did not mean to start another relativist vs. absolutist thread)

Yes, it's certainly prudent to clarify, as there are both novices and relativists about, and a wake of confusion typically follows both wherever they go. As I mentioned, I think you'll find that every service and operator's manual of every craft, vessel, or vehicle ever built uses right-left or starboard-port conventions from the perspective of the vehicle in question, rather than from the perspective of the viewer, which would be, of course, a relative perspective. Manuals for the uninitiated usually clarify the convention once in a preface of some sort, and assume it's understood from that point forward wherever used. Manuals for professionals will make the assumption without clarification. For our purposes of consistency and clarity in this Forum, I'm suggesting best always follow convention and note the frame of reference from the perspective of the vehicle.

 

Can you imagine a skipper giving the helmsman a command while facing the helmsman from forward to aft, and using directions relative to his own perspective? What if the helmsman heard the command, but couldn't see which direction the skipper was facing when giving the command?? The universal folly of Relativism has been well understood for millenia...that's why it's still only used by Relativists today...

 

Why, with the scourge of Relativism allowed loose on board ships, we'd have the ocean floors carpeted with shipwrecks from shore to shore...

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

As it turns out, it is all good and 'hard to starboard' means turn the ship to the left.

 

82049[/snapback]

 

Starboard is the right side.

[Guest ratchethack]

...'hard to starboard' means turn the ship to the left...

Starboard is the right side.

Jim, you're correct, and so is Dave. Helicopters not having tiller helms, see clarification above.

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

Just a clarification for those that wondered which side is starboard.

[dlaing]

The command is always followed as if the vessel has a tiller helm - whether the helm has a tiller or wheel. 

82083[/snapback]

So just to be clear, this statement, below, is false to assert that the command would be given differently today than in 1912, right? (note, the assertion is vauge, but implied)

"The reason for an order to turn to starboard instead of port is because in 1912 directions were still given in relation to rudder direction- rudders are pushed in the opposite direction to the way they want the ship to go, so directions were given in REVERSE."

Thanks, in advance.

I appreciate the nautical expertise.

Most of my expertise is from AMF Sunfish, where I understood the tiller helm, but was unsure of a wheel helm commands.

[Guest ratchethack]

So just to be clear, this statement, below, is false to assert that the command would be given differently today than in 1912, right? (note, the assertion is vauge, but implied)

"The reason for an order to turn to starboard instead of port is because in 1912 directions were still given in relation to rudder direction- rudders are pushed in the opposite direction to the way they want the ship to go, so directions were given in REVERSE."

Thanks, in advance.

I appreciate the nautical expertise.

Most of my expertise is from AMF Sunfish, where I understood the tiller helm, but was unsure of a wheel helm commands.

Yes, the statement quoted above is false. Rudders are pushed laterally in the direction the vessel will turn. Tillers are pushed in the opposite direction the vessel will turn. The meaning of the command conventions, "hard to stab'd" and "hard to port" have never changed and never will, though there are many alternatives, such as "hard to lee", a typical helm command when working to windward. This command also assumes a tiller helm - even when there is no tiller, but instead, a wheel. The statement was obviously made by someone without the most basic sailing experience. Your Sunfish experience would no doubt have prevented this mistake. I cut my teeth on a Sailfish at age 7, now I crew on a NA 40. All the basic principles are still the same.

[Martin Barrett]

When I did my RAF Navigator training at medium level flew in the back of a Dominie (HS125) sat at a map table and bowl of orange porridge (radar) against the rear bulkhead facing backwards. I tried not to look out the windows

(I failed the course at low level in the Jet Provost on the two ship phase)

[beauchemin]

Just as a note, I purchased a used 2002 California Special Sport and when I was cleaning it, I noticed that the front axle spacer was placed on the wrong side of the wheel .  The front wheel had never been off before so either the factory screwed up or the dealer did .  The bike also had 6000 miles on it   Kind of scary.

 

Today I removed my front wheel to change tire and I realized that the spacer was on the wrong side of the wheel also! This thread was in the back of mind from earlier this week and must have triggered some brain cells today! I've had the wheel off twice before and had put it back together with the spacer on the incorrect (right-hand) side - exactly as I had dismantled it. I'll swear on a stack of Guzziologies that it came from the dealer like that.

 

I'm not sure it was a bid deal, except that the wheel was not exactly centered - off center by about 2mm.

[Guest ratchethack]

Seems we've identified a bit of an outbreak here! While it doesn't seem to be epidemic, it's definitely something important to put on the checklist!!

 

If it only puts the wheel off-center by 2mm (though I haven't explored this to understand how only 2 mm might be possible ), I can understand how it happens and how it gets overlooked - but at some point in time, as the pads wear in, it must have the potential of wreaking some kind of havoc! Yes, the pads are for the most part self-centering (within limits), but this can't be a good thing.....

[dlaing]

(though I haven't explored this to understand how only 2 mm might be possible )

82645[/snapback]

That would only make sense if the spacer was only 2mm thick, right?

[dlaing]

That would only make sense if the spacer was only 2mm thick, right?

82652[/snapback]

Or are the brakes keeping it relatively centered?

[Mike Stewart]

On the V11 Series bikes (solid axle design) the spacer slides over the inner bearing spacer (which is stepped) that protrudes out of the left side. The difference between the spacer and the inner bearing spacer is about 1 -2 mm. This could be enough for the rotors to rub on the brake calipers.

 

 

The other problem that could happen is the wheel sliding side to side, causing the brake pads to open up and cause excessive play in the brake lever.

 

My California Special sport front wheel had a lot of slop in it and I could never tell while riding it that the front wheel was not locked into place Some things I just can't explain.

 

Mike

[Guest ratchethack]

Ah, all is made clear! A memory is a terrible thing to lose... Thanks, Mike.

Some things I just can't explain.

Me either, but at least we seem to be pushing back the frontiers of the unknown here.

 

The TRUTH is out there...

 

...absolutely!...

[dlaing]

I still don't get where that 2mm is coming from????

[Guest ratchethack]

I still don't get where that 2mm is coming from????

OK - since it's raining and I'm kinda stuck here, I'll take a stab at it.

 

The difference in length between the external spacer (#8 in drawing) and the stepped portion of the inner spacer (#3 in drawing) is ~2 mm.

 

Does that about cover it, Mike?

 

EDIT:

 

Though this is not at all evident in the drawing, by looking at the actual assembly (without actually having it apart) the external spacer looks like it would fit OVER the larger-diameter right-hand side of the spindle. It should be glaringly obvious to anyone that it couldn't possibly serve any purpose on this side - it'd spin uselessly.