• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Offshore 1

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Offshore 1

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/16/1969
  1. TIMMAH!
  2. Not sure what they are up to but they definitely did fly a bunch of guys up there. Stranger though was a story I heard from a reliable source who told me that Oracle were cheating with regards to some construction rules. I figured they were talking about the last cup with the 45's but they said that it was just recent, and in regards to the foils. Made me wonder if maybe Oracle was behind the revisions to the foil rules - would be ironic no?
  3. Come on Mudzy, you'll be all over it. You taken up tiddly winks or something?
  4. Haha. Tell yourself whatever you need to sleep at night.ETNZ are fast! Take a close look at that boat. They are the only team i can see that doesn't have a wing sheet. Cycle grinders look super aero, they looked like one continuous shape today. Nothing sticking up and moving around in the airflow. GA and PB tucked in really low as well. Foils all riding super high in the water. She was screaming along, barely in contact with the water. I just don't see anything innovative on the other teams 50s. I'm sure there are innovative systems in play, but it's easy to get excited about a boat so outwardly different. ETNZ makes pulling on sheets feels old fashioned now. If nothing else it's one less piece of parasitic drag. take a closer look buddy the wing sheet goes inside the rear botom area of the wing and forward and down thru the mast base to the hydraulic ram in the beam.You can zoom in and see it in the earlier pics in this thread Ok sure buddy! What I mean is there is no wing sheet extending from the trailing edge of the wing to a winch on the edge of the cockpit, as there is with all the other teams. I'm not trying to say they have no internal control system for the wing....But ETNZ solution looks very aero and innovative. (Waiting for the"it's not new, been done here and here and here, dick" abusive reply. Why are people here so angry?!) They have been pushing the design boundaries. Do you disagree? <snip> But they are inferior in wing design and manufacture compared to BAR and OR. <snip> What is this opinion based on? Southern Spars is the most successful mast builder out there and they have the advantage of TPT
  5. Put it in human terms.Farr 40 OD approx 3000kgs Hull weight. +/-3% is 2910kgs to 3090kgs. Delta of 180kgs... That's not a small amount. Now same at +/-9%. 2730kgs to 3270kgs. Delta of 540kgs. Half a fucking tonne in the delta!!! So do you order multiple batches and an excess amount and pick and choose which batch is used where? I know at least one team has done this so they probably all do it.
  6. Gee you guys are really thin skinned if the media from little old NZ can get you all wound up. Maybe if the brains trust at OR could organise a piss up in a brewery the media could comment on things like the venue, race schedule or even what the boats will look like.
  7. incorrect, they were reporting, belatedly, on an interview from a senior team member(Australian), and you have been whining ever since. Carry on, the Kiwis will be along soon.
  8. only a couple of whiney little bitches so far, and they ain't Kiwis...just sayin'
  9. In the days leading up to the jury decision you were posting smack like an immature little boy but when the decision was announced you suddenly became very busy with "meetings" As a sore loser you are the last person to be calling out others
  10. Kiwi triumphalism, big on tempting fate. Wait until you've actually won, guys.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris Unfortunately there is a lot of it around at the moment. Be happy & confident by all means, but this is waaaaaaaaaaaay past that. If we lose this thing, their dream world will certainly come crashing down on them. oops, should have followed the pitch pole comment with (yet). Not sure where you get the idea that I think we have won already. Just replying to a cheeky post.
  11. ...boats that don't pitch pole, legal rudders
  12. This goes along with my point, although I'm not so sure you are correct when you say "carries the same engineering structure as Boat 1" (we already know they made changes to the hulls, as they are obvious, visually, and you would have to be pretty crazy to think they did not make major changes to the beams after the beam on Boat 1 cracked LAST SUMMER). But otherwise, you seem to see things the way I do, they had to make major changes to Boat 2, no matter what, after the collapse of Boat 1. There are a lot of reasons the beam on boat 1 failed. To say that it was structurally weak from the start would be conjecture and not fact. Remember, the first failure was because of tow testing without the wing, which adds significant strength to the entire platform. After that breakage it was repaired and was structurally flawed from that point on. The boat was then modified twice to increase lift, which put additional strain on an already compromised structure. All this talk about a poorly designed beam is just rubbish as far as the facts as we know them. The beam on the second boat was probably just fine, but AR, being a little spooked, tested the structure to 150% of the recommended load ratings according to their press release and added some beef to it accordingly. You are right. I'm not so sure that they necessarily had to do much change of the beam from Boat 1 to Boat 2. I'm not an engineer, and do not know how necessary it is to have the wing up for structural strength (personally, I would think that the beam should be built strong enough to handle the strain with or without the wing, but I'm not going to say that is 100% correct, either). But really, my point is that they had PLENTY of damned time, and plenty of resources, and plenty of reason to investigate whether they needed to make significant changes to the beam design/construction for Boat 2, and I think it is absurd for people to act like Boat 2 was going to be out there with some chinsy beam. And yet they had to add material to it to get it up to the load specs provided by the other teams. his whole thing seems to be a mystery to you, and you seem to be arguing that they would have been fine without the (to you) unnecessary additional safety requirements imposed on them. However it is fairly obvious to the rest of us. I'll say it again so that it helps you: AR demonstrably failed in their assessment of what is needed for safe sailing. In May they were sailing on an underspec boat which they believed was safe but that failed (LP said in an interview the beam failed during pitchpole). They were almost completed build of their B2 in May, which would have been built on the same false assumption about what was a safe specification. They therefore needed to add material to get their boat up to safe specification. The safe specification is based on design and actual load data from other teams who do (so far) have safe boats. They are overweight as a result of the additional material. They needed a dispensation because they are overweight. None of the other teams, who meet the same safe specifications, needed a dispensation. None of what they added is unnecessary - it is what they have to do to sail a safe AC72. Its just that they got it wrong right up until May, despite all their time and resources. And just so we are clear I still don't believe they are safe. From a systems point of view the failure is not just about one item that failed, but a failure in their team systems. I believe that they are still an unsafe team despite the material in their beam. Remember that they were pitchpoling already in their accident - if the beam hadn't failed there is still no guarantee that everyone would have survived or been uninjured. Team safety failure. ^this, just beat me to it. You have to imagine after the first break they would have had a good look at their loadcases before repairing it, and this would have fed into the engineering of boat 2. GG's assertion that they know what they are doing went out the window when B1 broke after the beams had been built for boat 2.
  13. I'm thinking this may have been worse if not for OR's crash. Safety was improved after this as teams began to realise just how dangerous these things could be when things go wrong. The TNZ rescue guys are experienced paramedic divers who among other things are used in the powerboat racing scene. I know they were asked to implement a bunch more safety requirements that had been largely ignored before the PP.
  14. Hang on a minute, he got them into this mess. If they were to win from this from here maybe I would agree with you, but at the moment they have a boat that is uncompetitive, a second in build that will have to be modified, and the flag drops in 4 months. Looks like another case of him wasting someone elses money, in fact it looks so familiar I wouldn't be surprised if they started to use green gennakers...
  15. Yes, but is SA your personal secretary ? Go google them like anyone else would do if they had the same question. Indio and Hastings are gone for a few days so you start abusing one of the few on here who actually posts some decent info. Hopefully those heroes of yours will give you and hutson something to take your mind off it sooner rather than later.