• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Asshat

About peterivanac

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4,558 profile views
  1. Team Australia

    Naw, you right. They out. I thought it means BACK in the ring, but no. Well in that case the whole thing sucks balls.
  2. Team Australia

    Aw. Crap. Thought I say something somewhere else too. See if I can find it.
  3. Team Australia

    Well, about the only good thing I can see about the revised AC48 rule is that Team Australia is back which is really what our country needs. Go Aussies. http://team-australia.americascup.com/en/home.html
  4. Artemis?

    Don't kid yourself - 18's don't sail in 30 knots true.
  5. Artemis?

    Why the V ? why is the beam looking seeming so flat while most forces are vertical ? Whose sailor will be happy to sail with this beam ? Stop embarrassing yourself. You really have no idea what you are on about. You need to combine wing forces, platform twist and rig induced beam stress to understand the force vectors. A vee'd beam may well be the LOWEST stress option. All we know for sure is that none of us can possibly pretend to know if a v is better or not. Although I could learn to quote properly.
  6. Artemis?

    I see. And your area of expertise is?
  7. Artemis?

    Easy girls. This is not an anger management site. Nobody cares for your personal issues. Stick to the topic. Very, very few engineers would have the experience to assess this type of issue properly, and anybody with any level of technical understanding (or common sense) knows that none of us should be speculating about cause of failure. Having said that, I find it amazing that with the design tools and manufacturing process control available now, that the beam failed at all. It also seems like ETNZ and ORACLE did a good job by building hull 1 with a high safety factor, then measuring the loads, then optimising hull 2. It takes a lot of money and resources to do this and it looks though. I agree with the "leave it to the investigation" approach. I would condition this with the release of a transparent report though. I don't know of any other sport where the organising body or investigating authority can simply cover up details of events like this so personally I would like to see a transparent outcome to the matter.
  8. Artemis?

    Very sad day in sailing. Condolences to family and friends.
  9. Artemis?

    We have one of the hull designers of One Australia in our office. Boat 2 was definitely slower.
  10. Artemis?

    600-800mm huh...... I would hate to see your estimate of the length of your knob.
  11. Bugger, im not going to Kentuckey!