• 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.

uflux

Members
  • Content count

    586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About uflux

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    I'm watching you right now...
  • Interests
    Windsurfing, Sailing...
  1. What's with the bagging of Russel Coutts?Russ is nobodies bitch but maybe you all are his!... just by the way you guys make such stupid comments-. This Guy is a legend and right now is the best AC helmsman in the sport. his achievement to start new teams to win the Cup, helm the boats and come up with new concepts is unequalled in the history of the event. This guy is a still young and good enough to win a Volvo RTWR and is a qualified engineer. He would have forgotten more than 99.9% of the people on this site will ever know. And the kiwis whom bag him only do so because they do not understand how TNZ (Blake, Sefton and Blackman) shafted him and MANY other kiwi team mates ( daubney, monk, Jones...)and he was forced to go to the Swiss. Coutts is a sailing legend and will always be one. People who bag him on this site will never be remembered in the annuals of history and be forgotten as soon as they hit the coffin. don,t bag winners. When you should be having a go at the rich "Gravey Trainers" whom extract millions from YOUR sport and produce pathetic outcomes for the sport. (IE - DB) Let's face it if this cup had 3 challengers in the old 12 metre concept ( which in current economical conditions could be a possibility) you would all be pissed off a lot more than 3 challengers in theses boats! ( even though the racing is crap) Russ is a true and proven legend. The rest have won nothing yet!!! Did you have to take his dick out of your mouth and draw breath while typing that? Classic...
  2. Obvious troll to rattle Kiwi cages. Never mind, I have a little list. On you go.nice! Another moron not to worry about... whoever you are :-) Ahahaha.... AC you crack me up with your utter BS....your such a numpty...
  3. Being faster up wind is only useful if you are as fast as your opposition downwind. If you are not. You may as well be pissing in the wind...
  4. Better hold that order of Kiwi pie, the Italian fat lady hasn't finished singing to the Swedish chef just yet. AR are doing a great job, but they're still a long way off giving anybody a fright while racing, unless you're referring to some of their manoeuvres?... Agreed... As good as they are doing, there will be probably a whole leg difference if todays video is anything to go by...
  5. LR by + 5mins easy...
  6. Wow chewing on my hat while I type. Very impressive...
  7. On the evidence of JN's footage... LR have nothing to worry about.... Even if AR is blisteringly fast. They are a loooooong way from getting their manoeuvres sorted...
  8. No.... They won't be racing until the semis
  9. :0 Potential game-changer there. How steady were they foiling upwind, and what did their sideways drift look like? Rock steady, impossable to tell drift. We were a couple of hunderd yards off on basicly parallel course then they pulled us. Awesome pics MM! Nice to get your feedback as well. Seriously? Upwind? 2nd day? Do I really need to go to PD? Thanks Now thats upwind for sure Till I see the footage I'll take that with a very large pinch of salt...
  10. As per usual you missed the point
  11. You are kidding right? How can you expect them to race after 1 day on the water? They are going to be woefully underdone even by the time the semis roll around, perhaps even to the point of being dangerous. Its looking likely now that they will be able to sail in the semis. Be happy with that. Anything else is just too much to ask. There is a dichotomy in this thread between: Those who see AR as brave little battlers doing their utmost to get a boat on the course and triumphing against tragedy, with the potential for a "written for the movies" upset. Those who see a disastrous campaign with multiple design and team stuff ups, that killed someone, who are now dicking around spending more money in a futile attempt to prove nothing. I would suggest that the majority of us who have followed the AC over the last few decades are hard headed realists and fall into the latter camp. Unfortunately we seem to be mostly Kiwis. In reality spending well north of $100 million on a campaign that launches a non-measuring boat in the latter stages of the qualifying regatta is no achievement. What are they hoping to prove?? I don't hate them or consider that I am spewing vitriol in their direction. Individually they are great sailors and probably great people. But I hope they don't kill or injure anyone else. Dreaming they will do anything more is just fantasy land. If the only goal of racing were to win, how many boats would be in this regatta? How many boats would sail in any regatta? Yeah I think you are confusing an amateur effort with a professional one. I go along to my local club regatta for a fun day out racing with no intention of winning - but then that is my aim. But its a slightly different kettle of fish if you have spent $100 million + and spent three years on it. They can't even claim marketing aims (LR), or development of the team (because the next regatta won't be in these boats, and the team will I imagine be radically different). My post was responding to the outpouring of congratulations to AR for getting a boat in the water at this late stage, and the suggestions that they may cause an upset. I say cool story bro, but they are simply placing themselves and probably others in danger trying to race the most dangerous boat in sailing at the moment, in an underprepared state. To those of you who buy the whole "tribute to Bart" story, have a think about it. Respond to the death of your friend by putting the lives everyone else on the line - with no possible gain in sight? Doesn't sound like a great tribute to me. And for those of you who think it will add some interest to the racing in this regatta - sorry but out of luck. You may get about 2 minutes of interest at the start then it will be a total bore-fest (a la ETNZ/LR). Sorry to be a wet blanket and I know I sound desperately cynical, but this "brave" effort is primarily to allow those in charge to avoid the total failure spectacle of not even making the start. It is about assuaging egos, proving they have achieved something after all. And even then they didn't really make it - they need a dispensation from the other teams on the weight, and it looks like another one from IM to allow them to sail with rudders that are under the "safe" area (but class legal). I simply can't see where the congratulations are deserved. +1
  12. I don't see anything to scare the other challengers
  13. classic!
  14. Okay so putting aside 'speculation' for a moment We do know... 1. AR1 had structural issues during initial testing that had to be reinforced. 2. AR1 was a complete structural failure. 3. After a safety assessment for AR2 it is also having to have structural reinforcing done. See a pattern? Given the wind and water state conditions it was sailing in at the time of the accident. I don't think it is wild speculation that the basic design of the AR boats have serious flaws. The idea of a single cable breaking causing this catastrophe is plausible. But only if you accept that the initial designs did not have enough structural redundancy built into them (a basic engineering premise). If that is the case, it simply reinforces the fact that they are potentially too dangerous to be on the water. For all concerned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering) I know what you mean but saying that just because it is artemis it has to be unsafe and bad is not correct. We are dealing with prototypes here. Prototypes breaks and things goes wrong. You learn by doing. If it never breaks it is to strong and to heavy and should be lightened as you would gain performance by do it lighter. Did not the big team with the lawyers snap a foil on day one and stuffed it badly on day 8. How bad is that? Prototypes are prototypes. If you start from square 1 it is always a chance that you go in the wrong direction ending up in the wrong corner . Artemis did and so did OR too just not as bad. ETNZ did not. LR were lucky to buy from the from the right team. Yes prototypes they are. Yes things break. But Artemis has had more than one major structural failure. Not only to the boat but also including major structural failure to their wing. "Reports are that the mast suffered a major failure related to structural design and not just a simpler component failure" http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-2013-ac72-catamarans.php This points to systemic inadequacies in their design process as a whole and under engineering of the main components. With the design curve you move from designing for performance and then move to refining the design for reliability. Artemis has not even reached to first step of this. They are simply playing with their crews lives to continue to push ahead with an untried and untested boat. They have basically no time to test or tune, so as to understand if the boat will fall apart or perhaps more importantly how far they can safely push their design (remember non of these guys have yet ever crewed on a foiling AC72). This is completely unknown to them and is simply irresponsible to send the crew out on a high pressure race course under these circumstances.