• 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.  

Thistle3841

Members
  • Content count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thistle3841

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. Team NZ

    I design components for 3rd party customers that are installed on Boeing & Airbus aircraft. As an industry with dynamic development, the Airline Industry is the last I'd choose. Designing and making something is a fraction of the hurdle. Designing something that may fail at ground level is one thing, get 300 people 10km above the ground in a flying bomb and the regulatory hoops to jump through to merely change the torque setting on a bolt are extensive and onerous. Seriously often more than 90% of the effort. The cost of compliance and certification barriers can make innovation glacial. I have a working knowledge of pneumatics, and suspect there would be more dynamic industries to target for leading edge development. But what about access to the best wind tunnel and modeling facilities? I don't know, but would guess that's the real benefit.
  2. Artemis?

    A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly. I think it's more legit than that. I think it's a combination of the rudder length, rudder elevator area, and beam limitations. AR has two sets of rudders that meet the original rule and the full safety regs rule, but if the IJ say the max beam issue is out, but the rudder length and area hold, they no longer have a rudder that complies. I see their point, to them it's a moving targeting with lesser resources. They built two new rudders to the safety regs, that won't comply with the rules if the IJ rule in favor of NZ/LR. If the IJ also say the rudders must be a certain length, longer than before, then they have no rudders that can comply. More than anything, I hope a way is found for AR to get on the water, sail, and race. Except the application by ETNZ is seeking a ruling that Murray exceeded his jurisdiction to change the AC72 Class Rules, which means if upheld all changes (of which there are about 7-8) are out. The Jury can't pick and choose which changes Murray can keep: they don't have that jurisdiction either. Not true. Not at all. Changes to the CR require unanimous consent. They got that on all but a few issues. So those changes are all well and find. That's the issues the AR camps speaks to...if they keep several of the changes but not all, they have no rudders that will measure. They will meet the new requirements about length, etc but will not measure if the max beam issues is overturned by the IJ. And to speak to Nutta, no, they wouldn't be better off with the old rules. But, they started modifying rudders to meet ALL of the new 'rules' from the safety proposals. And if any of the changes in the new rules are reversed, while other required ones remain, they have no rudders that will measure. I'm no AR apologist, but I really do hope this works out in some way that they can sail.
  3. Artemis?

    A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly. I think it's more legit than that. I think it's a combination of the rudder length, rudder elevator area, and beam limitations. AR has two sets of rudders that meet the original rule and the full safety regs rule, but if the IJ say the max beam issue is out, but the rudder length and area hold, they no longer have a rudder that complies. I see their point, to them it's a moving targeting with lesser resources. They built two new rudders to the safety regs, that won't comply with the rules if the IJ rule in favor of NZ/LR. If the IJ also say the rudders must be a certain length, longer than before, then they have no rudders that can comply. More than anything, I hope a way is found for AR to get on the water, sail, and race.
  4. Artemis?

    I would say they need to abstain from any judgements on the quality of the competitors and their boats. Their job is to set rules that are safe and fair. When they feel they've done the best job they can, they let the rest play out. Looking at individual teams and saying whether they could race or not is not up to the committee or any jury. Like all sailing, it's the sailors' choice to take the course, every day, every race.
  5. Artemis?

    Unfortunately they showed very little of the boats and actual sailing, which is what would generate the most interest. It was all about the tracking and scoring system.
  6. Artemis?

    Yah, you are right of course. Farr was perhaps as big an egomaniac as Chris Dickson. I haven't thought about this for a while, but I had some contacts with the bulb design team from Farr back then. I never really agreed with what they said, but here's what they said about Dicko driving a boat with parts they designed: "It's like designing and building the fastest F1 car in the world and you go into the first left hand turn and the driver (Dicko) takes a hard right into the wall for no reason." They didn't think much of his driving or match racing. Could've been ego as much as anything though. I just found it funny.
  7. Artemis?

    Probably a good idea. It's pretty clear he had something catastrophic happen to him. Who knows if a rescue swimmer could have saved him, but they should definitely be on hand.