Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Will_Co

  1. Thanks. I'll try dish soap. I suspect that I could have done more of a taper on the buried core. There just seems to be too much material in the throat.
  2. Sounds like it's going well and in a good environment. I'd just say that putting coats one on top of the other without sanding in between is a shortcut not worth taking in my experience. I don't think any manufacturer recommends it, though I have tried it with Epiphanes and Pettit. The result ain't good. Whatever imperfections and unevenness there are in the first coat will be repeated in the second coat. Might also want to use a finer grit between coats, say 180-220 in the beginning, then 320 for coats 3, 4 and beyond.
  3. Trying to make an integrated soft shackle. See e.g.: The de-cored cover is supposed to pass over top of the soft shackle and be fed back through itself. It exits about 10cm from the eye. As you can see, I've managed to pull about two feet of that de-cored cover through. Now it's not budging. I've hammered away at the throat and picked at the entry and exit points with a small fid to loosen the fibers, and reefed on it with as much force as I can muster. Still not moving. Does anyone have any other tricks?
  4. Retroboat was/is great. Videos are very well done and the content is unique. However, because of its small, yet likely well-heeled, target audience, the Youtube/Patreon model is perhaps not the best way to fund the series. My favourite sailing video series/collection is not on Youtube, but on a subscription website: Off Center Habor. Costs something like $30 or 40 for the year. Lots of videos; great quality. Seems to be sustainable funding because it's been around for a few years now. I'd pay that amount for a year of Retroboat. It's anyone's guess whether there would be enough int
  5. Certainly a standout of his time. However, another advantage that Barr had over Coutts and DC was that at the time he raced, the DoG still required challengers to sail to the port of the race.
  6. Love him or loath him, I think it's gotta be Coutts. DC's loss in '83 puts him behind Coutts. Barr did not have to go through challenger series, nor win as many races in each campaign, and he defended from a position of significant relative strength (NYYC having successfully defended 9 times before Barr won with Columbia in 1899). For me, that puts Coutts' nearly impeccable record ahead.
  7. I've clarified. See below. Insofar as your comment relates to the topic of women sailors in the AC, Ssome suggested edits above. Please, go on, professor.
  8. Wouldn't/couldn't the tension of the inner forestay be set by the outer, aft-swept shrouds, while the outer forestay is tensioned with the backstay?
  9. Some suggested edits above. Please, go on, professor.
  10. I have this setup with my Axiom 7. I think my iPad is from 2012 or 2013, still works fine as a repeater on RayView. I take it your plotter is down below and you want to have your tablet on deck? Otherwise, if your plotter is in the cockpit, and the iPad is just for down below, then brightness shouldn't be an issue. Btw, it doesn't look like the RayControl App is still available. Search "RayControl" in the app store and you get a link for RayView, which is essentially a repeater (works best on an a tablet for bigger display), and RayRemote (works best on a phone for easier
  11. I’m not calling this out for the sake of ostracizing you, nor to play PC police on a forum that is notorious for the opposite of that. I could just hit ignore, delete or whatever. I’m calling this out because I’ve come to learn that you are very capable of hearing the other side and recognizing when you’re wrong—which is all that anyone can ask of a conversation partner. Blitz, leave the grotesque misogyny aside. I much prefer hearing your thoughts on sailing.
  12. Of course no one wants to see the AC back in court. But since we've been on the topic since AC36 ended, might as well have the references at hand.
  13. Bloody hell. Can't edit the initial post to add these, but thanks to you and Blitz for posting.
  14. Haven't listened to it yet, but looks like it'll give you some answers: The future generation of women sailing in the America's Cup The Cup After an incredible week of sailing Mel and Tom talk to Nic Douglass AKA 'Sailor Girl' and Mark Orams about the potential for an Aussie challenger in the next cup and the upcoming generation of women we can expect to see sailing in future America's cup regattas. Nic Douglass is an Australian sailor and sailing commentator and Mark Orams is a former Team New Zealand member and professor of sailing at AUT. For more, visit newshub.co.nz/podcasts See
  15. This thread is probably a week late, but there’s been a lot of chatter about the DoG, AC litigation in the past, and the RYS challenge. It’s spread out over 3 or 4 threads and hard to follow. To streamline things, here’s some of the relevant documents: The DoG The third and current iteration of the DoG (1887, as amended by the NYSC in 1956 and 1985): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ubNz7UyvQ6e9BUqEvzKzG4ZkfGxX5E5W/view If anyone has access to copies of the first and second editions, I'll post them here. Case Law The Court of Appeals of New York decision in
  16. I think the argument would be that "favouring" affects the validity of the challenge. I don't think that it does, but that's what I understand the gripe to be.
  17. We Canadians have the benefit and ignobility of having only a brief acquaintance with the AC to recall.
  18. I think it was the third Canadian challenge from Cuthbert, which led to the introduction of the "no vessel -- 2 year" clause in the second version of the DoG.
  19. Right. I thought that I had misunderstood after re-reading my text, which is why I edited it to cut out the other parts. So, the question is whether the "favouring AC75" clause is a breach of the "any YC" clause, right? The "favouring AC75" clause might dissuade TP52-inclined challengers or whatever other hypothetical. I could be dead wrong on this, but I'd think you need more restrictive language, such as "no challenges other than those premised on the use of an AC75 shall be considered for AC38."
  20. Full text: “Any organized Yacht Club of a foreign country, incorporated, patented, or licensed by the legislature, admiralty, or other executive department, having for its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both, shall always be entitled to the right of sailing a match of this Cup, with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the Challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup.” This clause would seem to pertain to the q
  21. Good to see it in writing. Hard to say what to make of it. It is hard to say because neither of the appellate decisions in the MBBC case or the GGYC case interprets the “no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided” clause. I don’t know if an undisturbed part of the lower court decisions addresses it, and I haven’t seen any law review articles that analyse the clause either, but they may be out there. So, whether a court would invalidate the RYS challenge because of this “no other challenge” clause is speculative. But we do have a rough idea of how a
  22. No, but that's my fault. The basis of the complaint by NYYC would imposing the AC75 on future events. In other words, it would be a complaint based on the "no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided" clause. The goal of the litigation would be to open it up to a multi-challenger event; the means to get there would be to say that the ITUK challenge is not DoG compliant.
  23. If I'm NYYC, and I am aggrieved by the absence of a multi-challenger event, and I am concerned about standing, wouldn't the lesson from GGYC v. SNG be this: submit a challenge with a CSS and argue that the ITUK challenge, which does not provide for a multi-challenger event and that seeks to impose the AC75 on future cups, is not DoG compliant? Top map the roles onto the GGYC litigation, NYYC would be GGYC (the rebuffed challenger), ETNZ would be SNG (the defender) and ITUK would be CNEV (the accepted challenger whose status/challenge is being questioned in court).
  • Create New...