Americas Cup
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@nzzp yeah, definitely more and more evidence that the start is critical, then the commentators have started making comments like “yet again we’re looking at the start” when they go over the important moments of the race
Might not be as simple as “win the start = win the race”...but it’s not far off, you may not have to out right win but I think you can’t risk out right loosing
Didn't we slip up at the start of race 4? But we had enough speed to recover
@canefan I’m not convinced it was not deliberate, they popped back up on the foils as soon as spithill went for the overlap
-
Full disclosure: internet expert here, you are both wrong, and if you says knots 100 times as fast as you can, you will know.
-
@machpants so recognised as both but i get a "nah"? not just "its both"?
the metric system is based on the metre...hows is something thats 1852m considered metric? im genuinely curious
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@machpants so recognised as both but i get a "nah"? not just "its both"?
the metric system is based on the metre...hows is something thats 1852m considered metric? im genuinely curious
Metric system is based on measurable things, not (for example) the length of some Greek blokes' foot, or 1000 paces. 1852m is metres and also standardised length of a minute of the earth, a mile is a mile because it is a mile. You can convert a mile to metric, but the official (now) definition of a NM (thus knots) is based on metres, not on the old Imperial system. Yet it started in the Imperial system, and is part of both. Quite unique, but it is offically part of both. The US Admiralty and UK Admiralty NM are both Imperial measurements, based on feet. The International Nautical Mile is metres/metric and set in Monaco under French rules La Metric systeme
'NM is Imperial?' (both) Yeah (and) Nah.
Well that's how I was taught in RN and RAF both of which use a mixture of metric and imperial, this is improtant stuff when you are bombing and navigating and shit. A bit like the time on GPS clocks being out for quite a few years.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@machpants so recognised as both but i get a "nah"? not just "its both"?
the metric system is based on the metre...hows is something thats 1852m considered metric? im genuinely curious
Metric system is based on measurable things, not (for example) the length of some Greek blokes' foot, or 1000 paces. 1852m is metres and also standardised length of a minute of the earth, a mile is a mile because it is a mile. You can convert a mile to metric, but the official (now) definition of a NM (thus knots) is based on metres, not on the old Imperial system. Yet it started in the Imperial system, and is part of both. Quite unique, but it is offically part of both. The US Admiralty and UK Admiralty NM are both Imperial measurements, based on feet. The International Nautical Mile is metres/metric and set in Monaco under French rules La Metric systeme
'NM is Imperial?' (both) Yeah (and) Nah.
Well that's how I was taught in RN and RAF both of which use a mixture of metric and imperial, this is improtant stuff when you are bombing and navigating and shit. A bit like the time on GPS clocks being out for quite a few years.
This post is deleted! -
@kruse yea there used to be a US nautical mile.
The length of the internationally agreed nautical mile is 1852 m. The US adopted the international definition in 1954, having previously used the US nautical mile (1853.248 m).[5] The UK adopted the international nautical mile definition in 1970, having previously used the UK Admiralty nautical mile (6080 ft or 1853.184 m).
@taniwharugby said in Americas Cup:
@kruse yea there used to be a US nautical mile.
The length of the internationally agreed nautical mile is 1852 m. The US adopted the international definition in 1954, having previously used the US nautical mile (1853.248 m).[5] The UK adopted the international nautical mile definition in 1970, having previously used the UK Admiralty nautical mile (6080 ft or 1853.184 m).
Knot a lot in it.
-
Damn, that was an important win in the second race.
3-1 down is a long way back in first to 7.
splitting light air races gives yo uthe chance to win. They looked like two different boats out there between races 1 and 2 ... dirty air seems to be a massive impediment, much like F1. Fast boat, no passing, start critical - this IS F1 on the water
@nzzp said in Americas Cup:
Damn, that was an important win in the second race.
3-1 down is a long way back in first to 7.
splitting light air races gives yo uthe chance to win. They looked like two different boats out there between races 1 and 2 ... dirty air seems to be a massive impediment, much like F1. Fast boat, no passing, start critical - this IS F1 on the water
Not quite, given F1 track quite narrow. In first race Prada capitalised by 'pointing higher'. I assume that means being able to point more directly up course and trigonometry did the trick, rather than wind shadow alone.
Did some fast forwarding of recording to watch, but what seemed interesting is that in both races the margin because of speed/wind shadow seemed 150-250 m (5,905.5 - 9842.5 inches) for much of the time but then seemed to blow right out.
Wondering if both trailing boats at some point just decided to go all in on red/black and gamble didn't work.
The gybe LR did which backfired seemed very odd, though. Jimmy said bad luck boys at end, so perhaps some gear went wrong?
Exciting stuff -- my heart rate was elevated for first half of second one!
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@machpants so recognised as both but i get a "nah"? not just "its both"?
the metric system is based on the metre...hows is something thats 1852m considered metric? im genuinely curious
Metric system is based on measurable things, not (for example) the length of some Greek blokes' foot, or 1000 paces. 1852m is metres and also standardised length of a minute of the earth, a mile is a mile because it is a mile. You can convert a mile to metric, but the official (now) definition of a NM (thus knots) is based on metres, not on the old Imperial system. Yet it started in the Imperial system, and is part of both. Quite unique, but it is offically part of both. The US Admiralty and UK Admiralty NM are both Imperial measurements, based on feet. The International Nautical Mile is metres/metric and set in Monaco under French rules La Metric systeme
'NM is Imperial?' (both) Yeah (and) Nah.
Well that's how I was taught in RN and RAF both of which use a mixture of metric and imperial, this is improtant stuff when you are bombing and navigating and shit. A bit like the time on GPS clocks being out for quite a few years.
@machpants said in Americas Cup:
A bit like the time on GPS clocks being out for quite a few years.
You mean Selective Availability?
We have different understandings on the definition of metric units
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@machpants so recognised as both but i get a "nah"? not just "its both"?
the metric system is based on the metre...hows is something thats 1852m considered metric? im genuinely curious
Metric system is based on measurable things, not (for example) the length of some Greek blokes' foot, or 1000 paces. 1852m is metres and also standardised length of a minute of the earth, a mile is a mile because it is a mile. You can convert a mile to metric, but the official (now) definition of a NM (thus knots) is based on metres, not on the old Imperial system. Yet it started in the Imperial system, and is part of both. Quite unique, but it is offically part of both. The US Admiralty and UK Admiralty NM are both Imperial measurements, based on feet. The International Nautical Mile is metres/metric and set in Monaco under French rules La Metric systeme
'NM is Imperial?' (both) Yeah (and) Nah.
Well that's how I was taught in RN and RAF both of which use a mixture of metric and imperial, this is improtant stuff when you are bombing and navigating and shit. A bit like the time on GPS clocks being out for quite a few years.
@machpants said in Americas Cup:
Metric system is based on measurable things, not (for example) the length of some Greek blokes' foot, or 1000 paces.
well, kinda mostly. A metre is 1/10,000 of the way from the equator to the pole. Except that varies depending on which pole ... and changes over time. The kilogram for ages was based on a reference kilogram held in Paris... which is kinda arbitrary... like someone's foot
I think the metric strength is the base 10 ratios are the real strength, and the subseqent linking to definitions that are can be calculated and developed independently is a great evolution. But initially, it was kinda arbitrary
-
@machpants said in Americas Cup:
Metric system is based on measurable things, not (for example) the length of some Greek blokes' foot, or 1000 paces.
well, kinda mostly. A metre is 1/10,000 of the way from the equator to the pole. Except that varies depending on which pole ... and changes over time. The kilogram for ages was based on a reference kilogram held in Paris... which is kinda arbitrary... like someone's foot
I think the metric strength is the base 10 ratios are the real strength, and the subseqent linking to definitions that are can be calculated and developed independently is a great evolution. But initially, it was kinda arbitrary
Almost all of the comments about the nautical mile are true. Which is amusing, in that we can manage to disagree / clarify on issues that have changed, and do change with time, including the semantics. The earth being an oblate spheroid that is constantly on the move is an annoyance that we have to live with.
Full disclosure: 100% in commercial pilot navigation exam (I think these things have come up about school C so thought that I should throw that in there) and a whole bunch of other shit that nobody wants to hear about.
I think that we should discuss map projections now. What is everyone's favourite and why? I've always been a fan (shouldn't use that word, the lambert conical supporters will be all over it) of the Mercator. It just makes NZ look bigger. A bit shit for navigation, but the symmetry is nice.
As for the racing- it really is getting boring. Port entry wins unless someone seriously screws up. I think that we do have an edge in speed overall, but if we are behind it isn't enough to get in front. @Crucial may well be correct and with one extra port entry that might be the decider.
The engineers, designers, etc, did a great job with fascinating machines to watch but the race organisers, committee dropped the ball IMO. Too much about spectators on shore, TB coverage and not enough about creating a contest between the boats. Wider courses with probably longer races would have helped. can anyone remind me when there was a pass? I feel that I can just watch the start and walk away now.
-
Almost all of the comments about the nautical mile are true. Which is amusing, in that we can manage to disagree / clarify on issues that have changed, and do change with time, including the semantics. The earth being an oblate spheroid that is constantly on the move is an annoyance that we have to live with.
Full disclosure: 100% in commercial pilot navigation exam (I think these things have come up about school C so thought that I should throw that in there) and a whole bunch of other shit that nobody wants to hear about.
I think that we should discuss map projections now. What is everyone's favourite and why? I've always been a fan (shouldn't use that word, the lambert conical supporters will be all over it) of the Mercator. It just makes NZ look bigger. A bit shit for navigation, but the symmetry is nice.
As for the racing- it really is getting boring. Port entry wins unless someone seriously screws up. I think that we do have an edge in speed overall, but if we are behind it isn't enough to get in front. @Crucial may well be correct and with one extra port entry that might be the decider.
The engineers, designers, etc, did a great job with fascinating machines to watch but the race organisers, committee dropped the ball IMO. Too much about spectators on shore, TB coverage and not enough about creating a contest between the boats. Wider courses with probably longer races would have helped. can anyone remind me when there was a pass? I feel that I can just watch the start and walk away now.
@snowy said in Americas Cup:
Almost all of the comments about the nautical mile are true. Which is amusing, in that we can manage to disagree / clarify on issues that have changed, and do change with time, including the semantics..
I think that we should discuss map projections now. What is everyone's favourite and why?
True and fair enough
Mercator is a classic obviously, from a usability point a view nz’s meridional circuits are top notch, but I would say that
-
Almost all of the comments about the nautical mile are true. Which is amusing, in that we can manage to disagree / clarify on issues that have changed, and do change with time, including the semantics. The earth being an oblate spheroid that is constantly on the move is an annoyance that we have to live with.
Full disclosure: 100% in commercial pilot navigation exam (I think these things have come up about school C so thought that I should throw that in there) and a whole bunch of other shit that nobody wants to hear about.
I think that we should discuss map projections now. What is everyone's favourite and why? I've always been a fan (shouldn't use that word, the lambert conical supporters will be all over it) of the Mercator. It just makes NZ look bigger. A bit shit for navigation, but the symmetry is nice.
As for the racing- it really is getting boring. Port entry wins unless someone seriously screws up. I think that we do have an edge in speed overall, but if we are behind it isn't enough to get in front. @Crucial may well be correct and with one extra port entry that might be the decider.
The engineers, designers, etc, did a great job with fascinating machines to watch but the race organisers, committee dropped the ball IMO. Too much about spectators on shore, TB coverage and not enough about creating a contest between the boats. Wider courses with probably longer races would have helped. can anyone remind me when there was a pass? I feel that I can just watch the start and walk away now.
@snowy so to summarise, the earth is flat?
-
@snowy so to summarise, the earth is flat?
@taniwharugby said in Americas Cup:
@snowy so to summarise, the earth is flat?
If you use a big enough scale, yes!
I do like me some Myriahedral Projections
Not for actual navigation tho
-
@snowy so to summarise, the earth is flat?
@taniwharugby said in Americas Cup:
@snowy so to summarise, the earth is flat?
It would make things easier. That sky fairy really fucked it up.
-
@taniwharugby said in Americas Cup:
@snowy so to summarise, the earth is flat?
If you use a big enough scale, yes!
I do like me some Myriahedral Projections
Not for actual navigation tho
@machpants said in Americas Cup:
@taniwharugby said in Americas Cup:
@snowy so to summarise, the earth is flat?
If you use a big enough scale, yes!
I do like me some Myriahedral Projections
Not for actual navigation tho
Milo.
I will be fluent in Polish before I am done with the Fern.7-11kts according to AC website for the match. Have they announced a course?
-
Some variety today, the other race track course to be used.
https://twitter.com/americascup/status/1370491323359371265?s=20
-
That start is stunning incompetence.
