Idiot or Hero? (mk2)

[44'cruisingcat]

If attempting a solo, non stop circumnavigation in a home-built 50 foot trimaran is crazy, how about trying it in a home built monohull? (8 feet LOA)

Duckworks Magazine

[Ex-Calif]

Well apparently this dream was over as soon as it began in 2006. The guy made it a few miles before the boat started leaking and he packed it in.

Duckworks Magazine

15 minutes of fame and all that crap...

There is something about human nature that, as an engineer, i will never understand. And that is that there were a ton of people supporting this guy "after" he failed miserably on this ill conceived, doomed to failure adventure.

I think I understand dreams but doesn't there have to be some sort of link to reality? Apparently for a lot of people, the answer is no.

I'm amazed that people sent this guy money after he failed miserably in order to by him bus fare home or some such. Amazing...

[Amgine]

A some-what well-known magazine once published a letter "sanitized" of all the contact information the author had asked be included. The author was looking for fellow adventurers to join him on a project to get and outfit a boat for the purpose of taking it in to the eye of a hurricane, and then traveling with it as long as possible until the storm made landfall. At which point they'd abandon the boat and find whatever shelter was possible.

The editors felt it would be gross negligence on their part to include the contact information, and they'd edited out the sales pitch because the entire idea was stupid, dangerous machismo. And they didn't want to give the provocateur any reward for even suggesting such a silly idea.

I guess I'm of the same opinion for these "smallest blahblah to ever do blahblah" attempts, when size directly affects safety.

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by Amgine

A some-what well-known magazine once published a letter "sanitized" of all the contact information the author had asked be included. The author was looking for fellow adventurers to join him on a project to get and outfit a boat for the purpose of taking it in to the eye of a hurricane, and then traveling with it as long as possible until the storm made landfall. At which point they'd abandon the boat and find whatever shelter was possible.

The editors felt it would be gross negligence on their part to include the contact information, and they'd edited out the sales pitch because the entire idea was stupid, dangerous machismo. And they didn't want to give the provocateur any reward for even suggesting such a silly idea.

I guess I'm of the same opinion for these "smallest blahblah to ever do blahblah" attempts, when size directly affects safety.

The USCG has planted floating devices in the eye of hurricanes on several occasions. I can see where a human might survive the wall of the hurricane if properly contained, however, surviving the landfall would be highly questionable and to what point??? . Just to be able to MAYBE say, "I did a stupid thing?" Seems sorta like going off of Niagra Falls in a barrel to me.

[Celestialsailor]

Amelia Earhart once said...Adventure is worthwhile in itself

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Amelia Earhart once said...Adventure is worthwhile in itself

yeah, I agree.
I would do a centre of a cyclone if I had one of those slick 150ft expedition super yachts. costs the owners US$50 million or more and theres no challenges for them!

YachtForums . com has one that looks cool 170 feet ex-ocean tug. That would be fun

[dcstrng]

Having gravitated toward the minimalist school over the years, I’m rather fascinated… Never been on a truly large sailing vessel, but am of the school that 35 feet is comfy, forty feet is bordering on unnecessary (been there, did that) and 50 feet is approaching ridiculous unless I’m planning to take the neighborhood… truth is I’ve occasionally looked at my hard-dinghy and wondered what would it take to make it sorta seaworthy… Compared to early seafarers, the “accommodations” even in 8’ feet border on luxurious, so it’s difficult to say definitively, “why…” Whether wise or not depends on the preparation and expertise, what contingencies are planned for and (at least in my mind) whether he planned to “rescue” himself (good) or expected society to bail him out if things went amiss (bad…).

[rebel heart]

I used to to joke around that the only difference between a stupid plan and a brave one was the outcome.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

I used to to joke around that the only difference between a stupid plan and a brave one was the outcome.

I like this quote. It's easy to have an opinion from my computer desk. But the courage and planning(or lack of) that goes into the venture of some people making seemingly bold attempts at something is beyond my realm of comprehention sometimes. Many times through history people would scough at seemingly useless and suicidal attempts at overcoming the nature of things. Example:- Man flying like a bird or travel to the moon. Thank God for mans free sprit to go beyond his limits.

[jdoe71]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Amelia Earhart once said...Adventure is worthwhile in itself

And we all know how Amelia ended up. Maybe I'll take my nuggets of wisdom from a more successful source.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by jdoe71

And we all know how Amelia ended up. Maybe I'll take my nuggets of wisdom from a more successful source.

You could have said the same thing of the Wright brothers or Neil Armstrong if the results had been different. Amelia had accomplished many feats up until her ill-fated crossing.

[jdoe71]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

You could have said the same thing of the Wright brothers or Neil Armstrong if the results had been different. Amelia had accomplished many feats up until her ill-fated crossing.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the Wright brothers or Neil Armstrong did what they did because they were looking for adventure.

People who pursue adventure for the sake of a little excitement are signs of a society that is bored and has lost purpose. It used to be that humans got all the adventure they needed just trying to stay alive. Many millions of people still do.

There's a world of difference in taking a risk because it may contribute to the greater good of mankind than just taking a risk because your adrenaline hasn't been pumping lately. IMHO.

[Celestialsailor]

Well to each his own. I think you could plug in the word adventure for "contribute to the greater of mankind".

[dcstrng]

<There's a world of difference in taking a risk because it may contribute to the greater good of mankind than just taking a risk because your adrenaline hasn't been pumping lately…>

Marginally true in a very basic, pure survival sense I suppose – but I think that not only would this exclude most expeditionary adventures from utopia, but most sports of any kind – including any recreational sailing -- as well as the fine arts as well… there is very little true altruism in the world, but there are many who have reaped tangential real-world benefits from the successful conclusion of someone else’s pipe-dream… and, in any case, occasionally it is worth stretching the envelop just to see what it feels like… I think adrenalin has a purpose other than simply as a byproduct of a stimulated fight-or-flight mechanism…

[Ex-Calif]

People love a thrill. That's how circus' make their money. People love an airshow. People love, well founded, thoughtful adventure - remember Charles Lindbergh. Like Lindbergh, Apollo was charting new waters.

Humans seems to be able to differentiate the adventerous from the foolhardy. Each of us probably has our own definition.

There's a French guy blasting around the world by himself in a huge freakin' tri at 20 knots plus. There's also probably a guy somewhere about to launch in a large paint bucket and a bedsheet for a sail. Who's on an adventure and who is an idiot?