Visit our Popular Forums

Kenomac · 12-06-2019, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by smj

Definition of vegan, is bad hunter. [emoji848]

Probably due to all the farting. What a truly vicious circle...

44'cruisingcat · 12-06-2019, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

If you're happy enjoying the arctic by burning so much of the fuel that destroys it I guess that's for you. But pretty odd to read you moralizing about responsibility on the Rebel Heart thread for the risk they placed only themselves in when you're so blase about your own role in a global safety risk.

While you're moralizing.... consider how much fuel a helicopter rescue hundreds of miles out to sea burns..... then throw in the impact of several tonnes of plastic, lead, diesel etc being sent to the bottom.

44'cruisingcat · 12-06-2019, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes and I won't attack you for it, whatever my own beliefs are. So long as you mind your own business concerning diesel fuel use!

A carnivore friend of mine says "If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made out of food?"

I consider myself a secondary vegan. While not vegan myself, most of the animals I eat are...

fxykty · 12-06-2019, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC375

what the development classes have shown is for a given sail area it's better in one sail. Yes adding a jib increases performance because of the extra sail area.

If for a given sail area the "slot" had a real effect, then geuss what? Development class would take some sail area from the main to allow them to add a jib...they don't.

Actually, the vast majority of single sail dinghy classes are not development classes (where development refers to the boat, not the people). And even those that are, such as the A class catamaran, are restricted to one sail due to their rules.

Of course, the Vestas Sail Rocket 2, as well as numerous windsurfers and many ice boats, only have one sail. And one certainly can not argue that they are not designed for speed. However, all have different use cases to fixed mast and multi-direction/wind angle sailing craft.

Note that the foiling catamarans used in the last few America’s Cup used ridiculously small jibs in addition to their giant wing. It’s not the slot nor the sail area of the jib (easier to just make a taller wing) that provides the benefit of the forward sail, but the deflection in the apparent wind in front of the jib that allows the wing to see a small lift that it wouldn’t without the jib. The jib is basically a flap in front of the wing that improves its angle of attack.

44'cruisingcat · 12-06-2019, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

This is such an easy question to answer. Is it dramatically more expensive (as a % of hull value) to insure a cat than a mono?

It's not. There's your answer. If cats capsize at a higher rate than mono's sink, it would be reflected in insurance rates.

Yep. Said this ages ago. Our insurance for the current year cost 0.8% of the insured value.

Training Wheels · 12-06-2019, 14:26

Please please please, who do you insure with? Ours is a lot more than that. Seriously! Please!

44'cruisingcat · 12-06-2019, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Training Wheels

Please please please, who do you insure with? Ours is a lot more than that. Seriously! Please!

Topsail.

Bigmarv · 13-06-2019, 02:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

While you're moralizing.... consider how much fuel a helicopter rescue hundreds of miles out to sea burns..... then throw in the impact of several tonnes of plastic, lead, diesel etc being sent to the bottom.

All good reasons to have a well-founded boat and to be prudent. But the notion that motoring part or all way across oceans for leisure is sustainable is gone. The footprint of doing so is massive (quickly adds up to much bigger than eating meat etc), and it's not moralizing to point this out, it's just a fact.
Dockhead's reference to transport costs is a false comparison because the transport averages aren't a handful of people propelling 5-20 tonnes across oceans.

I have no interest in a pissing contest about individual carbon footprints, but if people post about motoring like that as if it's a positive thing to do, it's hardly suprising it will be called out.

If it seems like not a big deal, then people could read the science, look at what is an acceptable footprint, and think about the stakes.

Fwiw, I think your boat is a great way to travel with lower impact, and outboards fits well with motoring only when necessary.

El Pinguino · 13-06-2019, 04:29

True 'save the planet vegans' would only be eating locally sourced produce.
In Australia no fresh Peruvian asparagus flown in daily on Lan 801...
In New Zealand no capsicums from the Netherlands ( I kid you not) or Ecuadorian bananas..
And in the dis-united kingdom no Canary Island tomatoes....no citrus... no bananas... no grapes...

In fact in the d-UK you would be limited to spuds and mangelwurzels... hardly a healthy diet...

Oh ... and cabbage... did I mention methane?

Kenomac · 13-06-2019, 04:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

All good reasons to have a well-founded boat and to be prudent. But the notion that motoring part or all way across oceans for leisure is sustainable is gone. The footprint of doing so is massive (quickly adds up to much bigger than eating meat etc), and it's not moralizing to point this out, it's just a fact.
Dockhead's reference to transport costs is a false comparison because the transport averages aren't a handful of people propelling 5-20 tonnes across oceans.

I have no interest in a pissing contest about individual carbon footprints, but if people post about motoring like that as if it's a positive thing to do, it's hardly suprising it will be called out.

If it seems like not a big deal, then people could read the science, look at what is an acceptable footprint, and think about the stakes.

Fwiw, I think your boat is a great way to travel with lower impact, and outboards fits well with motoring only when necessary.

You’ve been drinking way too much of the climate change/global warming church koolaid if you think us folks on small sailboats are a problem.

Please put down the glass and try to reason in a rational manner.

**boatman61** · 13-06-2019, 05:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

True 'save the planet vegans' would only be eating locally sourced produce.
In Australia no fresh Peruvian asparagus flown in daily on Lan 801...
In New Zealand no capsicums from the Netherlands ( I kid you not) or Ecuadorian bananas..
And in the dis-united kingdom no Canary Island tomatoes....no citrus... no bananas... no grapes...

In fact in the d-UK you would be limited to spuds and mangelwurzels... hardly a healthy diet...

Oh ... and cabbage... did I mention methane?

Of course no home grown grapes are eaten in the UK..
We use them for alcohol.. priorities mate..

**Dockhead** · 13-06-2019, 05:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

But the notion that motoring part or all way across oceans for leisure is sustainable is gone.

Who said? Utter nonsense. The driving which takes place in connection with a single football game in Barcelona emits more carbon than a year of all the world's leisure ocean crossing combined, probably 10 years of all the world's leisure ocean crossing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

The footprint of doing so is massive (quickly adds up to much bigger than eating meat etc),

Utter hogwash. The footprint is microscopic, a large net positive on carbon emissions compared to spending the summer like average Americans or Australians. Summer in the Arctic for 5 people, 500 liters of diesel fuel burned (total co2 emitted 1325kg) including motoring all the way back, no power from public utilities, no air travel, no water from public utilities used, no meat consumed -- footprint per person 88kg per person per month -- I would be surprised if it were more than 1/10 of what you emitted last summer in Australia, where average CO2 emissions are 1,417kg per person per month.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

and it's not moralizing to point this out, it's just a fact.

Not just moralizing, but lazy moralizing, made up out of thin air, and wrong. Nothing vaguely factual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Dockhead's reference to transport costs is a false comparison because the transport averages aren't a handful of people propelling 5-20 tonnes across oceans.

Wrong again. Do a little math before shooting off your mouth. The carbon emitted motoring all the way from Greenland to Iceland, is less than the carbon saved by the five people on board not eating meat for a month (and one-third the carbon saved by not eating meet for the whole summer). Not speaking of the fact that five people were not driving cars during this time. Total impact of a trip like this, including the motoring, is a net POSITIVE on carbon emissions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

I have no interest in a pissing contest about individual carbon footprints. . .

Naturally you don't want to talk about your own carbon footprint; you just want to poke at other people's. One more time -- do you eat meat? Do you drive a car? Do you use air conditioning? People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones.

And for the record -- in the U.S. and Australia, we emit on average nearly 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per person per month. Some of those emissions are more or less justifiable given the current state of technology, some are really worthwhile, some on the other hand are frivolous.

The microscopic, the unmeasurable amount (in the grand scheme) of fuel burned on vessels for scientific research and for great adventures like cruising in high latitudes, has got to rank among the most worthwhile emissions on the planet.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are emissions from eating meat, which are simply irrational and unjustifiable, even worse than emissions caused by football games, which are at least connected with some kind of experience. Meat eating is nothing more than a bad dietary habit; it's actually worse than smoking, since a smoker at least gets some pleasure in exchange for losing his health.

As was stated, the single greatest effect any person can have on CO2 emissions, is giving up meat and dairy products. If you give up cars and air travel completely, this would have less effect on your CO2 emissions than giving up meat, and additional benefits of giving up meat include major health benefits, and massive impact on the world's fresh water supplies and forests. And there is really no downside to it -- not even taste -- freed from the monotonous domination of three or four types of dead animals in endless rotation, a vegan diet has far more variety of taste and texture -- so you feel better, lose weight, enjoy meals more, while saving the planet. And all these benefits don't even cost anything, except the expenditure of a little brain power -- a vegan diet even costs less! Anyone who for some bizarre reason in this day and age continues to eat meat (o.k., I guess stupidity is maybe not "bizarre"), has no right to say one word to anyone else, about his carbon footprint.

**Dockhead** · 13-06-2019, 06:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

True 'save the planet vegans' would only be eating locally sourced produce.
In Australia no fresh Peruvian asparagus flown in daily on Lan 801...
In New Zealand no capsicums from the Netherlands ( I kid you not) or Ecuadorian bananas..
And in the dis-united kingdom no Canary Island tomatoes....no citrus... no bananas... no grapes...

In fact in the d-UK you would be limited to spuds and mangelwurzels... hardly a healthy diet...

Oh ... and cabbage... did I mention methane?

Eating as locally as possible is an important part of a vegan diet -- not just because it's more responsible, but because it simply tastes better -- local produce, which spends less time from harvest to your table, is simply fresher. But the UK produces a lot more delicious produce than just spuds, you don't have to go more than a few hundred miles into Europe to source all the produce you could ever want.