On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:05:51 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:45:57 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:13 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:44:36 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:55:15 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
Much Bumph snipped


Ok... so if you have boat that'll go 10 mph and the reverse tide is
pulling you at 5 mph vs. you have a boat that'll only go 5 mph....

You are still looking at speeds in excess of what the "normal"
cruising boat is capable of sustaining for any cruise.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

I thought we were talking about the whole concept of trying to outrun
weather in something that slow is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,

Bruce

Ok, but I thought we were talking about an opportunity to sail vs. not
sail because of a particular time between bad weather. I never said
anything about outrunning anything, and I didn't see any mention of
that until recently.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:16:11 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:05:51 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:45:57 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:13 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:44:36 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:55:15 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
Much Bumph snipped


Ok... so if you have boat that'll go 10 mph and the reverse tide is
pulling you at 5 mph vs. you have a boat that'll only go 5 mph....

You are still looking at speeds in excess of what the "normal"
cruising boat is capable of sustaining for any cruise.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

I thought we were talking about the whole concept of trying to outrun
weather in something that slow is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,

Bruce

Ok, but I thought we were talking about an opportunity to sail vs. not
sail because of a particular time between bad weather. I never said
anything about outrunning anything, and I didn't see any mention of
that until recently.

Well, you wrote:
"I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous."

I assumed that you were referring to an attempt to run away from or
avoid bad weather by sailing fast, as apposed to sailing slow.

Cheers,

Bruce

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:24:30 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:16:11 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:05:51 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:45:57 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:13 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:44:36 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:55:15 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
Much Bumph snipped


Ok... so if you have boat that'll go 10 mph and the reverse tide is
pulling you at 5 mph vs. you have a boat that'll only go 5 mph....

You are still looking at speeds in excess of what the "normal"
cruising boat is capable of sustaining for any cruise.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

I thought we were talking about the whole concept of trying to outrun
weather in something that slow is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,

Bruce

Ok, but I thought we were talking about an opportunity to sail vs. not
sail because of a particular time between bad weather. I never said
anything about outrunning anything, and I didn't see any mention of
that until recently.

Well, you wrote:
"I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous."

I assumed that you were referring to an attempt to run away from or
avoid bad weather by sailing fast, as apposed to sailing slow.

Cheers,

Bruce

Sorry for the confusion. I believe I also said somewhere that if there
was a window of 10 days, and you had the choice of being on a boat
that could easily do it in 7 vs 10, it would be safer to go on the
faster boat.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:33:41 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:24:30 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:16:11 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:05:51 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:45:57 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:13 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:44:36 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:55:15 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
Much Bumph snipped


Ok... so if you have boat that'll go 10 mph and the reverse tide is
pulling you at 5 mph vs. you have a boat that'll only go 5 mph....

You are still looking at speeds in excess of what the "normal"
cruising boat is capable of sustaining for any cruise.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

I thought we were talking about the whole concept of trying to outrun
weather in something that slow is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,

Bruce

Ok, but I thought we were talking about an opportunity to sail vs. not
sail because of a particular time between bad weather. I never said
anything about outrunning anything, and I didn't see any mention of
that until recently.

Well, you wrote:
"I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous."

I assumed that you were referring to an attempt to run away from or
avoid bad weather by sailing fast, as apposed to sailing slow.

Cheers,

Bruce

Sorry for the confusion. I believe I also said somewhere that if there
was a window of 10 days, and you had the choice of being on a boat
that could easily do it in 7 vs 10, it would be safer to go on the
faster boat.

Your illustration is flawed, or at least not applicable to anyone with
a modicum of sense.

To use your example: A storm is coming, estimated to arrive in 10
days. to use my estimate that it will take you 7 days to reach
harbour. as I said, your estimate can be off by large factors due to
unforeseen reasons.

But it is immaterial anyway. Weather estimates are seldom perfectly
accurate and if you talk about weather severe enough to be of danger
no one sets out for a voyage knowing that he will encounter really bad
weather if he can't maintain his planned speed.

Cheers,

Bruce

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:33:41 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
snip


Sorry for the confusion. I believe I also said somewhere that if there
was a window of 10 days, and you had the choice of being on a boat
that could easily do it in 7 vs 10, it would be safer to go on the
faster boat.

Your illustration is flawed, or at least not applicable to anyone with
a modicum of sense.

To use your example: A storm is coming, estimated to arrive in 10
days. to use my estimate that it will take you 7 days to reach
harbour. as I said, your estimate can be off by large factors due to
unforeseen reasons.

But it is immaterial anyway. Weather estimates are seldom perfectly
accurate and if you talk about weather severe enough to be of danger
no one sets out for a voyage knowing that he will encounter really bad
weather if he can't maintain his planned speed.



Good grief, just when I thought you couldn't possible get any more thick,
you do it.


Wilbur Hubbard

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:25:02 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:33:41 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
snip


Sorry for the confusion. I believe I also said somewhere that if there
was a window of 10 days, and you had the choice of being on a boat
that could easily do it in 7 vs 10, it would be safer to go on the
faster boat.

Your illustration is flawed, or at least not applicable to anyone with
a modicum of sense.

To use your example: A storm is coming, estimated to arrive in 10
days. to use my estimate that it will take you 7 days to reach
harbour. as I said, your estimate can be off by large factors due to
unforeseen reasons.

But it is immaterial anyway. Weather estimates are seldom perfectly
accurate and if you talk about weather severe enough to be of danger
no one sets out for a voyage knowing that he will encounter really bad
weather if he can't maintain his planned speed.



Good grief, just when I thought you couldn't possible get any more thick,
you do it.


Wilbur Hubbard


Yet another example of the amazing ignorance of the Armchair Sailor.
Or do you deliberately sail off into the typhoon?

(Well, perhaps you might.... if you ever sailed at all)

Cheers,

Bruce

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:25:02 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:33:41 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
snip


Sorry for the confusion. I believe I also said somewhere that if there
was a window of 10 days, and you had the choice of being on a boat
that could easily do it in 7 vs 10, it would be safer to go on the
faster boat.

Your illustration is flawed, or at least not applicable to anyone with
a modicum of sense.

To use your example: A storm is coming, estimated to arrive in 10
days. to use my estimate that it will take you 7 days to reach
harbour. as I said, your estimate can be off by large factors due to
unforeseen reasons.

But it is immaterial anyway. Weather estimates are seldom perfectly
accurate and if you talk about weather severe enough to be of danger
no one sets out for a voyage knowing that he will encounter really bad
weather if he can't maintain his planned speed.



Good grief, just when I thought you couldn't possible get any more thick,
you do it.


Wilbur Hubbard


Yet another example of the amazing ignorance of the Armchair Sailor.
Or do you deliberately sail off into the typhoon?

(Well, perhaps you might.... if you ever sailed at all)



PKB! Talk about ignorance . . .

Poor Bruce is so sadly lacking in sailing knowledge. Why do I say this at
this point? It is because of his using the word "typhoon" out of context.
Doesn't he know that no typhoons occur other than in the Western Pacific and
Indian Oceans? Most certainly there are no typhoons in the western Atlantic
or the Caribbean Sea/Gulf of Mexico where I sail.

Wilbur Hubbard