On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:19:40 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:15:06 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:13:00 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:20:20 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Jessica B wrote:

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.

Not really. It's not a different of days, at least.

200 nm at 5 knots = 100 hours
200 nm at 7 knots = 71 hours

And if running from a storm you are running into a lee shore and
shallow water - just before the storm hits?

Pass...


The problem with all these armchair estimates that in a trip of any
length speeds are never that constant. Most people make an estimate of
how many miles they can do a day knowing that it (hopefully) is, at
best, an educated guess.

One trip I did at least once a year for about 10 years was anything
from an overnighter to something like 3 weeks (a bloke who's engine
broke and, as he said, he damned near ran our of food drifting 5 miles
that way and 4 miles back when the tide changed).

Cheers,

Bruce

Logically you would always use an average, so I don't understand what
would be wrong with estimates.

As I told you, estimates are often wrong by a considerable margin -
about 21 times as I mentioned above.

Cheers,

Bruce

Your logical conclusion seems to be multiply your estimated time of
travel by 21?? That's pretty excessive and it seems like you wouldn't
be going anywhere.