On 15/10/12 21:09, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Readers need
to be weaned off the false notion that a motor is a necessity in a sailboat.

It's not a necessity, but it can be jolly useful. Leisure sailing is
sailing for fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun.

Ian

"Rick Morel" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:48:16 +0100, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 15/10/12 21:09, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Readers need
to be weaned off the false notion that a motor is a necessity in a
sailboat.

It's not a necessity, but it can be jolly useful. Leisure sailing is
sailing for fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun.

Ian

Wilbur, I don't know why I'm jumping in here and feeding you, but...

Well, it IS supposed to be a discussion group, after all . . .


Actually, with the exception of very small sailboats, an engine is a
necessity in this day and age. There are many places now where it's
ilegal to proceed under sail, including going through bridges. You may
say those places are to be avoided, but in the real world that's
simply impossible or at least nearly so.

Some folks would call anything under about 30 feet a 'small sailboat' so small
is in the eye of the beholder. Any law that says it's illegal to go through a
bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an
unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged.

There is also the safety factor to consider. I've run into situations
in my years of cruising where having an engine was actually a matter
of life or death, or at least losing the vessel and serious injury.

Transversely there are also a great many instances where the very reason folks
get into trouble in the first place is their over reliance on their engine.
Engines create a dependency upon their use because, in general, they are quite
reliable. So woe be to the individual who takes his engine for granted and
believes it will never fail him. Sails just don't break down unexpectedly and
often at the worst of times like engines do.

I have gone for months without cranking up the engine, except for
monthly runs only to "exercise" it. I used the engine when necessary,
never to make time or just because I could.

Atta boy for not being overly reliant on an engine. Always keep the auxiliary
in auxiliary.


Wilbur Hubbard

On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Any law that says it's illegal to go through a
bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an
unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged.

Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely?

Ian

"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Any law that says it's illegal to go through a
bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an
unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged.

Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely?

Ian



"Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives
original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts.
The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty
and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this
statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction
over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file suit for
most of these actions in state court."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._admiralty_law


In other words, any US state or municipality that attempts to
control navigation rights over and above those limits placed upon
it by the federal courts is acting unilaterally and at odds with
federal jurisdiction. All it would take to overturn ANY local law
restricting sailing under bridges would be a case filed in
federal court.


Wilbur Hubbard

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:59:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap:

"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Any law that says it's illegal to go through a
bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an
unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged.

Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely?

Ian



"Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives
original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts.
The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty
and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this
statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction
over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file suit for
most of these actions in state court."

I don't see sailboats or motors mentioned there.

Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:59:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap:

"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Any law that says it's illegal to go through a
bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an
unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged.

Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely?

"Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives
original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts.
The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty
and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this
statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction
over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file suit for
most of these actions in state court."

I don't see sailboats or motors mentioned there.

Too ****ing bad!!!

Wilbur Hubbard

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote
wrote

Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely?

"Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives
original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts.
The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty
and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this
statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction
over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file suit for
most of these actions in state court."

I don't see sailboats or motors mentioned there.

Too ****ing bad!!!



But it isn't. Interior waters have always been left to the states. And if
there is a bridge, it usually spans over state waters. Intercoastal, bays,
harbors, lakes, rivers, streams, rills. All state waters.

So the states can decide the laws that are beneficial to protect property
and lives. Now, I suspect one can sail under the Golden Gate, I don't see
why not, but most of the intracoastal would be limited as there are safety
issues if all other boats have to give way to some a*hole tacking under sail
in a narrow waterway. The intracoastal is 72' wide. You get turned
sideways in there and you could run aground, or cause a barge to run aground
causing millions of dollars in damages. Or more likely it'll just run you
slap over, especially in the costal waters of LA (that'd be Lous'ana to you
yankees).

So you can pretend it's "all sail, all the time" if you like. The stark
realities are that for safety reasons, for convenience, out of sheer respect
for your fellow boaters, then there will be certain times that a motor is
going to have to be used.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:15:48 -0500, Rick Morel
wrote this crap:

Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the
rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance
makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps
no more or no less than a maintained diesel?

Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine
fail.

Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:15:48 -0500, Rick Morel
wrote this crap:

Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the
rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance
makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps
no more or no less than a maintained diesel?

Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine
fail.


You just admitted:

1) you don't bother looking at, much less maintaining, your sails,

2) you are either too lazy or too ignorant to bend on or reef so
as to have the correct sail for the wind and sea conditions,

3) as sails don't last forever they must be replaced prior to
being in such a sad state that they expire on the job, you
are ignoring reality and acting irresponsibly.

I hope this helps.


Wilbur Hubbard

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:18:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap:


Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the
rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance
makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps
no more or no less than a maintained diesel?

Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine
fail.


You just admitted:

1) you don't bother looking at, much less maintaining, your sails,

How did I admit that? My sails are meticulously maintained. I dry
them after sailing and fold them carefully.

2) you are either too lazy or too ignorant to bend on or reef so
as to have the correct sail for the wind and sea conditions,

I reef when the wind is 15 knots or over.

3) as sails don't last forever they must be replaced prior to
being in such a sad state that they expire on the job, you
are ignoring reality and acting irresponsibly.

You are totally blowing smoke out your ass. My mainsail costs $3300
dollars. I keep it in excellent condition. When a rip happens we
patch it with sail tape and when getting back to the dock we take it
to our sailmaker and we always follow his advice. If he says we need
a need a new sail we will get one.

I hope this helps.

You are an asshole and you don't know what you are talking about.

Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---