On 23 Jul 2005 06:58:36 GMT, (Lauri Tarkkonen)
wrote:

[Brian]
Wind vanes fail from wearout and from wind gusts.
Wind vanes are prized by blue water cruisers by all accounts

[Brian]
Surely you cannot suppose
that wind vanes DON't wear out, or that they cannot be overwhelmed in
a storm gust?

[Lauri]
Every part in a boat wears off, but a quality windvane is no worse than
other equipment and you can expect a service age of more than 20 years
of a quality windvane if you treat it properly.

A servo pendulum windvane has much more power than the autopilots
usually seen on yachts.

- Lauri Tarkkonen

Lauri,

you seem curiously defensive of windvanes - do you have some monetary
interest in these devices?
Do you feel that an increase in power implies an increase in
reliability?

As to offering opinions - it is indeed a strange thing, but engineers
are often willing to offer engineering opinions on equipment
reliability even on examples of products they have not personally
used.
Does this seem presumptuous to you?

Respectfully

Brian Whatcott Altus, OK

In Brian Whatcott writes:

On 23 Jul 2005 06:58:36 GMT, (Lauri Tarkkonen)
wrote:

[Brian]
Wind vanes fail from wearout and from wind gusts.
Wind vanes are prized by blue water cruisers by all accounts

[Brian]
Surely you cannot suppose
that wind vanes DON't wear out, or that they cannot be overwhelmed in
a storm gust?

[Lauri]
Every part in a boat wears off, but a quality windvane is no worse than
other equipment and you can expect a service age of more than 20 years
of a quality windvane if you treat it properly.

A servo pendulum windvane has much more power than the autopilots
usually seen on yachts.

- Lauri Tarkkonen

Lauri,

you seem curiously defensive of windvanes - do you have some monetary
interest in these devices?
Do you feel that an increase in power implies an increase in
reliability?

As to offering opinions - it is indeed a strange thing, but engineers
are often willing to offer engineering opinions on equipment
reliability even on examples of products they have not personally
used.
Does this seem presumptuous to you?

Respectfully

Brian Whatcott Altus, OK

Your suggestion that I have an financial interest in this is insulting.
I just have some real experience about these devices and I have done my
homework before I bought one. I have had some 7 autopilots and one
windvane and I have sailed with few others and istalled one ohter than
mine.

Opinions based on beliefs do not have much practical value, they might
be a nice discussion piece, but looks like you do not want to discuss
your beliefs as nobody is permitted to challenge them, the facts of
course are yuor worst enemy.

There is some variation in the quality of all engineering products, but
I qualified my statement saying that it stands for quality winpilots. Of
course you do not know the difference even is you see one.

- Lauri Tarkkonen

On 23 Jul 2005 20:19:22 GMT, (Lauri Tarkkonen)
wrote:
[Brian]
As to offering opinions - it is indeed a strange thing, but engineers
are often willing to offer engineering opinions on equipment
reliability even on examples of products they have not personally
used.
Does this seem presumptuous to you?

Respectfully

Brian Whatcott Altus, OK

[Lauri]
Opinions based on beliefs do not have much practical value, they might
be a nice discussion piece, but looks like you do not want to discuss
your beliefs as nobody is permitted to challenge them, the facts of
course are yuor worst enemy.
- Lauri Tarkkonen


Hmmm...Lauri seems to have got himself into an awful tizzy
about my modest first post: here's what I said in full:
####################
No personal insights...Still, autopilots fail if overheated or close
to a lightning stroke.

Wind vanes fail from wearout and from wind gusts.
Wind vanes are prized by blue water cruisers by all accounts

Brian Whatcott
#####################

Let me write that last sentence again, very, very slowly:
"Wind vanes are prized by blue-water sailors."

Now it is just possible that Lauri disagrees, disagrees violently
with my opinion on wind vanes.

And it may even be, as he says, that the facts are my worst enemy...

But here's what I think, for what it's worth:
Lauri's command of the language is such that he wants to disagree
violently with someone who is holding out the same position as he is.

That's silly. wouldn't you think?

Not so respectfully

Brian Whatcott
[This is my last contribution to this wonderfully uninformative
thread. I would have found it helpful to learn just which autopilots
failed seven times (if they did ) in Lauri's hands, and which wind
vane is behaving so beautifully for him. But those are in the nature
of facts - and Lauri tells me that I am not interested in such things!
Ah well....]

In Brian Whatcott writes:

On 23 Jul 2005 20:19:22 GMT, (Lauri Tarkkonen)
wrote:
[Brian]
As to offering opinions - it is indeed a strange thing, but engineers
are often willing to offer engineering opinions on equipment
reliability even on examples of products they have not personally
used.
Does this seem presumptuous to you?

Respectfully

Brian Whatcott Altus, OK

[Lauri]
Opinions based on beliefs do not have much practical value, they might
be a nice discussion piece, but looks like you do not want to discuss
your beliefs as nobody is permitted to challenge them, the facts of
course are yuor worst enemy.
- Lauri Tarkkonen


Hmmm...Lauri seems to have got himself into an awful tizzy
about my modest first post: here's what I said in full:
####################
No personal insights...Still, autopilots fail if overheated or close
to a lightning stroke.

Wind vanes fail from wearout and from wind gusts.
Wind vanes are prized by blue water cruisers by all accounts

Brian Whatcott
#####################

Let me write that last sentence again, very, very slowly:
"Wind vanes are prized by blue-water sailors."

Now it is just possible that Lauri disagrees, disagrees violently
with my opinion on wind vanes.

And it may even be, as he says, that the facts are my worst enemy...

But here's what I think, for what it's worth:
Lauri's command of the language is such that he wants to disagree
violently with someone who is holding out the same position as he is.

That's silly. wouldn't you think?

Not so respectfully

Brian Whatcott
[This is my last contribution to this wonderfully uninformative
thread. I would have found it helpful to learn just which autopilots
failed seven times (if they did ) in Lauri's hands, and which wind
vane is behaving so beautifully for him. But those are in the nature
of facts - and Lauri tells me that I am not interested in such things!
Ah well....]

So I have had 7 autopilots: Navico 1800, repaired 3 times, Navico 2500
repaired 3 times, Fuso (Ido not remember the number) after 3 years of
use corroded beyond repair) Autohlem 4000, the main logic board changed
twice by the manufacturer nad Autohelm 4000 ST, the main logic board
changed once by the manufacturer. Windpilot Pacific no problems
whatsoever. Then I do not remember the make of the two first ones, they
vere yellow boxes looking like this (_o) "o" representing a drum where
you had the rope to the tiller. They never worked properly, the second
was the factory replacement for the first one, but because even it did
not work for any satisfaction I moved on. Salt water and electronics do
not mix well. I made some 5 years research before buying my Windpilot. I
discussed with the manufacturers of Aries, Monitor, Fleming, Navik, Cap
Horn and Windpilot and had some e-meil discussion with the users of
these windvanes. Many of the users of Monitor, Aries and Windpilot took
their windvanes with them when they got a new boat. I did not hear about
anybody bothering to take their electronic pilot with them.

In very light winds and while motoring I use the Autohelm 4000 ST, but
if there is wind enough for the boat to go over 3 knots the windvane get
the job.

When you speak about reliability looks like you do not understand that
the ability to steer the boat in difficult conditions is a factor of the
reliability. When the wind comes up to some 30 knots, most of the tiller
pilots are useles, especially on a run in difficult mixed wave
conditions. My wife was very unwilling to owernight sailing, if she had
to be alone on the watch, but after we got the Windpilot, she says, se
can absolutety trust it, so now she is willing to do it.

You give the impression that the windvanes fail on guts, I can promise
you that there are many parts in a sailing boat more prone to break than
the proper windvanes. Perhaps you never go to the sea, becvause there
are so many things that can break in a sailing boat.

I do not speak or write English as my first language, not even the
second or third, so if you feel competent to inult my lingual ability
why are you not doing it in Finnish, Swedish or German.

Just to tell you something we have learned about the engineers here in
Finland, but looks like it might be true all over the world: If a 2 feet
piece of railroad and an engineer get into an artument, which one gives
in first? The railroas, because it is smarter.

- Lauri Tarkkonen

Lauri,

When you speak about reliability looks like you do not understand that
the ability to steer the boat in difficult conditions is a factor of the
reliability.

Another example of the condescending adversarial tone you've set in this
thread - see below:

You give the impression that the windvanes fail on guts, I can promise
you that there are many parts in a sailing boat more prone to break than
the proper windvanes.

Irrelevant - he never made comparisons against other systems, merely
states the obvious. i.e. mechanical systems *do* wear, and *do* break,
as do electromechanical or pneumatic systems. You were seemingly saying
that *proper* windvanes don't wear or break, which is patently false.

I do not speak or write English as my first language, not even the
second or third, so if you feel competent to inult my lingual ability

He was stating an obvious fact. His post was in agreement, in large
part, with your position. You've continually failed to understand that,
and have become progressively more insulting and belligerent when he has
tried to point out your misunderstanding. I think he was being generous
in attributing your inability to understand to a language difficulty.

Just to tell you something we have learned about the engineers here in
Finland, but looks like it might be true all over the world: If a 2 feet
piece of railroad and an engineer get into an artument, which one gives
in first? The railroas, because it is smarter.

My point exactly. At the end of yet another post where the respondent
has tried to point out that *he is agreeing with your position*, you're
telling him *he's* stupid. So...you're either failing to comprehend the
post material, or you're simply an ass. How about you do yourself, and
us, a favor and re-read this thread, then decide which is the case
before you continue this tirade.

BTW, if you're that sensitive about your language skills, Usenet will
get very frustrating for you. Contrary to what you obviously believe,
most of us here (in English speaking countries) have a good deal of
respect for the folks around the world that are able to communicate in a
foreign language, but we also expect that there will be times when
fluency impedes understanding. So lighten up; it's not an insult.

Keith Hughes

In Keith Hughes writes:

Lauri,

When you speak about reliability looks like you do not understand that
the ability to steer the boat in difficult conditions is a factor of the
reliability.

Another example of the condescending adversarial tone you've set in this
thread - see below:

If you are not happy with the tone of my posts, why do you bother to
read them. Is it forbidded to be critical of one's narrow scope of the
reliability issue?

You give the impression that the windvanes fail on guts, I can promise
you that there are many parts in a sailing boat more prone to break than
the proper windvanes.

Irrelevant - he never made comparisons against other systems, merely
states the obvious. i.e. mechanical systems *do* wear, and *do* break,
as do electromechanical or pneumatic systems. You were seemingly saying
that *proper* windvanes don't wear or break, which is patently false.

If this is obvious, what kind of information does it give to the reader?

By the way, where is the logic in telling that the windvanes wear of and
fail in gusts and anyway are prized by the blue water sailors?

I must say, I fail to undestand this. I would think that the blue water
sailors would pize and apreciate things that do not break in the middle
of the ocean.

I do not speak or write English as my first language, not even the
second or third, so if you feel competent to inult my lingual ability

He was stating an obvious fact. His post was in agreement, in large
part, with your position. You've continually failed to understand that,
and have become progressively more insulting and belligerent when he has
tried to point out your misunderstanding. I think he was being generous
in attributing your inability to understand to a language difficulty.

I did not know that insulting a writer in foreign language was being
generous. Thank you for the information.

Just to tell you something we have learned about the engineers here in
Finland, but looks like it might be true all over the world: If a 2 feet
piece of railroad and an engineer get into an artument, which one gives
in first? The railroas, because it is smarter.

My point exactly. At the end of yet another post where the respondent
has tried to point out that *he is agreeing with your position*, you're
telling him *he's* stupid. So...you're either failing to comprehend the
post material, or you're simply an ass. How about you do yourself, and
us, a favor and re-read this thread, then decide which is the case
before you continue this tirade.

You start to be really polite.

BTW, if you're that sensitive about your language skills, Usenet will
get very frustrating for you. Contrary to what you obviously believe,
most of us here (in English speaking countries) have a good deal of
respect for the folks around the world that are able to communicate in a
foreign language, but we also expect that there will be times when
fluency impedes understanding. So lighten up; it's not an insult.

I think you sleep better if you put me in your kill-file. :-)

- Lauri Tarkkonen