Originally Posted by Minnewaska
I've flown aircraft to runways I can't see.
I've ridden my motorcycle across half the countries in Europe and the Alps.
I've been an instructor for deep wreck and black water rescue diving.
I've sailed offshore in severe storms and zero viz.
I know risk and my spirit is just fine. It's not about eliminating risk, it's about continually getting better at managing it and reducing incidents. I understand there are professional teams that refused to compete in this AC because they thought this boat was too risky and another currently considering pulling out. Even the X-games have begun to eliminate some events, as they are too risky, despite the fact that there is no shortage in willing competitors.
I'm maybe reading too much into Mills' and Barclays' quotes - but I have little doubt that much of the risk they were talking about was financial as much as danger. At US$10M+ a pop, for a new, unproven design that you know is going to need to be tested to breakage, that's a very tall order. Much easier to wait it out and see what happens.
The cost factor is the biggest issue to me (not the safety or necessarily the size). The cost kept too many teams on the sidelines. You're seeing the same thing in the VOR with the move to the VO65. Costs have to come down to increase participation - otherwise you have a boring race between too few compeitors.