SailNet Community banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
Reaction score
527
Why do people living in Washington State drive Ferraris that can go from 0 to 200mph in 8.5 seconds in a speed limit of 70mph?

Why does Queen Elizabeth live in a house with over 700 rooms?

Why would one pay $630000 for a bottle of single malt?

Why would an African leader in Zaire charter an Air France Concorde to fetch him from his home and take him to a dentist in Paris?

Why would someone pay Kylie Minogue US$4.4m for a 60-minute musical performance? (I mean, Kylie Minogue ferkrisake???)

Because they can.

The more important question to me: Why the heck would anyone want to sail 27000nm non-stop? I just don't get that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: downeast450

· Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
Reaction score
527
The budget has little to do with it, I just think given the amount of petro-chemicals involved, and hydrocarbons burned in the construction of a 58-foot epoxy and carbon fiber yacht, high tech laminate sails, etc, projects like this are far from being truly "Green"...
I guess when the criteria becomes "How much hydrocarbon material was used/burned/consumed in the manufacture, etc." then there is not a single thing left in the world that is truly green. Unless it's the veggies one grows in the back yard at home. . . . . except that the trowel you use to dig the garden was made in a factory and probably has a plastic handle on it. Even if he takes a hybrid-powered taxi from his home to the marina to leave, he's using a heap of hydrocarbons.

I think the fact that he's going to try the voyage without burning any fossil fuels is perhaps laudable albeit a little bit silly. If he stayed at home and did nothing, he'd have a carbon footprint - why do a voyage like this whilst being (dangerously) carbon neutral? :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTB

· Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
Reaction score
527
Well when the boat breaks down is he saying he only has a 20% chance not counting on luck
?
I think it's tighter than that.

20% sailor plus 60% boat is a good survival ratio of 80% but the two go hand in hand.

The 20% sailor is no doubt dependent on him having a functional boat. If the boat goes to the bottom, there is no further requirement for a sailor and the whole 80% disappears - then the 20% luck becomes 100% luck. :p

But do I agree with the ratios? No, not really. A good sailor can make a bad boat work but a bad sailor can't necessarily make a good boat work. I reckon the ratios are reversed.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
Reaction score
527
A lot of non-sailor friends wonder why people sail boats at all. They wonder why we spend so much money and time maintaining our boat and sailing them when we could be at home watching TV on the couch. Whether someone goes out for a Sunday afternoon day sail, sails on an AC racer, or sails non-stop around the world- it is what satisfies them and it is all good.
Yep I get that - but I've spent 5 weeks at sea alone on a tough sail east-bound across the Indian Ocean and I said then that only if my life depended on it would I ever do that again.

So I had to ask the question . . . .

This fellow is obviously headed for Southern Ocean territory - eeehh , that's a tough call. If half his systems are down after 1200nm in the Atlantic, he's in for some stick.

And even the best support team in the business ain't gonna be of any value down there. Ask Abby Whatsherface - despite her pro support team and $¼m rescue effort, her a$$ (but not her boat) was saved by a smelly old fishing boat.

But that event does highlight the value of a high-profile voyage. The Australian government sent a passenger jet with a team of specialists 2300nm to see what they could do (From a passenger jet? Geez, I could have told them for just $20k :p). When I got into trouble 800nm from Australia they told my wife "Sorry but he's out of our area - we can't help him, he's on his own".
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top