Saturday 8 January 2011

Ticks in all the important points boxes

I am really really really impressed with this video and how it ticks all the important points boxes of the wing issues.

I have nothing to add. I totally agree with everyone in this video. Unfortunately that leaves the wing issue unclear in my mind.

Great work guys.


Karl said...

Lots of smart people have clearly done a lot of thinking about the issue.

Regarding Amac's "two sails" argument, however, the interpretation he chooses is a bit too convenient. The current rule does not define what a "sail" is. In light of this fact, deciding what constitutes one sail versus two sails is a completely subjective process.

The point is that the current rule simply did not envision this development, and is inadequate to deal with it. That is why there is room for disagreement.

The "two sail" argument is just another pretext for banning wings by people who oppose wings philosophically for whatever reason. As long as the rule does not specifically define the terms it uses, wing proponents and opponents will continue to argue.

Doug Culnane said...


I am a fan of the wing but I think the current rigs are clearly 2 sails. I do not want to ban them and the "anti-wing lobby" conspiracy bullshit is just offensive. The US "wing wars" that is being whipped up by one destructive cheerleader are not going to help anyone. His opinions are irrelevant.

I think everyone agrees that wing sails should compete with soft sails on the same terms. So the area and number of sails needs to be the same for soft and hard sails.

How do you define a sail? I agree with Amac that two lifting elements that employ the slot effect can only be 2 sails. So either we loose the one sail rule or we enforce it. There are good arguments that this configuration is 2 sails and weaker arguments that it is 1 sail. Please create a considered argument that this is one sail as there are a lot of us that would like to be convinced. A considered argument is not the same as a conspiracy theory.