Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Rhys

  • Rank
  1. Sound like there needs to be an independent board set up to thoroughly investigate this sort of thing. They could get experts to present factual information and then make informed decisions. https://www.epa.govt.nz/database-search/eez-applications/view/EEZ100015
  2. Zozza Take it you;re in Wellington? You were likely closed down by 'noies control' who are ususlly some security firm acting on behlaf of Council. They have no clue about noise levels/ rules. 'Unreasonable noise' has no definition, which is both helpful and, not so. Two options for you. Firstly, most District Plan noise rules have an exclusion tucked away somewhere in them to exclude 'normal household activities' followed by example of mowing the lawns. I was sanding my window frames yesterday and would strongly argue that sanding is a pretty normal activity. Second option is the
  3. The reason that the level appears so loud is that noise is described as a change in pressure against a reference pressure. The reference pressure in air is different to that of water, hence different levels. It’s also related to the speed of sound in the medium. The energy is the cavitation bubble is truly prenominal. It’s currently one of the holy grails of acoustics as several groups are working on ways of harnessing the resulting energy. It could potentially outperform nuclear energy, all from a glass of water.
  4. I’ve tested a similar product and it made no noticeable difference – albeit it was a wall in a building rather than on a boat. I agree with Wheels in that it’s a dampening material. I’ve seen a supplier’s video where a paint-on product appeared quite effective. However, the resonating surface was very thin and flexible and lent itself to any form of dampening. For something heavier and stiffer (boat hull or engine for example), the same product would be tits on a bull. If you’re keen, I’d be asking for references from the supplier and follow those up. It’d also be worth considering
  5. It's strike one for the townies I'm afraid. We've pulled the pin on tomorrow due to crewing issues. BUT, we are really keen to see what all the fuss is about and will definitely be there for the next one.
  6. We've got one from a Y8.4. Approx 13.5 in the luff and 6.8 in the foot. It's average condition and more of a reacher than runner. Your're welcome to take it for a spin if you want. Rhys
  7. Rhys


    DrBob I like too. This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone actually publish the intent of their handicapping system, which I think is pretty important. It seems to me that half the problem with handicapping is that half the fleet think that the best sailed boat should win whereas the other half think that if they sail well, they should. How's a handicapper gonna win that one? One thing that bugs me, and which you might want to add to your ‘exclusion list’, are races that finish early. To sail only half the race, say the upwind portion, and then handicap a mixed fleet on its res
  8. Hi Skins We have a spare rudder off our Y8.4 you're welcome to take a look at. It's functional rather than flash, but might get you going again in a hurry. Rhys
  9. Gotta agree with you AFU, this year's PCC courses are really well thought out. Keeps the whole crew involved throughout the race. Our bowman might disagree, but we stopped listening to him years ago.
  • Create New...