Americas Cup
-
nautical mile so im going with imperial
-
@kiwiwomble isn't it just nautical?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
nautical mile so im going with imperial
Yeah, looked it up. It's imperial, but still commonly used as a standard as it lines up fairly well with longitude/latitude degrees/minutes/seconds.
Or some bullshit. -
@kruse yea there used to be a US nautical mile.
The length of the internationally agreed nautical mile is 1852 m. The US adopted the international definition in 1954, having previously used the US nautical mile (1853.248 m).[5] The UK adopted the international nautical mile definition in 1970, having previously used the UK Admiralty nautical mile (6080 ft or 1853.184 m).
-
@taniwharugby said in Americas Cup:
@kruse yea there used to be a US nautical mile.
The length of the internationally agreed nautical mile is 1852 m. The US adopted the international definition in 1954, having previously used the US nautical mile (1853.248 m).[5] The UK adopted the international nautical mile definition in 1970, having previously used the UK Admiralty nautical mile (6080 ft or 1853.184 m).
We should get one of those "things you learn" threads going..
-
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
nautical mile so im going with imperial
Yeah nah, a nautical mile is based on the circumfrance of the earth. It is a minute of lattitude, standardised at 1852m
-
@machpants so how is it "nah"?
full disclosure, i have a Bachelor in Surveying
-
@kiwiwomble It's both, recognised in both Imperial and Metric systems
Full disclosure Royal Navy Ship and Aircraft Navigator, RAF Navigator - was educated about, trained and worked in Knots for a significant part of my life.
EDIT: It is not an SI unit tho
-
@machpants so recognised as both but i get a "nah"? not just "its both"?
the metric system is based on the metre...hows is something thats 1852m considered metric? im genuinely curious
-
Damn, that was an important win in the second race.
3-1 down is a long way back in first to 7.
splitting light air races gives yo uthe chance to win. They looked like two different boats out there between races 1 and 2 ... dirty air seems to be a massive impediment, much like F1. Fast boat, no passing, start critical - this IS F1 on the water
-
@nzzp yeah, definitely more and more evidence that the start is critical, then the commentators have started making comments like “yet again we’re looking at the start” when they go over the important moments of the race
Might not be as simple as “win the start = win the race”...but it’s not far off, you may not have to out right win but I think you can’t risk out right loosing
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@nzzp yeah, definitely more and more evidence that the start is critical, then the commentators have started making comments like “yet again we’re looking at the start” when they go over the important moments of the race
Might not be as simple as “win the start = win the race”...but it’s not far off, you may not have to out right win but I think you can’t risk out right loosing
Didn't we slip up at the start of race 4? But we had enough speed to recover
-
@nzzp said in Americas Cup:
Damn, that was an important win in the second race.
3-1 down is a long way back in first to 7.
splitting light air races gives yo uthe chance to win. They looked like two different boats out there between races 1 and 2 ... dirty air seems to be a massive impediment, much like F1. Fast boat, no passing, start critical - this IS F1 on the water
Except that in F1 its quite easy to drag behind someone amd lose by a few seconds. This feels like once you're in front, you don't just maintain, but you extent that lead, to the point that you have zero change of overtaking
-
Full disclosure: internet expert here, you are both wrong, and if you says knots 100 times as fast as you can, you will know.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Americas Cup:
@machpants so recognised as both but i get a "nah"? not just "its both"?
the metric system is based on the metre...hows is something thats 1852m considered metric? im genuinely curious
Metric system is based on measurable things, not (for example) the length of some Greek blokes' foot, or 1000 paces. 1852m is metres and also standardised length of a minute of the earth, a mile is a mile because it is a mile. You can convert a mile to metric, but the official (now) definition of a NM (thus knots) is based on metres, not on the old Imperial system. Yet it started in the Imperial system, and is part of both. Quite unique, but it is offically part of both. The US Admiralty and UK Admiralty NM are both Imperial measurements, based on feet. The International Nautical Mile is metres/metric and set in Monaco under French rules La Metric systeme
'NM is Imperial?' (both) Yeah (and) Nah.
Well that's how I was taught in RN and RAF both of which use a mixture of metric and imperial, this is improtant stuff when you are bombing and navigating and shit. A bit like the time on GPS clocks being out for quite a few years.
