This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Great question. by grnd
The boat that wins will spend the least amount of time in the water. These things end up being more platforms than boats. The differing hull shapes here are interesting and probably represent each team's best thinking about how that platform should best handle both the air and the water. For instance, the Kiwi boat almost has air channels on the bottom of the hull.
The America's Cup has always been a design contest. The reason why America (the boat) won the race around the Isle of Wright and won the cup the first time around is because it was a new, radical design. Every cycle (for the most part) involves substantial innovation. Pretty soon you are literally flying around in boats.
I kind of compare the constant pushing of design to this:
