Here’s an update on the latest signage for The Red Door Cafe on Bush near Franklin.
Double entendre a gogo:
“OR can quite legitimately claim that they need this change to improve the safety of their boat to acceptable levels. ETNZ/LR can quite legitimately claim that the issue is created by design choices.”
When you’re foiling a catamaran, you’re generating lift just like an airplane. The Emirates Team New Zealand yacht generates more lift with the forward element than the rear. The Oracle Racing Larry Ellison yacht does so as well but it gets a bit more lift from the rear compared with ETNZ.
So, ETNZ is more like a regular airplane with a small tail and OR is more like this goofy thing:
Mandating a bigger tail for all comers in the name of safety is a way for the Larry Ellison America’s Cup people to gain an advantage for Larry Ellison and/or Artemis Racing, the team with the other failed design,
“ETNZ have a boat that is almost entirely supported on its single main foil. The rudder provides very little lift, just control forces, which are relatively small. As speed changes, lift changes. The main foil is correspondingly adjusted, as this is allowed, so the lift remains as required. The lift on the rudder changes, but since this force is relatively small, the change in attitude on the boat is not problematic, and the local effects of free surface and small size provide a natural limit to motions. When it goes wrong, the boat will pivot about its main foil, potentially creating a high bow down pitch angle, so they’ve included sufficient buoyancy in the bows to cope.
OR have a boat where the lift is shared between the main foil and the rudder. The amount of lift provided by the rudder is still a small proportion of the total, but the rudder lift force is large compared to the rudder control force. As speed changes, lift changes. The main foil is correspondingly adjusted, but the rudder isn’t. The change in force on the rudder is significant, and affects the attitude of the boat. A small rudder foil that is required to provide a lot of lift can only do so with a large angle of attack, so with a fixed angle, a large change in trim of the boat is required, hence poor control. When it goes wrong, the boat pivots about the rudder foil, and hence a reduced bow down pitch angle, and hence the boat can have lower volume bows to allow recovery.
I’m sure both teams have simulated both approaches. ETNZ decided that they would go for the former, at a price of bigger main foil, lower righting moment, and more aero drag, so they have better control over a wide range of speeds for a given rudder setting. OR decided on the latter as it provides a lower drag solution, but for a smaller range of speeds for a given rudder setting. Boat 1 was an extreme example of this, but boat 2 is less extreme.
However, OR have found that the range of speeds over which they have good control is too small using the maximum size of rudder foil allowed. Hence, when they are running in the narrow speed range, they look good, but as soon as this is not the case, they have large pitch angles. Using a larger rudder foil requires less boat trim to generate the change in force, and hence better control.
The problem OR face is if they were to move the main foils further aft and increase their size, they would then have a boat which, if it goes wrong, will not have enough buoyancy in the bow to recover from the large pitch angle that would occur with the bigger main foil. A potentially dangerous solution, and rebuilding the hulls is probably not feasible, since even if they had the time, the added weight is more than their program has in the bank. They aren’t allowed new hulls. Furthermore, they have made corresponding design choices with their wing that also suggest the expectation of a narrow speed range, and moving to a higher drag foil solution would present them with power issues.
I suspect that OR may have been using a larger rudder foil recently to achieve the improvements we’ve been seeing, and consequently they already know that operating with class legal rudder foils is not a safe option for them, since if they set up the small rudder foils for lighter winds, and the winds increase during a race, they will have an unacceptably high probability of pitchpoling.
As such, the move to increase allowed rudder foil size and control is a real issue for OR, as without it they will have to choose between pulling out of certain races when conditions change, or risking the boat and crew by continuing. ETNZ and LR, on the other hand, don’t have this issue, and in fact increasing the rudder foil size on their boats would not only increase drag, but also create control problems due to the size of the control force generated becoming too large.
Hence the current dichotomy OR can quite legitimately claim that they need this change to improve the safety of their boat to acceptable levels. ETNZ/LR can quite legitimately claim that the issue is created by design choices. Since the AC is not just a design and sailing competition, but a design, sailing, and legal competition, we’ll have to wait and see who has the best overall package.
And then, in response to a question about how the engineer knows all this:
“Because when the OR boat is in the water, its static waterline, combined with its visible hullform when on a crane, shows that the vessel CoG is well aft of the main foil location. On the ETNZ boat, this is not the case. Their main foil is about where the CoG appears to be (actually slightly forward, but not by much).
As such, the resulting moment generated by the offset between main lifting foil vector and sum of sailing force vector on OR requires the rudder foil to provide a significant lifting force, plus also to provide the dynamic positive and negative control force, whilst on ETNZ the rudder foil provide very little lift force, just the control force element.”
Check out Dennis Herrera‘s thoughts on the much-more-expensive-than-promised and shorter-than-promised Central Subway “spur*,” starting at 1:00:
And don’t miss the other part either.
*”Spur?” I love it. Oh yeah, that’s right. It doesn’t go as far north as it should, or as far south neither. And it’s too deep. Maybe it just doesn’t make sense, as things stand now, except as a political payoff.
[More on Smoke Creek Gathering 2011 here.]
Well, this here was the first camper at Burning Man 2011:
Via John Curley - click to expand.
About what you might expect.
And here are the founders all together earlier this year in San Francisco
Again, about what you might expect…
Stay happy, campers!
(Or Burners, whatever.)
Check it man, no rules, man:
“Based on the Trips to the Zone of the San Francisco Cacophony Society, the Smoke Creek gathering has been an underground event occurring for an unknown number of years. Its occurrence on the banks of Squaw Creek Reservoir on the northern edge of the vast Smoke Creek Desert has roughly coincided with Burning Man every year. It began as an informal gathering for “old-school” Burners (as attendees of the Burning Man event are called) who felt restricted by the controls imposed on event participants as the event grew in size. A few veterans who wished to make their own rules left to camp at the free Bureau of Land Management-managed campgrounds at the lakeside of the Squaw Valley Reservoir once Black Rock City, LLC imposed the following restrictions:
At The Smoke Creek Gathering, no such rules are in effect and all attendees are responsible for their own safety.”
Stay happy, Gatherers!
Yeaaahhhh, this might be news to some people but you don’t need to be a “City-funded contractor” to make a posting on a post legally in the 415. Get all the deets below on that score.
Anyway, here’s what this old flyer is saying, as of yesterday:
“Central City SRO Collaborative is a City-Funded Contractor – DO NOT REMOVE POSTING”
Click to expand
The other thing is that whoever put up this flyer did a half-assed job so it doesn’t conform to the shape of the pole and it doesn’t have a legible posting date in the lower right hand corner. See below.
So CCSROC, you think you’re special but you not. [Minus five points for Slytherin. OMG, Harry's coming in July!!!]
The rules are easy to find an implement, right? See below.
Now, Go Forth and Sin No More, CCSROC.
Posting Signs from the DPW:
The SF Cleanup Project endorsed by Quinn Cooper and Neighbors For Livable Neighborhoods endorsed by Tom Miller or Jessica Miller are not affiliated with the Department of Public Works or any City Agency in the City and County of San Francisco. If you receive a letter from one of these entities about signs you have posted, please submit it to DPW, Director’s Office, City Hall, Room 348, San Francisco, CA 94102 and DPW will deliver it to the City Attorney’s office for investigation. For more information, contact DPW’s Bureau of Street Use and Mapping at 554-5810.”
The public may post information on some utility poles if the postings follow regulations outlined in Article 5.6 of the Public Works Code. The law was adopted to ensure that flyers posted on public property do not contribute to litter or blight. Illegal postings may be removed by DPW and are subject to fines from $50 to $500.
Signs are defined as any card, decoration, poster, campaign sign, or any object containing or bearing writing that is affixed, posted or fastened to a utility or light pole that is permanently attached to the street or sidewalk. Signs do not include handbills, banners or A-Frame boards. Bulletin boards designed for neighborhood postings are exempt from this regulation. Signs attached to buildings are regulated by Part II Chapter I of the Building Code.
Tips for Legally Posting Signs on Public Property
To legally place a sign on a utility pole, it must:
Be less than 11 inches in height
No higher than 12 feet from the ground
Conform to the shape of the pole
Be attached with tape or other non-adhesive material such as twine, string or other non-metal banding material
Include a legible posting date in the lower right hand corner
Be removed after 10 days, if the sign is promoting a date specific event
Be removed within 70 days of the posting date
Not be installed on historic street light poles*, traffic signal poles or traffic directional sign poles.
* Historic street light poles are on these streets:
Market Street from 1 Market to 2490 Market
Mission Street from 16th Street to 24th Street
Grant Avenue from Bush Street to Broadway Street
The Embarcadero from King Street to Jefferson Street
Lamp Posts on Fisherman’s Wharf from Hyde to Powell
Howard Street from 3rd Street to 4th Street
Lamp Posts within Union Square
Mason Street from Market to Sutter
Sutter Street from Mason to Kearny
Kearny Street from Bush to Market
Now, if one buys a Seven-Up, the other one has to as well. If there’s only one Seven-Up at hand, well, then they’ll have to go without.
Except that dudes are Mirror Image Twins.
See? One’s a Southpaw and the other’s a righty. Hurray!
Click to expand
You’ll have to figure out for yourself just exactly where in Marin County this nude beach is, in this mostly-SFW photo from a while ago. The place was officially closed at the time due to an unsafe stairway and it’s more-than-likely officially closed at this time.
But actually, your nudist types like out-of-the-way places anyway, the kind that require long descents from the nearest road.
The nude types were to the east of the stairway and the never-nudes were to the west - it all worked out. All the while, a couple of fun fearless females felt free to parade up and down the whole beach by the low tide line, on the catwalk, they did their little turn on the catwalk, yeah on the catwalk, on the catwalk, yeah, they did a little turn on the catwalk for about half-hour:
Click to expand
By the way, is there a special law that disallows photography on Public Nude Beaches? Not that I’m aware of.
The final game of the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup filled the Rose Bowl to capacity – so much so, it still ranks as the most-watched women’s sporting event in human history. But, upon further review, the “victory” recorded by Team USA needs to have an asterix next to it. Why’s that?
Well, YouTube, in Its Wisdom, just referred me to this video from ABC that somebody uploaded a few years back – check out 2:15 when Team China lost the match because the American goalkeeper launched herself yards past the goal line before the ball was touched during the penalty-kick tiebreaker.
Should the American goalie have been penalized? Of course. Was she? No. There’s your asterix right there.
Leaving aside the issue of handing out asterixeses to 16-year-old gymnasts who weren’t yet 16-years-old, all we can do is look forward next month’s Vancouver Olympics. That’s where a ridiculous new figure skating scoring system (which itself is a knee-jerk reaction to the scandal-plagued 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City) promises a fresh new flurry of asterixii.
Anyway, due to unquestionable YouTube evidence, and on behalf of America, sorry about 1999.
Better late than never…
Here’s the thing – if you’re renting a place in San Francisco and you’re paying your monthly rent to your roommate, chances are that you could be considered a subtenant and your roomy the “Master Tenant.”* Particularly when the rent for your unit is way undermarket, due to rent control let’s say, you might end up spending more for your space than the Master pays for the Master’s part of the apartment.
So if you’re paying $900 a month for your half of a two-bedroom and your Master Tenant in the other room is only kicking in $100 (to pay $1000 total to the landlord for the whole place), then you can take steps to get some of that money back and lower your rent to boot.
“A subtenant who believes he or she is paying more than a proportional share of the total rent may file a Tenant Petition against the master tenant on that basis. If the subtenant prevails, the Administrative Law Judge will adjust the rent to the proportional share and order the master tenant to refund any rent overpayments.”
Your San Francisco Rent Board just dealt with a subtenant/Master Tenant proportionality case. The names of the people involved aren’t important, but the situation is noteworthy, IMO. Let’s check it out.
Now, if you don’t like how the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dealt with your case with your roomie, you can appeal to the board. As here, from the meeting of August 4, 2009:
“The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportional share of the rent pursuant to Rules ß6.15C(3) was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00. On appeal, the Master Tenant alleges that he was unaware of the requirement that the amount of rent paid must be proportional; that the decision will present him with a financial hardship; and that the subtenant is going to be evicted due to his uncooperative behavior.
MSC: To deny the appeal on substantive grounds but remand the case for a hearing on the Master Tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Gruber/Crow: 5-0)”
See? The sub won big-time, to the tune of five figures because the rent split determined by the Master Tenant wasn’t proportional according to a judge and the full board.
But the master came back to say the ruling would be a hardship for him. From the meeting of November 17, 2009:
“The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportionate share of the rent was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00. The Master Tenant’s hardship appeal was granted and remanded for hearing. In the remand decision, the ALJ finds sufficient hardship to order a repayment plan in the amount of $150.00 per month. The Master Tenant again appeals, claiming that even the reduced amount will cause him severe hardship and possibly result in both tenants’ eviction from the premises.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Mosbrucker/Gruber: 5-0)”
Is this what you might call a Phyric victory? Maybe. It’s probably too early to tell. Oh well.
Check the San Francisco Rent Board website for deets on the rules, or see you after the jump.
*The County of Los Angeles doesn’t want to buy equipment that has the term “master” written anywhere on it, like on a hard drive, a DVD burner or a brake cylinder. But in San Francisco, we freely label people “Master Tenants.” It’s our thing.
Tonight, the kids are bummed because ”ING ignores citizens’ requests to collaborate on Bay to Breakers!” Uh oh. The latest communique from some of the people against changing the 98-year-old tradition:
“Talks with race officials stalled. We are boycotting all race registration until further notice. We are calling for runners and non-runners to unite in this effort.”
Well, aint that America? It would seem the next chapter in this tale will take place Thursday morning at 9:00 AM, when permits will be discussed:
Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation (ISCOTT)
Thursday, February 26, 2009
1 South Van Ness Ave, Room #7080
San Francisco, CA
The horror, the horror of the 2008 Bay to Breakers Civic Parade. Are these Ivy-League, U.C., and Stanford grads really “bandits” and “thieves?”
Of course the organizers of B2B are proud that they get ink from the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network, which gives sports fans a bucket list of 101 things to do before they die:
“84. Bay to Breakers (May, San Francisco). There are many public runs across the world, but none matches this nearly century-old 12K through one of the world’s most beautiful cities for sheer spectacle. As many as 80,000 runners compete in all manner of costume — and sometimes, no clothes at all. This is San Francisco, after all.”
But check out why ESPN likes the pre-crackdown B2B here. You see? All the stuff that will be zero tolerated this year is why B2B made ESPN’s list – the ESPN writer specifically mentions mellow cops, alcohol, nuidity, and floats – all the things that make the traditional B2B something different from the thousands of annual 12k fun runs all over flyover country. Isn’t it ironic, don’t cha think?
On another front, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi introduced his B2B resolution today at City Hall – read all about it.
Oh well, back to boycott news. It’s even on the Facebook:
***BOYCOTT ALL RACE REGISTRATION***
Until race organizers listen to the voices of thousands of San Francisco citizens and remove the Zero Tolerance restrictions announced two weeks ago. Talks with race organizers have STALLED and there is no sign of their interest in building solutions to make this race better instead of hijacking and suburbanizing the event.
Join our ZERO = ZERO movement…
Zero Tolerance = Zero Registrations
See our website for more information or read below.
Automatic for the people:
And of course the Yelpers are yelping away:
The Citizens for the Preservation of Bay2Breakers have welcomed an open dialogue with ING Race Organizers about how to maintain the traditions of Bay to Breakers in a more responsible and organized way after they declared a “Zero Tolerance” policy on alcohol, nudity and floats for the traditional event.http://www.ingbaytobre… stating, “It is important to note that ING Bay to Breakers is a 12K Race, not a civic parade.”email@example.com to help!http://www.savebay2bre…/http://maps.google.com…
ING Race Organizers have repeatedly been a no-show to meetings and conference calls showing that they have no intention of compromising or letting San Franciscans have a voice in THEIR race.
They even released this letter:
We need your help!
1. Temporarily BOYCOTT ALL REGISTRATION until ING Race Organizers and the city reconsider their position. We ask for solidarity amongst runners who traditionally register to withhold their registration until Race Organizers removes restrictions.
2. Volunteer! Please email:
3. Check out:
4. Attend the ISCOTT meeting where city planners and sponsors make the final decisions in city permits for the race:
Thursday February 26, 2009
1 South Van Ness Ave
San Francisco, CA
In short, it’s a social media firestorm. On it goes. Stay tuned.
Oh yes, a point counterpoint with An Open Letter to the ING Bay to Breakers Community after the jump