Shooting Potter Heigham Bridge - video by James Trunks
Uploader Comments (georgespeller)
All Comments (11)
-
I'm definitely with Landmine here. Shooting the bridge the norfolk way definitely means no motor OR quant. Especially difficult at the two bridges of Potter, but still very possible.
-
@LandmineCat i agree- shooting the bridge should use the jib's power for as long as possible and quickly lower and raise the mast again- otherwise you might as well be in a power boat
-
I bet you've fought burning ships off the rings of uranus.
-
Well said Landmine. Zero skill needed to motor under a bridge.
-
No quantpoles in my definition either. Sails + mast down, drift through, mast and sails up again. I have had a cursory glance over the internet and not found a particular definition, and tbh I don't care what it is, but the people I sail with would not count it shooting, and their opinion is what counts, for me at any rate. :)
-
Very good
Dez Sanderson Walcott
also on You Tube
OK. let me know when you clever guys are going to do this amazing feat in a 36ft America class yacht with 2 inches clearance. Presumably you won't have a pilot either. I can't wait to see the shambles. See below for provenence of the phrase "to shoot a bridge" from Conan Doyle. And don't come "the Norfolk way" either. We're not all from Norfolk, borr.
georgespeller 1 year ago
Water was too high last year for us to go under.
Sheza58 3 years ago
Ah but did you have 28 people plus the pilot on board?
All three America class boats went through last week - my first time on one. Magic!
georgespeller 3 years ago
That's not shooting a bridge - you're using a motor!! If you want to shoot, do it without any form of propulsion while the mast is down and then I'll be suitably impressed. Have done it myself..
LandmineCat 4 years ago
Conan Doyle describes Sherlock Holmes on a trip in a steam launch on the Thames thus:
"While this conversation had been proceeding, we had been shooting the long series of bridges which span the Thames".
No quant poles in evidence I think. Precedent enough for my usage of the verb.
georgespeller 3 years ago