atwinda

Members
  • Content Count

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by atwinda


  1. 13 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

    It does, it crossed my mind its another of those "interpretations". Imagine a self-tacking job with 2 cars, but when you tack and one moves, there is a manual intervention needed to switch to the other car. But this manual intervention is of the switch-flicking type. Thus its not self-tacking.

    Or its a continuous track with one car, but it is driven across by  hydraulics when someone flicks a button. Again its not self-tacking

    Something like that. No different from some of the interpretations that have been played before

    I'm going to suggest the simplest option- It's two tracks that allow in/out adjustment side to side. they still have to tack the jib onto the new sheet lead through the opposite car. And besides, isn't the mast step somewhere in the middle there. 

    in the video showing their b1 mock up, you could see their floating lead arrangement- so they must have decided that a in/out car was a superior option than a full floating lead.


  2. 1 minute ago, Indio said:

    More likely a complete integrity test of the FCS architecture for signal degradation, response times, etc. There'll be other test instruments hooked up elsewhere in the system with data and results collated on a techo's laptop via wifi.

    I'm assuming they have mechanical electric-released ratchet-type locks to hold the arms in place (instead of relying on hydraulic lock by the cylinders) which they'd want to be confident will unlock when they need to deploy..

    My intention was not to suggest these loops would in any way be associated with the testing of the FCS. Again, that will have all taken place ahead of splashing the boat.

    The box of loops is more likely for attaching a load cell to another system on the boat. 


  3. 17 minutes ago, Nauti Buoy said:

    Loop what they call their mainsail control by chance? Or just loading it up against itself in a loop...

    Loops as in spectra soft attachment loops. They probably have specific ones they use for load/cell testing so that if they are compromised, they aren't used elsewhere.

    • Like 1

  4. Does this seem like a desperate move to anyone else? Boat 1 was so far off the pace, that you look at the other boats and go "well ya know what, we think we nailed the top sides, but the others have a skeg.. let's go all-in on that and cross our fingers". Again, I feel bad for the boat builders who had to diligently work all those man-hours to carefully make a pile of dog shit.


  5. 9 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

    My earlier post was to point out that ETNZ and LR did not let other interested parties even ~listen~ in on the evolution, of the AC75 Rule. For 6 months, everyone else was kept completely blind to it, while Def and CoR got heavily into modeling and Sim-sailing variations of it. Is that supposed to be fair ‘Because ETNZ is the Def and LR the CoR’? No! Never happened before.

    I agree it was an excellent team of designers, probably the best-suited in the world to the task. And I love this concept, the boats will be spectacular. And am not arguing that others need to have influenced the design, include too many chefs and such, just this:

    To make it a fairer design competition others should be been allowed to listen! 

    Out of curiosity, at what point did NYYC and (at the time) BAR challenge compared to the release of the class rule? Serious question, cause I didn't keep track of that.

    Would it be fair to say at whatever point that was, they knew that ETNZ and LR had been developing the rule and would have a head start? If the challengers knowingly continued to enter their challenges without the rule in hand, and that ETNZ and LR would potentially benefit from developing the rule without consulting them, why are we doing this song and dance? They have obviously accepted it and moved on - so should the collective we.


  6. On 9/19/2020 at 1:21 PM, Priscilla said:

    My pick for the Frackers will see Brittania II on a diet more like the Boss.

    A624F2FF-ACF3-4468-8E63-54A0BD712A26.jpeg.c04a01a71c84e3f674327029fe9ddeae.jpeg

     

    9B57E699-90C8-4286-AACF-64865DAFC2B8.thumb.jpeg.1cc2787f51e8ca7d14c75cfb6401cd6a.jpeg

    This is a really great comparison- same builder, same nationality (you know some do-nothing-brown-nosing-pomie-cunt on the respective planning teams proposed the idea "it would be better if we collaborated with so-an-so to divide responsibility and arrive at converging result faster", or however that sounds when you have your nose up someones ass), however, considering the horses for courses factor, ie, Ineos Team Uk Barge features forward top-sides which are (Airbus ©) optimized for air-flow, while the better-chance-but-nooooooooooot-quite-capabile-of-producing-a-first-place-podium Hugo Boss is optimized for somewhere between air-flow and frontal wave impact and water shedding (knowing they are going to be plowing into "a couple" of waves around the globe).

    finer entry (Hugo Boss) = can handle waves
    wider entry (Ineos Future Party Barge) = can handle air

    Ben should just give both his hulls to the carbon-chipper now to be recycled- they would be more effective as recycled bunk supports for another team, or a junior programs laser/finn dolly if they were feeling in the mood for chairty. Think of all the Sterling and/or carbon emission credits (because they are soooo focused on sustainability) they would save NOT shipping those dogs around the planet, to get eliminated from the Challenger Series (again)... I seriously pitty the boat builders who had to spend so much time, effort, and professionalism producing such off-pace disgraces.


  7. 11 minutes ago, Kiwing said:

    being a 75 year old Laser sailor, I know sweet f'all about shaping a main with all those adjustments.  But I thought, naively that carbon fibre was brittle?  Looking at that picture I wonder how many of those masts go "bang!!" with shards everywhere?
    This D mast has quite a big cross section I thought it would be hard to bend but .....?  The aft side must open a little when it bends? which must provide some flexibility fore and aft?

    In the case of a laser- you control mast bend with the mainsheet and Cunningham. The more main sheet you pull on, pulls on the leech, which in turn pulls on the head of the sail, and therefore the mast. 


  8. 1 hour ago, craigj said:

    Hey atwinda, 

    Are you sure about carbon bending? ; > )

    6F2EB1E8-829C-4851-88CC-45A9E496A6AE.jpeg

    impossible ;) ... The DN was another example I was going to suggest.. but if Kiwing is actually from NZ then he might have had any exposure to iceboats, so skiffs are a more widespread example.


  9. On 8/30/2020 at 4:00 PM, Kiwing said:

    @Lickindip I will bin mine, yours is so much more accurate.  So they have managed to bow a carbon fibre mast.  Or did they make it like that?  Are the others bending there masts? begs the question?

    I hope you realize that virtually every mast (spar, boom, bowsprit, beam, the whole boat, for that matter) bends. Wood, alloy, carbon- they all bend. The standing rigging limits, controls, and often induces bend (think backstays and runners). 170mm is nothing on a rig that length. Have you ever looked at a skiff rig? Mast bend (fore and aft, side to side) is elementary in understanding how to set up and trim a main, just as headstay tension is elementary to set up and trim a headsail. To think that the masts on any race boat would be static and straight isn't even in the conceptual ballpark.

    • Like 2

  10. 30 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

    having reviewed a few hundred of the most recent at the request of the site, I find them to be almost 100% troll content.  It is literally impossible to find a post that includes anything that could be called factual, informative, or useful in any way.

    Anyone else want to weigh in?

    I eventually ignored him, but it only cut out so much. That being said, what I do continue to see being quoted, is blatantly racist ("te amed", "emeratis", etc..) with the remainder of his "content" having the sole intent of aggravating forum members. If my opinion counted for anything, it would certainly be to remove him and his hateful rhetoric.

     Additionally, I think a few of the folks who have fallen victim to his trolling/who can post more aggressively contest would benefit from a keyboard break as well.


  11. 1 hour ago, RMac said:

    As someone who has relentlessly and joyfully bagged on Ben and his boxboat, I have to say this is for sure an aesthetic improvement. My apologies, Sir.

    It's pretty clear to me that his design team is unable to think outside the box. 

    • Like 2

  12. 2 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

    its a completely different main rather than a new foot treatment , the batten passing through the HH logo has vanished.

     

    Not to mention the placement of their sponsor logos. Also, the main with the integral deck sweeper appears to have a much longer foot length. Assuming the clew webbing 25mm, it's roughly 125-150mm between their reference marks. While I would expect some difference in where the clew ends up depending on the desired camber, 250-300mm is considerable.


  13. 38 minutes ago, zenmasterfred said:

    And...aren't the "Quantum" sails on AM actually being built by Doyle?  Another great DeVos PR move.

    I am unsure of that. I do believe they both share a lamination process, or maybe even the same manufacturing site? Or maybe Q can build sails up to X luff dimension, and they contract the larger sails to Doyle. Pre 3Di, Doyle sails were very popular among the super yacht group, which would mean they had the equipment/process/space to handle larger sails.

    I would be fairly confident saying that most teams are finishing their own sails, or at least heavily involved in the finishing of the sails at either North or Quantum/Doyle facilities.


  14. 6 hours ago, barfy said:

    this boat has the sexiest sails IMHO...the sheen off the weave shows up the trim like no other boat. basic black...yummm

    UK, ITA, and NZL are all using North 3Di, while USA is backed by Quantum. 3Di is a non-woven composite material comprised of thin plys of uni-directional fiber. I could be incorrect, but looking at AM's sails in the most recent pics from Auckland, Quantum are still using "string sail" technology where the strings (fibers) are sandwiched between two outer layers- typically mylar, but in some cases an ultralight woven polyester. I believe they have been using the tafeta (ultralight poly) to attempt to mimic the appearance of the 3Di sails as opposed to the typical use case for tafeta in laminates, durability at the expense of weight. Either way, what you're seeing should be visible on both UK and NZL boats given the right lighting conditions. Each team is likely testing their own fiber layouts (to best handle the loads in a particular area of the sail), and in the case of 3Di they might be able to also vary the tapes they are using to achieve some desired result. Think back to the IACC days when the 3DL headsails used higher modulus carbon (black in color) up the leech and luff, and lower modulus and more forgiving aramid (yellow/gold in color) in the foot and areas subjected to impacts on the rig or deck as a simple use case. The finish (what you're considering sheen) of the 3Di would, however, be very similar from team to team.

    Edit: It is possible that "external" tapes (HMPE, aramid, or poly, or even a blend)  could be applied to 3Di, but unlikely as this is typically reserved for off shore sails which need to withstand a lap of the planet. Inshore specific sails, and in particular sails for the AC would focus more on weight savings and having just enough fiber to support the sail shape.

    • Like 5

  15. Forgive me if I missed this, as I skimmed all the new action in this thread.

    I personally think it's only good for the event to have another team on the line. Realistically, I don't believe their chance of success is much better than Groupama in Bermuda, and I would expect their performance to be similar; Mostly "off pace", but "even a blind squirrel can find a nut every once in awhile". They might take a race here or there, but it's seriously unlikely given the lack of on the water experience.

    Something I believe most posts have not taken into account is that S+S bought a design package from ETNZ already. Obviously none of us are privy to the details of that agreement or what details may be shared among the teams, or if that deal had to be cleared by the other teams(IT, USA, UK). S+S hull mold may very well have been a carbon copy of ETNZ B1 for all we know. They may even have agreed to share upgrades as they were developed by either team. When you approach S+S as a first-time challenger trying to learn the game, the picture is not quite the same as sharing information with top tier competitors.

    Here's some wild speculation for you folks... What if S+S had the front bit of their mold and were able to layup that section, and splice It onto ETNZ B1 would it be possible for them to fulfill the CIC constraint? Could their request with the panel include a "we could go to this whole extreme, or can we just agree to let us use the boat for the benefit of the event?"
     


  16. 39 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

    The AC50s are cats, which means stable when still, worse being to stay like sitting ducks, AC75s will capsize as we already saw with the kiwi boat.

    I agree that statically a catamaran is more stable when sitting still. However, I14's and other similar skiffs will also just tip over at the dock like the AC75... both skiffs and similar size cats will all capsize on the water, so I don't see why you and others continuously bitch about the stability factor of the AC75s. By that logic, we should stop sailing any vessel that can flip over because they are too dangerous. Why not just take a break from all that and enjoy the damn show.

    • Like 4

  17. 3 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

    Agreed, boats are vulnerable for during that time period right after using the cant. What is the duration, about 12 seconds? 

    No more vulnerable than the AC50's. They had to grind enough pressure into the accumulators between maneuvers. IIRC the grinders aren't responsible for the hyrdo on the FCS this time, so it's just a battery-powered pump that has that job now, which might make it seem more like a penalty.