• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by atwinda

  1. 55 minutes ago, SF Woody Sailor said:

    Given the choice between going 7 knots with proper cunningham tension and rake and going 30 knots with improper cunningham tension and rake I know which I would choose.

    We hear a lot about "loosing rudder grip" etc, and that's when the crashes happen. What I am suggesting, is that they end up with an out of balance sail plan to below water foil configuration and it becomes too risky to even consider the code zero.

    So the question becomes, would you rather go 7 knots or be on your side?

  2. A lot is being made of the drag penalty once up on the foils, but there is a balance aspect to consider as well. With the additional sail area, they must not be able to get to their desired settings elsewhere in the configuration once the boat is up and ripping. I'm sure the "structural headstay" as others are referring to it, is connected to hydraulics under deck, and they can play luff (jib Cunningham) and rake fairly easily, which may not be as feasible with the code zero tacked out onto the bow sprit.

  3. 34 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

    Am pretty concerned about if they will ever get ‘right’ but: Trying to imagine-up the best possible scenario for AM here: 

    They don’t have to measure in a freeze of their configuration this week. And don’t have to race this week. And with the coming shed time, it’s possible that instead of ‘putting her back the way she was’ that they could actually load up on systems improvements since they will be up to their elbows doing replacements anyway? 

    I am expecting to see their third set of foils when it comes out of the shed again.

    They've got nothing to lose at this point by piling on whatever gear they have been holding back. They had sailors from all the other teams crawling all over their boat, I'm sure they took note of a feature or two.

  4. 7 hours ago, MultiMono said:

    Fuck you cock womble. I know more about mast bend than you might think. 20 years sailmaking will do that to you. Your issue is @Mozzy Sails was giving an illustration. You can clearly see the mast bend away from his straight line. He's not giving complete bullshit numbers to puff up his chest and show what a man he his. Does it hurt your poor little head that someone with under 100 posts can call you out on your bullshit and trolling? What a sad way to live your life. It's doing you no good. 

    I don't understand why you are arguing about this. As a sailmaker of 20 years, I'd expect you would be more familiar with 8 point offsets, and describing 2d curvature.

    Mozzy is wrong, and you are wrong. The illustration I provided is how you measure mast bend. The numbers aren't accurate because of the angle of the shot, not because the technique is incorrect. Let that sink in before you go off on another four-letter word keyboard rant.

  5. 5 hours ago, MultiMono said:

    So you post saying someone is being inaccurate about how to measure things and then you come in with a set of completely bollox numbers? You sir.... Are a fucking idiot. Mozzy's line was as in indicator to mast bend in top of the rig. He didn't claim to measure anything. Just a visual indication on possible changes. Piss off back under your rock you troll.

    I gave PERCENTAGES to how much the mast is ACTUALLY BENDING- and qualified them by saying that they are not dead on because of the stated factors. They are far more accurate than a projected line from the mast base, and if the annotated diagram didn't make sense to you, you are the fucking idiot. Calling me a troll is rich for a sub 100 post sock.

  6. 9 hours ago, Mozzy Sails said:

    Rake is how 'vertical' the mast is. The line isn't showing that. It's showing where a straight mast would sit by extending a line from the bottom section. Ideally, the bend should be taken at the mast track, on the other side of the mast, but with a black sail and black mast, that's pretty hard to illustrate on a video. In lieu of that, showing the bend from a straight line extended from the mast foot is a good proxy. 

    P.s. you should tell all the Olympic 49er sailors that they aren't measuring mast bend when they pull a taught line down the front of their masts before sailing each day

    It is absolutely clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. 


    I stand by that the yellow line in front of the mast is a better indication of mast rake, than mast bend.

    Obviously, these numbers are nowhere near accurate, as the shot is not dead on the side of the boat, and they don't account for mast rotation - so they should be taken with a grain of salt. However, it does accurately depict how fundamentally incorrect measuring mast bend via a straight projected line from the mast base is. 

    • Like 4

  7. 12 hours ago, Mozzy Sails said:

    How INEOS found their turbo...


    The "mast" bend illustration is not describing mast bend, but rather rake. No doubt the mast is bending, but not 1.5 mast widths as pictured. A more accurate measurement would be taken from the aft edge, foot to head, and offset measurements made at 1/8 or 1/4 points. 

    I think the thing most analysis is missing at this point, is the balance aspect. They appear to be running more rake, with smaller headsails, effectively moving the COE aft. This would all have to work in conjunction with the COG and whatever insane voodoo physics are at play underwater - which almost certainly have been affected by the foil mods and new rudder/elevator. 

  8. 18 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

    During the presser today Max suggested the backstays ruling is still under discussion. That made me remember a comment posted by someone (happens to be a 35-yr commercial airline pilot) during TE’s latest webcast, where he made a possibly off-the wall comment on the subject..

    Could LR, in burying the stays inside the rig, be going after a ‘gurney’ type wing control feature? 

    Does @weta27 or one of the other superb NZ photogs have detailed shots of the mast head on any teams boat with the runners attached? Or even better of LR with or without the runners connected at deck level.

    While I understand "every little bit helps" I just think this whole backstay thing is a bit of a show. Similar to the jumperless rigs in the IACC v5 boats in Valencia. BMW Oracle had dummy jumpers during the lead up, but shed them once it counted- ultimately the team had tried to be too tricky with their equipment, and the gear wasn't reliable and didn't pay off. And with LLPR we have seen early engineering fail in the form of the foil arms, bow, and I'm sure lots more we will never hear about. I hope they keep their eyes on the prize and not get caught up in being too fancy...

  9. 2 hours ago, jaysper said:

    Copy catting doesn't imply the whole foil.

    Just cos they can't transplant the whole foil, doesn't mean they can't get ideas from them.

    Again with ETNZ and LLPR already committed their final foil designs, what is there to copy at this point? What idea can another team copy from ETNZ's foils or flaps that would integrate into their existing foil/flap config.

    There is no advantage in waiting to fit them to the boat- Hiding them until the last two weeks would only mean they don't have time to optimize and test different wind / wave conditions. Imagine it blows in the upper range for the last two weeks before the cup, and now they haven't tested the new super top secret foils in the expected light range because some yahoo on SA told them to conceal the foils until the last minute so no one could copy them (ya know cause we showed them foiling too early in 2013). It's illogical.

    What you're failing to grasp, and trying to cover up by pointing to previous cycles is, the individual boat systems are too tightly integrated, and it's too late in the game, to copy significant ideas from other platforms. Iterative test-driven development doesn't work like that. If you throw a hail mary late in the game, every tool in your development pipeline has to compensate as well. It's just not going to happen.

    • Like 2

  10. 22 minutes ago, jaysper said:

    Remember I never said copy the whole foil. But you can incorporate ideas.

    ETNZ learnt not to show all your cards too early the hard way in San Francisco.

    In  Bermuda, they didn't deploy all their equipment until after Artemis had been dispatched.



    As far as copying flaps, I would suspect that the flap shapes are highly dependent on the leading bit (the foil), and again, I don't think you could transplant an ETNZ shaped flap on any of the challenger's foils and expect a miracle.

    I agree that they likely have new parts planned up until the match. However, they don't have the Prada Cup to deal with, so there is no reason not to show up the line with their best gear. There is no one to dispatch other than the remaining challenger. Performance improvements during the match will consist of tuning and boat handling, not some 11th hour new-fangled mainsail they've kept top secret this whole time.

  11. 1 minute ago, jaysper said:

    Remember it's not just foils, it's the flaps too, which each team will undoubtedly have more of up their sleeves.

    Plus you'd be amazed what you can do with 20% mods.

    100% wishful thinking- and that doesn't address the slight "whole package" issue. I'm not saying modification is off the table- Just that copying a foil is ridiculous and entirely impractical at this point.

  12. 20 hours ago, jaysper said:

    Given that these foils are supposedly a lot quicker to build than the  Bermuda ones, they may choose to delay these foils till end of January or later to prevent copy catting. 

    Who is going to copy them? INEOS and AM are out of foils, and LRPP would have had to commit to final designs for theirs by now. Each team is well down their own design paths, and I very much doubt that copying foils would help as the whole foil, platform, and sail package would have to adjust as well.

  13. They have exactly the same chance of using B1 as the other teams- ZERO.

    While the hull shapes might be similar, there is no chance the internal structure or layup schedule is the same. They would essentially be throwing away any gained performance benefits from learning how to build an AC75- and out of all the teams, they had the most structural problems (in the public domain) with their B1.

    The B1s would serve as better spectator platforms for the shore crew than they ever would as a competitor against another team's B2 (outside of the slight possibility that you break your B2 in 1/2 a day before the match). Just think of all the beer they could keep in those crew trenches.

  14. 10 hours ago, hoom said:

    A top area where mechanical camber control is explicitly allowed by the rule...

    I don't think the runners would explicitly control only the top of the main (actually, I wouldn't expect the runners to change the upper shape of the main at all). Their effect would be seen more throughout the mid-span where the mast would bend and flatten the sail(s).

    The takeaway- they likely have a lot less luff curve in their mainsails than ETNZ, allowing them to get away with the less mast bend.

  15. 6 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

    Whatever you might think of Ben his record isn’t exactly poor so getting into a medal winning contest with his record isn’t the best idea. 

    he also chalked up an AC win too..

    If you consider Ben Ainslie's time with Oracle in 2013 a win, do you also consider his time with ETNZ in 2007 a loss? He was the B-boat helm in both cases. It seems that many here weigh Ben's influence heavily in the 2013 win, however, an argument could be made that another qualified tactician would have provided similar results- To be clear, I'm suggesting that it wasn't so much putting Ben in that role, as it was removing JK from it, which was a bigger influence. Ben being involved as a B-Boat driver likely had as much input during the development of the boats during the build-up as he would have as anyone on the A-Boat. I highly doubt he brought game-altering concepts to the table only after he was promoted to the A-Boat in the give it everything we've got assault to retain the cup. That's just not logical.

    I don't understand why there is so much importance placed on Ben's trophy case. He can obviously drive the boat, and I doubt that his age and reflexes are the reason the INEOS AC75 has underperformed to date.

    Does anyone here really think Ben is the last word in that organization- that Ben is sitting down and telling the designers how to shape the foils, sails, and hull? Those are all team management decisions. To paraphrase Ken Read- They need to close all the doors around them, hunker down, and assess the viability of every option they have available as a team. They aren't out yet, but relying on Ben's past results won't put them back into it either.

    The thing I am most surprised by is that INEOS and AM have used their foil allocation- especially considering that they both had test platforms, and they should have been far enough down the development path when it came to committing the designs for their AC75 foils. And actually, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe several around here claimed that ETNZ specifically would be behind the other teams with early test boats who were able to test foil configurations. The other notable thing to mention in this regard, is that INEOS would have carried the software IP from the 2017 AC foils into this, so they weren't exactly starting from a blank sheet as AM did.

  16. 11 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:



    I have tried several ways to type this, but they all sound antagonistic- and I want to emphasize that's not my intention. Unfortunately for Ineos, the top speed of the day didn't help them unglue the bottom of the boat from the water when it counted.

    I have a hunch that both Ineos and ETNZ with a sort of similar hull concept really struggle to take off, and are much more optimized for flight. While LLPR and AM more subtle bustle/skeg approaches allow for lower take-off speeds. LLPR didn't have nearly as difficult a time getting back on their foils against ETNZ in that last one.

  17. 9 minutes ago, mako23 said:

    Yesterday Ben said they received the software update that afternoon. ETNZ said the software update was sent the previous Friday. Someone is telling bullshit, but who. Maybe the Italians and AM can enlighten us about when they received their update. 

    Yes - but think about it from the perspective of having to replace the controller at the dock and then go sailing.

    Ben: "somethings off... get the FCS guy on board to the check the controller"
    shore crew: "oh hey.. would you look at that, we didn't update the spare controllers firmware..."
    Ben: "what the hell do I pay you for!?"
    shore crew: "we'll download the update and install it on the water.."

    later at the presser "we received the updates as late as mid day". Not everything has to have a complicated or vindictive reason for happening.

  18. After watching the presser just now - the software-update-gate might be due to them swapping out the control board for a spare as Ben mentioned. Maybe the spare did not have the update applied to it ahead of time, and they didn't realize that until they were out on the water. I mean, that doesn't give much credit to the team in charge of that, but it's certainly in the "the easiest explanation" category. 

    but man... Ben's attacks on the FCS and receiving redress for the FCS because it's out of their hands were very unprofessional. The exchange between Ben and Pete about ETNZ being open about anything if they asked for was just odd.

    Ben saying he didn't know if they would be able to sail today, cause they didn't know if they could fix their boat overnight... I mean come on... pull it together.

    • Like 1

  19. 21 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

    Maybe the system has API’s advertised to work in certain ways, but they sometimes aren’t performing as advertised and they don’t return good-enough diagnostics in response. Without the source code, you can’t tell wth is actually happening. 

    I think something along these lines is likely. FCS has to accept input from the individual team's controls- whether that's as simple as "Up" or "Down", I don't know, but given the complexity of these boats that seems unlikely.

    INEOS being one of two teams to launch a smaller scale trail boat- they must have had to develop their own version of the FCS for that. I wonder if they made some macro-level control design decisions based on how their internal small scale FCS worked, and they are having some issues apply lessons learned there to the OD FCS...

    • Like 2

  20. Just now, Indio said:

    I think their problem lies within their own-developed and -designed ECC system. They need to go back and decompile their code and logic ladders and start again before the Prada Cup, but it goes without saying that they need competent engineers to do that in the first place! And time...

    That is preciously my point. I don't think it's the OD supplied components at all.

    @JALhazmat Comparing 8 production FCS systems (and spares) to 4 teams is worlds away from the number of OD parts delivered to Olympic teams. Not to mention, I would imagine it's much easier to get consistent parts when they are CNC machined vs a couple of minimum wage employees higher than a kite from the epoxy laying up nacra hulls. I'm not saying the parts aren't built to tolerances, but I am saying I'd bet the tolerances are very narrow.

    • Like 1

  21. 1 hour ago, Monkey said:

    Even though they overheated tow control units, that doesn’t mean those were the problem. The issue is most likely elsewhere in the system and they probably didn’t have time to change that out. 


    1 hour ago, JALhazmat said:

    No, there are tolerances with any one design part, the idea that everything is precisely identical is a farce.

    What does happen and chews up huge budget for Olympic sailers is going through boat after boat and mast after mast, foil etc to find the best one. 

    All I am suggesting is that one design is not the last word in repeatable perfection 


    The "TWICE" was more about the FCS issues dating back to B1, and the implication was that it's unlikely they received bad FCS both times.

    They have been crying wolf for a long time. If there is an actual issue, then the other teams have figured something out.