• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

amc

Members
  • Content count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About amc

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Auckland
  1. Is his mum or dad not a US citizen ?
  2. FYI I get to San Francisco often and my favourite places near the AC action would be, for breakfast, Pats Café 2330 Taylor, I think it is and Vesuvio bar http://www.vesuvio.com/index2.html for drinkies before dinner. Up on Polk street near California St is a good area for dinner without paying tourist rip off prices. Thank you sir! You are a scholar and a gentleman. I even know where Filimore is.
  3. Yes I think you are right there. Given how the wing fell, I suspect the AR pitchpole only got as far as in the old ETNZ video which was reposted a little bit up the page.
  4. Artemis folded up like a taco no catapult though maybe that would have ejected the crew. Tragically it didn't. Edit I am not trivializing the effect of a pp, falling from 50 odd feet onto sharp carbon bits is going to leave a mark. Actually that would only be true if in the pitchpole the boat just stopped. But in a real pitch pole, the linear momentum of the boat gets translated partly into heat energy in the bow wave, and partly into rotational energy as the aft end of the boat accelerates vertically and forwards. So in fact the bodies of the folks onboard might well be accelerated a good 25%-50% above the speed they were traveling at moments before the pitch pole. IE they could easily be flung at 60mph linear velocity. Excuse me. I cannot just let this gibberish pass. There may be some water-heating effect during a pitch-pole, but this will be significantly less than 20 seconds previously when the boat was blasting along at 30 knots. There _is_ a lot of water movement - a turbulent longitudinal impulse wave generated by a few meters of bows suddenly being thrust under the water. Moving on to the whole "capsizing cat == trebuchet" argument, this dramatic vision is not supported by what we see. As a simple example, the film of the Oracle capsize shows that the process is relatively glacial. After movement completely stops, while the boat is still resting against it's mast, there is still someone holding onto the very top of the tramp! They have not just experienced freeway crash g-forces. More quantitatively, if you recall from the Oracle crash, the Main beam and daggerboards were well clear of the water (until the mast broke), so even the much-derided skinny Oracle bows had sufficient boyancy to keep the boat's center of mass well aft of the center of rotation (which is in the water). I just don't see where you're hoping to find this huge increase in angular momentum. You are spot on under a normal PP. Oracle's was one such, and the water as they dug in acts like a massive damper slowing it quickly, but not trebuchet like. I think however that in the Artemis situation, there was more of a trebuchet moment because the beam broke, and apparently provided a kind of 'hinge'. Much less likely to be repeated, but in that case, some more of the launch effect should be expected off to the 10 or 2 o'clock directions depending on the bear away. As someone else mentioned... once sailing downwind, the apparent will keep this from happening.
  5. They are sailing in SF bay with controlled traffic and conditions and are 72ft long, where are they going to find big enough waves that would do that? They need to slow up 20 odd its before the apparent goes aft? That could happen quickly but not like hitting a brick wall instantaneous. Just watch the vid of the OR pp. If that happens again and I believe it may well do, we will see exactly the same thing, hopefully without any structural failures though. The crew may fall a long way but not get catapulted. That it not to say no one will get hurt of course.
  6. Ffs at 40kts in max 20+_ it is impossible to pp as the apparent wind is forward of the beam this has been thrashed to death already.
  7. Lol, agree, what a mess and I am using windows 8. I can't make any sense out of that page. interesting page from the same person that thought up stickers on apples and windows 8? on my high speed connection it just keeps endlessly loading tiles, which prevents me scrolling to the bottom .... somewhat indicative of this whole mess ​and when you eventually find the interview it's drowned out by the marketing
  8. The interesting bit out of all that was Artemis "capsized" fell apart when the wind was 11mph gusts 17mph fixed it for you
  9. I thought the structure would have had a bunch of load cells installed and that by looking at how the loadings changed during the event and go pro plus external footage they would have been able to determine if a foreign object caused a tie to fail. The dagger boards and rudders did not look damaged so what else could this mystery object have actually hit that would cause the failure? The only thing I can think of is a direct hit on the beam as it buried itself going down the mine. Can you think of anything else?
  10. While that is possible, given where the beam broke I do not think that an understay failed. If that where the case then I would expect the beam to break where the unsupported bending moment was greatest or at the least greater. I guess you say that because it didn't break right under the mast. While that might be the intuitive answer, I would guess that the most reinforced part of the crossbeam would be the step area, with the reinforcement tapering off toward the side. With this in mind, if a lateral understay were to fail, the likely place for failure would be on the leeward side where the reinforcement tapered off. Just where it broke. But I repeat the disclaimer... pure speculation. Edit: I'd add that this would be the likely result if a lateral under-stay were to fail on either side because the windward beam is only loaded with the weight of the windward hull at that point, but the leeward beam is loaded with the weight and forces of the wing, hulls, and the water pushing the other way saying 'no way'. I am not sure why you would design a beam with all that undercarriage i.e. pin jointed structure then add a heap of reinforcing to boost bending strength right near a node when shear and compression are prominent. BUT it is all just a guess on my part. I hope the engineers for AR where not guessing!
  11. While that is possible, given where the beam broke I do not think that an understay failed. If that where the case then I would expect the beam to break where the unsupported bending moment was greatest or at the least greater.
  12. What a sad sad day, condolences to Andrew's family and friends.
  13. No apology necessary, I know exactly what you mean by the terms "conventional and canard" in this context and a conventional set would absolutely explain the stability displayed by ETNZ boats.
  14. I thought that for a time too but if that were true why crank the main beam aft like they do as that moves the CoG aft? They have the daggerboards effectively positioned where the main beam connects to the hulls on AR or OR. That is something OR and AR cant do easily without changing the whole beam structure.
  15. " It may be interesting that while ETNZ seems to have been happy joy riding at high speed, Loic has the Artemis team doing starting drills and bearaways. In effect focusing on RACING the boat not just sailing it. That could be seen as acknowledgement that being really slick at the boat handling is the only shot they have, but I think it is more likely an assertion that short course racing is actually the game here and that high performance boats demand a higher level of maneuvering reliability to succeed." Steve, with the greatest respect you know ETNZ has been doing more than showing off joy riding at high speed, they have been doing all that which Artemis have been doing plus racing against an actual other AC72