• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

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 ‚Äčand 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