• 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.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About curiousinsider

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Med
  1. Artemis?

    Tell that to the narrow moth sailors, rudder T-foils were what made them sailable downwind. Otherwise...pitchpole Correct, but please read above posts... Read them...and your point was that T-foils have nothing to do with preventing pitchpoles, which they quite clearly do... If you read I say that LIFTING rudder foil do not prevent pp, they help it. Well... Bigger LIFTING rudders foils still DO help prevent pp. Actually all AC72 rudders foils are lifting ones. As the boat pitch angle goes more bow down both boards and rudder foils see their angle of attack decrease but the rotation happens close to the CG so while the board sees little vertical movement the rudders sees a big change in vertical velocity so the angle of attack changes reducing the lift and thus restoring recovery moment to the point that if the change in angle is quick they can even generate downforce. The bigger the rudder foils (aka "elevators" these days) the bigger this effect is which turns to be a "dumping" effect against quick changes in pitch angle (as it happens right before a pitchpole) giving the crew time to do something (like increase wing twist or steer to change the AW) A quick estimate of the LCG of these boats and the rudder/boards longitudinal positions show that for the size of these the foils (especially at the range of speeds they sail!) their normal operating lift coefficient has to be low so their "oversize" is not performance related (why add wetted surface?)
  2. Artemis?

    Unfortunately the AC72 rules (and for what matters any rule) fight systematic abuses of reductions in weight by say, reducing the thickness of skins or density of the core "beyond reason" by feeling confident with reduced safety factors or stating a minimum weight or VCG of a rig but it is hard (I can't even see how) to go beyond that. And unfortunately most (if not all) failures happen for other reasons. Even going to certification rules outside of racing ones like ABS does not guarantee safety. You may have more strict requirements regarding which load cases to use or even more detailed construction requirements but all you need is a minor design flaw, or failure in the construction process (just a little problem in a secondary bonding of a well design and, otherwise built structure) and under some dynamic situations (beyond the usual static load tests which regularly are performed) something can fail. TNZ lost a mast in the 4th race of the 2003 Cup because a rig fitting failed. Probably a properly designed and built one but maybe a dent, a sequence of loads (they certainly got a very unlucky sequence of waves) were enough to break it under very specific conditions. Luckily no one was underneath so few remember it. Actually since I’ve known about the AC things fail regularly in pretty much every competitive boat, some minor and some not so minor but people rarely hear about the ones which don’t turn to be catastrophic. Trust me shore teams are one of the most unfairly underrated people in the AC. So… yes. After something like what happened last Thursday hopefully everyone will learn and push to make competitive sailing safer but there is no way to make it absolutely safe and we may as well not even know the ultimate reason for the failure after reviewing all the available evidence. But still learn in the process. Two random examples of complexity (and by no means the most relevant ones): - After this not even all AC72 sailors will agree whether wearing a life jacket is safer or not. - Not even amateur leisure sailing is exempt of risk.
  3. Artemis?

    I have to confess a bit of this “let's find something or someone to blame for this tragedy” that some display really bothers me. High level competition in which fast and highly loaded machines are used is intrinsically dangerous. It is a measured risk but time after time sailors (but not only, also designers and in general aficionados) push to sail faster and reach further. I doubt anyone is more aware of that than the sailors themselves and let's face it is dangerous and the only reason there are; no more casualties is that most sailors are well aware of the dangers and behave in a cautious enough manner. Just think of an accidental gybe or even how many times in a big boat someone less careful than he should stands under a boom ignoring that a halyard or halyard lock breaking can kill him. But sometimes even being careful is not enough and a sum of circumstances turn a “phew... that was close” that we forget two days after into a tragedy. That was for instance what happened (added to other circumstances but, again, more than one) when Martin Wizner got killed in 99 in an AC boat, which many of the ones looking for someone to blame might take as a reference of a much safer yacht. Some other times boats capsize, lose a keel, a mast (not such a rare thing!) or sink, nothing happens and we quickly forget about it ignoring how high the chances of that to happen were. You can even kill yourself falling off a bike riding at 10 mph! So as I said this simplistic search of someone to blame really bothers me (like that stupid comment above properly answered already by a few with some more common sense than the author). America's Cup sailors are well aware of the risks which exist (and are not small) and they behave professionally and do what they can within reason to protect themselves. And sometimes, in some rare occasions, like today, even the best ones can get caught in a tragic situation. And trust me, if anyone has any doubt, neither designers, boat builders, team managers, etc, you name it, involved in a project like this even considers to put the safety of any of the members of the teams behind anything else, or simply ignore it. Sure, sometimes mistakes happen and even without mistakes just an unexpected gust can turn a not very easy situation into a critical one but as harsh as it may sound it is a part of this “game” and I doubt there is anyone seriously involved in it not aware of it. So yes, we will all learn to sail and race safer (as it has been happening for many years) but the limits will always be pushed and that is the only reason for progress. It is the very same nature of high level competition and the persons involved in it. There is no room for reckless people. Having said that I think there is a need to put some perspective of what really is important here today and it is the fact that even if it was doing what he loved to do an exceptional sailor died today because of a sum of circumstances and a lot of friends (and he had many around) and family will miss him. And everyone else even related to him just by being a fellow sailor with think about him more than twice and feel sad about it. Also we will all learn and out of that hopefully analyze things with calm and help make sailing, even extreme fast competitive sailing, a bit safer than it was today, which won’t ever guarantee 100% safety but no one ignores that. So… sorry for the long venting but as I said it bothers me to read these finger pointers while sitting in from their sofas simplifying things beyond what they can be simplified looking for something or someone to blame and detracting attention from what I am sure most of us here care about: To regret a sad tragedy that we all hope it had never happened, to send our condolences and wish the best to those who love him and after that try to understand how to reduce the risk of it happening again, but today, unfortunately, even the last one is secondary.
  4. Artemis?

    Better boat? So why didn't they win? Although it is received wisdom that the wing was the difference, I don't think this is the truth. And neither does Jimmy Spithill. In a recent interview he said that they won because they had a more powerful boat with more righting moment. And the fact that they had 110 foot-long hulls couldn't have hurt anything either. I'm sure the wing helped, but OR probably would have won without it. So why are te new hulls of the AC 72 almost replica's of The Alinghi dog-cat? Fastest boats on the planets chosse second best design? The BOR tri is the ultimate racing machine? I doubt that. Would be fun to try... AC 72 Catversion against tri version. both with wings. I am pretty sure the cat wins but we will never know. Well... a closer look shows they are not all that similar. However there was a fundamental reason for the bigger rocker of the BOR tri hulls (and everything else which was influenced by that extra rocker) and it was the fact that it still had to float with a maximum waterline length of 90 feet. No one could imagine than using water ballast tanks to be able to measure in a load case never used for sailing as A5 needed to do would be allowed. Advantages of appointing your own measurer...
  5. Artemis?

    I don't think you can find a quote saying A5 would surely win after the wing was made public and mainly after the extension was set. I remember writing that I was impressed. Wing? The wing helped but righting moment won. As simple as that. Why do you think Alinghi's whole fight was to try to dispute the Cup in a venue where there was little wind?
  6. Artemis?

    You in particular know I read Sailing Anarchy in hope of gems like this. ^^ So, the pitchpole of a 72 ft cat with the windward is normal for you ? If you don't think the cause is the design, what do you think it is, the crew? the "10ft waves" ? Do you say they are going to same design ? LOL When you bear away with one of these boats in 25+ knots there are so many reasons why pitchpole can happen that no one with a minimal knowledge would talk with the authority you display which can just come from ignorance. I am sure the TNZ guys who are far from stupid and who, by the way, have limited so far their testing to straight line sailing and low risk manouvers in signifficantly less wind (not saying that is wrong at all but certainly the chances for somthing like that to happen are way smalle) are less dismissive than you.
  7. Artemis?

    This is awesome. You in particular know I read Sailing Anarchy in hope of gems like this. Where else can I get the real shit, the critical essense, the raw, untreated sewage of opinion from someone who is so qualified to comment? In all seriousness, thank you. Koukel You are right. Based on the correlation between Tornado-Cat predictions (wishful thinking?) for the 33rd Cup and the results from his words we should conclude that Oracle will defend succesfully against Artemis...