• 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.  

GauchoGreg

Members
  • Content count

    4,730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GauchoGreg

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

9,310 profile views
  1. Ultime / G-Class Development

    Another delay for Banque Populaire: " LAST MINUTE NFO: Due to the windy weather announced on Lorient early next week, Team Banque Populaire is forced to postpone the launch of the Maxi Banque Populaire IX scheduled initially on Monday 16 October. The Banque Populaire team is currently studying the favorable dates for launching maneuvers under optimum safety conditions." http://www.voile.banquepopulaire.fr/news/le-maxi-banque-populaire-ix-bientot-pret-a-prendre-son-envol/
  2. "so get over it"? I was responding to a stupid set of points. They can choose, obviously, whatever they want, but that does not mean anyone has to like it, or can't express opinions. They probably want me/us to watch, so my/our opinion does matter. I have been saying they should be honest about their motivation and be logical about their decision... is that too much to ask? Saying the AC50 is not suitable for the Gulf as a reason to go with a 75' monohull is not honest or logical. Saying they want to have a more traditional yacht because they think it will draw more spectators could be both honest and logical, even if I don't agree with that logic.
  3. All this talk about what the AC50s can and can't do is stupid. Fact of the matter, they could have easily designed a foiling cat that would be fine in the dreaded Hauraki Gulf (comical when you think of what foiling cats have been seen to handle). The AC72s, even with massively over-built and unreefable wings, handled pretty extreme conditions in training for AC34, and if they designed a boat to handle seas, with reefable main, they could absolutely handle anything the Gulf would throw at them. But if they want to go to monohulls, they could at least use legitimate arguments (even if not everyone agrees with them). As far as I can tell, the only legitimate argument to go back to monohulls is to cater to some subjective idea that it is going back to tradition, or if they think more people will tune in because they can better relate to it. But if that/those are the argument(s), they should NOT go Funky-Cool-Dougy-Fresh with a tripped out wanna-be multi-hull, and go to a simple monohull without foils, canting, or even racks/wings.... be "majestic", and see how the numbers turn out. I'm not into "majestic" or nostagia, so I will probably lose all interest, but maybe I will be replaced by a whole bunch of sweater-vest-wearing club sailors dreaming of having their fat asses "sailing" on the boat (meaning serving as human ballast on the rails).
  4. Nice thing about a design like that is the human ballast could have a fierce game of ping pong while sailing.
  5. No, it is a MonOhulL. Obviously. Ask Doug.
  6. Yep, and for all that effort, it would get its ass handed to it by a stock GC32 in all likelihood. Brilliant.
  7. Yeah, those are SOOOOO different than a catamaran or trimaran!!!! Fricking comical. What a complicated mess that would be compared to a cat or tri. I'm SURE those would be a reduction in design and construction costs, and obviously those are going back to tradition, like EB wanted. Where the hell is the rolling-on-floor-laughing-ass-off emoticon when you need it?
  8. Yeah, because he would NEVER say something to give more reason for their change..... I know all of you Kiwis think he is a perfect straight shooter, but come on! It is not "as simple as that". Not to mention, they did not have to stick with AC50s without modification, or add 10-20'.
  9. Yep. If they are bound and determined to go back to monohulls, they would probably be best off to go with Option 1 and just deal with that the performance will not be anywhere near as good without making absurd efforts to be like a cat, and instead simply try to make the racing the most compelling it can be even though WAY below the cats in performance. I think that is a dumb idea, but it is probably way better than the other dumber ideas that are Options 2 and 3, both of which are just going to be inferior to cats/tris, and probably lead to inferior racing.
  10. You are absurd. Your model is getting its RM from the leeward foil (effectively acting like the leeward hull or foil of a cat), a HUGE weighted wing (human ballast) that makes the boat just as, or nearly as wide as a multi, AND a pack of lead in the keel..... and the hull when in the water is going to have more wetted surface than the hull of a cat or tri with one in the water. That boat would be more of a mess to deal with, logistically, than a cat, and just as alien to a typical mono-sailer. I'm done with this convo.
  11. Physics, dougie. You are talking something that has never existed, nor is it something that the physics support (for a mono to have righting moment it needs lead OR a beam so wide it may as well be a multi, or some Swiss-Army Knife set of appendages). Less wetted surface, less drag... lead pulls more boat into the water = more wetted surface. Wider beam, more righting moment, more power. More beam with one hull, more wetted surface. A bunch of appendages.... they act essentially as the multiple hulls in a cat or tri. So, again, we go through manipulations to make a mono more like a multi. And that was the point I and others are making... one should ask what the point is, and given the concepts (look no further than your sketches), the point of going back to monos to be more relatable.... how does that work out?
  12. Actually, Doug, I'm not wrong. If not for rules restricting multi-hulls, not one designer would opt for a mono-hull hauling lead, and all of these design ideas are efforts to replicate the righting moment naturally provided by a multihull. It takes a rule restricting multi-hulls to force the designers into going with one big hull held upright by a big clump of lead. That is not to say they can't come up with a fast design and have good racing, but the facts are the facts.
  13. Ultime / G-Class Development

    BPIX launching on October 16. http://www.ultimboat.com/ultime-news-5
  14. A foiling IMOCA would be a shit match racer compared to what we have been seeing, and if they go with that (or anything remotely similar), it will be a HUGE downturn in the quality of racing we should expect. And if they go with a mono that WOULD be similarly performing/exciting, the appendages and instability of such a mono-trying-to-be-a-cat will be just as far away from alignment with the Every-Day-Sailor as the AC50s.
  15. Doug owns stock in Futaba.