• 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

3 Neutral

About SYDE

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6,863 profile views
  1. Sydney to Hobart 2017

    I also think the smartest would be for woxi to retire. It would always leave an asterisk on the win* of Comanche. Woxi is a legend already. To add to this they sailed, without any doubt, the best elapsed time on this course. I think it was a foul. I don't think any interpretation of the film evidence can say it wasn't, barring heavy 'financial' blindness. I think it can only be answered with dsq now after the fact. Time penalties are half measures at this point. If the time is exactly the difference what is the point? Just little enough to allow the win or just long enough to snub them. It is the same as no penalty or dsq. But I want to propose an interesting scenario. The jury knew from the next sched this could come. What if they decided the penalty and recorded it before the conclusion. As in 'the penalty shall be 10 minutes as of the info available on 27 Dec 1200, no matter the outcome of the race.' That would be a nice piece of cover to have in their pocket.
  2. Sydney to Hobart 2017

    maybe so, but it also a classy move to not impede the starboard tack yacht holding its course with an aggressively close tack. I think it will come down to the skipper. What will he want to be remembered for? And what past do the skippers have with each other?
  3. Sydney to Hobart 2017

    I would be surprised if this did not go to the room. Which is a pity.
  4. Drag - what you describe as lost RM, we don't really see that way. We started the design from the standpoint of crew that does not move from side to side. Yes, of course, there would be more RM available if they moved to one side and back. And, yes, because we are asking the windward/leeward foil differential to do the work of creating RM, we will have induced drag. On the other side of the equation, we utilized a very wide platform and T foils that actually extend beyond that max beam. Those steps go towards mitigating the amount of differential force that is needed to create RM. T foil struts (the vertical part) also do not exhibit as much drag where they pierce the free surface and are smaller in chord than J or L foils. So that also reduces drag given the layout. We dramatically reduced aero drag of the platform compared to conventional layouts. To keep down cost, make chaning simpler, and keep attached flow across the lift foils and stabilizer we used flapped foils, as opposed to raking, perhaps taking a bit lower efficiency as part of the bargain. All and all we have not calculated a weight position vs drag study. Instead we focused on viability with a view toward low take off speed instead of top speed. In fact top speed is based on foil cavitation and how we limit dynamic RM. Soft crash - not 'the front one lets go'. The main foils are most loaded, so a loss of flow should result in stern down soft crash. In fact the most loaded is the leeward aft, so this is the foil that should cavitate first. If too much dynamic RM is sought, the windward foil might be the first to let go, which would allow capsize. That and rig engineering are the reasons we must have a max allowable dynamic RM. The flow across the forward stabilizer is very important. If it (the least loaded of the 3) cavitates, ventilates, or is fouled by a plastic bag, the bow will go down as a result. As for the foils you see on each hull, they are pivoting, not fixed. At 20-25 knots they will give much more upward force than displacement of a bow 2x or 3x larger would. But it will also slow the boat a lot. Could it pitchpole or go over diagonally? there is of course this possibility. But, in principle, we are trying to have a design that has a better behavior as much as the time as possible, then put the control over the boat in hands of a skilled skipper, but have a plan B if and when she or he makes an error.
  5. A reminder, if any anarchists think this design is worthy of your vote in the Foiling Week awards, use the link below. More than just one click, it takes a few minutes to fill out a form. There is no verify, so slightly inaccurate phone and email doesn't matter. http://www.foilingweek.com/pages/season-2017/foiling-week-awards-2017/fw-awards-2017-vote/ Project is VOR Inshore Foiler Proposal by Schickler-Tagliapietra in category Foiling project Award Presented by Persico Marine
  6. Steve, of course thanks for your reply! Your comments about interaction between crew and VIP are exactly right. We were looking at whether one trimmer could manage, placing a second VIP on board instead. The only thing better than sharing the experience with the crew, is sharing it with a colleague with whom you will return to the head office complete with great stories. We chose ultimately to have 4 sailors sailing the boat, because they are supposed to representative of the VOR crew totaling (I think) 8.
  7. As you might have gathered from the pdf, we think that the maneuvers will not be just foiling, we expect to see carving banked turns with a boat that otherwise will find max speed when sailing as low and flat as the sea state allows.
  8. Thanks for your comments Sam. I think you understand the design well.
  9. Chasm, for the submission to Foiling Week we re-rendered removing all logos, or so we thought. In the submission to VOR, we dressed the boats in sponsors logos, as you might expect. You point to the question of whether e.g. motor sport is sport. My answer: Is there a market for the event? I don't think that people focused on the pedaling of the crew, but on the maneuvers of the AC50 in the last AC. The former was just a means to the latter, and not main focus. Some loved to see them sweat, but mostly one wondered what sport this is, no? We opted for stored (green) energy on this design because of the even sponsor is a maker of cars, not bikes and not even boats.
  10. Hello again Anarchists, last installment of design considerations. Above I was describing the choice of a canard configuration. This led of course to discussions of using the forward rudder. In this situation, there is a bit of break from aircraft technology. Even most canard type airplanes have tail rudders. But not all. The B2 bomber is a notable exception. It has no forward rudder either, for that matter. Stealth dictated that it have none and steer with other means (thrust/drag). We discussed internally the risks and benefits of a forward rudder. It was the SailRocket 2 that was the most convincing case for a forward rudder, although it is not a foiler but a skimmer. It did however prove that course holding at high speeds could be done effectively with a forward rudder, even in the absence of fly-by-wire. By that I mean an electronic means to control dynamic instability using a control system that can monitor the need for very small and frequent corrections while at the same time executing user chosen maneuvers. We really wanted to stay with a high performing 3 point layout of foils, just for drag reasons. And we wanted to have the rudder/elevator setup right at the helm position, where the skipper or pilot is making the maneuvers, in part for feedback and in part for cost containment. For these reasons we opted for a forward rudder and only one on CL. The straight line VPP and dynamic simulation performed have not given a good reason to change that. A nice bonus from our point of view is that when things are going their worst, and the bow is heading down toward the water, the helms ability to alter course is getting better not worse. And it should be the same amount of rudder available in cases of heel angle given the foil type. I will be honest with you all, we do think there may be some steep operational learning curve steps when this boat is built. The bear away from a standstill in the starting arena is a move that I have thought a long time about. Could the boat trip? Maybe but doubtful, still more drag aft of the CG and CE. How easily will it transition from 0.2 knots with 100% stability based on beam to 20 knots a few moments later with 100% stability based on differential forces up and down? We have a feature at the bow of each hull, a spring loaded and over compensated foil on the inboard side. The spring keeps this foil at its horizontal lower limit for windage reasons. But the axis of rotation is well aft of the foil center of effort, so that a nose down entry into the water can create a good angle of attack, maybe 15-20 degrees from horizontal. At even moderate speed, and when more so when accelerating, this should produce a strong bow up moment. This lessens the need for really huge hull volumes, which in turn add windage. What hull volume we do have in the hulls is more forward (where the weight is) so it floats normally at the dock. The hydrostatic effect of the larger bows is a nice consequence to add to the foil lift for ... imperfect maneuvers. Lastly, the deck sweeper. For economic, container deployment, reefing, and just plain familiarity reasons we opted for a soft sail on a rotating rig. It is well proven, and the use of such a rig has not stopped the GC32 from foiling well. We wanted to get away from a headsail, and felt we could except for very low winds. So far, that seems to be viable in the VPP, in no small part because of using a deck sweeping main. Really and truly deck sweeping. We have no reason to pass from side to side, so it became clear that no boom should be used. This has been utilized on the most recent A-class worlds (and very likely is something that has been tried repeatedly in the history of the class). Instead we developed a two ram system led to an arced track that allows the trimmer to control foot and leach pretty much independently from each other and from the LE-TE angle (not boom angle you see). Add to this a cunningham and a zipper reefs (as seen in mini headsails) and the sail profile and plan will be adaptable. More drag than wing, yes, but more pragmatic and light weight. We can take a lot of lessons out of very high performance wheeled and ice borne sailing craft when it comes to rig and sail setup. The only caveat is that we need to get up on the foils in order to change our drag situation. Therefore we kept a larger furling headsail, only to be fit when conditions are 9 knots or less, so as not to have it dragging when we have 10 plus. OK, I think that covers most of the design points for the VOR foiler project, if you have questions I will be checking back.
  11. I wanted to continue on my earlier post, and will speak to points made by Steve, GBR, etc at another time. The decision to use flapped T foils is based on a couple of factors. The project brief asked for the ability to have a lake version, capable of sailing and possibly even foiling in pretty light winds. At the same time, it had to be used far up the wind range too. So, different sets of foils with different area were more or less imposed. At the same time, there is a reliability and build budget aspect that cannot be ignored. Trust me, I know that it seems ridiculous to complain about budget when the idea is to build a 40 foot racer for 700k, with the benefits of the economy of scale. That said, it can take up to 3 months of work to build a daggerboard for the AC50. Based on experience of the G4, a forty footer, could we really commit 100k Euro to a pair of foils, have two sets, prepare to build a few spares for the fleet AND still have a budget for the systems, spars, sails etc? In addition, positioning foils that would weigh up to 70 or 75 kg in an accurate quick raking system to get the kind of reaction times necessary is expensive. Raising and lowering foils as in the AC really takes up a ton of energy apart from the rake and yaw. Hydraulics and control systems require a budget and juice. The accumulator needs to be topped up to have ample pressure and flow of oil. The answer is to unload the maneuvering system, so that it requires the minimum amount of energy for the maximum benefit. Lessen the build cost of the foils, and chose a means to swap out parts or entire foils that is simple and robust. Letterbox insertion of struts, that remain lowered, with the possibility given a couple of screws to swap lift foils. Flaps are chosen specifically because the weight of the boat is carried by the fixed strut, flow across the leading edge remains attached despite changes in lift force, and the energy required to articulate the flap is a lot less than raking rams. The canard configuration serves a couple of purposes. It requires the crew to be forward. So the sail and the crew no longer have to be in the same position longitudinally. That may be more of a happy outcome, and extra benefit, than a goal, but it is there nonetheless. The first reason was the direct action of the changes in pitch. If you want to create upward angle to the main foil you use the canard foil to lift the bow, not push down the stern and wait for the lift force of the main foil in front to lift the bow. This is a fundamentally more direct way to alter pitch and of course comes from aircraft design, it cannot be denied. The canard layout has another meaning too. The main lift foils carry the majority of the mass. As speed increases and the need for RM goes up, the leeward foil lifts more and more, while the windward pulls down. They will therefore be much more loaded in terms of pressure distribution as well. If the main foil ventilates or cavitates due to this pressure field, flow is lost and lift is lost. The weight of the boat is aft of the remaining lifting foil at the bow, so the stern drops. The current AC45/50 layout does the opposite, and if downforce is used for stability (which it is on the windward rudder) it become even more critical. Loss of the flow and lift of the leeward L foil leads to a nose dive. As does ventilation of the windward rudder stabilizer which up to then was adding RM, if it does not lead to capsize first. So the canard layout is seen to have a more acceptable crash mode. OK, time to go, more to follow
  12. Hi Anarchists, the timing of the VOR tendering project, the short list decision, and the Foiling Week awards have made for a less than ideal rollout of this design. There have been a lot of comments made about the design, and I would like to address both negative and positive feedback, though I lack the time to answer each and every critique. I will start with the direct response received from VOR, in response to our proposal, which came with a boiler plate letter stating that this canard layout project was not on the short list - Doug - I should add that I thought your design was just amazing - and looks like the future! I think in our limited timeframe, and One Design build setup (i.e. we can’t do a development programme) it just seemed too many steps for us this time around. M. Mark Turner <and> To reiterate what Mark has said, whilst the letter sent did not reflect it properly, there was a clear favourite amongst the selection committee and given a bit more development time, we would have to love to have pulled this off. Nick Next a version of what was posted on catsailingnews, which was the first public exposure, because it discusses also the background to how this project started - "The ST Foiler project was originated back in mid 2015, with some our of the box thinking. we asked ourselves: “forsee the evolution of foiling sailing multihull design will have a parallel track to aircraft design?” & “what can be learned from the evolution of powered hydrofoil boats?” As a partnership between a naval architect and an aerospace engineer, it was a fruitful thought experiment. We knew that a containerized short course racing machine which could exploit the full potential of hydrodynamics to foil early and often, would be attractive. Both the economics and safety of existing and proposed cat designs left room for improvement. ... http://www.catsailingnews.com/2017/11/vor-inshore-foiler-proposal-by.html So, the first thing to understand about the project as you see it, is that it was a concept that was developed for a very specific type of event. Inshore, short course, 99-100% foiling fleet racing. ST does not for a moment think that this kind of craft is there to erase all other forms of sailing. Those who say that if this is the future of sailing, why sail? Well, sail what you like. I like small skiffs / dinghies and large cats. I am infatuated with minis. Davide loves the moth. Davide and I have not done as much foiling as maybe half of the readers of this forum, but that does not negate what we bring to the table as designers and engineers very much in the thick of foiling design work e.g. dna G4, Luna Rossa, Team France and many other projects in between. Does anyone dispute that the development from AC45, GC32, AC72, AC50 and others that the current layout, with crew crossing the boat and a foil layout that, when things go very wrong, too often ends in a nosedive, does not provide a platform where VIP sailors and/or non-sailors can be safety foiled around the race course by a professional team? That is the goal of the design, at its heart. If not going from side to side, Frank Cammas does not nearly lose his leg falling overboard. If not positioned in the hull cockpit, Team Softbank Japan sailors do not get narrowly saved by the shroud of their boat in a pre-start. Foiling racing with just 2 boats is a fair bit more dangerous than most sailors have experienced. Just as racing an ultimate tri trans ocean is more dangerous than foiling an A class. The canopy was a very difficult choice for me personally. We debated a lot about the problem of blocking out the environment. But, it is the decision we made for this boat. I had discussed the same with Paul Larsen at the little cup in Falmouth. It was a close call for SR2 IIRC. You may hate it and think it is ridiculous. It is a reality on this boat for reasons of safety of the crew and the VIP. Not just for crashes, but also for ease of communication between the crew, and the guest. Additionally there is windage to consider, which is a huge portion of the total drag at these speeds. The sail trim position has been criticized in other forums (fora?) and I have been perhaps too cavalier in answering the comments. Yes it is a rotating mast, yes the main twist will be crucial in the sail trim of the boat. But there is a really substantial difference in this craft that essentially only a handful of boats have utilized. The co-pilot, the second person in the cockpit, has a primary job of controlling flight height and RM, through the use of differential lift of the port and starboard main foil flaps. All of the boats foiling RM is developed through hydrodynamics, and it has to ultimately be capped by monitoring rig tension. We had a simulator made to test this craft, just as they have done in the Cup teams. The outcome is that RM will be directly adjusted before most sail trim changes are made. Foils will be actively trimmed even more frequently than sails, because weight is not moving and its more responsive than changing the sails. Looking at it another way, on e.g. a moth or an A-class, your position on the boat is crucial for the stability and limited in range. You cannot move more outboard (or aft or fwd) than you are able to do with rack or trapeze. You put your weight there for stability, not to get the best view of the sail trim. You go to max stability when you can because it is fast. To stay there you trim a lot. On this foiler, the crew needs to be forward. Putting them in the hulls was rejected for safety and weight reasons. Again, they are positioned not for sail trim, but because the force balance dictates where they need to be. So, they have to adapt to the sail trim view they have. In a high tech boat such as this, expect there to be electronic means of seeing/feeling/sensing the sail trim many times a second. I will go ahead and post this much, expecting some replies. I hope a few positives and not only what can happen here on Anarchy. Future topics to elaborate on are the decision to use flapped T foils, the canard configuration including forward rudder (which I am pleased to see Steve shares) and the decision not to use a wing (or a boom). (edit - don't expect much comment on the packing in a container or non beach launching the boat, please read the tender doc before you throw stones) In the mean time, if you think this project merits your vote for innovation, please link through to the foiling week and do just that. http://www.foilingweek.com/pages/season-2017/foiling-week-awards-2017/fw-awards-2017-vote/ Cheers Doug Schickler STYACHT
  13. volvo goes both ways

    Not if you think a mini fits that description.
  14. volvo goes both ways

    Shanghai, this new forum software has lost my user name "STYACHT". The question is to Clean for Mark Turner. The GC32 is not part of the VOR, that is the Great Cup. Besides, not really ideal for VIPs on board. No VIPs on board GC32, AC45 or AC50. It's an issue.
  15. volvo goes both ways

    Clean, how will they manage to carry VIPs on board the inshore foiling multihull? Seems like having up to 3 guests on board the 60 foot mono for inshore was just too easy.