• 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.  

pharcue

Members
  • Content count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pharcue

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    North of Auckland
  • Interests
    Going fast
  1. The self tacking track on ETNZ curves forward at the mast to release the sail tension when it goes through the tack,when then tensions it self up to the original setting as it travels out
  2. Didnt he give it to the Spanish
  3. The cross beam takes the wing piviot so the wing position on the hull dictates the cross beam position, On the SL33s they set the piviot point back off the beam. When in place the beam dictates where the daggerboards can go...hence ETNZ have a curved beam
  4. Oracle still need to move them back for it to fly better. The system on the SL 33s was quite complex and took a lot to figure out and work right team oracle need to hire you to sort out their program.... except you lost all cred when you said that ar needed to move the foils behind the beam.... just one more kiwi working up to 50 bullshit posts a day.... Not really but I know a real good engineer 50 per day......I havent the information or the time!
  5. yes, I had a look over the 33 some time before their first 72 was launched, The boards they were testing were like the ones they are using now so there is a reasonable lead time between developing and producing them or that was the track they were going down all along
  6. Oracle still need to move them back for it to fly better. The system on the SL 33s was quite complex and took a lot to figure out and work right
  7. ie OR ...less stable As well they need to learn how to fly
  8. Thats a major reconstruction...to suss out all the control systems and build will be a major,on the ETNZ 33s they could move the boards 4 ways and I think that was how they determined placement of the boards in the hulls
  9. My mistake....not paying att
  10. If Artemis are going foil with stability they will need a curved front beam like ETNZ and move the foils back and I dont think they have enough lead time before racing starts to remake the beams
  11. OR were months out in their launch for B1, and will be similarly late for B2. They were impressive with the repairs. You would have to say though from helicopter view the programme overall isn't going as smoothly as ETNZ and LR - critical breakages and accidents, significant adaptations and changes to direction being made, boat still not performing. ETNZ are the gold standard at the moment, but look stretched. The AC is primarily an organisational challenge - there are so many things that have to come together in a short time, and this one is an order of magnitude worse than previous cups. My feeling with ETNZ is that they are going well by virtue of not having had any major setbacks - which is a tribute to their planning, design and execution (and luck). I doubt they would do as well as OR in coming back from a major disaster like the PP, simply because they don't have the resources. I don't believe that OR ever planned to launch boat 1 on day 1 and likewise have always AFAIK planned a late launch for boat 2 (presumably to take advantage of looking at the challenger's boats). However, I agree that ETNZ simply don't have the resources to recover from the major setbacks that OR have. The sheer number of people that OR have is mind boggling. I am not sure that they are all really adding value however as how many AC45 crews do you really need??? Really? The ability to significantly change your boat in response to the other boats is very limited. Say OR suddenly realise their foils are too far forward: moving them would change the distribution of forces everywhere else in the boat, not to mention wing positioning etc. To hit the weight constraints they would have to redesign or at least reassess every single structural component in the boat, and that isn't going to happen overnight. The design team would have been working against a design brief not other boats. All they can do now is refine in response to the other boats. And every team was aiming to get its boat on the water as soon as allowed - you would be stupid to pass up the very limited time on the water, particularly early on. OR missed both dates by months. I agree a total re-design is not possible. However, clearly there is some benefit to refining your boat with the hindsight of what the other teams have done. GD clearly agreed with this when he stated that they were trying to keep NZL5 under wraps and away from the prying eyes of OR et al for the longest possible time I think you will find that the boards will be in the same place as on boat 1 because the beams that left NZ a while back were straight which does not allow the boards to be placed further back