sarah0809

Artemis?

Recommended Posts

 

 

HHN mentioned the segment during NASCAR yesterday, I bet that got a ~lot~ of eyeballs - maybe the most for anything AC on US television in a very, very long time.

 

Unfortunately they showed very little of the boats and actual sailing, which is what would generate the most interest. It was all about the tracking and scoring system.

 

Even getting a segment on there is a miracle, much less worrying about what was shown. Shocked me to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AC32 had no momentum where it matters: In America.

 

 

"America" includes El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Canada, Panama, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Guatemala, Belize, Argentina, Mexico.

 

That is where the AC "matters?"

 

Are you sure?

 

There is something fundamentally wrong with the US education system.

"America" means USA. "North America" and "South America" are continents. "The Americas" means both of those continents. You can't just pretend that because there is a "North America" and a "South America" that "America" is the two put together. That would indeed make perfect sense, but it is just not the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

AC32 had no momentum where it matters: In America.

 

 

"America" includes El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Canada, Panama, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Guatemala, Belize, Argentina, Mexico.

 

That is where the AC "matters?"

 

Are you sure?

 

There is something fundamentally wrong with the US education system.

"America" means USA. "North America" and "South America" are continents. "The Americas" means both of those continents. You can't just pretend that because there is a "North America" and a "South America" that "America" is the two put together. That would indeed make perfect sense, but it is just not the way it is.

Ha. And here's me thinking North America and South America were actually joined together and therefore ONE continent.

 

Must be the cutting effect of the Panama Canal eh? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You 'Europeans' would say that though eh?

 

Eurasia is what the geographically inclined might say - and one Khan to rule them all! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

AC32 had no momentum where it matters: In America.

 

"America" includes El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Canada, Panama, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Guatemala, Belize, Argentina, Mexico.

 

That is where the AC "matters?"

 

Are you sure?

 

There is something fundamentally wrong with the US education system.

"America" means USA. "North America" and "South America" are continents. "The Americas" means both of those continents. You can't just pretend that because there is a "North America" and a "South America" that "America" is the two put together. That would indeed make perfect sense, but it is just not the way it is.
Be nice to him, Hastings has been a obscure in his posts for a while.

 

MM mentioned them a while ago to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

AC32 had no momentum where it matters: In America.

 

 

"America" includes El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Canada, Panama, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Guatemala, Belize, Argentina, Mexico.

 

That is where the AC "matters?"

 

Are you sure?

 

There is something fundamentally wrong with the US education system.

"America" means USA. "North America" and "South America" are continents. "The Americas" means both of those continents. You can't just pretend that because there is a "North America" and a "South America" that "America" is the two put together. That would indeed make perfect sense, but it is just not the way it is.
Ha. And here's me thinking North America and South America were actually joined together and therefore ONE continent.

 

Must be the cutting effect of the Panama Canal eh? :)

Or the New Zealand education system.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

AC32 had no momentum where it matters: In America.

 

"America" includes El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Canada, Panama, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Guatemala, Belize, Argentina, Mexico.

 

That is where the AC "matters?"

 

Are you sure?

 

There is something fundamentally wrong with the US education system.

"America" means USA. "North America" and "South America" are continents. "The Americas" means both of those continents. You can't just pretend that because there is a "North America" and a "South America" that "America" is the two put together. That would indeed make perfect sense, but it is just not the way it is.
Ha. And here's me thinking North America and South America were actually joined together and therefore ONE continent.

 

Must be the cutting effect of the Panama Canal eh? :)

Or the New Zealand education system.... ;)

 

I thought America was a boat! Didn't it win some big trophy a few years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love wings, but history would say anyone betting on JuanK for this one is likely on a flier to a corner that only he thinks will work.

 

Oh great prediction genie, did someone rub your head for this to come out...pretty close to reality...from over a year ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morgan Larson is sailing with TT this week, could he be joining the 72 team in the future?

 

Would be a great add to the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

via yy

 

Artemis Racing had a head start over the other two challengers, Emirates Team NZ and Luna Rossa, as they started working on the design in the fall of 2010!

 

They claim that an important factor is a very good VPP. Juan has one for monohulls, that has successfully proven itself over the years, but his brother Gonzalo had been trying, unsuccessfully, for years to develop one for multihulls and what he had for Artemis was a “joke”. It turned out “weird” numbers and Gonzalo Kouyoumdjian would be nervous to show any number at meetings with the Artemis team.

 

The second AC72 boat is currently under assembly but then again, our sources would be very surprised if she is safely or stable foiling, since practically no hydro CFD on foiling boards was done. It would have taken them months to get reliable simulations running, let alone foiling simulations.

She is after all a sistership, albeit modified, of the boat that capsized. Both our sources are sure Artemis Racing can be on the starting line, more or less a month from now, but absolutely with no hope of winning a race, unless the other team has a breakage.

 

The feeling within the team was, according to the same sources, that although Cayard might be an excellent sailor, he wasn’t a team leader. It could also be the reason why, according to the same sources, most people’s drive within the team died “a long time ago”. Cayard is “very hard to talk to”, and for sure isn’t a “listener”, according to our two sources.

 

 

http://www.vsail.info/2013/06/25/the-artemis-ac72-design-debacle-some-inside-information/?fb_source=pubv1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a very serious side note...

 

Would you sail to Hawaii on a 72' tri with hulls and beams designed by this team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a very serious side note...

 

Would you sail to Hawaii on a 72' tri with hulls and beams designed by this team?

What the fuck has trimaran got to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a very serious side note...

 

Would you sail to Hawaii on a 72' tri with hulls and beams designed by this team?

 

has someone bought their tri

 

and is that what they intend to do with it?

 

google edit

 

http://trimaranproject.blogspot.jp/2012/10/artemis-orma-trimaran-test-platform.html

 

if gino morelli is going on it

 

it should have been well gone over...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

on a very serious side note...

 

Would you sail to Hawaii on a 72' tri with hulls and beams designed by this team?

What the fuck has trimaran got to do with this?

 

Artemis bought and modified an Orma 60 for testing which one assumes from the comment is either being or going to be sailed to Hawaii...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a very serious side note...

 

Would you sail to Hawaii on a 72' tri with hulls and beams designed by this team?

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

.. and, is there a W3 ?

From the NO interview, apparently yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link found by K38BOB and posted in another thread

--

Artemis Racing: Down But Not Out

 

Published on June 25th, 2013 | by Editor

 

Australian Nathan Outteridge made his mark on the Olympic stage, dominating the 49er skiff before claiming Gold at the 2012 Games. Combined with his skills in the foiling International Moth, winning the 2011 Worlds, he became the kind of talent Americas Cup teams sought out.

contd:

http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

on a very serious side note...

 

Would you sail to Hawaii on a 72' tri with hulls and beams designed by this team?

 

Yes.

I'm pretty sure the beams are original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

The new boat was due in late May. Explain the delays.

Nathan: The accident cost us a lot of time. The new wing was due to be finished by late June, so that was always going to hold us up a bit after the accident. And because of the accident, instead of focusing on getting the new boat ready, we had to salvage the damaged boat, bring it back in the shed, and focus on the investigation. For the new boat, we needed the time to do all the structural checks that the safety committee recommended, going through all the load tests on the boat, and taking the time to reinforce any areas that need it. So the process has taken time to implement the improvements.

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out/#sthash.l5yFfV2f.dpuf

 

 

Of course Artemis is responsible for their original design failures, but we simply don't know how much of that had been solved/accounted for before the accident ever occurred, and their otherwise ability to have made the start on time with Boat 2 had the accident with Boat 1 not occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

Come off it. Artemis is a year behind ETNZ in testing a foiling AC72. A whole fucking year. Late May was already way too late. Yeah they would have made the start: totally unprepared compared to the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

Come off it. Artemis is a year behind ETNZ in testing a foiling AC72. A whole fucking year. Late May was already way too late. Yeah they would have made the start: totally unprepared compared to the competition.

 

Did I say they would be there all tuned up as well as the others? Nope. That was NOT my point.

 

I'm not claiming they are going to win it all, that they would have been all tuned up, skilled up, and equal to the other teams. I'm ONLY saying that I can see where it is reasonable to claim that the accident and the reaction to the accident by the organizers could easily represent 2-5 weeks of additional time for the team to get their boat up and sailing, and they aren't just using the tragedy to delay for their other-wise inability to be ready with the boat to sail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

NO's explanations for B2 lateness seem plausible and sincere.

 

However, AR established a performance trend starting with their modded ORMA: IIRC about four months late (expected 1st sailing 11/2011, actual 1st sailing 03/2012) followed by their wing spar failing after about ten days of sailing in moderate VLC conditions. Not sure how well B1 met build / 1st sail schedule but it doesn't sound like a textbook example of successful project management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ONLY saying that I can see where it is reasonable to claim that the accident and the reaction to the accident by the organizers could easily represent 2-5 weeks of additional time for the team to get their boat up and sailing, and they aren't just using the tragedy to delay for their other-wise inability to be ready with the boat to sail.

 

Then I'm not sure who is making the point against which you are arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed... AR can't screw around rebuilding Wing2 ... they have to finish Wing 3 before they can go on the water. That would be the primary delay from the AR1 accident.

On another note: someone needs to get up and clean that bloody StFrancis webcam!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

 

Come off it. Artemis is a year behind ETNZ in testing a foiling AC72. A whole fucking year. Late May was already way too late. Yeah they would have made the start: totally unprepared compared to the competition.

 

Did I say they would be there all tuned up as well as the others? Nope. That was NOT my point.

 

I'm not claiming they are going to win it all, that they would have been all tuned up, skilled up, and equal to the other teams. I'm ONLY saying that I can see where it is reasonable to claim that the accident and the reaction to the accident by the organizers could easily represent 2-5 weeks of additional time for the team to get their boat up and sailing, and they aren't just using the tragedy to delay for their other-wise inability to be ready with the boat to sail.

 

Why introduce logic and reasoning when the fashionable thing to do is kick them when they're down ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

The new boat was due in late May. Explain the delays.

Nathan: The accident cost us a lot of time. The new wing was due to be finished by late June, so that was always going to hold us up a bit after the accident. And because of the accident, instead of focusing on getting the new boat ready, we had to salvage the damaged boat, bring it back in the shed, and focus on the investigation. For the new boat, we needed the time to do all the structural checks that the safety committee recommended, going through all the load tests on the boat, and taking the time to reinforce any areas that need it. So the process has taken time to implement the improvements.

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out/#sthash.l5yFfV2f.dpuf

 

 

Of course Artemis is responsible for their original design failures, but we simply don't know how much of that had been solved/accounted for before the accident ever occurred, and their otherwise ability to have made the start on time with Boat 2 had the accident with Boat 1 not occurred.

They might have made the starting line but the above comment in red shows that they have found issues with B2 that needed to be reinforced. So that could have been a big issue for them anyway. If the boat is failing load test and needing to be reinforced they wouldn't have survived anyway! (IMHO) So what is the "confidence" level of B2? And if they are reinforcing it where are they REMOVING weight to compensate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they will consider strongly having the Late Mr. Andrew Simpson added also

 

America’s Cup Hall of Fame to induct three personalities in 2013:
Jewett, Robins and Simmer


San Francisco, CA/Bristol, RI – 8 May 2013. The Herreshoff Marine Museum / America’s Cup Hall of Fame today announced the identity of the next three inductees to the America's Cup Hall of Fame. All three began their America’s Cup associations within teams in the 12-Metre era, two of them subsequently became instrumental in America’s Cup event organization, two of them are still heavily involved today, and two of them have been Cup sailors as well as managers.

Established in 1992 the America’s Cup Hall of Fame celebrates and recognizes the achievements of individuals within the sport of sailing and in particular the America’s Cup competition. On a regular basis several personalities are identified by the Hall of Fame Selection Committee to be inducted. 2013 sees three more individuals chosen to join the ranks of those already inducted.

The first person to be inducted this year is an American woman. Lucy Jewett, who has been active in the America’s Cup almost continuously since 1974, becomes only the second woman to enter the Hall of Fame. The next of the three 2013 inductions is made posthumously to Australian Noel Robins, who was active over the period spanning 1977 through 1987 initially as a sailor and lastly as an organizer; the final inductee is fellow Australian Grant Simmer, who has won the America’s Cup three times over 30 years.

 

http://herreshoff.org/news/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

The new boat was due in late May. Explain the delays.

Nathan: The accident cost us a lot of time. The new wing was due to be finished by late June, so that was always going to hold us up a bit after the accident. And because of the accident, instead of focusing on getting the new boat ready, we had to salvage the damaged boat, bring it back in the shed, and focus on the investigation. For the new boat, we needed the time to do all the structural checks that the safety committee recommended, going through all the load tests on the boat, and taking the time to reinforce any areas that need it. So the process has taken time to implement the improvements.

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out/#sthash.l5yFfV2f.dpuf

 

 

Of course Artemis is responsible for their original design failures, but we simply don't know how much of that had been solved/accounted for before the accident ever occurred, and their otherwise ability to have made the start on time with Boat 2 had the accident with Boat 1 not occurred.

They might have made the starting line but the above comment in red shows that they have found issues with B2 that needed to be reinforced. So that could have been a big issue for them anyway. If the boat is failing load test and needing to be reinforced they wouldn't have survived anyway! (IMHO) So what is the "confidence" level of B2? And if they are reinforcing it where are they REMOVING weight to compensate?

 

The other effort to "cheat" under the rule is to increase the max weight by 100kg - but that seems to be largely ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

on a very serious side note...

 

Would you sail to Hawaii on a 72' tri with hulls and beams designed by this team?

Yes.

I'm pretty sure the beams are original

Right. There are now three ORMAs that have been stretched (two ex-Gitanas and the new Prince de Bretagne) and original beams are pretty much the choice pieces - in Prince's case they threw all the platform away save the beams. One set of amas was made in NZ, don't know about AR's and Prince's - but I'd guess design would have been French in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

The new boat was due in late May. Explain the delays.

Nathan: The accident cost us a lot of time. The new wing was due to be finished by late June, so that was always going to hold us up a bit after the accident. And because of the accident, instead of focusing on getting the new boat ready, we had to salvage the damaged boat, bring it back in the shed, and focus on the investigation. For the new boat, we needed the time to do all the structural checks that the safety committee recommended, going through all the load tests on the boat, and taking the time to reinforce any areas that need it. So the process has taken time to implement the improvements.

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out/#sthash.l5yFfV2f.dpuf

 

 

Of course Artemis is responsible for their original design failures, but we simply don't know how much of that had been solved/accounted for before the accident ever occurred, and their otherwise ability to have made the start on time with Boat 2 had the accident with Boat 1 not occurred.

They might have made the starting line but the above comment in red shows that they have found issues with B2 that needed to be reinforced. So that could have been a big issue for them anyway. If the boat is failing load test and needing to be reinforced they wouldn't have survived anyway! (IMHO) So what is the "confidence" level of B2? And if they are reinforcing it where are they REMOVING weight to compensate?

 

The other effort to "cheat" under the rule is to increase the max weight by 100kg - but that seems to be largely ignored.

 

Controllable rudder elevators must be heavy :)

Actually the 100 kg is just for the extr asafety gear required isn't it?

and youcan pretty much garauntee the performance change would be the same for everyone, it's only cheating if the rule is passed without majority, otherwise it's simply a negotiated rule change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

on a very serious side note...

 

Would you sail to Hawaii on a 72' tri with hulls and beams designed by this team?

Yes.

I'm pretty sure the beams are original
Right. There are now three ORMAs that have been stretched (two ex-Gitanas and the new Prince de Bretagne) and original beams are pretty much the choice pieces - in Prince's case they threw all the platform away save the beams. One set of amas was made in NZ, don't know about AR's and Prince's - but I'd guess design would have been French in any case.

Except the beam (width) of Tritium was changed to match the righting moment of the AC72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they will consider strongly having the Late Mr. Andrew Simpson added also

 

America’s Cup Hall of Fame to induct three personalities in 2013:

Jewett, Robins and Simmer

http://herreshoff.org/news/index.html

Disagree. His unnecessary loss was tragic, but that is no qualification for HoF immortality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

NO's explanations for B2 lateness seem plausible and sincere.

 

However, AR established a performance trend starting with their modded ORMA: IIRC about four months late (expected 1st sailing 11/2011, actual 1st sailing 03/2012) followed by their wing spar failing after about ten days of sailing in moderate VLC conditions. Not sure how well B1 met build / 1st sail schedule but it doesn't sound like a textbook example of successful project management.

 

Absolutely. I'm not defending Artemis as though they have been well managed. I'm only discussing the issue of whether they are only using the accident as an excuse for being late to the game, rather than if they may have otherwise been able to get Boat 2 up and running by July 4 had it not been for the accident. I tend to think they would have been able to make the line by July 4, although that is not saying a whole hell of a lot.

 

I would say AR has blown it from the Get-Go, with many issues, but, particularly taking the chance with JK as their head designer. And I would love to hear what kind of corrections they made internally and with regard to specific engineering after they broke their beam last summer, obviously that could have been a damned good indicator that they needed to make some changes FAST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

The new boat was due in late May. Explain the delays.

Nathan: The accident cost us a lot of time. The new wing was due to be finished by late June, so that was always going to hold us up a bit after the accident. And because of the accident, instead of focusing on getting the new boat ready, we had to salvage the damaged boat, bring it back in the shed, and focus on the investigation. For the new boat, we needed the time to do all the structural checks that the safety committee recommended, going through all the load tests on the boat, and taking the time to reinforce any areas that need it. So the process has taken time to implement the improvements.

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out/#sthash.l5yFfV2f.dpuf

 

 

Of course Artemis is responsible for their original design failures, but we simply don't know how much of that had been solved/accounted for before the accident ever occurred, and their otherwise ability to have made the start on time with Boat 2 had the accident with Boat 1 not occurred.

They might have made the starting line but the above comment in red shows that they have found issues with B2 that needed to be reinforced. So that could have been a big issue for them anyway. If the boat is failing load test and needing to be reinforced they wouldn't have survived anyway! (IMHO) So what is the "confidence" level of B2? And if they are reinforcing it where are they REMOVING weight to compensate?

 

Obviously, that comment is interesting. We would need more information to really understand what that means.

 

If he was referring to the beam, and they really did not do much to make sure the damned beam was sufficiently sturdy, after they had the issues with the beam last summer, then it certainly does shoot holes in their credibility. It's the damned beam, I can't think of a part of the boat that requires super-adequate construction more than the main (front) beam. But that comment does not clarify if it was the beam, or something else entirely that they needed to bolster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny that the start if the scuttlefuck story says Artemis contacted them. In can't help but think this is playback for Clean and Eds vendetta a month ago. Karma is a bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

The new boat was due in late May. Explain the delays.

Nathan: The accident cost us a lot of time. The new wing was due to be finished by late June, so that was always going to hold us up a bit after the accident. And because of the accident, instead of focusing on getting the new boat ready, we had to salvage the damaged boat, bring it back in the shed, and focus on the investigation. For the new boat, we needed the time to do all the structural checks that the safety committee recommended, going through all the load tests on the boat, and taking the time to reinforce any areas that need it. So the process has taken time to implement the improvements.

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out/#sthash.l5yFfV2f.dpuf

 

 

Of course Artemis is responsible for their original design failures, but we simply don't know how much of that had been solved/accounted for before the accident ever occurred, and their otherwise ability to have made the start on time with Boat 2 had the accident with Boat 1 not occurred.

They might have made the starting line but the above comment in red shows that they have found issues with B2 that needed to be reinforced. So that could have been a big issue for them anyway. If the boat is failing load test and needing to be reinforced they wouldn't have survived anyway! (IMHO) So what is the "confidence" level of B2? And if they are reinforcing it where are they REMOVING weight to compensate?

 

Obviously, that comment is interesting. We would need more information to really understand what that means.

 

If he was referring to the beam, and they really did not do much to make sure the damned beam was sufficiently sturdy, after they had the issues with the beam last summer, then it certainly does shoot holes in their credibility. It's the damned beam, I can't think of a part of the boat that requires super-adequate construction more than the main (front) beam. But that comment does not clarify if it was the beam, or something else entirely that they needed to bolster.

Yes, but it says that they are doing load testing and taking time to repair the areas that "need" it. So to me that says there are areas that failed the load test. Which if true means:

A) Bad design

B) Bad/faulty construction

C) Both

 

My original point was that if this is the case they would have had a very hard time making it through the racing without a failure. And now they want "extra" time to fix whatever the mistakes were in the boat. This seems very crazy to me.

 

You fuck up, you can'/t make the start then you should be done. No "excused absences" to let them catch up. Plus I still don't see how they can be competitive and SAFE with little or no time in a new FOILING AC72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny that the start if the scuttlefuck story says Artemis contacted them. In can't help but think this is playback for Clean and Eds vendetta a month ago. Karma is a bitch.

 

 

Noticed the same thing - wasn't sure if it was an error, apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When has Artemis asked for more time???
I'm pretty sure they would have just paid the fines until they realised they couldn't make the semis, which they had (like LR and NZ) automatically qualified for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

PC originally asked for the entire LVC and AC to be delayed a year while AR caught up

 

once everyone had finished laughing.....................that didn't suit anyone

 

he changed that to asking for enough time to fly the sponsor's flag around the course at some stage during the LV

 

as that suited OR and ac alphabet but not LR or etnz, the rules are being bent to accommodate them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

The new boat was due in late May. Explain the delays.

Nathan: The accident cost us a lot of time. The new wing was due to be finished by late June, so that was always going to hold us up a bit after the accident. And because of the accident, instead of focusing on getting the new boat ready, we had to salvage the damaged boat, bring it back in the shed, and focus on the investigation. For the new boat, we needed the time to do all the structural checks that the safety committee recommended, going through all the load tests on the boat, and taking the time to reinforce any areas that need it. So the process has taken time to implement the improvements.

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out/#sthash.l5yFfV2f.dpuf

 

 

Of course Artemis is responsible for their original design failures, but we simply don't know how much of that had been solved/accounted for before the accident ever occurred, and their otherwise ability to have made the start on time with Boat 2 had the accident with Boat 1 not occurred.

They might have made the starting line but the above comment in red shows that they have found issues with B2 that needed to be reinforced. So that could have been a big issue for them anyway. If the boat is failing load test and needing to be reinforced they wouldn't have survived anyway! (IMHO) So what is the "confidence" level of B2? And if they are reinforcing it where are they REMOVING weight to compensate?

 

Obviously, that comment is interesting. We would need more information to really understand what that means.

 

If he was referring to the beam, and they really did not do much to make sure the damned beam was sufficiently sturdy, after they had the issues with the beam last summer, then it certainly does shoot holes in their credibility. It's the damned beam, I can't think of a part of the boat that requires super-adequate construction more than the main (front) beam. But that comment does not clarify if it was the beam, or something else entirely that they needed to bolster.

Yes, but it says that they are doing load testing and taking time to repair the areas that "need" it. So to me that says there are areas that failed the load test. Which if true means:

A) Bad design

B) Bad/faulty construction

C) Both

 

My original point was that if this is the case they would have had a very hard time making it through the racing without a failure. And now they want "extra" time to fix whatever the mistakes were in the boat. This seems very crazy to me.

 

You fuck up, you can'/t make the start then you should be done. No "excused absences" to let them catch up. Plus I still don't see how they can be competitive and SAFE with little or no time in a new FOILING AC72.

 

With the supposed concern around safety. I can't believe they are still accommodating AR? This new boat will be at best a last minute patch up of another dangerous boat. Sailed by a crew with currently no experience foiling an AC72. If this is not a safety issue, what is :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but it says that they are doing load testing and taking time to repair the areas that "need" it. So to me that says there are areas that failed the load test. Which if true means:

A) Bad design

B) Bad/faulty construction

C) Both

.

It's C. . . . Both construction and design problems.

 

And yes, they had very clear indications of both long before the accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news on the progress of the Blue Boat?

 

Last I heard they were assembling it and hope to have some load testing soon!

 

I would imagine they will be careful during load testing and fully check everything so that in itself could take 4 or 5 days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

⇧ Oh look its another day of AR not sailing an AC72...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

For those bitching, whining, shit-slingers that keep saying the Artemis inability to make the schedule is entirely related to their design team, or their bad planning, and that the accident is being used as an excuse, NO explains some of how the accident not only reflects that the original design was bad, but that it has resulted in delays that would have otherwise not been present had it not been for the accident, where Boat 2 very likely would have otherwise been able to make the start:

 

They might have made the starting line but the above comment in red shows that they have found issues with B2 that needed to be reinforced. So that could have been a big issue for them anyway. If the boat is failing load test and needing to be reinforced they wouldn't have survived anyway! (IMHO) So what is the "confidence" level of B2? And if they are reinforcing it where are they REMOVING weight to compensate?

 

Obviously, that comment is interesting. We would need more information to really understand what that means.

 

If he was referring to the beam, and they really did not do much to make sure the damned beam was sufficiently sturdy, after they had the issues with the beam last summer, then it certainly does shoot holes in their credibility. It's the damned beam, I can't think of a part of the boat that requires super-adequate construction more than the main (front) beam. But that comment does not clarify if it was the beam, or something else entirely that they needed to bolster.

Yes, but it says that they are doing load testing and taking time to repair the areas that "need" it. So to me that says there are areas that failed the load test. Which if true means:

A) Bad design

B) Bad/faulty construction

C) Both

 

My original point was that if this is the case they would have had a very hard time making it through the racing without a failure. And now they want "extra" time to fix whatever the mistakes were in the boat. This seems very crazy to me.

 

You fuck up, you can'/t make the start then you should be done. No "excused absences" to let them catch up. Plus I still don't see how they can be competitive and SAFE with little or no time in a new FOILING AC72.

 

With the supposed concern around safety. I can't believe they are still accommodating AR? This new boat will be at best a last minute patch up of another dangerous boat.

 

 

We dont know that do we? We have no idea what is going on. We dont know the difference between boat one and two. We dont know what was reinforced originally on bout 2 and how much. We dont know what that is been reinforced on boat 2 now. We dont even know what happened to big red? Did the beam actually break first or whas it a result of another failure. It might have been as simple as a breakage of one of the cables/wires under the boat that broke, whatever they are called that resulted in a total failure. We are not in the position to make any statement about this at all as we have no information at all. We can just speculate and make up rumers and if we tell the rumers over and over again they replace the truth independent if thay are correct or not.

 

I can agree that from a sailing point of view they might not be safe but that is totaly different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, but it says that they are doing load testing and taking time to repair the areas that "need" it. So to me that says there are areas that failed the load test. Which if true means:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously, that comment is interesting. We would need more information to really understand what that means.

 

If he was referring to the beam, and they really did not do much to make sure the damned beam was sufficiently sturdy, after they had the issues with the beam last summer, then it certainly does shoot holes in their credibility. It's the damned beam, I can't think of a part of the boat that requires super-adequate construction more than the main (front) beam. But that comment does not clarify if it was the beam, or something else entirely that they needed to bolster.

A) Bad design

B) Bad/faulty construction

C) Both

 

My original point was that if this is the case they would have had a very hard time making it through the racing without a failure. And now they want "extra" time to fix whatever the mistakes were in the boat. This seems very crazy to me.

 

You fuck up, you can'/t make the start then you should be done. No "excused absences" to let them catch up. Plus I still don't see how they can be competitive and SAFE with little or no time in a new FOILING AC72.

 

With the supposed concern around safety. I can't believe they are still accommodating AR? This new boat will be at best a last minute patch up of another dangerous boat.

 

 

We dont know that do we? We have no idea what is going on. We dont know the difference between boat one and two. We dont know what was reinforced originally on bout 2 and how much. We dont know what that is been reinforced on boat 2 now. We dont even know what happened to big red? Did the beam actually break first or whas it a result of another failure. It might have been as simple as a breakage of one of the cables/wires under the boat that broke, whatever they are called that resulted in a total failure. We are not in the position to make any statement about this at all as we have no information at all. We can just speculate and make up rumers and if we tell the rumers over and over again they replace the truth independent if thay are correct or not.

 

I can agree that from a sailing point of view they might not be safe but that is totaly different thing.

 

Okay so putting aside 'speculation' for a moment

 

We do know...

 

1. AR1 had structural issues during initial testing that had to be reinforced.

 

2. AR1 was a complete structural failure.

 

3. After a safety assessment for AR2 it is also having to have structural reinforcing done.

 

See a pattern?

 

Given the wind and water state conditions it was sailing in at the time of the accident. I don't think it is wild speculation that the basic design of the AR boats have serious flaws.

The idea of a single cable breaking causing this catastrophe is plausible. But only if you accept that the initial designs did not have enough structural redundancy built into them (a basic engineering premise).

If that is the case, it simply reinforces the fact that they are potentially too dangerous to be on the water. For all concerned.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next week is early July... time for AR to get their shit together and get back in this thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

We dont know that do we? We have no idea what is going on. We dont know the difference between boat one and two. We dont know what was reinforced originally on bout 2 and how much. We dont know what that is been reinforced on boat 2 now. We dont even know what happened to big red? Did the beam actually break first or whas it a result of another failure. It might have been as simple as a breakage of one of the cables/wires under the boat that broke, whatever they are called that resulted in a total failure. We are not in the position to make any statement about this at all as we have no information at all. We can just speculate and make up rumers and if we tell the rumers over and over again they replace the truth independent if thay are correct or not.

 

I can agree that from a sailing point of view they might not be safe but that is totaly different thing.

 

Okay so putting aside 'speculation' for a moment

 

We do know...

 

1. AR1 had structural issues during initial testing that had to be reinforced.

 

2. AR1 was a complete structural failure.

 

3. After a safety assessment for AR2 it is also having to have structural reinforcing done.

 

See a pattern?

 

Given the wind and water state conditions it was sailing in at the time of the accident. I don't think it is wild speculation that the basic design of the AR boats have serious flaws.

The idea of a single cable breaking causing this catastrophe is plausible. But only if you accept that the initial designs did not have enough structural redundancy built into them (a basic engineering premise).

If that is the case, it simply reinforces the fact that they are potentially too dangerous to be on the water. For all concerned.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)

 

 

I know what you mean but saying that just because it is artemis it has to be unsafe and bad is not correct. We are dealing with prototypes here. Prototypes breaks and things goes wrong. You learn by doing. If it never breaks it is to strong and to heavy and should be lightened as you would gain performance by do it lighter. Did not the big team with the lawyers snap a foil on day one and stuffed it badly on day 8. How bad is that? Prototypes are prototypes. If you start from square 1 it is always a chance that you go in the wrong direction ending up in the wrong corner . Artemis did and so did OR too just not as bad. ETNZ did not. LR were lucky to buy from the from the right team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

We dont know that do we? We have no idea what is going on. We dont know the difference between boat one and two. We dont know what was reinforced originally on bout 2 and how much. We dont know what that is been reinforced on boat 2 now. We dont even know what happened to big red? Did the beam actually break first or whas it a result of another failure. It might have been as simple as a breakage of one of the cables/wires under the boat that broke, whatever they are called that resulted in a total failure. We are not in the position to make any statement about this at all as we have no information at all. We can just speculate and make up rumers and if we tell the rumers over and over again they replace the truth independent if thay are correct or not.

 

I can agree that from a sailing point of view they might not be safe but that is totaly different thing.

 

Okay so putting aside 'speculation' for a moment

 

We do know...

 

1. AR1 had structural issues during initial testing that had to be reinforced.

 

2. AR1 was a complete structural failure.

 

3. After a safety assessment for AR2 it is also having to have structural reinforcing done.

 

See a pattern?

 

Given the wind and water state conditions it was sailing in at the time of the accident. I don't think it is wild speculation that the basic design of the AR boats have serious flaws.

The idea of a single cable breaking causing this catastrophe is plausible. But only if you accept that the initial designs did not have enough structural redundancy built into them (a basic engineering premise).

If that is the case, it simply reinforces the fact that they are potentially too dangerous to be on the water. For all concerned.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)

 

 

I know what you mean but saying that just because it is artemis it has to be unsafe and bad is not correct. We are dealing with prototypes here. Prototypes breaks and things goes wrong. You learn by doing. If it never breaks it is to strong and to heavy and should be lightened as you would gain performance by do it lighter. Did not the big team with the lawyers snap a foil on day one and stuffed it badly on day 8. How bad is that? Prototypes are prototypes. If you start from square 1 it is always a chance that you go in the wrong direction ending up in the wrong corner . Artemis did and so did OR too just not as bad. ETNZ did not. LR were lucky to buy from the from the right team.

 

Yes prototypes they are. Yes things break. But Artemis has had more than one major structural failure. Not only to the boat but also including major structural failure to their wing.

 

"Reports are that the mast suffered a major failure related to structural design and not just a simpler component failure"

 

http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-2013-ac72-catamarans.php

 

This points to systemic inadequacies in their design process as a whole and under engineering of the main components.

With the design curve you move from designing for performance and then move to refining the design for reliability. Artemis has not even reached to first step of this.

They are simply playing with their crews lives to continue to push ahead with an untried and untested boat. They have basically no time to test or tune, so as to understand if the boat will fall apart or perhaps more importantly how far they can safely push their design (remember non of these guys have yet ever crewed on a foiling AC72). This is completely unknown to them and is simply irresponsible to send the crew out on a high pressure race course under these circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes prototypes they are. Yes things break. But Artemis has had more than one major structural failure. Not only to the boat but also including major structural failure to their wing.

 

{snip}

 

This points to systemic inadequacies in their design process as a whole and under engineering of the main components.

 

{snip}

 

Their design was fine (for San Diego) apparently....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's the investigation coming on the accident ?

 

I don't believe I'm doing this but... +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How's the investigation coming on the accident ?

 

I don't believe I'm doing this but... +1

 

Seems the pigeon chaser is all over exclusives, so he should have something to report by now - maybe an exclusive interview from Cayard or

Peyron just for SA.

 

Could be happening right now for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next week is early July... time for AR to get their shit together and get back in this thing.

 

Have they ever really been in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How's the investigation coming on the accident ?

 

I don't believe I'm doing this but... +1

 

Per Cayard testing the hull will take 3 to 6 days - should be done in a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How's the investigation coming on the accident ?

 

I don't believe I'm doing this but... +1

 

Per Cayard testing the hull will take 3 to 6 days - should be done in a week.

 

Interesting that some critical highly debated and sought after details of the accident are out yet not reported here. All we have is MSP's lame USCG report.

 

Guess everyone's obsessed with ruddergate :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2 of the ScuttleButt interview with NO is out. (halfway down the page)

http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/06/25/artemis-racing-down-but-not-out/

One of the great quotes from Nathan in this pretty terrific interview:

 

 

"What they are trying to achieve is amazing. To have fast, exciting boats in this windy venue of San Francisco, creating a course that is accessible for spectators yet offer great racing, was nearly perfect. The most disappointing aspect of the plan is that the AC72 does not fit the venue. It is an extremely overpowered boat in 15 knots, let alone in 30 knots. But we'll get through this, it will be a tremendous show, and the lessons learned will make the next Americas Cup that much better."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AR sent their AC45s out again today.

Looked like they were practicing the reaching start.

 

DSC_1285_zps0e04e906.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite a piece. Posted yet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/sports/despite-fatal-training-accident-artemis-moves-forward.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Excerpt:

 

The accident was a classic capsize situation, said Loick Peyron, one of the teams two helmsmen. He confirmed that the yacht capsized, as has been reported, while the Artemis crew was executing a bear-away maneuver: a downwind turn away from the breeze that has been a particular challenge in this class of Cup boats.

 

There was a bit too much wind, and the boat itself in our case didnt have enough lifting force from the foil or from the dagger boards, and thats why all the bear-aways since the beginning were quite tricky, Peyron said.

 

Peyron, a 53-year-old from France who is one of the most experienced and successful multihull sailors in history, was, unusually, not on board but was following closely in a chase boat. He said the yacht pitch-poled a term used when a multihulls bows dig into the water and the stern flips up and over the bows. Peyron said that, contrary to some reports, the boat did not break before it capsized.

 

We read a lot of false stories about that, he said. The boat breaks after, or should I say during, but the capsize was already on its way. After that for sure what is unacceptable is that the boat broke.

 

Asked if Simpsons problems were a result of the boat breaking up, Peyron said, Yes, exactly.

 

Thats the worst case for sure, Peyron said. Because he was trapped not under the net but between the beams and the wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they could release the videos to quell the speculation. Would the Coast Guard or Police have such video. Maybe another MSP FOIA request can get hold of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How's the investigation coming on the accident ?

 

I don't believe I'm doing this but... +1

 

Per Cayard testing the hull will take 3 to 6 days - should be done in a week.

 

Interesting that some critical highly debated and sought after details of the accident are out yet not reported here. All we have is MSP's lame USCG report.

 

Guess everyone's obsessed with ruddergate :)

Like you could resist bringing us 'the scoop'. Troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they could release the videos to quell the speculation. Would the Coast Guard or Police have such video. Maybe another MSP FOIA request can get hold of them.

SSB

 

we did a CPRA - state law equivalent to FED FOIA [part 2 fed uscg foia is on its way -should have videos fotos etc ]

 

on SFPD -that CPRA was done and sfpd legal dept replied to me that the sfpd criminal investigation was on going so its

 

still temporarily exempt from CPRA but they said when they were done with crim investigation

 

they would grant the CPRA to us

 

and yes I requested all content of those records including all videos and fotos

 

and SA will have exclusive release of that too

 

cheers

 

btw best caption is your ''trapeze line is too long ..'' post :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Cayard testing the hull will take 3 to 6 days - should be done in a week.

 

I'm hoping they mean in the water testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite a piece. Posted yet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/sports/despite-fatal-training-accident-artemis-moves-forward.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Excerpt:

 

The accident was a classic capsize situation, said Loick Peyron, one of the teams two helmsmen. He confirmed that the yacht capsized, as has been reported, while the Artemis crew was executing a bear-away maneuver: a downwind turn away from the breeze that has been a particular challenge in this class of Cup boats.

 

There was a bit too much wind, and the boat itself in our case didnt have enough lifting force from the foil or from the dagger boards, and thats why all the bear-aways since the beginning were quite tricky, Peyron said.

 

Peyron, a 53-year-old from France who is one of the most experienced and successful multihull sailors in history, was, unusually, not on board but was following closely in a chase boat. He said the yacht pitch-poled a term used when a multihulls bows dig into the water and the stern flips up and over the bows. Peyron said that, contrary to some reports, the boat did not break before it capsized.

 

We read a lot of false stories about that, he said. The boat breaks after, or should I say during, but the capsize was already on its way. After that for sure what is unacceptable is that the boat broke.

 

Asked if Simpsons problems were a result of the boat breaking up, Peyron said, Yes, exactly.

 

Thats the worst case for sure, Peyron said. Because he was trapped not under the net but between the beams and the wing.

 

Glad someone finally came up with this. Interesting first hand information casts aside the mountains of speculative nonsense here in one simple article.

 

I guess the fashionable issue to bitch about is ruddergate and OR cheating. How could they do such a thing in the name of safety ?

 

Some here will learn before long. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is quite a piece. Posted yet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/sports/despite-fatal-training-accident-artemis-moves-forward.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Excerpt:

 

The accident was a classic capsize situation, said Loick Peyron, one of the teams two helmsmen. He confirmed that the yacht capsized, as has been reported, while the Artemis crew was executing a bear-away maneuver: a downwind turn away from the breeze that has been a particular challenge in this class of Cup boats.

 

There was a bit too much wind, and the boat itself in our case didnt have enough lifting force from the foil or from the dagger boards, and thats why all the bear-aways since the beginning were quite tricky, Peyron said.

 

Peyron, a 53-year-old from France who is one of the most experienced and successful multihull sailors in history, was, unusually, not on board but was following closely in a chase boat. He said the yacht pitch-poled a term used when a multihulls bows dig into the water and the stern flips up and over the bows. Peyron said that, contrary to some reports, the boat did not break before it capsized.

 

We read a lot of false stories about that, he said. The boat breaks after, or should I say during, but the capsize was already on its way. After that for sure what is unacceptable is that the boat broke.

 

Asked if Simpsons problems were a result of the boat breaking up, Peyron said, Yes, exactly.

 

Thats the worst case for sure, Peyron said. Because he was trapped not under the net but between the beams and the wing.

 

Glad someone finally came up with this. Interesting first hand information casts aside the mountains of speculative nonsense here in one simple article.

 

I guess the fashionable issue to bitch about is ruddergate and OR cheating. How could they do such a thing in the name of safety ?

 

Some here will learn before long. :)

If you can't explain why the ruddergate is link to safety and not speed, perhaps you should STFU ? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How's the investigation coming on the accident ?

 

I don't believe I'm doing this but... +1

 

Per Cayard testing the hull will take 3 to 6 days - should be done in a week.

 

Interesting that some critical highly debated and sought after details of the accident are out yet not reported here. All we have is MSP's lame USCG report.

 

Guess everyone's obsessed with ruddergate :)

Like you could resist bringing us 'the scoop'. Troll

 

You can always go back and read the MSP SA Admiral Clean approved World Wide Intergalactic Exclusive America's Cup Trust specially Watermarked USCG FOIA confidential serialized signature proprietary report that doesn't say shit. :)

 

I simply provided the scoop that matters most to this event. Ungrateful ? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite a piece. Posted yet?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/sports/despite-fatal-training-accident-artemis-moves-forward.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Excerpt:

 

The accident was a classic capsize situation, said Loick Peyron, one of the teams two helmsmen. He confirmed that the yacht capsized, as has been reported, while the Artemis crew was executing a bear-away maneuver: a downwind turn away from the breeze that has been a particular challenge in this class of Cup boats.

 

There was a bit too much wind, and the boat itself in our case didnt have enough lifting force from the foil or from the dagger boards, and thats why all the bear-aways since the beginning were quite tricky, Peyron said.

 

Peyron, a 53-year-old from France who is one of the most experienced and successful multihull sailors in history, was, unusually, not on board but was following closely in a chase boat. He said the yacht pitch-poled a term used when a multihulls bows dig into the water and the stern flips up and over the bows. Peyron said that, contrary to some reports, the boat did not break before it capsized.

 

We read a lot of false stories about that, he said. The boat breaks after, or should I say during, but the capsize was already on its way. After that for sure what is unacceptable is that the boat broke.

 

Asked if Simpsons problems were a result of the boat breaking up, Peyron said, Yes, exactly.

 

Thats the worst case for sure, Peyron said. Because he was trapped not under the net but between the beams and the wing.

 

 

Great piece with lots of detail right from the source... Now I have to admit that my initial take on the accident was wrong, the original event was a pp, not structural failure.

 

Both LP and PC sound like they're ready to move on and give it the best shot they can from the situation they find themselves in, knowing very well where they're coming from.

 

Good on them, hope they get at least some positive results on the water!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so instead of

 

something broke, boat fell apart, bart died

 

it was

 

bad bearaway, bows dug in, boat broke, bart died

 

poor helming decision like jimmy's with the or17 pp?

 

not sure it makes much difference at this stage

 

i don't think the value they offer the event by parading around the course is enough to offset the safety risk they pose to themselves and others who are seriously racing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both capzsizes were boats with tillers.

I was surprised AR did not retrofit with wheels when they went in the shed after ORs pp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both capzsizes were boats with tillers.

I was surprised AR did not retrofit with wheels when they went in the shed after ORs pp.

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting

 

from the ny article

 

Peyron said he believed part of the problem with Artemis’s first Cup boat was that “the shape of the beam itself was not exactly the best one and the easiest one to calculate, and that’s not a matter of building, because it was well built.”

 

Peyron said the French structural engineer Herve Devaux had been working intensely on updating and safety-proofing the new boats. “Right now we’re adding a lot of lamination on the beams and everywhere to really match with a lot higher safety factor,” Peyron said.

 

is this part of the new 100kg extra weight allowance being asked for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article, but I don't see why Artemis can't just make announcements to avoid all this confusion. If the boat nose-dived, started to capsize and then broke apart during the capsize then why not say this straight after the event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article, but I don't see why Artemis can't just make announcements to avoid all this confusion. If the boat nose-dived, started to capsize and then broke apart during the capsize then why not say this straight after the event?

^^ everyone is thinking that!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites