Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sarah0809

Artemis?

Recommended Posts

if they had used T rudders instead of + rudders

 

the-artemis-racing-ac72-catamaran-lies-c

 

the foils wouldn't have broken water and lost lift so early in the bows stuff

 

have they even tried T rudders?

 

if not, how do they suddenly know exactly what rudders they need now, without testing on the water?

 

let them launch their boat and try some standard T rudders before they wreck the "rule" on an experiment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STOP (er please, didn't mean to shout). It is not about the rudders. LP points to the lift foils, but even this is one a small part of the story. The boat broke, when it should not have, regardless of its state of capsizedness or pitchpoledness. A cat that can't survive a knockdown is like a ... mono that cannot survive a knockdown. Everybody can get worked up about OR boat 1 now, but the boat was intact for a good long time.

 

LP was very clear on why Bart got into ultimately deadly trouble. Because the boat broke. I quote "yes, exactly" LP points to design/engineering/simulation/choices and NOT to build. I won't judge.

 

Adjusting elevators UP TO THE WARNING is not going to make a difference AFTER the warning. Let's not even start with symmetry, and area rules. For all of these reasons, despite being a Yank and an OR supporter, I have to say they are fiddling with the rules for faux safety, to gain ground. This is performance, even if there is a small potential difference in setting the stabilizer at the warning as opposed to at the dock.

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?

 

The fact that the boat pitchpoled and only broke apart as a result of that sheds some potential light on the motivations behind the rudder recommendations.

Exactly.

^^^ Please explain. :)
The cause of everything that followed was that the boat pitchpoled. Everything said by IM and others indicate the rudders measure is the most effective way to prevent pp's. Well, short of doing what OR proposed - which was to allow continuous adjustment of them. It's at least a good step in that direction.

.

More delusion Stingray. GS quite clearly ranted that the rudder changes were for pitch pole safety during a bear away and it was their idea and in the name of safety. You buy into hook line and sinker.

Then JS says its mainly for testing efficiency. You buy into it hook line and sinker.

 

Keep it up Stingers, OTANZAC need all the support they can get in these tough times.

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?

The fact that the boat pitchpoled and only broke apart as a result of that sheds some potential light on the motivations behind the rudder recommendations.

Exactly.

^^^ Please explain. :)

The cause of everything that followed was that the boat pitchpoled. Everything said by IM and others indicate the rudders measure is the most effective way to prevent pp's. Well, short of doing what OR proposed - which was to allow continuous adjustment of them. It's at least a good step in that direction.

 

The minimum size is necessary, since if you simply legislate that you must have winglets then AR (or I suppose anyone) could show up with just token ones - rendering the point of it moot.

^^ Stil waiting for a logical explanation.

Rudders have nothing to do with PP, excepted if they are too short (which is not the case) or if they have a negative AoA.

 

Fact is that AC72 rudders foils give lift which helps for speed and MAINLY to have fast gybes but does help for security.

 

Amazing the load of BS that some recognized AC people can spill....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Stil waiting for a logical explanation.

Rudders have nothing to do with PP, excepted if they are too short (which is not the case) or if they have a negative AoA.

 

Fact is that AC72 rudders foils give lift which helps for speed and MAINLY to have fast gybes but does help for security.

 

Amazing the load of BS that some recognized AC people can spill....

Ian Murray's words:

 

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any team that my recommendation will not enhance control and thus safety during racing. What I have heard is that this recommendation will make the boats easier to control and more stable.

 

This is a safety issue, pure and simple. Deeper, submerged rudders, with bigger elevators and control surfaces fixed at the most appropriate angle of attack for the conditions simply make the boats safer."

 

You can call it BS if you wish, but that is the rationale. Is more control over the boat some insurance against a pitch-pole? I would imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone on the ground have an update on what is happening at the AR base?

 

It would be really good to know where they are.

 

Despite all the talk (+/-) we all want AR on the water lining up with the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^^ Stil waiting for a logical explanation.

Rudders have nothing to do with PP, excepted if they are too short (which is not the case) or if they have a negative AoA.

 

Fact is that AC72 rudders foils give lift which helps for speed and MAINLY to have fast gybes but does help for security.

 

Amazing the load of BS that some recognized AC people can spill....

Ian Murray's words:

 

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any team that my recommendation will not enhance control and thus safety during racing. What I have heard is that this recommendation will make the boats easier to control and more stable.

 

This is a safety issue, pure and simple. Deeper, submerged rudders, with bigger elevators and control surfaces fixed at the most appropriate angle of attack for the conditions simply make the boats safer."

 

You can call it BS if you wish, but that is the rationale. Is more control over the boat some insurance against a pitch-pole? I would imagine.

This is pure BS and I am still waiting to get a rational answer other than "IM said so"

 

IM mixes different concepts, on purpose ?

 

1) Deeper = submerged = safer. We agree but not a problem now, neither the subject of our discussion

2) bigger elevator = more tendency to PP as they procure more lift, thus a possibility to pp is too much lift from the rudder vs the foil

3) controlling the AoA can only increase security if controlled during the race which is out of question.

 

Fact is that OR probably needs more lift from the rudder as their foil is not as aft as TNZ.

Mainly, as explain by hump 101, they have a narrower range of wind.

 

Possibly, OR would have liked to get more control to go faster.

 

Now, if they want to set their rudder foil with too much positive AoA and the wind changes, that is their problem...

 

BTW' I am still waiting for a rational answer ... :)

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!

 

 

Yes a very solid article in a good newspaper.

 

Good to see Artemis returning to the PR fray and taking a conservative stance.

 

Even disclosed that "two or three" team members have departed.

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!

 

 

Yes a very solid article in a good newspaper.

 

Good to see Artemis returning to the PR fray and taking a conservative stance.

 

Even disclosed that "two or three" team members have departed.

 

Glad to see them pushing ahead, as well as the fact that grumpy's unsportsmanlike recommendation to pull the elimination series into July got stiff-armed.

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.

 

 

This is going to really disappoint a lot of the resident " experts ".

 

Of course there will be those that cling to their theories and claim yet another long time sailing pro has suddenly resorted to becoming a big liar after decades of no such claims against them.

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.

 

 

This is going to really disappoint a lot of the resident " experts ".

 

Of course there will be those that cling to their theories and claim yet another long time sailing pro has suddenly resorted to becoming a big liar after decades of no such claims against them.

 

Interesting that there was "a bit too much wind" for a boat designed to be able to race in 33 knots... how windy was it that day? didn't someone say 11-17 knots?

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.

 

 

This is going to really disappoint a lot of the resident " experts ".

 

Of course there will be those that cling to their theories and claim yet another long time sailing pro has suddenly resorted to becoming a big liar after decades of no such claims against them.

 

Interesting that there was "a bit too much wind" for a boat designed to be able to race in 33 knots... how windy was it that day? didn't someone say 11-17 knots?

 

Personally I think it would be very fruitful to get into a deep discussion about the specific conditions at the time, simply because the boat no longer exists and the incident will likely never be recreated. Any other brilliant ideas ?

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.

 

 

This is going to really disappoint a lot of the resident " experts ".

 

Of course there will be those that cling to their theories and claim yet another long time sailing pro has suddenly resorted to becoming a big liar after decades of no such claims against them.

 

Interesting that there was "a bit too much wind" for a boat designed to be able to race in 33 knots... how windy was it that day? didn't someone say 11-17 knots?

 

Personally I think it would be very fruitful to get into a deep discussion about the specific conditions at the time, simply because the boat no longer exists and the incident will likely never be recreated. Any other brilliant ideas ?

 

You think this will be the last large multihull to break up? it certainly isn't the first...

The conditions and the design and build of the boat in question are pretty vital if you want to prevent a repeat incident in the future, most especially considering it didn't appear to be particularly adverse conditions they were sailing in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quit while you are in front Doug. Anyone with credibility to do with yacht design and or engineering is not welcome in this sight.

You nailed it, but no body is listening

STOP (er please, didn't mean to shout). It is not about the rudders. LP points to the lift foils, but even this is one a small part of the story. The boat broke, when it should not have, regardless of its state of capsizedness or pitchpoledness. A cat that can't survive a knockdown is like a ... mono that cannot survive a knockdown. Everybody can get worked up about OR boat 1 now, but the boat was intact for a good long time.

 

LP was very clear on why Bart got into ultimately deadly trouble. Because the boat broke. I quote "yes, exactly" LP points to design/engineering/simulation/choices and NOT to build. I won't judge.

 

Adjusting elevators UP TO THE WARNING is not going to make a difference AFTER the warning. Let's not even start with symmetry, and area rules. For all of these reasons, despite being a Yank and an OR supporter, I have to say they are fiddling with the rules for faux safety, to gain ground. This is performance, even if there is a small potential difference in setting the stabilizer at the warning as opposed to at the dock.

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!

 

Yes a very solid article in a good newspaper.

 

Good to see Artemis returning to the PR fray and taking a conservative stance.

 

Even disclosed that "two or three" team members have departed.

Glad to see them pushing ahead, as well as the fact that grumpy's unsportsmanlike recommendation to pull the elimination series into July got stiff-armed.

Im also glad that artemis unsportsmen like 1 year delay proposal was also stiff armed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the boat pitchpoled

IIRC NO was adamant that the breakage came first whereas LP is saying the opposite. Doubtless both believe what they are saying but "facts" remain hard to discern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact that the boat pitchpoled

IIRC NO was adamant that the breakage came first whereas LP is saying the opposite. Doubtless both believe what they are saying but "facts" remain hard to discern.

News to me. I never saw anything from NO directly saying the boat broke first. I know that was the theory around here to start, but (as Clean will remind you) there was impressive radio silence coming out of Artemis after the accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

There was an early interview with NO, before the shutters came down, and my recollection is that is what he said. Something broke then crash. He didn't say what broke. Everyone assumes the beam but he didn't say that. 'Fraid I'm not motivated enough to search for the link.

 

Thanks, incidentally, for your comments elsewhere on LR's position if they go the court-room route. Pretty much what I'd have expected but interesting to hear confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

There was an early interview with NO, before the shutters came down, and my recollection is that is what he said. Something broke then crash. He didn't say what broke. Everyone assumes the beam but he didn't say that. 'Fraid I'm not motivated enough to search for the link.

 

Thanks, incidentally, for your comments elsewhere on LR's position if they go the court-room route. Pretty much what I'd have expected but interesting to hear confirmed.

 

Wasn't this a quote by NO's father?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

As I recall it was directly from NO. I remember the comments from his father too. Two different pieces and interviews.

 

I'm really not going to spend my afternoon searching for the links though! Got to get some things done so I can sail tomorrow.

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!

 

Yes a very solid article in a good newspaper.

 

Good to see Artemis returning to the PR fray and taking a conservative stance.

 

Even disclosed that "two or three" team members have departed.

Glad to see them pushing ahead, as well as the fact that grumpy's unsportsmanlike recommendation to pull the elimination series into July got stiff-armed.

Im also glad that artemis unsportsmen like 1 year delay proposal was also stiff armed

 

Me too, wonder which one was made first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact that the boat pitchpoled

IIRC NO was adamant that the breakage came first whereas LP is saying the opposite. Doubtless both believe what they are saying but "facts" remain hard to discern.

What is amazing is that so basic facts were hidden by AR.

One have to wonder why people are so suspicious about them new.

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?

The fact that the boat pitchpoled and only broke apart as a result of that sheds some potential light on the motivations behind the rudder recommendations.

 

That's not what he indicates...

 

or should I say during, but the capsize was already on its way

 

A capsize without total collapse is obviously a much more survivable event: refSPINDRIFT2_2597852b.jpg

 

and a 'bows under' may not even have led to a full PP/capsize had the platform not broken up, (and in this grey area lies the the explanation for the different emphasis by NO and LP perhaps).

 

Are they modifying the rudders though? Maybe, but only after they finish laying extra carbon on their under-spec'ed beam!

 

 

- what is unacceptable is that the boat broke.”

 

- Asked if Simpson’s problems (entrapment, head trauma and death are quite a serious 'problems'!?) were a result of the boat breaking up, Peyron said, “Yes, exactly.”

 

- ...we lost a friend because of a structure failure (sic)

 

 

And what does LP blame the initiation of the incident on in the article? The rudders? No... the boat itself in our case didn’t have enough lifting force from the foil or from the dagger boards

 

So apart form LP saying the build was ok, there is nothing much new there, nothing to excuse a standard part of multihull sailing becoming a lethal accident, or to justify crazy 'Rule #37 imo.

 

One new thing is PC now allowing 100% creep on his timing projections 3 (or maybe 6) days :lol:, but he comes across as very shifty in his comments. I.e. 'NO was in a position of responsibility'? 'PC spent time with him' etc. NO is not the one ultimately responsible for the Team and certainly not for the chain of decisions that led to the platform collapse!

 

Q. Was AR following the 'safety recommendations' (informal sure) that followed the (17) crash?

 

Do changes to the rules/practises make any real sense, if you allow and even expect the boats to be out of certifiable condition most of the time they are on the water? Window dressing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think sequence of events is important to any lawsuits present or pending.

It's possible LP is quoting the AR party line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like from what LP says, that Artemis is adding weight to their boat. I wonder the extent to which they are reliant on the current 'safety' recommendation allowing extra weight for structural purposes? You would expect that they would have built underweight to allow for additions, and therefore may be OK. However given their record, and given how tight the rule is, I wouldn't bet on it. It will be interesting to see what the boat looks like (eg fairings, other non essentials removed??) when/if it comes out of the shed.

 

I said a month ago that I doubt the boat will even make the water, let alone race. I was hopeful of being proven wrong given the team talk over the last few weeks, but it will be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of one local news crew going on alert in the event of an AR splash tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of one local news crew going on alert in the event of an AR splach tomorrow.

 

Good input - sounds like they may have passed the 3 to 6 days of load testing in the shed.

 

Should they do well against ET - a challenge I admit, we may have to put Jasper on suicide watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know of one local news crew going on alert in the event of an AR splach tomorrow.

 

Good input - sounds like they may have passed the 3 to 6 days of load testing in the shed.

 

Should they do well against ET - a challenge I admit, we may have to put Jasper on suicide watch.

 

Same old bollocks SWS.

Rather than deal with the facts as they are presented to you, you dish out crap.

 

AR will not do well, even if they can make it safely to the line.

This is NOT what I want (I prefer a strong workup for ETNZ), but rather is something that could be easily predicted (as I did) from about October last year.

 

Despite the avalanche of evidence available, you however chose to troll by suggesting they were a strong team that could take out the LVC.

Even now, you choose to persist in this folly.

 

Tell me, when does your Mea Culpa come to pass?

Or does than not factor in your personality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I know of one local news crew going on alert in the event of an AR splach tomorrow.

 

Good input - sounds like they may have passed the 3 to 6 days of load testing in the shed.

 

Should they do well against ET - a challenge I admit, we may have to put Jasper on suicide watch.

 

Same old bollocks SWS.

Rather than deal with the facts as they are presented to you, you dish out crap.

 

AR will not do well, even if they can make it safely to the line.

This is NOT what I want (I prefer a strong workup for ETNZ), but rather is something that could be easily predicted (as I did) from about October last year.

 

Despite the avalanche of evidence available, you however chose to troll by suggesting they were a strong team that could take out the LVC.

Even now, you choose to persist in this folly.

 

Tell me, when does your Mea Culpa come to pass?

Or does than not factor in your personality?

 

I think you misunderstand me.

 

I said should they do well, I didn't say that they will do well, and like you I'd like to see a more competitive series. Who knows, they may surprise us.That's not to say that they will surprise us, although they do have a good team

 

Previously I felt their chances were better, but as I said, it is a challenge.

 

Kiwis are usually fighting from an underdog position in the AC - I'd think you could relate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand me.

 

I said should they do well, I didn't say that they will do well, and like you I'd like to see a more competitive series. Who knows, they may surprise us.That's not to say that they will surprise us, although they do have a good team

 

Previously I felt their chances were better, but as I said, it is a challenge.

 

Kiwis are usually fighting from an underdog position in the AC - I'd think you could relate.

 

So I suppose the suggestion I go on suicide watch was friendly?

Like most Kiwis, I hope we win this one.

However, if fairly beaten we will take our lumps and move on (its the Kiwi way).

 

If the Italians were to beat us and successfully challenge for the cup, I think this would also we a wonderful result.

 

With regards to OR? I think the best possible result for the cup is for them to lose it to someone else that will do it justice.

Despite Ernie being a total tosser and stealing the heart of TNZ, he did actually put on a good show in 2007 and proved to be at least a reasonable custodian of the cup.

 

It was only post 2007 that he became wholly unsuitable as guardian of the cup and now OR have also reached that point.

 

I think a good number of people on these forums would agree that the two best guardians of the cup throughout its history have been the Ozzies and Kiwis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I know of one local news crew going on alert in the event of an AR splach tomorrow.

 

Good input - sounds like they may have passed the 3 to 6 days of load testing in the shed.

 

Should they do well against ET - a challenge I admit, we may have to put Jasper on suicide watch.

 

Same old bollocks SWS.

Rather than deal with the facts as they are presented to you, you dish out crap.

 

AR will not do well, even if they can make it safely to the line.

This is NOT what I want (I prefer a strong workup for ETNZ), but rather is something that could be easily predicted (as I did) from about October last year.

 

Despite the avalanche of evidence available, you however chose to troll by suggesting they were a strong team that could take out the LVC.

Even now, you choose to persist in this folly.

 

Tell me, when does your Mea Culpa come to pass?

Or does than not factor in your personality?

 

SWS is/has become worse than a troll and seems to be a paid shill as he(they) are on the forum 24/7 with a quick comeback for any criticism of the defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you misunderstand me.

 

I said should they do well, I didn't say that they will do well, and like you I'd like to see a more competitive series. Who knows, they may surprise us.That's not to say that they will surprise us, although they do have a good team

 

Previously I felt their chances were better, but as I said, it is a challenge.

 

Kiwis are usually fighting from an underdog position in the AC - I'd think you could relate.

 

So I suppose the suggestion I go on suicide watch was friendly?

Like most Kiwis, I hope we win this one.

However, if fairly beaten we will take our lumps and move on (its the Kiwi way).

 

If the Italians were to beat us and successfully challenge for the cup, I think this would also we a wonderful result.

 

With regards to OR? I think the best possible result for the cup is for them to lose it to someone else that will do it justice.

Despite Ernie being a total tosser and stealing the heart of TNZ, he did actually put on a good show in 2007 and proved to be at least a reasonable custodian of the cup.

 

It was only post 2007 that he became wholly unsuitable as guardian of the cup and now OR have also reached that point.

 

I think a good number of people on these forums would agree that the two best guardians of the cup throughout its history have been the Ozzies and Kiwis.

 

Yes, I was only kidding

 

Face it, the clear impression you've left is that if AR happened to do well, which granted is a big if, you would likely be beside yourself in a fit of rage. Your remark that it would be an insult to ET and not a credit to AR pretty much says it all.

 

Not sure everyone would agree with you about NZ being a good guardian of the cup.

post-24261-0-92961700-1372642033_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think many could argue that based on the work ethic, organisation and innovation that ETNZ have done the hard yards to give it a dam good crack, unfortunately there is a lot more to it than that and it is ultimately anyones game. It would just be a shame for something other than that to determine the outcome.

 

losing to a faster boat or better sailor or whatever is one thing. losing because the goal posts moved would suck.

 

although unlikely given the number of days on the water etc.. i think it is possible that AR will come out with a fast boat and be competitive eventually, it just might be a little late to really get on top of it.

 

Likewise i think that LR could really bridge the gap with the new foils etc and be really closely matched with ETNZ.

 

looking forward to the SAILING sorting out the differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was only kidding

 

Face it, the clear impression you've left is that if AR happened to do well, which granted is a big if, you would likely be beside yourself in a fit of rage. Your remark that it would be an insult to ET and not a credit to AR pretty much says it all.

 

Not sure everyone would agree with you about NZ being a good guardian of the cup.

 

Actually, you need to go back and read what I said all that time ago.

What I said is that it is disrespectful to ALL the other teams (ETNZ, LR & OR) to suggest AR could catch up.

I would not be angry. In fact would be very pleasantly surprised. But its just not realistic.

If they manage to put a decent showing, then I will swallow my words as would be appropriate.

 

With regards to your photo, I am not sure what relevance this really has.

Guardianship of the cup means leaving the event in better or as good state as you received it, which is achieved IMO by:

 

* Running a fair and balanced event where competitors feel welcome rather than aggrieved.

* Have a interesting spectacle for the masses to enjoy without leaving a bad taste in their mouths.

 

If we look at the history of the cup, it is difficult to see any defender other than the Ozzies & Kiwis who did this.

 

Certainly San Diego in '95 did not, although I cannot speak from knowledge about the '92 defence.

NYYC were legendary in their flexibility with the rules.

Alinghi made a pretty good start in 2007, but then we all know how they shat all over that legacy in 2010.

 

And finally the fiasco that is the current cup cycle.

I realise you likely suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance, but surely even you don't believe the current cycle is going well, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I was only kidding

 

Face it, the clear impression you've left is that if AR happened to do well, which granted is a big if, you would likely be beside yourself in a fit of rage. Your remark that it would be an insult to ET and not a credit to AR pretty much says it all.

 

Not sure everyone would agree with you about NZ being a good guardian of the cup.

 

Actually, you need to go back and read what I said all that time ago.

What I said is that it is disrespectful to ALL the other teams (ETNZ, LR & OR) to suggest AR could catch up.

I would not be angry. In fact would be very pleasantly surprised. But its just not realistic.

If they manage to put a decent showing, then I will swallow my words as would be appropriate.

 

With regards to your photo, I am not sure what relevance this really has.

Guardianship of the cup means leaving the event in better or as good state as you received it, which is achieved IMO by:

 

* Running a fair and balanced event where competitors feel welcome rather than aggrieved.

* Have a interesting spectacle for the masses to enjoy without leaving a bad taste in their mouths.

 

If we look at the history of the cup, it is difficult to see any defender other than the Ozzies & Kiwis who did this.

 

Certainly San Diego in '95 did not, although I cannot speak from knowledge about the '92 defence.

NYYC were legendary in their flexibility with the rules.

Alinghi made a pretty good start in 2007, but then we all know how they shat all over that legacy in 2010.

 

And finally the fiasco that is the current cup cycle.

I realise you likely suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance, but surely even you don't believe the current cycle is going well, do you?

Thanks for the kind and warm response.

 

I don't think NZ was a good custodian of the cup letting it get literally hammered to pieces.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that depends if you are talking literally about the Cup or about the event and the legacy, I dont think a bit of beat up tin is that big a drama, but putting on a fair and competitive event is a big deal. I think that this current cycle is both the best and the worst of AC at the same time. The boats are awesome.

 

I dont think AC would survive under another cycle with OR as i think they are slowly chipping away at the credibility of the event. This doesnt mean they are not great sailors, few could argue they arent but in terms of running a fair event, their track record isnt great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that depends if you are talking literally about the Cup or about the event and the legacy, I dont think a bit of beat up tin is that big a drama, but putting on a fair and competitive event is a big deal. I think that this current cycle is both the best and the worst of AC at the same time. The boats are awesome.

 

I dont think AC would survive under another cycle with OR as i think they are slowly chipping away at the credibility of the event. This doesnt mean they are not great sailors, few could argue they arent but in terms of running a fair event, their track record isnt great.

 

I agree that they are chipping away at the event, but am not sure I think it couldn't survive another OR defence.

I can only assume they have learnt their lesson this time and will rectify many of the problems next time. If they haven't learnt their lessons, then they would have to be morons.

 

On the other hand, the spectre of cheating could drive any prospective challengers away, which is how Ernie would have killed the cup had he kept it.

 

The truth is that Larry saved the cup in 2010, but now he is at risk of slowly destroying it.

It needs to go elsewhere to restore its lustre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how SW Soiler tramples his mucky self all over these threads at the moment, trying hard to patch up the perception of the sham that is OR and there handling of this cup cycle.

 

I concur with those who are dubious of the 'official' version of what happened from LP, for all the reasons stated here.

 

The safest thing for AR to do is concede they are not in a position to race, stop being Larrys bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I dont think AC would survive under another cycle with OR as i think they are slowly chipping away at the credibility of the event. This doesnt mean they are not great sailors, few could argue they arent but in terms of running a fair event, their track record isnt great.

 

I agree that they are chipping away at the event, but am not sure I think it couldn't survive another OR defence.

I can only assume they have learnt their lesson this time and will rectify many of the problems next time. If they haven't learnt their lessons, then they would have to be morons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are circumstances, both in and out of GGYC/OR's control that have made this defense 'stressful'. Losing ML as CoR was a first shot across the bow that this cycle was not going to be easy. Trying to do something big and grand with a collapsing, and barely recovering, world economic climate was a direct hit to their planning. With all the multi-hull talent around the world it could have been reasoned that many new challengers would have jumped-in, and made the event as big or bigger than before. But funding dried-up like a drop of water in the desert.

 

Then they have made a leap in the way they AC was run, trying to re-organize things and expand from the 'ACTS' to the ACWS, and not do it the same way as SNG, on purpose, it seems. Re-invent the wheel. Some ideas were good, some maybe not as good. Jury still out on this one.

 

Then there was the leap from mono's and the old boats to multi's and the AC72's with wing sails. Then ETNZ, beyond their control, worked a loophole in the design rule to incorporate foiling with the boats. Exciting potential but very risky. Since OR and AR did not view the rule in the same way as ETNZ their boats were not geard for foiling and they had to do a crash re-design to meet the ruing of the IJ. B PRobably not surprisingly both OR and AR have crashed their boats, with the tragic loss of Bart Simpson on the AR team. This has lead to the change to the rudder winglet rule which has stirred so much acrimony at the last hour.

 

There appears to have been a successful leap in technology on the graphics for presenting the AC programming, with the Live Line system. Great accomplishment on this front, no doubt.

 

The racing with the multi's has been exciting, putting on a better show than I had feared, expecially in the match racing, but again it is still a work in progress.

 

From the first, and I think events that have happened in the last three years help show, that trying to make such drastic changes to the AC, boats, management, etc. may have been too much when wanting to have a quick turn around recovering from the AC33 debacle. Also the world economy melting-down, no matter your opinion, had a strong affect also. Attempting what they have been doing is not really a bad idea, but may have been a bigger bite than could be chewed in such a short cycle.

 

I do not think there has been any underhanded workings with GGYC's defense in this cycle, but just trying to do too much in too short a time frame, with the consequences we have seen since the time of lining-up locations for the ACWS. The have made an attempt to do great things, but maybe at the wrong time.

 

Only time will tell, and history will be the judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well done that man!

 

still

 

we judge ourselves by what we know we are capable of

 

but

 

everyone else judges us by what we actually do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^^ Stil waiting for a logical explanation.

Rudders have nothing to do with PP, excepted if they are too short (which is not the case) or if they have a negative AoA.

 

Fact is that AC72 rudders foils give lift which helps for speed and MAINLY to have fast gybes but does help for security.

 

Amazing the load of BS that some recognized AC people can spill....

Ian Murray's words:

 

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any team that my recommendation will not enhance control and thus safety during racing. What I have heard is that this recommendation will make the boats easier to control and more stable.

 

This is a safety issue, pure and simple. Deeper, submerged rudders, with bigger elevators and control surfaces fixed at the most appropriate angle of attack for the conditions simply make the boats safer."

 

You can call it BS if you wish, but that is the rationale. Is more control over the boat some insurance against a pitch-pole? I would imagine.

This is pure BS and I am still waiting to get a rational answer other than "IM said so"

 

IM mixes different concepts, on purpose ?

 

1) Deeper = submerged = safer. We agree but not a problem now, neither the subject of our discussion

2) bigger elevator = more tendency to PP as they procure more lift, thus a possibility to pp is too much lift from the rudder vs the foil

3) controlling the AoA can only increase security if controlled during the race which is out of question.

 

Fact is that OR probably needs more lift from the rudder as their foil is not as aft as TNZ.

Mainly, as explain by hump 101, they have a narrower range of wind.

 

Possibly, OR would have liked to get more control to go faster.

 

Now, if they want to set their rudder foil with too much positive AoA and the wind changes, that is their problem...

 

BTW' I am still waiting for a rational answer ... :)

 

They will not give you one TC, for the simple reason is there isn't one. This is all about speed and has nothing to do with safety, end of!! And I, like you, await the 'reasoned' ramblings of the OR fanbuoys, but when you cut through the spin, the BS, then it boils down to speed and not safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any rumors about when or even if Big Blue will hit the water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^^ Stil waiting for a logical explanation.

Rudders have nothing to do with PP, excepted if they are too short (which is not the case) or if they have a negative AoA.

 

Fact is that AC72 rudders foils give lift which helps for speed and MAINLY to have fast gybes but does help for security.

 

Amazing the load of BS that some recognized AC people can spill....

Ian Murray's words:

 

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any team that my recommendation will not enhance control and thus safety during racing. What I have heard is that this recommendation will make the boats easier to control and more stable.

 

This is a safety issue, pure and simple. Deeper, submerged rudders, with bigger elevators and control surfaces fixed at the most appropriate angle of attack for the conditions simply make the boats safer."

 

You can call it BS if you wish, but that is the rationale. Is more control over the boat some insurance against a pitch-pole? I would imagine.

This is pure BS and I am still waiting to get a rational answer other than "IM said so"

 

IM mixes different concepts, on purpose ?

 

1) Deeper = submerged = safer. We agree but not a problem now, neither the subject of our discussion

2) bigger elevator = more tendency to PP as they procure more lift, thus a possibility to pp is too much lift from the rudder vs the foil

3) controlling the AoA can only increase security if controlled during the race which is out of question.

 

Fact is that OR probably needs more lift from the rudder as their foil is not as aft as TNZ.

Mainly, as explain by hump 101, they have a narrower range of wind.

 

Possibly, OR would have liked to get more control to go faster.

 

Now, if they want to set their rudder foil with too much positive AoA and the wind changes, that is their problem...

 

BTW' I am still waiting for a rational answer ... :)

 

"This is pure BS."

 

Would you tell Ian Murray to his face that his motivations are BS, his ethics are situational and that you think his direct statement about one of the most significant occurrences in his career is a lie?

 

I would like to be there for that conversation.

 

And if you wouldn't say those things out loud and to him, I would tell you face to face that I think you are weak minded and petty. Your mother should not feel proud.

 

Koukel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, keep it civilized.

two posts and you tell the guys to keep it civilised?

 

Really???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

^^ Stil waiting for a logical explanation.

Rudders have nothing to do with PP, excepted if they are too short (which is not the case) or if they have a negative AoA.

 

Fact is that AC72 rudders foils give lift which helps for speed and MAINLY to have fast gybes but does help for security.

 

Amazing the load of BS that some recognized AC people can spill....

Ian Murray's words:

 

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any team that my recommendation will not enhance control and thus safety during racing. What I have heard is that this recommendation will make the boats easier to control and more stable.

 

This is a safety issue, pure and simple. Deeper, submerged rudders, with bigger elevators and control surfaces fixed at the most appropriate angle of attack for the conditions simply make the boats safer."

 

You can call it BS if you wish, but that is the rationale. Is more control over the boat some insurance against a pitch-pole? I would imagine.

This is pure BS and I am still waiting to get a rational answer other than "IM said so"

 

IM mixes different concepts, on purpose ?

 

1) Deeper = submerged = safer. We agree but not a problem now, neither the subject of our discussion

2) bigger elevator = more tendency to PP as they procure more lift, thus a possibility to pp is too much lift from the rudder vs the foil

3) controlling the AoA can only increase security if controlled during the race which is out of question.

 

Fact is that OR probably needs more lift from the rudder as their foil is not as aft as TNZ.

Mainly, as explain by hump 101, they have a narrower range of wind.

 

Possibly, OR would have liked to get more control to go faster.

 

Now, if they want to set their rudder foil with too much positive AoA and the wind changes, that is their problem...

 

BTW' I am still waiting for a rational answer ... :)

 

"This is pure BS."

 

Would you tell Ian Murray to his face that his motivations are BS, his ethics are situational and that you think his direct statement about one of the most significant occurrences in his career is a lie?

 

I would like to be there for that conversation.

 

And if you wouldn't say those things out loud and to him, I would tell you face to face that I think you are weak minded and petty. Your mother should not feel proud.

 

Koukel

To say that a minimum lifting area on a rudder is for security and not speed is pure BS whoever says it and, if possible, I would be ready to make the experience with you or him. Have been on a cat at full speed when both sterns getting out of the water ? you would change your tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guys, keep it civilized.

two posts and you tell the guys to keep it civilised?

 

Really???

How does the number of posts one has reflect on the ability to be civil? On this site, the number of posts might be highly correlated with how much of a dickhead you really are. That would easily be the conclusion if an independent observer looked at the post count and the content on AC Anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guys, keep it civilized.

two posts and you tell the guys to keep it civilised?

 

Really???

How does the number of posts one has reflect on the ability to be civil? On this site, the number of posts might be highly correlated with how much of a dickhead you really are. That would easily be the conclusion if an independent observer looked at the post count and the content on AC Anarchy.

Hey, this is still Anarchy isn't it?

 

No problem with civil discourse, but maybe noobs should get to know the lay of the land before making such comments...

 

On the other hand, with an attitude like that, he might just fit in around here! - as long as he complies with the standard welcome

 

so what say, abroad, show us some tits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koukel, as has been stated already there are several alternate and more equitable ways Ian could have addressed any concern he had with safety - before he changed the rules. And how is it that the two 'safest' AC72s are the ones being penalised by the rule change - and the one that has looked most dangerous (big red was just a dog until it became a death trap) with its belly flopping all over the harbour gets a windfall - pure coincidence?

 

IM is a cheating lying SOB, his actions in ramming this through the CG - and in forcing ETNZ/LR to submit drawings of there rudder are further evidence that his motivation is far from impartial and is instead to secure the cup for OR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koukel, as has been stated already there are several alternate and more equitable ways Ian could have addressed any concern he had with safety - before he changed the rules. And how is it that the two 'safest' AC72s are the ones being penalised by the rule change - and the one that has looked most dangerous (big red was just a dog until it became a death trap) with its belly flopping all over the harbour gets a windfall - pure coincidence?

 

IM is a cheating lying SOB, his actions in ramming this through the CG - and in forcing ETNZ/LR to submit drawings of there rudder are further evidence that his motivation is far from impartial and is instead to secure the cup for OR.

 

Yeah, there is no other explanation, is there? Sheesh. Even if you do not agree with all of his suggestions, could it possibly be that he actually does care about safety and the success of the EVENT, but may have not considered every angle, and that even if there may have been a better solution, IM was doing things on the right basis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

^^ Stil waiting for a logical explanation.

Rudders have nothing to do with PP, excepted if they are too short (which is not the case) or if they have a negative AoA.

 

Fact is that AC72 rudders foils give lift which helps for speed and MAINLY to have fast gybes but does help for security.

 

Amazing the load of BS that some recognized AC people can spill....

Ian Murray's words:

 

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any team that my recommendation will not enhance control and thus safety during racing. What I have heard is that this recommendation will make the boats easier to control and more stable.

 

This is a safety issue, pure and simple. Deeper, submerged rudders, with bigger elevators and control surfaces fixed at the most appropriate angle of attack for the conditions simply make the boats safer."

 

You can call it BS if you wish, but that is the rationale. Is more control over the boat some insurance against a pitch-pole? I would imagine.

This is pure BS and I am still waiting to get a rational answer other than "IM said so"

 

IM mixes different concepts, on purpose ?

 

1) Deeper = submerged = safer. We agree but not a problem now, neither the subject of our discussion

2) bigger elevator = more tendency to PP as they procure more lift, thus a possibility to pp is too much lift from the rudder vs the foil

3) controlling the AoA can only increase security if controlled during the race which is out of question.

 

Fact is that OR probably needs more lift from the rudder as their foil is not as aft as TNZ.

Mainly, as explain by hump 101, they have a narrower range of wind.

 

Possibly, OR would have liked to get more control to go faster.

 

Now, if they want to set their rudder foil with too much positive AoA and the wind changes, that is their problem...

 

BTW' I am still waiting for a rational answer ... :)

 

"This is pure BS."

 

Would you tell Ian Murray to his face that his motivations are BS, his ethics are situational and that you think his direct statement about one of the most significant occurrences in his career is a lie?

 

I would like to be there for that conversation.

 

And if you wouldn't say those things out loud and to him, I would tell you face to face that I think you are weak minded and petty. Your mother should not feel proud.

 

Koukel

To say that a minimum lifting area on a rudder is for security and not speed is pure BS whoever says it and, if possible, I would be ready to make the experience with you or him. Have been on a cat at full speed when both sterns getting out of the water ? you would change your tone.

 

I'm not sure you have things straight. With regard to safety, the area of the elevators is more important with regard to holding the stern-ends down as the noses dive, than with lift for performance. In that light, the safety rule suggestions related to minimum area ARE related to safety. There is an argument for simply saying things should not be changed at this point, and most importantly, that the assymetry rules are bunk. But to claim there is no safety issue, and that it is pure performance, is wrong, IMO. I believe Deano's recent quotes would point to their recognizing that, and being OK with rudder length and even area requirements. I'm with Deano, also, that is is wrong to require symmetry and that their rudders should have to satisfy new load testing when they have shown their own design to be stable and relatively safe, and that there are plenty of other things that are likely more important to test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are circumstances, both in and out of GGYC/OR's control that have made this defense 'stressful'. Losing ML as CoR was a first shot across the bow that this cycle was not going to be easy. Trying to do something big and grand with a collapsing, and barely recovering, world economic climate was a direct hit to their planning. With all the multi-hull talent around the world it could have been reasoned that many new challengers would have jumped-in, and made the event as big or bigger than before. But funding dried-up like a drop of water in the desert.

 

Then they have made a leap in the way they AC was run, trying to re-organize things and expand from the 'ACTS' to the ACWS, and not do it the same way as SNG, on purpose, it seems. Re-invent the wheel. Some ideas were good, some maybe not as good. Jury still out on this one.

 

Then there was the leap from mono's and the old boats to multi's and the AC72's with wing sails. Then ETNZ, beyond their control, worked a loophole in the design rule to incorporate foiling with the boats. Exciting potential but very risky. Since OR and AR did not view the rule in the same way as ETNZ their boats were not geard for foiling and they had to do a crash re-design to meet the ruing of the IJ. B PRobably not surprisingly both OR and AR have crashed their boats, with the tragic loss of Bart Simpson on the AR team. This has lead to the change to the rudder winglet rule which has stirred so much acrimony at the last hour.

 

There appears to have been a successful leap in technology on the graphics for presenting the AC programming, with the Live Line system. Great accomplishment on this front, no doubt.

 

The racing with the multi's has been exciting, putting on a better show than I had feared, expecially in the match racing, but again it is still a work in progress.

 

From the first, and I think events that have happened in the last three years help show, that trying to make such drastic changes to the AC, boats, management, etc. may have been too much when wanting to have a quick turn around recovering from the AC33 debacle. Also the world economy melting-down, no matter your opinion, had a strong affect also. Attempting what they have been doing is not really a bad idea, but may have been a bigger bite than could be chewed in such a short cycle.

 

I do not think there has been any underhanded workings with GGYC's defense in this cycle, but just trying to do too much in too short a time frame, with the consequences we have seen since the time of lining-up locations for the ACWS. The have made an attempt to do great things, but maybe at the wrong time.

 

Only time will tell, and history will be the judge.

 

Great post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then ETNZ, beyond their control, worked a loophole in the design rule to incorporate foiling with the boats. Exciting potential but very risky. Since OR and AR did not view the rule in the same way as ETNZ their boats were not geard for foiling and they had to do a crash re-design to meet the ruing of the IJ. B PRobably not surprisingly both OR and AR have crashed their boats, with the tragic loss of Bart Simpson on the AR team. This has lead to the change to the rudder winglet rule which has stirred so much acrimony at the last hour.

 

LE and RC should be eternally grateful to TNZ for cracking the foiling code, because we have every indication that these boats are unmanageable in non-foiling mode bear away. We might have had no event at all if TNZ had not figured out foiling and thus provided the safest bear away mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's now July, PC was very public about AR2 being splashed in late June.

 

Where is Big Blue?

Here

 

DSC_1404_zpse2d8e3c8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Don't they have the same amphibian in Boston? Duck something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's now July, PC was very public about AR2 being splashed in late June.

 

Where is Big Blue?

DSC_1404_zpse2d8e3c8.jpg

 

Foils look mucho beefy... And a fully transparent wing?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It's now July, PC was very public about AR2 being splashed in late June.

 

Where is Big Blue?

DSC_1404_zpse2d8e3c8.jpg

 

Foils look mucho beefy... And a fully transparent wing?!

Made out of transparent aluminum leftover when Captn Kirk and the Enterprise visited http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo2MyIGZFkg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously gents, where is it?

PC has failed to meet his first self-imposed deadline of late June.

 

You must be stupid to doubt Cayard. You fool you fool!

 

He is using the LUNAR CALENDAR! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously gents, where is it?

PC has failed to meet his first self-imposed deadline of late June.

 

He was last seen with Clean's ETNZ video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ian Murray's words:

 

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any team that my recommendation will not enhance control and thus safety during racing. What I have heard is that this recommendation will make the boats easier to control and more stable.

 

This is a safety issue, pure and simple. Deeper, submerged rudders, with bigger elevators and control surfaces fixed at the most appropriate angle of attack for the conditions simply make the boats safer."

 

You can call it BS if you wish, but that is the rationale. Is more control over the boat some insurance against a pitch-pole? I would imagine.

This is pure BS and I am still waiting to get a rational answer other than "IM said so"

 

IM mixes different concepts, on purpose ?

 

1) Deeper = submerged = safer. We agree but not a problem now, neither the subject of our discussion

2) bigger elevator = more tendency to PP as they procure more lift, thus a possibility to pp is too much lift from the rudder vs the foil

3) controlling the AoA can only increase security if controlled during the race which is out of question.

 

Fact is that OR probably needs more lift from the rudder as their foil is not as aft as TNZ.

Mainly, as explain by hump 101, they have a narrower range of wind.

 

Possibly, OR would have liked to get more control to go faster.

 

Now, if they want to set their rudder foil with too much positive AoA and the wind changes, that is their problem...

 

BTW' I am still waiting for a rational answer ... :)

 

"This is pure BS."

 

Would you tell Ian Murray to his face that his motivations are BS, his ethics are situational and that you think his direct statement about one of the most significant occurrences in his career is a lie?

 

I would like to be there for that conversation.

 

And if you wouldn't say those things out loud and to him, I would tell you face to face that I think you are weak minded and petty. Your mother should not feel proud.

 

Koukel

To say that a minimum lifting area on a rudder is for security and not speed is pure BS whoever says it and, if possible, I would be ready to make the experience with you or him. Have been on a cat at full speed when both sterns getting out of the water ? you would change your tone.

 

I'm not sure you have things straight. With regard to safety, the area of the elevators is more important with regard to holding the stern-ends down as the noses dive, than with lift for performance. In that light, the safety rule suggestions related to minimum area ARE related to safety. There is an argument for simply saying things should not be changed at this point, and most importantly, that the assymetry rules are bunk. But to claim there is no safety issue, and that it is pure performance, is wrong, IMO. I believe Deano's recent quotes would point to their recognizing that, and being OK with rudder length and even area requirements. I'm with Deano, also, that is is wrong to require symmetry and that their rudders should have to satisfy new load testing when they have shown their own design to be stable and relatively safe, and that there are plenty of other things that are likely more important to test.

If, in fact they were pulling with a negative AoA, then it would be a matter of security

However it appears that they are lifting on the AC72, as also specified in the new rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously gents, where is it?

PC has failed to meet his first self-imposed deadline of late June.

 

He was last seen with Clean's ETNZ video.

 

So time to acknowledge they're a non-starter then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaucho, unfortunately I can't see how IMs recommendations can be construed as safety related.

 

The fact that he is asking for load testing and design detail from the only successful foiling design which was designed as a foiling boat and has successfully navigated the highest wind and sea state for the greatest length of time is yet more evidence of an additional agenda.

 

Taken together the facts form a steaming fetid turd, an overwhelming pile which refutes the notion that the rudder changes are anything but a blatant attempt to level the playing field enough to make OR competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seriously gents, where is it?

PC has failed to meet his first self-imposed deadline of late June.

 

He was last seen with Clean's ETNZ video.

 

So time to acknowledge they're a non-starter then?

 

Fricking relax.

 

They are not hurting anyone at this point. I continue to say, lay off and see how they do when they get the boat in the water and drive it. If they can sail it OK, then they should race within the current protocol. If they get out there and can't control it, THEN start your yapping. They sailed one AC72 for quite a number of days before crashing it, so they do have some experience crewing and handling an AC72, and arguably, the red boat was a much harder to sail boat than they will have in a few days. They also have one of the best foiling helms in the business ready to take over the blue boat. They just might be able to get around the course without being a hazard to themselves or others, and who knows, maybe they can actually make it slightly interesting.

 

At this point, there is no reason not to just hold onto your panties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not hurting anyone at this point.

 

their inability to represent the challengers

 

is hurting the cup

 

badly

 

keeping them in the cup

 

so they can continue to collect paychecks

 

isn't worth the "hurt" they are causing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaucho, unfortunately I can't see how IMs recommendations can be construed as safety related.

 

The fact that he is asking for load testing and design detail from the only successful foiling design which was designed as a foiling boat and has successfully navigated the highest wind and sea state for the greatest length of time is yet more evidence of an additional agenda.

 

Taken together the facts form a steaming fetid turd, an overwhelming pile which refutes the notion that the rudder changes are anything but a blatant attempt to level the playing field enough to make OR competitive.

 

Sorry, I would tend to believe IM more than about anyone in this whole arena. He strikes me as about as legit as they come. I also just don't see Ellison going this route to keep the cup. To me, LE seems like the kind of guy that will spend whatever it takes to win, legitimately, but I have not seen where he has done anything else that would be outside of a clean game. I think LE would rather lose the cup than win it on the basis of having a fraudulent safety committee recommendation. Only the scummiest of the scum would take that avenue, and I think it is pretty much bush to accuse IM or LE of going that route.

 

 

They are not hurting anyone at this point.

 

their inability to represent the challengers

 

is hurting the cup

 

badly

 

keeping them in the cup

 

so they can continue to collect paychecks

 

isn't worth the "hurt" they are causing

 

Not any more than they would if they simply dropped out. What "hurt" is Artemis causing anyone by continuing on at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that a minimum lifting area on a rudder is for security and not speed is pure BS whoever says it and, if possible, I would be ready to make the experience with you or him. Have been on a cat at full speed when both sterns getting out of the water ? you would change your tone.

 

I am not doubting your opinion on how sail boats work, although based on your past posting I'd give anything you wrote about 40% chance of being right. I am doubting your character as a person, how you draw conclusions and your apparent willingness to type anything, however absurd or mean spirited or libelous. It's a forum with the word anarchy in the title, so I'm glad you have a place to let it all out. I just think the man behind the keyboard is very, very small.

 

Koukel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Seriously gents, where is it?

PC has failed to meet his first self-imposed deadline of late June.

 

He was last seen with Clean's ETNZ video.

 

So time to acknowledge they're a non-starter then?

 

Fricking relax.

 

They are not hurting anyone at this point. I continue to say, lay off and see how they do when they get the boat in the water and drive it. If they can sail it OK, then they should race within the current protocol. If they get out there and can't control it, THEN start your yapping. They sailed one AC72 for quite a number of days before crashing it, so they do have some experience crewing and handling an AC72, and arguably, the red boat was a much harder to sail boat than they will have in a few days. They also have one of the best foiling helms in the business ready to take over the blue boat. They just might be able to get around the course without being a hazard to themselves or others, and who knows, maybe they can actually make it slightly interesting.

 

At this point, there is no reason not to just hold onto your panties.

 

Completely relaxed.

Just an observation, PCs first self-imposed deadline is now goone.

Not a single update........................

The mountain must be near vertical by now.

 

Interesting turn of phrase for an AC there GG,

"They just might be able to get around the course without being a hazard to themselves or others"

 

And I thought we were crazy for safety all of a sudden ...................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I would tend to believe IM more than about anyone in this whole arena. He strikes me as about as legit as they come. I also just don't see Ellison going this route to keep the cup. To me, LE seems like the kind of guy that will spend whatever it takes to win, legitimately, but I have not seen where he has done anything else that would be outside of a clean game. I think LE would rather lose the cup than win it on the basis of having a fraudulent safety committee recommendation. Only the scummiest of the scum would take that avenue, and I think it is pretty much bush to accuse IM or LE of going that route.

 

GG, where did IM get his rudder dimensions from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not any more than they would if they simply dropped out. What "hurt" is Artemis causing anyone by continuing on at this point?

 

That depends, let say Oracle can benefit competitively from the rudder changes but don't actually need them for safety and it is actually Artemis that is asking for them simply so they can make the start line as they haven't got time to re-engineer the stern area of their new yacht to take the loading of an asymmetrical rudder. If this is the case then their very presence is the cause of the current predicament and without them the requirement could simply be dropped and we could continue as we were with a competitive and fair for all America's Cup.

This is all speculation of course because they continually only release the bare minimum of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To say that a minimum lifting area on a rudder is for security and not speed is pure BS whoever says it and, if possible, I would be ready to make the experience with you or him. Have been on a cat at full speed when both sterns getting out of the water ? you would change your tone.

 

I am not doubting your opinion on how sail boats work, although based on your past posting I'd give anything you wrote about 40% chance of being right. I am doubting your character as a person, how you draw conclusions and your apparent willingness to type anything, however absurd or mean spirited or libelous. It's a forum with the word anarchy in the title, so I'm glad you have a place to let it all out. I just think the man behind the keyboard is very, very small.

 

Koukel

 

I suppose TC would like everyone to think his miniature cat, if he actually has one, has provided him with more experience, structural theory, and design knowledge than the 25 designers, builders, sailors, and shore crew from four AC teams were able to provide, but for some reason I find it hard to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Seriously gents, where is it?

PC has failed to meet his first self-imposed deadline of late June.

 

He was last seen with Clean's ETNZ video.

 

So time to acknowledge they're a non-starter then?

 

Fricking relax.

 

They are not hurting anyone at this point. I continue to say, lay off and see how they do when they get the boat in the water and drive it. If they can sail it OK, then they should race within the current protocol. If they get out there and can't control it, THEN start your yapping. They sailed one AC72 for quite a number of days before crashing it, so they do have some experience crewing and handling an AC72, and arguably, the red boat was a much harder to sail boat than they will have in a few days. They also have one of the best foiling helms in the business ready to take over the blue boat. They just might be able to get around the course without being a hazard to themselves or others, and who knows, maybe they can actually make it slightly interesting.

 

At this point, there is no reason not to just hold onto your panties.

 

Completely relaxed.

Just an observation, PCs first self-imposed deadline is now goone.

Not a single update........................

The mountain must be near vertical by now.

 

Interesting turn of phrase for an AC there GG,

"They just might be able to get around the course without being a hazard to themselves or others"

 

And I thought we were crazy for safety all of a sudden ...................

 

Since when was it a DEADLINE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaucho, don't drink the... Oops! Too late.

 

Give it a rest. I LOVE fast boats, not shitty boats just because the can be anticipated to be relatively close to eachother. I have a preference for Multis because they are the absolute fastest, although I do appreciate big maxis and VO70s, for what they bring to the table, as well as 49ers and other fast skiffs. I want the AC to remain in such fast boats, and I hope to see the most possible. I actually have not liked AR as much as a team, well, at least until the signed LP and NO on. But I can't help but like them more since half of this board is full of venom against them.

 

Is that cool-aide, I'm drinking?

 

Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose TC would like everyone to think his miniature cat, if he actually has one, has provided him with more experience, structural theory, and design knowledge than the 25 designers, builders, sailors, and shore crew from four AC teams were able to provide, but for some reason I find it hard to believe.

 

Verbal_Diarrhea_Much__by_shadow_viper.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Estar,

 

I do laugh when I hear talk of ETNZ "cheating" by designing a foiling AC72. Nor have the found a "loophole" in the rule.

What they have done is designed, perhaps the only "safe" (and I do say this with a grain of salt) AC72, to a design rule the OC, as cup holders have formulated.

It's safe, its fast and it was designed within the rules.

Now I understand that there is an argument to change the rules to enhance safety and i'm sure there's a number of ways this could be done.

However the facts remain the same - ETNZ and LR can foil fast, safely and within the rules, whereas OR have shown some unsteadiness foiling, Artemis have not really shown anything apart from a Cayard size cluster fuck!

This is a net result of design choices. Nothing more and nothing less.

Why we have to change design rules to suit those that have made poor choices, i'll never know. If they were really serious about safety and perhaps less wing area as Cayard noted, why don't they trim 2m off the top of their existing wings? As far as I can tell, this is totally within existing spar limits, would satisfy the safety aspect they so vocally now need and also negate the need for absurd and unprecedented changes to class rules as the last minute..

 

The current farce is nuts! I also don't believe for one minute that IM is as independant as everyone makes him out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not any more than they would if they simply dropped out. What "hurt" is Artemis causing anyone by continuing on at this point?

 

That depends, let say Oracle can benefit competitively from the rudder changes but don't actually need them for safety and it is actually Artemis that is asking for them simply so they can make the start line as they haven't got time to re-engineer the stern area of their new yacht to take the loading of an asymmetrical rudder. If this is the case then their very presence is the cause of the current predicament and without them the requirement could simply be dropped and we could continue as we were with a competitive and fair for all America's Cup.

This is all speculation of course because they continually only release the bare minimum of information.

 

That is a hell of a lot of speculation to use for calling on AR to drop out, or even screaming about how this is all about cheating to the benefit of AR or OR.

 

Personally, I think it is bogus for any rules to be imposed that cause ETNZ or LR to do more than the others just so they can continue on with their existing design, which has proven to be the most stable. As I understand it, ETNZ and LR are not fighting the most impactful changes to the protocol, involving the length of the rudder and the size of the elevators, which I would think is the most important thing for both AR and OR. Seems a simple elevator area minimum/maximum, and load testing on the unproven boats (meaning AR) would be reasonable, and not opposed by ETNZ. Deanno makes great arguments that allowing the wings to go outside the hull width is a hazard, and I would go along with him that it should not be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites