Archived

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

sarah0809

Artemis?

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

Just heard a few bits of info from two different sources:

 

The blue boat was built exactly like the red boat

The crew is afraid to sail on it (or wont sail on it unitl it is proven structurally sound)

To reinforce the boat, the hulls have been covered with two layers of carbon, re-faired and painted.

The boat won't meet the minimum weight. (was the added weight in the safety rule written speciffically for this reason)

Just about every good carbon race boatbuilder has been involved in the reinforcement job.

The boat doesn't have a chance of being competitive and probably won't measure in.

Juan K was fired.

The team is a mess and people are pretty much done with the whole thing.

What exactly does wrapping the hulls in 2 more 'layers' of carbon do?
I'm calling BS on this. I could understand adding some longitudinal stiffeners and maybe some extra bulkheads, but wrapping the hulls in new layers makes no sense to me.
So was I. Just that sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is the current state of the rudder requirements? Do the parties have to have rudder elevators that meet the larger area requirements put in by Iain Murray or are the original class rules in effect? IIRC, Paul Cayard indicated that Artemis has foiling rudders that meet the original class rules (and eric e posted a nice confirming picture of that). Can Artemis use those rudders or must they come up with foils that do not exceed Bmax but that also meet Iain Murray's larger area requirements (what Paul Cayard referred to as the "third option")

 

it looks like AR are now free to use the small assyms seen in the NO video

 

IM would like them to use bigger ones but as LR won't budge on the exemption and AR are happy to use the smaller ones

 

if AR sign all the disclaimers taking any heat off IM in the event of another PP

 

they are all go for rudders!

Thank you to both you and Indio -- I sincerely appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

msp

 

slipped in the little bit of code again :o

 

Fuck, how is it that Dawg is banned and that retard is still with us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

msp

 

slipped in the little bit of code again :o

 

Fuck, how is it that Dawg is banned and that retard is still with us?

 

don't think it's intentional

 

probably a bug in the web software that doesn't like his avatar location or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

msp

 

slipped in the little bit of code again :o

 

Fuck, how is it that Dawg is banned and that retard is still with us?

 

don't think it's intentional

 

probably a bug in the web software that doesn't like his avatar location or something

EE your right - like I said theres a code glitch -I figured out what it is and why -pretty funny actually

 

your guess is close but more obvious

 

after my avatar

 

its a neat affect - :lol:

 

I also think spinray soilray did something to it

 

he is an old hacker from oracle still works for evilsin

 

so he probably mangled the matrix on this site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duh

 

I feel like homer simpson

 

 

Hahaha....go to the back of the class with Swallower. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Duh

I feel like homer simpson

 

Hahaha....go to the back of the class with Swallower. :D

I will accept any punishment given the level of my stupidity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Cayard a bullshitter?

 

During the IK hearing he said affirmation of the original rule (regarding rudders) would knock AR out of the contest.

 

Yet Scutlebutt says this:

 

"Questions regarding the team’s participation centered on the rudders, but Murray says they’ve got two sets of rudders. One set complies with the AC72 Class Rule and the other with the regatta director’s safety recommendations."

 

So AR always had rule-compliant rudders.

 

Cayard was fibbing ... nest pas?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

walk around for 3 weeks in a barrel outfit?

 

Woman+in+Barrel.jpg

 

 

 

Duh
I feel like homer simpson



Hahaha....go to the back of the class with Swallower. :D

I will accept any punishment given the level of my stupidity

 

 

not interfering, just shouting ideas....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i'll get my coat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

msp

 

slipped in the little bit of code again :o

 

If anybody knows a way of contacting the site admin that they actually read (i.e. not "contact" on the FP), please PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Just heard a few bits of info from two different sources:

 

The blue boat was built exactly like the red boat

The crew is afraid to sail on it (or wont sail on it unitl it is proven structurally sound)

To reinforce the boat, the hulls have been covered with two layers of carbon, re-faired and painted.

The boat won't meet the minimum weight. (was the added weight in the safety rule written speciffically for this reason)

Just about every good carbon race boatbuilder has been involved in the reinforcement job.

The boat doesn't have a chance of being competitive and probably won't measure in.

Juan K was fired.

The team is a mess and people are pretty much done with the whole thing.

What exactly does wrapping the hulls in 2 more 'layers' of carbon do?
I'm calling BS on this. I could understand adding some longitudinal stiffeners and maybe some extra bulkheads, but wrapping the hulls in new layers makes no sense to me.
So was I. Just that sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet.

It travels fine.

 

sometimes

 

I was agreeing with you :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Cayard a bullshitter?

 

During the IK hearing he said affirmation of the original rule (regarding rudders) would knock AR out of the contest.

 

Yet Scutlebutt says this:

 

"Questions regarding the team’s participation centered on the rudders, but Murray says they’ve got two sets of rudders. One set complies with the AC72 Class Rule and the other with the regatta director’s safety recommendations."

 

So AR always had rule-compliant rudders.

 

Cayard was fibbing ... nest pas?"

 

Don't know, but we sure as hell know you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is going to be one good looking boat. Can't wait. I predict that she'll be faster than Luna Rossa. She won't be sailed as well, and will likely lose as a result, but I think she'll be quicker.

 

I admit I have nothing to base this on other than LR's poor upwind performance and the AR1's reportedly strong upwind performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it certainly gets style points

Like most swedes I suppose

The wing looks good too but that workspace is also immaculate, color me impressed.

 

Any comments on the section shapes evidenced in those cradles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, Scalper, can you de-throttle your stupid posts. Sucks, I have you on ignore, but that ends up killing the entire thread for me now that there is this stupid glitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, will they only have 1 wing from here on out?

 

I think so

If they can repair the other damaged wings then they are fine - but as it stands this is most likely wing 3, and the last one they can build. OR too are on their last wing as W1 was smashed in the PP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cayard should take up politics.

 

First he says the IJ ruling means AR is out of the contest.

 

Now Bob Fisher says "Paul shrugged off the 'elevator' issue – 'We will conform to the class rules when we re-launch,' - as being a non-issue."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. The 'class rules.' Not the 'third-way ETNZ rules' that GD tried to force, with a sanctimonious dispensation, neither of which are in play any longer.

 

PC is speaking correctly there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. The 'class rules.' Not the 'third-way ETNZ rules' that GD tried to force, with a sanctimonious dispensation, neither of which are in play any longer.

 

PC is speaking correctly there.

flogging_dead_horse_what.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So frustrating to see the other boats racing but no Artemis. Really don't care for press releases and videos on Stress Testing. Their campaign has been a major disaster when you consider:

 

1. All the other boats were foiling and they remained bullish with their non-foiling design until they actually lined up against Oracle...Hello...!

2. Their non-foiling design was not up to it structurally.

3. Their CEO refuted any criticism made towards their campaign

4. They sacked Terry Hutch because he spoke the truth

5. They are not on the race course when the others are, notwithstanding their excuses

6. They are primarily responsible for the Rudder-Gate Affair and bringing the AC into disrepute. (LOL)

 

If they finally make racing they simply won't be able to compete, look at how far back Luna Rossa are even with all that time on the water. I'd like to find one positive for them but I can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrafirma: I'd like to find one positive for them but I can't.

 

The new boat is a nice blue colour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cayard should take up politics.

 

Hard to argue this point with you.

 

Of all people, you would certainly be the one to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cayard should take up politics.

 

First he says the IJ ruling means AR is out of the contest.

 

Now Bob Fisher says "Paul shrugged off the 'elevator' issue – 'We will conform to the class rules when we re-launch,' - as being a non-issue."

 

The man (?) is a slime of the first order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cayard should take up politics.

 

The man (?) is a slime of the first order.

 

Welcome to the "hater" crowd, along with your other sock puppets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So frustrating to see the other boats racing but no Artemis. Really don't care for press releases and videos on Stress Testing. Their campaign has been a major disaster when you consider:

 

1. All the other boats were foiling and they remained bullish with their non-foiling design until they actually lined up against Oracle...Hello...!

2. Their non-foiling design was not up to it structurally.

3. Their CEO refuted any criticism made towards their campaign

4. They sacked Terry Hutch because he spoke the truth

5. They are not on the race course when the others are, notwithstanding their excuses

6. They are primarily responsible for the Rudder-Gate Affair and bringing the AC into disrepute. (LOL)

 

If they finally make racing they simply won't be able to compete, look at how far back Luna Rossa are even with all that time on the water. I'd like to find one positive for them but I can't.

Do you really think (assume) that Terry was sacked because he SPOKE THE TRUTH!?!? ... not due to his lack of experience in large multihulls or fast boats. I'm guessing foiling wasn't something he encouraged the design team to pursue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go to remember Terry had a pretty solid set of results in match races. in fact i think other than the obvious he probably did as well as any other skipper in the ACWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go to remember Terry had a pretty solid set of results in match races. in fact i think other than the obvious he probably did as well as any other skipper in the ACWS

ok. but the 72 is a different beast than a 45. and i think he sailed less than 5 days on AR1.. thats a statement in itself. my point is.. where has it been said he was sacked for speaking the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fair enough..

Terrafirma: I'd like to find one positive for them but I can't.

 

The new boat is a nice blue colour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cayard should take up politics.

 

First he says the IJ ruling means AR is out of the contest.

 

Now Bob Fisher says "Paul shrugged off the 'elevator' issue 'We will conform to the class rules when we re-launch,' - as being a non-issue."

The man (?) is a slime of the first order.

Hastings, stop talking to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Cayard a bullshitter?

 

During the IK hearing he said affirmation of the original rule (regarding rudders) would knock AR out of the contest.

 

Yet Scutlebutt says this:

 

"Questions regarding the team’s participation centered on the rudders, but Murray says they’ve got two sets of rudders. One set complies with the AC72 Class Rule and the other with the regatta director’s safety recommendations."

 

So AR always had rule-compliant rudders.

 

Cayard was fibbing ... nest pas?"

Not quite. The original compliant rudders are + rudders, which will not help AR's new boat to fly. The RD illegal rule compliant T rudders won't fly either (within the rule that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. The original compliant rudders are + rudders, which will not help AR's new boat to fly. The RD illegal rule compliant T rudders won't fly either (within the rule that is).

 

can't see why they wouldn't use these class legal assym T rudders they built for the boat

 

post-23477-0-23019100-1374224561_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

As long as they don't turn left they will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not quite. The original compliant rudders are + rudders, which will not help AR's new boat to fly. The RD illegal rule compliant T rudders won't fly either (within the rule that is).

can't see why they wouldn't use these class legal assym T rudders they built for the boat

 

attachicon.gifARassym.jpg

Because the T rudders are not class legal. I believe they are built too long for the class rule but perfect for HIM rules (Honest IM)

Artemis = Epic Fail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

in the video PC said their 2nd set was sent out to be modified to the murray recommendations

 

the 1st set should be just fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think (assume) that Terry was sacked because he SPOKE THE TRUTH!?!? ... not due to his lack of experience in large multihulls or fast boats. I'm guessing foiling wasn't something he encouraged the design team to pursue.

 

Given the experience that Deano had prior to jumping into a cat, I doubt it.

A good helm can adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Cayard should take up politics.

 

First he says the IJ ruling means AR is out of the contest.

 

Now Bob Fisher says "Paul shrugged off the 'elevator' issue 'We will conform to the class rules when we re-launch,' - as being a non-issue."

The man (?) is a slime of the first order.

Hastings, stop talking to yourself.

Que?

Hastings?

Are you doubling as SW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Masterbeam, use your imagination. Off course we don't know what was said behind closed doors so I am assuming PC did not like what Terry was throwing back at em? I made quite a few points as to Artemis being a failure and you want to highlight that one? Really the point of the matter here MB is that sacking Terry showed that there was infighting and a lack of uniformity imo. Not a good way to start a team no matter which way you spin it. Now to the other 5 points.

 

 

 

go to remember Terry had a pretty solid set of results in match races. in fact i think other than the obvious he probably did as well as any other skipper in the ACWS

ok. but the 72 is a different beast than a 45. and i think he sailed less than 5 days on AR1.. thats a statement in itself. my point is.. where has it been said he was sacked for speaking the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey Masterbeam, use your imagination. Off course we don't know what was said behind closed doors so I am assuming PC did not like what Terry was throwing back at em? I made quite a few points as to Artemis being a failure and you want to highlight that one? Really the point of the matter here MB is that sacking Terry showed that there was infighting and a lack of uniformity imo. Not a good way to start a team no matter which way you spin it. Now to the other 5 points.

 

 

 

go to remember Terry had a pretty solid set of results in match races. in fact i think other than the obvious he probably did as well as any other skipper in the ACWS

ok. but the 72 is a different beast than a 45. and i think he sailed less than 5 days on AR1.. thats a statement in itself. my point is.. where has it been said he was sacked for speaking the truth?

 

Right - it was not stated what TH was sacked for, but ....

 

- it was not stated why W1 crumpled

 

- it was not stated that B1's beam was crap from day 1

 

- it was not stated why B2 was built to the same dubious standards as B1

 

- it was not stated why* shitty B1 (B2 really when you count the Orma 72) tacoed and trapped a sailor

 

- it was not stated that they failed to notice someone was missing until they were all in the chase boat

 

- it was not stated why they were not following the post-Orpocalypse safety recommendations

 

- it was not stated that JK and his under performing bro' got the boot

 

Lots of whining - not so much transparency

 

Good luck to them anyway - just can't muster much sympathy

 

 

* conceptualisation, design, construction, testing and probably maintenance all suspect from this bunch - take your pick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey Masterbeam, use your imagination. Off course we don't know what was said behind closed doors so I am assuming PC did not like what Terry was throwing back at em? I made quite a few points as to Artemis being a failure and you want to highlight that one? Really the point of the matter here MB is that sacking Terry showed that there was infighting and a lack of uniformity imo. Not a good way to start a team no matter which way you spin it. Now to the other 5 points.

 

 

 

go to remember Terry had a pretty solid set of results in match races. in fact i think other than the obvious he probably did as well as any other skipper in the ACWS

ok. but the 72 is a different beast than a 45. and i think he sailed less than 5 days on AR1.. thats a statement in itself. my point is.. where has it been said he was sacked for speaking the truth?

 

Right - it was not stated what TH was sacked for, but ....

 

- it was not stated why W1 crumpled

 

- it was not stated that B1's beam was crap from day 1

 

- it was not stated why B2 was built to the same dubious standards as B1

 

- it was not stated why* shitty B1 (B2 really when you count the Orma 72) tacoed and trapped a sailor

 

- it was not stated that they failed to notice someone was missing until they were all in the chase boat

 

- it was not stated why they were not following the post-Orpocalypse safety recommendations

 

- it was not stated that JK and his under performing bro' got the boot

 

Lots of whining - not so much transparency

 

Good luck to them anyway - just can't muster much sympathy

 

 

* conceptualisation, design, construction, testing and probably maintenance all suspect from this bunch - take your pick

Put simply JK is and will never be a Multi Hulll designer and you have put responsibility here. But as far as the sympathy statement way out line not the sailors fault >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

As long as they don't turn left they will be fine.

waddabout the other side of the boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of four independent designs (OR AR package ETNZ) only one identified foiling option during conceptualisation.

Foiling appears linked to how daggerpoards treated during measurement.

That went to jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this for a scenario?

1. TNZ wins AC34

2. LE decides he has done his time in the AC world (must have splashed $700m+ over some years)

3. OR disband

4. TT hires RC

5. AR is reborn for AC35

I liked your last AR post better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

As long as they don't turn left they will be fine.

waddabout the other side of the boat?

They must be from New Jersey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis had their wing out this morning. Did a practice hoist.

Boat looks ready for launch tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Platform took a short stroll to the crane and back this afternoon.

Pictures to follow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis is good kit, I do plan to get some.

 

But even if ETNZ swag costed 3 times as much I bet they far outsell everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETNZ houses their team and families in SF.

At least on the city front an easy 75% or more of spectators wearing team gear wear ETNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis had their wing out this morning. Did a practice hoist.

Boat looks ready for launch tomorrow.

 

According to Tucker and Andy, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETNZ houses their team and families in SF.

At least on the city front an easy 75% or more of spectators wearing team gear wear ETNZ.

 

Still too frickin expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

ScreenShot2013-07-18at70428PM.png?t=1374

I hate to see this beam

Why?

I wondered same thing. I see a lot of padding to protect hull and beam from being turned upside down, other than that, looks pretty good to me. It certainly hasn't done anything distasteful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I hate to see this beam

Why?

I wondered same thing. I see a lot of padding to protect hull and beam from being turned upside down, other than that, looks pretty good to me. It certainly hasn't done anything distasteful.

 

I'm with Dupont. To me it just looks seriously wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I hate to see this beam

Why?

I wondered same thing. I see a lot of padding to protect hull and beam from being turned upside down, other than that, looks pretty good to me. It certainly hasn't done anything distasteful.

 

I'm with Dupont. To me it just looks seriously wrong.

 

okie, but why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I hate to see this beam

 

Why?

I wondered same thing. I see a lot of padding to protect hull and beam from being turned upside down, other than that, looks pretty good to me. It certainly hasn't done anything distasteful.

 

I'm with Dupont. To me it just looks seriously wrong.

 

okie, but why?

 

 

To me the loads are all out of alignment. I wouldn't cross a bridge like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Artemis Racing AC72 Update 12 - Final Preparations

 

Published on 21 Jul 2013

The Artemis Racing base in Alameda has been a hive of activity. With our launch approaching, the shore crew have been flat out assembling our AC72 for sailing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9a_jT4zi8M&feature=player_embedded#t=58s

Good view of the beam, showing some lumpy sections - perhaps reinforcements, perhaps not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not another "lets pile on AR" comment:

Does that wings control mechanism look like the 'draggiest' we've seen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not another "lets pile on AR" comment:

Does that wings control mechanism look like the 'draggiest' we've seen?

Don't know, but we are not seeing it from the same direction the wind would see it so impossible to tell from that shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. And your area of expertise is?

I think it was pretty clear. He has driven across bridges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see. And your area of expertise is?

I think it was pretty clear. He has driven across bridges.

 

msp

 

slipped in the little bit of code again :o

 

yeah, something whacky going on, lots of missed posts because of blocking of MSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not another "lets pile on AR" comment:

Does that wings control mechanism look like the 'draggiest' we've seen?

 

right now I am guessing they will over joyed just to sail in an actual race

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Nathan, yes he is a great helm, but it is light years from running around two handed in a 49 er

Let me guess that you have never sailed a 49er.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Nathan, yes he is a great helm, but it is light years from running around two handed in a 49 er

Let me guess that you have never sailed a 49er in more than 15 knots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see. And your area of expertise is?

I think it was pretty clear. He has driven across bridges.

 

>msp

 

slipped in the little bit of code again :o

 

yeah, something whacky going on, lots of missed posts because of blocking of MSP.

 

Is MSP shitting on the thread on purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not another "lets pile on AR" comment:

Does that wings control mechanism look like the 'draggiest' we've seen?

 

A real dragster!

 

It must have some redeeming features but they're not apparent yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

WAG, W2/3 being conceptually antithetical to W1: could that be the North generic design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

ScreenShot2013-07-18at70428PM.png?t=1374

I hate to see this beam

Why?

Have you seen the first one, you know the one which broke a first time when the boat was under tug and a second time in about 16-18 knot of wind ?

OK, perhaps they reinforced it but it still seems to be the same.

Why the V ? why is the beam looking seeming so flat while most forces are vertical ?

Whose sailor will be happy to sail with this beam ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

ScreenShot2013-07-18at70428PM.png?t=1374

I hate to see this beam

Why?

Have you seen the first one, you know the one which broke a first time when the boat was under tug and a second time in about 16-18 knot of wind ?

OK, perhaps they reinforced it but it still seems to be the same.

Why the V ? why is the beam looking seeming so flat while most forces are vertical ?

Whose sailor will be happy to sail with this beam ?

The first break was because they loaded the beam without the wing on, and it is shaped that way so the boards are level with the base of the wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

ScreenShot2013-07-18at70428PM.png?t=1374

I hate to see this beam

Why?

Have you seen the first one, you know the one which broke a first time when the boat was under tug and a second time in about 16-18 knot of wind ?

OK, perhaps they reinforced it but it still seems to be the same.

Why the V ? why is the beam looking seeming so flat while most forces are vertical ?

Whose sailor will be happy to sail with this beam ?

 

 

The team proved that it is stong enough during there "new load test procedure" so I dont see the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the V ? why is the beam looking seeming so flat while most forces are vertical ?

Whose sailor will be happy to sail with this beam ?

 

Stop embarrassing yourself. You really have no idea what you are on about.

You need to combine wing forces, platform twist and rig induced beam stress to understand the force vectors. A vee'd beam may well be the LOWEST stress option. All we know for sure is that none of us can possibly pretend to know if a v is better or not.

 

Although I could learn to quote properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The V is probably to position the wing more aft.

The beam broke at least two times vertically, once upward, the other downward. Of course you can blame the construction without looking at the design...

The load test ? didn't they do it each time before they broke ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites