• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
floater

trickle down

Recommended Posts

Doug

 

I really don't see the GS32 and FP systems as a refinement of the TNZ system but more like the same thing at different ends of a spectrum. TNZ (and the other AC teams) could have gone for more V'ed foils and I am pretty sure that most of the final foils used were in fact more "open" (L like) than earlier iterations. They knew the trade off - more V and more heave control, less V and more need for manual intervention. However, for the AC teams, the most important thing was speed. As we saw, it was more important than heave stability (AC boats still had heave stability "moments"). With the GS32 and the FP, because they are one designs, they can afford to give up top end speed in exchange for near foolproof handling behavior. The second you are building to a development type rule, you start to push the other way because even small gains are worthwhile.

 

We also saw an understanding of this trade off with the C Class. When flying properly, Hydros was faster than Groupama, but Groupama got around the course faster. In thge A Class, the big question that is being considered is just how much heave stability you design into the foils and how much is achieved by the sailor, because based on current thinking, more inherent heave stability equals higher drag and lower speed.

 

Nope - only one of the boats ended up needing manual input. And it was the one with the more forgiving foil package - strange!

What does the C class allow in terms of automated foil setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hah still no info and I can sense the panties getting tighter. Sorry all on vacation in Hawaii and its the only time I ever have the time to read all of the spewing

Read your quote about arguing with an engineer. Doug's no engineer. Those guys have to stamp things in the real world, which means they are accountable for something. Masochist maybe. It always surprises me when folks engage him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doug

 

I really don't see the GS32 and FP systems as a refinement of the TNZ system but more like the same thing at different ends of a spectrum. TNZ (and the other AC teams) could have gone for more V'ed foils and I am pretty sure that most of the final foils used were in fact more "open" (L like) than earlier iterations. They knew the trade off - more V and more heave control, less V and more need for manual intervention. However, for the AC teams, the most important thing was speed. As we saw, it was more important than heave stability (AC boats still had heave stability "moments"). With the GS32 and the FP, because they are one designs, they can afford to give up top end speed in exchange for near foolproof handling behavior. The second you are building to a development type rule, you start to push the other way because even small gains are worthwhile.

 

We also saw an understanding of this trade off with the C Class. When flying properly, Hydros was faster than Groupama, but Groupama got around the course faster. In thge A Class, the big question that is being considered is just how much heave stability you design into the foils and how much is achieved by the sailor, because based on current thinking, more inherent heave stability equals higher drag and lower speed.

 

Nope - only one of the boats ended up needing manual input. And it was the one with the more forgiving foil package - strange!

What does the C class allow in terms of automated foil setting?

 

Hydros was faster(and set a C Class record during the LAC) but they weren't able to use that speed effectively against Groupama. You can look at Hydros' foils as compared to Groupama and see the difference: Hydros uptip was more "open" than was Groupamas which is faster but harder to control.

post-30-0-88531900-1398860568_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ the bit of Simon's post I was responding to (it was highlighted) concerned AC72's.

 

Then came the question about C cats. ie. how much automation if any is allowed in the foil controls (and are there any constraints on manual control) - those factors as much as anything determines 'best shape' - forgiveness vs pure efficiency, for each class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's it to you Doug

 

Please show your firm grasp on all thing foiling by explaining the difference between heave and pitch stability

 

You mean you're not on a team yet?!

this is too fucking funny. hey at least we know DL isn't plugged into the rumor mill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Doug part of an AC design team though?

I've heard rumors that Oracle's been trying to hire him. They need someone to build model boat lawn ornaments to go in front of their shed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Isn't Doug part of an AC design team though?

I've heard rumors that Oracle's been trying to hire him. They need someone to build model boat lawn ornaments to go in front of their shed.

.

.....never to leave a turd un-stoned :mellow:

 

...the design team is -really- curious how one can transport a mass of lead from one side to the other quickly,,efficiently.......and why th'F you'd -want- to!!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The thing is, you were using a bunch of historic foiling options as evidence to imply that the latest innovations from AC34 are not likely to have much of an impact on the sport. This ignores that the ETNZ foils are most notable for their advance in ease of sailing and stability with LESS complexity, rather than their advance in speed. Before the ETNZ foils, foiling was highly complex, both with regard to the engineering and mechanics, as well as with boat handling (one of the biggest considerations with many prospective boat owners), and they certainly were not seen as aiding stability. When you combine your ignoring the difference in innovation with the ETNZ foils compared to past foiling applications to your consistent criticisms of AC34 and the your contention that people do not prefer to watch higher performance boats at the highest level of the sport.

 

Now, one thing about sailing is that there is a great deal of innertia . . . meaning since it is one of the most expensive sports with regard to equipment, the "masses" are not able or likely to just be changing over to new boats all the time. And since it is also the case that many like to be able to race in existing classes, rather than to have "no one to race", there is also resistance to newer boats. But when discussing trickle down and advancement, I think you have to consider it on the basis of the influence on "modern boats", those that are leading sailing forward.

 

The ETNZ foil concept, particularly as seen in the GC32 and Flying Phantom, has the potential to provide massive performance and stability gains with relatively modest increase in cost. It may be the case that the mechanics of adjustable foil boxes may not be that necessary or be very complex given larger V foils, which would make the added cost manageable. If that is the case, and boat classes allow for the foils, the probability that the foils will have a substantial influence on these boat classes that attract those seeking higher performance and innovation is good. But the main point, which is why I originally responded to you, is that the past "evidence" that foiling has not trickled down really means little relative to the AC34 innovations. For us to be able to measure the trickle down from AC34, we need to just hold on and see how things shake out in the next couple of years. I certainly don't KNOW that it can be done, but history tells me that innovation happens all the time, with things that previously cost a fortune now so cheap they are disposable.

 

No "paper tigers" or straw men.

 

I'm not ignoring the differences in the AC foils; I'm musing about other aspects of a complex issue.

 

Re "when discussing trickle down and advancement, I think you have to consider it on the basis of the influence on "modern boats", those that are leading sailing forward."

 

I am doing that. That's why I looked at what has happened to the number of competitors in the high-performance classes that are "leading sailing forward" in the use of foils. The classes that are doing this today (not "historically", but currently) are classes such as the As,Moths, Int 14s, F16s, etc. These classes show that adopting foils often does not lead to increases in numbers and that classes that adopt foils can lose numbers or remain static. That is why such classes are relevant.

 

They are not conclusive evidence about what foiling will lead to; I never said that they were. These are very complex issues which I am trying to examine with the aid of research and evidence. But to utterly reject the evidence of the classes that are "leading sailing forward" in the adoption of foils may not be particularly logical.

 

Yes, some of the monofoiler classes are complex. People raised the issue of extra complexity when foils arrived in those classes and lots of people poo-pooed the issue and claimed that the extra speed would lead to a boom in the classes. With one exception (which has benefited from probably the biggest and best PR campaign for any class in sailing history) the numbers indicate that those who poo-pooed were wrong and those who were concerned about complexity were right; those classes have not grown strongly and are smaller than comparable non-foiling classes.

 

That is one reason why these classes can be relevant - because they prove that the people who say "ignore the potential problems" are often wrong.

 

You make the claim that AC72 style foiling is fairly simple, economical and easy. I can't see how that is proven, considering that we have not yet seen such foiling in amateur classes. However, we have already seen what happens when classes adopt fairly simple, economical and easy foils, because we have years of experience with using T foils in seahugger Moths, F16 types, etc. And those years of experience indicate that even the use of simple foils that make sailing easier do not seem to cause widepread trickle-back. That is demonstrated by the fact that the classes that adopted the fairly simple T foils to improve ease of handling have not generally grown much if at all.

 

I am not and have not said that foiling will not trickle down. All I have said is that the facts prove that the classes that have already adopted foiling have generally not done particularly well, in terms of competitor numbers. I'm NOT saying that these facts are conclusive, but to completely ignore them is odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, you were using a bunch of historic foiling options as evidence to imply that the latest innovations from AC34 are not likely to have much of an impact on the sport. This ignores that the ETNZ foils are most notable for their advance in ease of sailing and stability with LESS complexity, rather than their advance in speed. Before the ETNZ foils, foiling was highly complex, both with regard to the engineering and mechanics, as well as with boat handling (one of the biggest considerations with many prospective boat owners), and they certainly were not seen as aiding stability. When you combine your ignoring the difference in innovation with the ETNZ foils compared to past foiling applications to your consistent criticisms of AC34 and the your contention that people do not prefer to watch higher performance boats at the highest level of the sport.

 

Now, one thing about sailing is that there is a great deal of innertia . . . meaning since it is one of the most expensive sports with regard to equipment, the "masses" are not able or likely to just be changing over to new boats all the time. And since it is also the case that many like to be able to race in existing classes, rather than to have "no one to race", there is also resistance to newer boats. But when discussing trickle down and advancement, I think you have to consider it on the basis of the influence on "modern boats", those that are leading sailing forward.

 

The ETNZ foil concept, particularly as seen in the GC32 and Flying Phantom, has the potential to provide massive performance and stability gains with relatively modest increase in cost. It may be the case that the mechanics of adjustable foil boxes may not be that necessary or be very complex given larger V foils, which would make the added cost manageable. If that is the case, and boat classes allow for the foils, the probability that the foils will have a substantial influence on these boat classes that attract those seeking higher performance and innovation is good. But the main point, which is why I originally responded to you, is that the past "evidence" that foiling has not trickled down really means little relative to the AC34 innovations. For us to be able to measure the trickle down from AC34, we need to just hold on and see how things shake out in the next couple of years. I certainly don't KNOW that it can be done, but history tells me that innovation happens all the time, with things that previously cost a fortune now so cheap they are disposable.

 

No "paper tigers" or straw men.

I'm not ignoring the differences in the AC foils; I'm musing about other aspects of a complex issue.

 

Re "when discussing trickle down and advancement, I think you have to consider it on the basis of the influence on "modern boats", those that are leading sailing forward."

 

I am doing that. That's why I looked at what has happened to the number of competitors in the high-performance classes that are "leading sailing forward" in the use of foils. The classes that are doing this today (not "historically", but currently) are classes such as the As,Moths, Int 14s, F16s, etc. These classes show that adopting foils often does not lead to increases in numbers and that classes that adopt foils can lose numbers or remain static. That is why such classes are relevant.

 

They are not conclusive evidence about what foiling will lead to; I never said that they were. These are very complex issues which I am trying to examine with the aid of research and evidence. But to utterly reject the evidence of the classes that are "leading sailing forward" in the adoption of foils may not be particularly logical.

 

Yes, some of the monofoiler classes are complex. People raised the issue of extra complexity when foils arrived in those classes and lots of people poo-pooed the issue and claimed that the extra speed would lead to a boom in the classes. With one exception (which has benefited from probably the biggest and best PR campaign for any class in sailing history) the numbers indicate that those who poo-pooed were wrong and those who were concerned about complexity were right; those classes have not grown strongly and are smaller than comparable non-foiling classes.

 

That is one reason why these classes can be relevant - because they prove that the people who say "ignore the potential problems" are often wrong.

 

You make the claim that AC72 style foiling is fairly simple, economical and easy. I can't see how that is proven, considering that we have not yet seen such foiling in amateur classes. However, we have already seen what happens when classes adopt fairly simple, economical and easy foils, because we have years of experience with using T foils in seahugger Moths, F16 types, etc. And those years of experience indicate that even the use of simple foils that make sailing easier do not seem to cause widepread trickle-back. That is demonstrated by the fact that the classes that adopted the fairly simple T foils to improve ease of handling have not generally grown much if at all.

 

I am not and have not said that foiling will not trickle down. All I have said is that the facts prove that the classes that have already adopted foiling have generally not done particularly well, in terms of competitor numbers. I'm NOT saying that these facts are conclusive, but to completely ignore them is odd.

I agree with you, I think. Expensive, complex ideas from the AC generally have minimal effect on the bulk of boats being sailed. I don't see that changing. A set of carbon foils to fly a boat aren't cheap.

 

However, I can also see how full foiling is going to take over at the higher budget, Grand Prix levels of multis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not ignored anything, I have just been saying that the past examples of foiling are hardly reasons to believe foiling will not have a significant impact in the future, particularly now that the AC34-style foils are making sailing easier on otherwise similar boats, rather than harder, and the foil systems are relatively simple compared to older systems. Not proclaiming that it is going to be any kind of ground-swell of popularity for foiling, either. It is going to take some time and observing how boats like the Flying Phantom, GC32 sell, and any other smaller beach-cat applications can do with the challenges of installing the boards on those boats. My own opinion is that we will see some significant growth in foiling boast utilizing the AC34 innovations, but would not put my savings on the line betting it to happen, either.

 

Let's take a look at Moths. The foiling massively increases performance, but that comes with massively more challenging boat management and system complexity (and, simply more intimidating for many). The overwhelming majority of sailors are fairly casual and have relatively limited time to practice, and boats that obviously require a significant time to be able to sail, at all, are going to be somewhat limited in their numbers, and that is before even talking about costs. But still, you have to admit, Moths have become quite influential in sailing . . . . even if the numbers of people sailing them is not staggering, yet. The class has been attracting top-notch talent at much higher levels than the class ever could have if it were not foiling. Has it pushed away a lot of folks that don't want to take on foiling? Of course. I believe you have to also consider, with regard to the total number of folks with foiling months that the marketability of the boats suffers due to the nature of those boats, which are likely to have to compete with sail boarding and kite boarding for participants for many of the same sailors . . . those who primarily solo and want high performance and thrills. But if you look at it as how much has a class grown, you kind of have to look at it as though the old class ended, and the foiling class is entirely new. In that regard, the new class has grown rapidly.

 

As for Int14s, I don't see where the system is as effective of increasing performance and aiding in improving the management of the boat . . . particularly relative to other boat options. I think similar can be said for F16s.

 

Now, compare moths to catamarans. Catamarans are largely multi-crew boats that are already attracting sailors that desire higher performance that is provided by traditional monohull yachts and dinghies. They already cost significantly more, and it is possible that those who buy newer boats of this nature can shell out a bit more for the increased performance, particularly since they generally have more crew on board to handle things and the foils make the boats they are already buying handle better while also making them easier to sail (if what we are hearing is entirely true). Really seems like entirely different animals than looking at the examples of Moths, Int14s, and F16s. But we will see.

 

Horse thoroughly beaten to a pulp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole lot of jawing about the fact that expensive boats don't sell as much as cheap ones. Yay!

 

The difference between flying and 'foils adopted by a class' are completely different things. As of today, there is only one class of boat that flies consistently well in all of sailing. That's the Moth, and it went from nearly dead in 2002 to one of the most vibrant classes in the world today, with over 400 Bladeriders and 500 Mach 2s sold in just a few years at anywhere from 15 to 25,000 dollars and a fleet that consistently includes the world's top highperf sailors. Weymouth will see not only a world record size fleet, but there will be actual multi-sailor teams like Luna Rossa and Artemis sporting team colors and working hard to beat the other teams. Why? Because it's the only class in the world with consistent foiling and that's what AC sailors need to train.

 

 

You can compare other 'foil adopting' classes if you like, but your comparison isn't worth a fuck because none of those boats fly consistently. Out of the half dozen or so classes that have messed about with foiling, only the Phantom and the GC32 have shown the ability to fly stably in a wide range of conditions. After there have been a few flying boats on the market for a while, and after the builders figure out how to keep the costs down and after the classes have proven they are in it for the long haul, you might begin to see the statistics work. Until then, you have a major sample size problem as well as reality to deal with. Measuring change in sailing is frequently like measuring the movement of a glacier.

It's moving, but you need patience more than you need great analytical skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems slow but the few minutes I listened to were fun enough

--

Mothcast Season 3 Episode 3 Foilin eh

Posted on March 19, 2014

In this episode of lawyercast Mothcast, we discuss the recent Aussie moth nationals, the new AC 62″ class, the Foiling A class and Rule 52. A lot. Way too much actually. So, as it turns out we need to have some guests on the show and Phillippe Oligario we are coming to get you on the next show

 

Download the show for iPod (AAC) Download the show in mp3

 

http://www.teknologika.com/mothblog/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean and GG;

 

1 - Foil assist classes are (IMHO) relevant because foil assistance involved the same sort of reasoning and some of the same technical issues as full foiling. Therefore to spend just a single sentence referring to their experience, which is all I did, is reasonable.

 

 

2 - Yes, there are differences between cats and monos. It doesn't seem to be clear whether those differences will make multi foilers more popular than monofoilers. It's also possible that the multifoilers may actually have similar issues to monofoilers. For example, GG said with AC-style multis, "the foils make the boats they are already buying handle better while also making them easier to sail." However, the same thing was said by foiling Moth pioneers, who said early on that foiling Moths were easier to sail than seahuggers.

 

 

Many of the same issues and arguments may still apply and therefore there seems to be no reason to completely ignore the experience of monofoilers, as you apparently wish.

 

 

3 - Mothies who would know have said that before BR came along, it wasn't clear whether foiling would revive the class. Fleet numbers don't seem to have been rising, either.

 

BR then gave the class a huge boost but lost millions in its excellent PR campaign and by selling great boats at an unsustainable price. Whether the Moth class would be doing so well without BR losing a couple of mill promoting it is an open question, and one we'll never know. However, surely we can't just point to the Moth and say "see, foiling increases fleet size" without considering the unsustainable boost that BR gave the class when it needed it.

 

 

4 - GG, yes of course I admit that Moths are influential. For one, that wasn't the question and secondly, they were very influential before they started foiling.

 

5 - Moths "nearly dead in 2002"? That's a very US-centric view. The class has certainly grown in many places and the average Oz nationals fleet is up by about 1/3, but fleets of 30-40+ in the early 2000s prove that it wasn't "nearly dead".

 

6 - Nothing I wrote said that foilers wouldn't become popular, or that multi foilers will not be a nice and interesting niche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 - Moths "nearly dead in 2002"? That's a very US-centric view.

 

Not really. It was a dying class around here. Btw I owned a "low-rider" Moth for a while. Numbers not growing? Doesn't look that way from here.

 

This really seems a pretty pointless discussion. You'd need a particular set of blinkers to deny that lifting foils are already playing a significant part in high performance sailing and that's likely to increase. You'd need to be clueless about the practicalities of foiling, including the limitations of the waters from which most clubs operate, to think it's going to become the dominant mode in sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, Moths were quiet in 2002. About 65 boats did nationals in Australia, Germany and the UK. The UK reported growing interest. That does not mean that the class as a whole was "nearly dead", unless one puts some classes that SA gets very excited about into the same category. "Dying"? Dunno, lots of classes have hung on for many years with similar numbers.

 

"Numbers not growing"? I didn't say that. Moth numbers have clearly been growing since about the time BR came along and the class is doing well, especially in the UK it seems. However, the absolute number of boats actually regularly racing is not that enormous. The world AGM for 2012/13 "relatively flat" numbers of 365 members; good but hardly justifying some claims that this is "the future".

 

Are Moths fantastic? Hell yeah. Are foilers playing a significant part in high performance sailing? Of course. Will they increase? Almost certainly. Nothing I said denies any of that in any way. Whether they are going to be as popular as some claim is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, Moths were quiet in 2002. About 65 boats did nationals in Australia, Germany and the UK.

 

19 in the UK in 2002, actually. A class that was almost impossible to enter because if you hadn't already been sailing Moths for years, it was virtually impossible to learn to sail a modern boat of that era. No newcomers = dying class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure, Moths were quiet in 2002. About 65 boats did nationals in Australia, Germany and the UK.

 

19 in the UK in 2002, actually. A class that was almost impossible to enter because if you hadn't already been sailing Moths for years, it was virtually impossible to learn to sail a modern boat of that era. No newcomers = dying class.

 

Yes, 19 in the UK, about 28 in in Australia (fleets in the early '00s ranged from 23 to 43) and about 15 in Germany equals "about 65 in Australia, Germany and the UK" as I said. 19+28+15-ish = about 65.

 

Huge fleets? No. Comparable to some other classes that have not died? Yes; classes of similar size (the Cherub in the UK, Canoe, RS300 etc) are still alive in both Oz and the UK. About eight sailors came from Europe to be part of the 40+ competitors in the 2000 Oz Moth nats which is not a sign of impending death.

 

Yes it was quiet, although believe you may be over-stating how hard the skinny seahuggers were to sail. Dying? Dunno; it appeared to be no sicker than some other classes that SA loves, and no sicker than classes that have survived.

 

Is the class doing better these days? Definitely YES, which is great, and I never denied it. Are all the monofoilers doing better these days? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 - Moths "nearly dead in 2002"? That's a very US-centric view.

 

Not really. It was a dying class around here. Btw I owned a "low-rider" Moth for a while. Numbers not growing? Doesn't look that way from here.

 

This really seems a pretty pointless discussion. You'd need a particular set of blinkers to deny that lifting foils are already playing a significant part in high performance sailing and that's likely to increase. You'd need to be clueless about the practicalities of foiling, including the limitations of the waters from which most clubs operate, to think it's going to become the dominant mode in sailing.

 

^THIS

 

It will be most interesting to see what kind of applications they can come up with to make beach cats foilers. One of the biggest points that can be made about the limitations of the growth of foiling cats, which at the present seem about the best option for full foiling boats, is how much potential is there for sales of effectively foiling boats that can be sold. Due to cost and logistics, beach cats have the most potential for significant sales. But how will the issue of foils for beaching cats work? As for bigger cats such as the GC32 (or other similar-size or larger cats & tris that could effectively full-foil) . . . what is the ceiling for demand relative to a boat that size and cost that has no real on-board accommodations and is limited to much more than going out and ripping around and racing, particularly when they come with more challenging moorage logistics than most boats? Or, will Morelli/Melvin's "California 45", or a similar concept of full-foiling boat with actual on-board accommodations gain traction?

 

http://www.morrellimelvin.com/california45/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trickle down with foil technology from the First Foiling Americas Cup is not just for catamarans-Perspective has shown a render of a 19 footer, the Exocet, that uses UptiP foils on its ama along with rudder t-foils on each ama.

Watch the slide show-5th boat in: http://www.perspective-design.com/ And there are several RC boats using the foils and one RC trimaran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps there are some areas that have been developed with boats like the phantom and the GC to increase heave without the expense of speed, I mean, maybe kind of in some way it could be that this was achieved. But what do I know :)

I am not a hydrodynamicist, but it's clear that the TNZ foil is a complex three dimensional shape. However, simply considering the fore-aft profile may help illustrate some fundamental characteristics. I am a long way from an intuitive understanding of the foil - but hey, I'll take a few guesses anyway (hoping to learn through others better informed commentary).

 

From what I can see - the GC foil profile has a distinctly angular geometry: with three relatively distinct sections. Let's call them: dagger top, foil middle, and foil tip.

 

Dagger Top: My assumption here is that the top of the foil is simply a daggerboard - it's purpose is to inhibit leeway (when immersed). Significantly, when the boat lifts, this vertical section of the board comes out of the water, inducing leeway.

 

Foil middle: Here it begins to get interesting, as the foil transitions from lateral loading to vertical lifting. In the AC boats these first two sections are one continuous piece - no kinks. But the knuckle in the GC foil lends a symmetry to the two lifting sections. It seems plausible that the symmetry here might lend some roll stability - that is, the overall horizontal component of the foil should stay somewhat constant as the boat rolls.

 

Foil Tip: it looks like about half of the total horizontal lifting component of the foil comes from the foil tip - which balances the middle section nicely - at least in the edge-on dimension!

 

I have to believe that this symmetry is significant, but really don't understand enough to say why...

 

Ride Height Control: when the boat lifts, two things happen: dagger lifts clear, inducing leeway which in turn induces a greater lateral flow across the lifting sections - reducing lift (thanks Mr. M). So less dagger, more leeway, less lift. How important this is for the GC foil I couldn't say.

 

Second, and more obvious, both the foil tip and the top of the mid foil (depending on boat heel) come out of the water - reducing lift in proportion to the horizontal component of the foil exposed. From video, it looks like the GC could be designed this way - fly consistently with foil out - unlike the AC yachts.

 

Tight Angle Between the Sections: lift occurs because water flowing over the top of the foil moves faster than beneath. I'll go out on a limb here and surmise that the water flowing between the lifting sections becomes super accelerated - something akin to a Venturi - because of the constriction between the sections. Because this water is super accelerated - pressure at the foil junction is going to go critical - and pop, we get cavitation. The tight angle might limit top end speed.

 

Perhaps this is part of the reason the AC yachts have such open angles on their foils. Although I suppose less angle simply reduces required foil area - wetted surface and drag - as well.

 

Top End Speed: the curious result of this discussion is to postulate that foiling yachts, unlike floating yachts, have something of a sweet spot in terms of optimal size (and power) of the platform. Building it too big isn't going to make it faster. Maybe a 62 foot catamaran is about right for a yacht that cavitates at 50!

 

For smaller platforms: GC32 to Phantom to A class. Perhaps the gainer is that a less efficient foil can be used because the ultimate speed of the platform falls beneath the cavitation threshold.post-18173-0-89906300-1399058993.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great explanation of how an UptiP foil works by Tom Speer on boatdesign.net :

The curved part of the vertical foil produces essentially the same lift as it rises. This is necessary to counter the side force from the sail rig, which does not change as the height changes.

Because the horizontal lift is constant but the vertical area is reduced as the boat rises, the leeway angle increases. It is the coupling of leeway with heave that is exploited by the L foil to provide vertical static stability.

The dihedral angle of the horizontal wing is set so that the angle of attack of the wing is reduced as the leeway angle increases. This satisfies the static stability condition that the vertical lift decrease as the heave increases.

Because the same horizontal lift is produced over a reduced vertical span, the sideways wash in the wake is also greater and the trailing vortices are more intense. This causes a coupling with the horizontal wing that increases the vertical lift, because the horizontal wing acts as a winglet for the vertical part of the foil (and vice versa). The dihedral angle required for vertical stability is greater than what one might expect by looking at the wing alone because it must overcome this wake-coupled influence. The result is there is a range of dihedral angles that provide positive vertical stability and a range of dihedral angles that are destabilizing in heave because of the coupling with the shed vorticity of the vertical part of the foil.

Although there are times when the foil tip has broached the surface, this is not the normal mechanism for providing heave stability in L foils. The best performance is obtained with the hull just above the wavetops and the wing submerged well below the surface. The leeway-modulated heave stability is still effective in this condition, and the induced drag is minimized.

Canting the foil inboard has the effect of increasing the dihedral angle of the wing, which enhances the heave stability. The vertical lift is spread over a greater span because the curved part of the foil is oriented to provide more vertical component of the force. This reduces the induced drag due to the vertical force. However, the induced drag of the horizontal force would be increased, so cant is typically used off the wind when the side force from the rig is less and the side force produced by the foils is correspondingly less. The foils still have to support the weight of the boat, so the vertical force is not lessened, but the relative proportions of vertical and horizontal force are changed, making the canted foil better suited to the operating condition. Cant allows the leeway-modulated heave stability to be increased an an acceptable penalty in the induced drag because of the lower side force and the higher speeds, which also reduce induced drag.

Upwind, the foils are canted to their vertical position to minimize the induced drag from the high side force and reduced speeds. The reduction in horizontal wing dihedral angle with vertical cant impacts the leeway-modulated heave stability, which is why it is much more difficult to achieve stable flight upwind than downwind. The crew had to be more active in trimming the wing and foil to deal with the reduction in natural heave stability, which was very hard on the grinders when flyng upwind.

Whether canted or upright, the mechanism for providing natural heave stability was still the coupling between heave and leeway, which led to a reduction in vertical lift because of the designed-in coupling between leeway and vertical lift by virtue of the wing dihedral. Reduction in horizontal/vertical-lifting area due to the foil tip broaching the surface was not part of this primary source of heave stability. Allowing the tip to broach the surface had big penalties in terms of induced drag and increased leeway due to insufficient vertical span.

__________________
Tom Speer

 

Pictures left to right(Fred Monsonec/Foilers!)- Flying Phantom(Groupama), Nacra F20, Hydros:

post-30-0-16275900-1399064606.jpg

post-30-0-59153200-1399064663_thumb.jpg

post-30-0-60672500-1399064734_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn I wish I could speak that language. I suppose fully knowing the definition of phrases like 'natural heave stability' would help, a lot.

 

Fun to read regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

?? I'd sure appreciate being corrected if I'm wrong, but my understanding is pitch = bow up/down , while heave should be hull height over the water. No?

 

P.S. : once again, Tom's evangelization efforts cannot be commended enough, all the more so since he's an active AC designer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heave: what guests do over the side when the boat goes up and down too much.

Pitch: when your beer goes over the stern after smacking an unexpected ferry wake.

Roll: your lunch goes over the side when that wake hits abeam.

Yaw: the direction you start steering while nodding off at the tiller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn I wish I could speak that language. I suppose fully knowing the definition of phrases like 'natural heave stability' would help, a lot.

 

Fun to read regardless.

the way I read it - natural heave stability is directly related to the verticality of the foil tip. So both the Phantom and the GC have shitloads of natural heave stability.

 

Also not sure if either the GC or the Phantom (or the A class ) mess about with the nicety of cant - or just live with the drag, and stability, of a large dihedral - both down, and up, the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Damn I wish I could speak that language. I suppose fully knowing the definition of phrases like 'natural heave stability' would help, a lot.

 

Fun to read regardless.

the way I read it - natural heave stability is directly related to the verticality of the foil tip. So both the Phantom and the GC have shitloads of natural heave stability.

 

Also not sure if either the GC or the Phantom (or the A class ) mess about with the nicety of cant - or just live with the drag, and stability, of a large dihedral - both down, and up, the course.

If I understand correctly and to make it simple:

 

- angle for both the vertical and horizontal part of the foil is good for heave stability and not for lateral force, so can be used downwind

- vertical part of the foil in the water is good for the lateral force and the horizontal good for the lift but not for heave, so perfect for upwind but need a lot of adjustements

- generally angles for both parts of the foils (V)are more stable but draggier

 

That could explain why OR could use the L as they had better control on the boat than the Phantom or Groupama used more angle, who are a bit draggier but more stable.

Hydros looked more like OR so should be faster in some spots but more difficult to control, thus slower in general.

 

Is that correct ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Damn I wish I could speak that language. I suppose fully knowing the definition of phrases like 'natural heave stability' would help, a lot.

 

Fun to read regardless.

the way I read it - natural heave stability is directly related to the verticality of the foil tip. So both the Phantom and the GC have shitloads of natural heave stability.

 

Also not sure if either the GC or the Phantom (or the A class ) mess about with the nicety of cant - or just live with the drag, and stability, of a large dihedral - both down, and up, the course.

If I understand correctly and to make it simple:

 

- angle for both the vertical and horizontal part of the foil is good for heave stability and not for lateral force, so can be used downwind

- vertical part of the foil in the water is good for the lateral force and the horizontal good for the lift but not for heave, so perfect for upwind but need a lot of adjustements

- generally angles for both parts of the foils (V)are more stable but draggier

 

That could explain why OR could use the L as they had better control on the boat than the Phantom or Groupama used more angle, who are a bit draggier but more stable.

Hydros looked more like OR so should be faster in some spots but more difficult to control, thus slower in general.

 

Is that correct ?

 

Yes,pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Damn I wish I could speak that language. I suppose fully knowing the definition of phrases like 'natural heave stability' would help, a lot.

 

Fun to read regardless.

the way I read it - natural heave stability is directly related to the verticality of the foil tip. So both the Phantom and the GC have shitloads of natural heave stability.

 

Also not sure if either the GC or the Phantom (or the A class ) mess about with the nicety of cant - or just live with the drag, and stability, of a large dihedral - both down, and up, the course.

If I understand correctly and to make it simple:

 

- angle for both the vertical and horizontal part of the foil is good for heave stability and not for lateral force, so can be used downwind

- vertical part of the foil in the water is good for the lateral force and the horizontal good for the lift but not for heave, so perfect for upwind but need a lot of adjustements

- generally angles for both parts of the foils (V)are more stable but draggier

 

That could explain why OR could use the L as they had better control on the boat than the Phantom or Groupama used more angle, who are a bit draggier but more stable.

Hydros looked more like OR so should be faster in some spots but more difficult to control, thus slower in general.

 

Is that correct ?

Speer is describing an Oracle foil - for which the geometry is more open and without the distinct knuckle present on the vertical foil of the GC and Phantom.

 

But I guess for both the dihedral - angle between foil and foil tip, isn't terribly different. With AC boats > 90 degrees and GC < 90. My suspicion is that this could be significant in terms of ultimate speed potential.

 

Still, it looks to me like a fundamental difference is neither the GC nor the Phantom is racing - they just want stability: leeway - bring it on! Tip out - yes, fly with it!

 

So, when you say angle - you seem to imply vertical angle - it makes sense. The more vertical in the foil the better for heave control. But again, given the propensity for the little boats to air out the foil tip it looks like they get their heave stability from two places: simply less horizontal in the water - but also lots of leeway too.

 

The A's and C's will probably arrive at a faster, but twitchier solution (like the AC boats) simply because they have to compete.

post-18173-0-11375700-1399153890_thumb.jpg

post-18173-0-72990400-1399153917_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Damn I wish I could speak that language. I suppose fully knowing the definition of phrases like 'natural heave stability' would help, a lot.

 

Fun to read regardless.

the way I read it - natural heave stability is directly related to the verticality of the foil tip. So both the Phantom and the GC have shitloads of natural heave stability.

 

Also not sure if either the GC or the Phantom (or the A class ) mess about with the nicety of cant - or just live with the drag, and stability, of a large dihedral - both down, and up, the course.

 

If I understand correctly and to make it simple:

 

- angle for both the vertical and horizontal part of the foil is good for heave stability and not for lateral force, so can be used downwind

- vertical part of the foil in the water is good for the lateral force and the horizontal good for the lift but not for heave, so perfect for upwind but need a lot of adjustements

- generally angles for both parts of the foils (V)are more stable but draggier

 

That could explain why OR could use the L as they had better control on the boat than the Phantom or Groupama used more angle, who are a bit draggier but more stable.

Hydros looked more like OR so should be faster in some spots but more difficult to control, thus slower in general.

 

Is that correct ?

 

Speer is describing an Oracle foil - for which the geometry is more open and without the distinct knuckle present on the vertical foil of the GC and Phantom.

 

But I guess for both the dihedral - angle between foil and foil tip, isn't terribly different. With AC boats > 90 degrees and GC < 90. My suspicion is that this could be significant in terms of ultimate speed potential.

 

Still, it looks to me like a fundamental difference is neither the GC nor the Phantom is racing - they just want stability: leeway - bring it on! Tip out - yes, fly with it!

 

So, when you say angle - you seem to imply vertical angle - it makes sense. The more vertical in the foil the better for heave control. But again, given the propensity for the little boats to air out the foil tip it looks like they get their heave stability from two places: simply less horizontal in the water - but also lots of leeway too.

 

The A's and C's will probably arrive at a faster, but twitchier solution (like the AC boats) simply because they have to compete.

 

You may be right but Groupama showed how fast a relatively heave stable incarnation of these foils could be compared to Hydros. I'd bet they will find a way to eliminate the "twitchiness" and still be very fast-it appears to me that GC and Phantom have come very close to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still, it looks to me like a fundamental difference is neither the GC nor the Phantom is racing - they just want stability: leeway - bring it on! Tip out - yes, fly with it!

 

So, when you say angle - you seem to imply vertical angle - it makes sense. The more vertical in the foil the better for heave control.

GC is not racing, however the Flying Phantom raced today for the first time at the Eurocat on a long distance, they finished with 20 minutes advance on the second in a 2 hours race !

http://www.ouest-france.fr/voile-eurocat-le-duo-bontemps-amiot-survole-le-raid-de-houat-2518699

 

In fact Speers says that the combination of canting and higher dihedral angle enhance the heave stability. That is what the Phantom and Grougapama have, it is what works best on small cats.

 

I guess they are now going to work improving the control of the boat in order to be able to reduce the canting, the dihedral angle and the surface of the foil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Still, it looks to me like a fundamental difference is neither the GC nor the Phantom is racing - they just want stability: leeway - bring it on! Tip out - yes, fly with it!

 

So, when you say angle - you seem to imply vertical angle - it makes sense. The more vertical in the foil the better for heave control.

GC is not racing, however the Flying Phantom raced today for the first time at the Eurocat on a long distance, they finished with 20 minutes advance on the second in a 2 hours race !

http://www.ouest-france.fr/voile-eurocat-le-duo-bontemps-amiot-survole-le-raid-de-houat-2518699

 

In fact Speers says that the combination of canting and higher dihedral angle enhance the heave stability. That is what the Phantom and Grougapama have, it is what works best on small cats.

 

I guess they are now going to work improving the control of the boat in order to be able to reduce the canting, the dihedral angle and the surface of the foil.

indeed, it does seem to work very well. But I have changed my opinion of the GC / Phantom foil geometry. Initially, thought they might have something new - that kick ass upwind foiling is impressive.

 

But, after more consideration, it does seem that they are wearing TNZ training wheels after all. Time will tell, especially if the A cats allow the TNZ foil within their rules.

 

The ultimate beach cat design would be a board without rake or cant adjustment - set and forget - and perhaps the Phantom isn't far from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Still, it looks to me like a fundamental difference is neither the GC nor the Phantom is racing - they just want stability: leeway - bring it on! Tip out - yes, fly with it!

 

So, when you say angle - you seem to imply vertical angle - it makes sense. The more vertical in the foil the better for heave control.

GC is not racing, however the Flying Phantom raced today for the first time at the Eurocat on a long distance, they finished with 20 minutes advance on the second in a 2 hours race !

http://www.ouest-france.fr/voile-eurocat-le-duo-bontemps-amiot-survole-le-raid-de-houat-2518699

 

In fact Speers says that the combination of canting and higher dihedral angle enhance the heave stability. That is what the Phantom and Grougapama have, it is what works best on small cats.

 

I guess they are now going to work improving the control of the boat in order to be able to reduce the canting, the dihedral angle and the surface of the foil.

indeed, it does seem to work very well. But I have changed my opinion of the GC / Phantom foil geometry. Initially, thought they might have something new - that kick ass upwind foiling is impressive.

 

But, after more consideration, it does seem that they are wearing TNZ training wheels after all. Time will tell, especially if the A cats allow the TNZ foil within their rules.

 

The ultimate beach cat design would be a board without rake or cant adjustment - set and forget - and perhaps the Phantom isn't far from that.

 

Don't forget that some of the design optimization that has been done by the GC32 and Flying Phantom guys on their foils can't be seen in any pictures that I've seen-like section changes,twist etc.. But you're right that TNZ developed the concept that these guys have refined......

It is an entirely new foil concept that works differently than almost any foil in history-a monumental invention that will wind up benefitting everyone interested in multihull foiling!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that interview. Has anyone heard whether the AC45's will race next year as foilers or seahuggers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD says that he'll be 'pouring a small fortune into developing AC45s' and so yes, at some point they apparently will be foilers.

 

edit, for a more accurate quote listen at around 13:00 to 13:45 at http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/listen-on-demand/audio/2048111279-grant-dalton--team-new-zealand

 

Thanks for that Stingray-I listened to the whole thing and you may be right but I didn't hear anything that would say definitely foilers. But maybe....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Believe M&M stated that the AC45 needs more beam to be a dedicated foiler. I know those boats are demountable - is a new wider beam set, plus retrofit hydrofoil ready hulls. at all a possibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

Believe M&M stated that the AC45 needs more beam to be a dedicated foiler

Is that a fact?

I think Gino said it - and it (unfortunately) makes sense.

 

Check out the loss of moment arm below. This is a Phantom - see that tip popping out!

 

Makes one wonder why not mount the foil so it flies outboard, rather than inboard? I know all sorts of box rules prohibit appendages beyond the beam - but not all! The mono-marans allow all sorts of stuff to stick out.post-18173-0-00300500-1399326258_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^

Believe M&M stated that the AC45 needs more beam to be a dedicated foiler

Is that a fact?

I think Gino said it - and it (unfortunately) makes sense.

 

Check out the loss of moment arm below. This is a Phantom - see that tip popping out!

 

Makes one wonder why not mount the foil so it flies outboard, rather than inboard? I know all sorts of box rules prohibit appendages beyond the beam - but not all! The mono-marans allow all sorts of stuff to stick out.attachicon.gifimage.jpg

 

Greg Ketterman discovered the answer to that when he did his college thesis and designed the foils for Long Shot and the Hobie tri foiler. He found that when an "L" or "j" foil is mounted with the tip pointing outboard there was tremendous drag because the lee foil was facing high pressure on the outboard vertical section of the foil and where the vertical met the horizontal drag was tremendous since, at that intersection,it was high pressure on the vertical meeting low pressure on the horizontal part of the foil. Just to prove it to himself he outfitted a trifoiler with foils with the tip pointing outboard and compared to the normal configuration it was very slow. He also proved that by rounding the intersection of the vertical and horizontal with the foils pointed inboard the effective aspect ratio was based on the whole immersed part of the foil and not on the span of the individual components.

He also became convinced that the "L" or "J" foil was faster than a t-foil for the same lift.

post-30-0-41601200-1399327976_thumb.jpg

post-30-0-26796700-1399327997_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Thanks, I'll have to digest that. But it does make sense that sticking a TNZ foil outboard could reverse - and render useless - the entire paradigm of leeway induced ride height control.

 

But is it fair to say that the TNZ foil, in general - reduces the catamaran's effective beam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Thanks, I'll have to digest that. But it does make sense that sticking a TNZ foil outboard could reverse - and render useless - the entire paradigm of leeway induced ride height control.

 

But is it fair to say that the TNZ foil, in general - reduces the catamaran's effective beam?

 

Yes, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^

Thanks, I'll have to digest that. But it does make sense that sticking a TNZ foil outboard could reverse - and render useless - the entire paradigm of leeway induced ride height control.

 

But is it fair to say that the TNZ foil, in general - reduces the catamaran's effective beam?

Yes, definitely.

Cool - at least that part of my post made sense. Excuse me, just realized that I've got my shoes tied to the wrong feet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes one wonder why not mount the foil so it flies outboard, rather than inboard?

Not a good solution if I understand it correctly.

 

A round foil outward (like the Nacra) will produce a constant lift equal to the push of the sail. The lift is equal whatever the height of the height of the boat on its foils. Thus you have a very instable boat, sometime jumping out of the water, splashing down and stopping. This also was the concept of Icarus, the first Tornado with foils, I had the chance to meet his inventor, James Grogono a long time ago, very nice man.

 

An L inside foil behaves differently and is auto stable:

 

more vertical lift with the horizontal wing = higher boat = higher CG = higher leeway angle = higher dihedral angle of the horizontal wing = less lift = going down = better repartition of the lift on both the vertical and horizontal part of the foil + lift from the wake on the side of the foils = better heave control = auto stable for heave and height.

 

Obviously it depends of the angle of the L, more V is more stable, pure L faster but trickier.

- Upwind: Vertical L = less drag and better pointing but needs excellent control of the boat and a Herbie for big boats

- Downwind: canted L = more stable and the smaller ratio of lateral forces vs vertical one authorizes it.

 

Basiliscus can feel free to correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not new but not posted either AFAIK..

 

As a counter-point to all the theory ^

 

 

And are these former 'OTUSA insiders' also not entitled to a AC35 spot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question - anybody know how Phantom or GC perform to windward vs. their non-foiling counterparts?

 

That is, on a windward-leeward - we know who wins the leeward. But is the windward still close?

 

I suppose the question applies to A's and C's too - at least if the A's allowed a decent TNZ style solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Catamaran Sailing and Racing News:

Upwind in medium breeze the FP is seen struggling against the F18s, that hold ground very well until the FP went 'berserk' on full foiling mode, the speed is too much!! Video above is a must see, check the foiling footage, just unbelievable speed. Literally Insane.

 

http://www.catsailingnews.com/2014/03/flying-phantom-first-race.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Catamaran Sailing and Racing News:

Upwind in medium breeze the FP is seen struggling against the F18s, that hold ground very well until the FP went 'berserk' on full foiling mode, the speed is too much!! Video above is a must see, check the foiling footage, just unbelievable speed. Literally Insane.

 

http://www.catsailingnews.com/2014/03/flying-phantom-first-race.html

The video tells it all.

 

Upwind vs what seems to be Nacra 20c, they have about the same speed between 0:45 and 0:50. Then the boat foils and.......... flies, higher and faster.

 

Downwind at 1:15, even more impressive when foiling, much faster and about 20% deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

From Catamaran Sailing and Racing News:

Upwind in medium breeze the FP is seen struggling against the F18s, that hold ground very well until the FP went 'berserk' on full foiling mode, the speed is too much!! Video above is a must see, check the foiling footage, just unbelievable speed. Literally Insane.

 

http://www.catsailingnews.com/2014/03/flying-phantom-first-race.html

The video tells it all.

 

Upwind vs what seems to be Nacra 20c, they have about the same speed between 0:45 and 0:50. Then the boat foils and.......... flies, higher and faster.

 

Downwind at 1:15, even more impressive when foiling, much faster and about 20% deeper.

well - speed there is. But not higher - they noticeably drop off and start flying.

 

There was a quote at the end: "We do well with the long distance race". Perhaps a different story, on the upwind leg of a tight windward - leeward.

 

And that was always the debate with the AC72's - perhaps not enough runway for good VMG upwind - except we do know how that story ended.

 

That said - it doesn't look (to my untrained eye) that the Phantom or GC board should be more efficient upwind than the AC72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all that with soft sails too.

Going back to soft would make many aspects of the AC easier - and add greatly to the 'trickle'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California 45 by Morelli and Melvin, right? UPDATE: Definitely not.....see next post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

From Catamaran Sailing and Racing News:

Upwind in medium breeze the FP is seen struggling against the F18s, that hold ground very well until the FP went 'berserk' on full foiling mode, the speed is too much!! Video above is a must see, check the foiling footage, just unbelievable speed. Literally Insane.

 

http://www.catsailingnews.com/2014/03/flying-phantom-first-race.html

The video tells it all.

 

Upwind vs what seems to be Nacra 20c, they have about the same speed between 0:45 and 0:50. Then the boat foils and.......... flies, higher and faster.

 

Downwind at 1:15, even more impressive when foiling, much faster and about 20% deeper.

well - speed there is. But not higher - they noticeably drop off and start flying.

 

There was a quote at the end: "We do well with the long distance race". Perhaps a different story, on the upwind leg of a tight windward - leeward.

 

And that was always the debate with the AC72's - perhaps not enough runway for good VMG upwind - except we do know how that story ended.

 

That said - it doesn't look (to my untrained eye) that the Phantom or GC board should be more efficient upwind than the AC72.

 

They bear away in order to foil upwind and then, IMO, the go faster and higher against probably a Nacra F20c, a longer boat, much wider, more powerful.

They are faster everywhere but maybe not in light conditions and transitions.

I don't know if they are more "efficient" upwind than an AC72. They do better than TNZ and as well as OR flying upwind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

California 45 by Morelli and Melvin, right?

 

Gunboat G4

http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-g4

 

Gunboat needs to update the description on their website. They show both the C foils and the ETNZ-style foils, but they only talk about the C foils:

 

2. C-FOIL DAGGERBOARDS: When you achieve a 2.4 ton displacement, lifting foils make a significant contribution to performance. The C-foil daggerboards provide lift, reduce drag, and keep things safe when pressed downwind. Thanks to their symmetric shape, both foils can be left down. There is no need to raise or lower the boards when tacking or jibing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

From Catamaran Sailing and Racing News:

Upwind in medium breeze the FP is seen struggling against the F18s, that hold ground very well until the FP went 'berserk' on full foiling mode, the speed is too much!! Video above is a must see, check the foiling footage, just unbelievable speed. Literally Insane.

 

http://www.catsailingnews.com/2014/03/flying-phantom-first-race.html

The video tells it all.

 

Upwind vs what seems to be Nacra 20c, they have about the same speed between 0:45 and 0:50. Then the boat foils and.......... flies, higher and faster.

 

Downwind at 1:15, even more impressive when foiling, much faster and about 20% deeper.

well - speed there is. But not higher - they noticeably drop off and start flying.

 

There was a quote at the end: "We do well with the long distance race". Perhaps a different story, on the upwind leg of a tight windward - leeward.

 

And that was always the debate with the AC72's - perhaps not enough runway for good VMG upwind - except we do know how that story ended.

 

That said - it doesn't look (to my untrained eye) that the Phantom or GC board should be more efficient upwind than the AC72.

Another video of the Phantom racing posted by Catsailing news.

If you look at the first minutes the Phantom is to the wind of the fleet, presumably higher and surely faster.

The stability of the boat is just amazing and the crew has total control.

 

 

http://www.catsailingnews.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

Awesome looking machine - but I wouldn't go out on a limb claiming both higher and faster! They only got 4th (from what I can interpret).

 

http://www.yccarnac.com/files/Documents/Regate/Eurocat/Resultats/general%20definitif/eurocat_f18_s.htm

^^ 4th corrected time. They finished with 20 minutes advance on the second. And I think the second boat was a much bigger Nacra F20c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^^

Awesome looking machine - but I wouldn't go out on a limb claiming both higher and faster! They only got 4th (from what I can interpret).

 

http://www.yccarnac.com/files/Documents/Regate/Eurocat/Resultats/general%20definitif/eurocat_f18_s.htm

^^ 4th corrected time. They finished with 20 minutes advance on the second. And I think the second boat was a much bigger Nacra F20c.

 

Isn't it corrected time vs finish time what determines the finish results ?

 

Maybe I've missed something here or I need to simply buy a bigger/faster boat to win more. That could get expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^^

Awesome looking machine - but I wouldn't go out on a limb claiming both higher and faster! They only got 4th (from what I can interpret).

 

http://www.yccarnac.com/files/Documents/Regate/Eurocat/Resultats/general%20definitif/eurocat_f18_s.htm

^^ 4th corrected time. They finished with 20 minutes advance on the second. And I think the second boat was a much bigger Nacra F20c.

 

Isn't it corrected time vs finish time that determines the results ?

 

Maybe I've missed something here or I need to simply buy a bigger boat to win more.

Shitfly, the Flying Phantom is an F18 as, in fact, the second boat, they have the same size.

You are so ignorant that you don't even know what a rule means.

 

Another swing another miss. Don't miss your face the next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

^^

Awesome looking machine - but I wouldn't go out on a limb claiming both higher and faster! They only got 4th (from what I can interpret).

 

http://www.yccarnac.com/files/Documents/Regate/Eurocat/Resultats/general%20definitif/eurocat_f18_s.htm

^^ 4th corrected time. They finished with 20 minutes advance on the second. And I think the second boat was a much bigger Nacra F20c.

 

Isn't it corrected time vs finish time that determines the results ?

 

Maybe I've missed something here or I need to simply buy a bigger boat to win more.

Shitfly, the Flying Phantom is an F18 as, in fact, the second boat, they have the same size.

You are so ignorant that you don't even know what a rule means.

 

Another swing another miss. Don't miss your face the next time.

The Flying Phantom is not an F18 other than the length nothing on the FP is class legal in the F18 fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

^^

Awesome looking machine - but I wouldn't go out on a limb claiming both higher and faster! They only got 4th (from what I can interpret).

 

http://www.yccarnac.com/files/Documents/Regate/Eurocat/Resultats/general%20definitif/eurocat_f18_s.htm

^^ 4th corrected time. They finished with 20 minutes advance on the second. And I think the second boat was a much bigger Nacra F20c.

 

Isn't it corrected time vs finish time that determines the results ?

 

Maybe I've missed something here or I need to simply buy a bigger boat to win more.

Shitfly, the Flying Phantom is an F18 as, in fact, the second boat, they have the same size.

You are so ignorant that you don't even know what a rule means.

 

Another swing another miss. Don't miss your face the next time.

 

No need to get your pink panties in a bunch TC.

 

Corrected time still determines the finish, no ?

 

Maybe you use a different rule than what I'm familiar with, the TC rule :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Floater, the Flying Phantom broke the long distance record, hold by the much bigger Nacra 20c, of 25' 1''. Simply AMAZING !!!

 

Yes, higher and faster than ALL the fleet as we could see them during the first leg.

 

More interesting, they medium conditions, the difference will be even more in stronger conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you use a different rule than what I'm familiar with, the TC rule

Yep, shitfly, depending on the rule. you could even make an opti win the AC.

Any way, you show your ignorance of the rules as first 2 boats were of the same size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^^

Awesome looking machine - but I wouldn't go out on a limb claiming both higher and faster! They only got 4th (from what I can interpret).

 

http://www.yccarnac.com/files/Documents/Regate/Eurocat/Resultats/general%20definitif/eurocat_f18_s.htm

^^ 4th corrected time. They finished with 20 minutes advance on the second. And I think the second boat was a much bigger Nacra F20c.
please check the link. Looks like they won only one of six races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Floater, the Flying Phantom broke the long distance record, hold by the much bigger Nacra 20c, of 25' 1''. Simply AMAZING !!!

 

Yes, higher and faster than ALL the fleet as we could see them during the first leg.

 

More interesting, they medium conditions, the difference will be even more in stronger conditions.

maybe - except the pair of still sequences - which seem to show the FP rounding behind another boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

And don't forget the FP has less righting moment than the regular Phantom - NFP. The TNZ boards rob it of some righting moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

^^

Awesome looking machine - but I wouldn't go out on a limb claiming both higher and faster! They only got 4th (from what I can interpret).

 

http://www.yccarnac.com/files/Documents/Regate/Eurocat/Resultats/general%20definitif/eurocat_f18_s.htm

^^ 4th corrected time. They finished with 20 minutes advance on the second. And I think the second boat was a much bigger Nacra F20c.
please check the link. Looks like they won only one of six races.

They could not compete in the other races because of the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Floater, the Flying Phantom broke the long distance record, hold by the much bigger Nacra 20c, of 25' 1''. Simply AMAZING !!!

 

Yes, higher and faster than ALL the fleet as we could see them during the first leg.

 

More interesting, they medium conditions, the difference will be even more in stronger conditions.

maybe - except the pair of still sequences - which seem to show the FP rounding behind another boat.

I don't think the still sequences were taken the same day.

Here is one account of the race.

 

Like each year, the Eurocat in Carnac – France, is one of the most important sport catamaran events in France. With more than 150 boats registered, the four days of regattas and long distance race “Voiles et Voiliers” organized by the Carnac’s Yacht Club were a success.

 

The long distance race took place on Saturday May the 3rd. For the Flying Phantom and the Phantom Sailing Team, with Gurvan Bontemps and Benjamin Amiot, it was a unique opportunity to confront a fleet of 169 boats against some of the top French and European sailors around the Island of Houat.

 

The briefing was performed at 9am by the organization, who gave special instructions for the long distance event that followed the historical Eurocat course around the Island of Houat. Weather forecast announced an eastbound wind speed of 5 to 15 knots with a partly cloudy sky.

 

At 12:05 pm the competitors lined up on the starting line in front of the Carnac’s Yacht Club and started the race at the send off of the race committee.

 

The first leg was upwind of the offset mark. When most of the fleet took to the left of the route, along Carnac’s beach, Gurvan and Benjamin keep to the right and reached the top mark at the same time as Iker Martinez and Fernandino Van West who were sailing on a F18.

 

After the top mark, the leg was downwind to a show buoy anchored off the yacht club access. Iker and Fernandino hoisted their spinnaker whilst Gurvan and Benjamin began to fly on the Flying Phantom, thus taking the lead of the race. This was the only moment during the whole race where the Flying Phantom was in contact with the fleet. Once the show mark was rounded, the Flying Phantom started to fly at a speed of around 25kts for a long reaching leg along the Quiberon’s peninsula and took a tremendous lead over the fleet.

 

In front of the south Quiberon mark, the wind dropped and the Flying Phantom moved to a skimming mode to reach the Bonen Bras gate at the north tip of the Island. The island was to be kept on starboard. As the wind was coming from the east the Flying Phantom went along the south side of the island in close hauled.

The first tack occurred at the south west tip for another leg in close hauled up to the east side, where the Flying Phantom came back to reaching and flew gently following the beautiful Treac’h ar Goured long beach.

 

The wind dropped down from 10 kts to 5 kts while sailing through Quiberon’s North gate, the last stretch was consequently slower but nevertheless Gurvan and Benjamin flyed across the line completing a time of 2 hours 5 minutes and 20 seconds.

 

The Phantoms Sailing Team exploded the last Eurocat’s long distance race record by 24 minutes and 54 seconds, which was formally held by a Nacra F20 in 2010 crewed by Peter Vink & Sven de Laaf.

 

 

The second boat, an F18 helmed by Morgan Lagravière and crewed by Arnaud Jarlegan, arrived 20 minutes after the Flying Phantom, finishing the race with a time of 2 hours 26 minutes and 7 seconds, 49 seconds, ahead of Iker Martinez and Fernandino Van West.

 

Alex Udin

 

“The project was launched three years ago, but we started sailing sessions 2 years ago. Unfortunately most of the time the sessions are performed with only the Flying Phantom itself, so it is difficult to compare performances. Le raid du Goelo, 2 months ago, was the first race in which we participated and the first time we aligned the Flying Phantom with other boats. This is why the Eurocat long distance race is for us a unique opportunity to benchmark in front of F18 boats driven by the best sports catamaran sailors in France and Europe.

The race was a little bit stressful as it was long, wind conditions were very variable and in order to win we had to finish without breaking anything.

I am very happy by the result: beating the record by 25 minutes is a true demonstration of the Flying Phantom performances and its ability to race and perform efficiently in such events.

The Eurocat is one of the biggest events in Europe and was a key milestone in our agenda. I am really looking forwards to the next races in Switzerland, with the Genève-Rolle-Genève, and in the Netherlands, with the round the Texel.

Finally, I would like to congratulate Gurvan Bontemps and Benjamin Amiot for their mastery of the Flying Phantom as well as our technical partner Goldfish Boat.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice. Thanks. FP wasn't scored but it does demonstrate seaworthiness of the craft. Very cool stuff.

The FP Crew was awarded at the Eurocat 2014 with a first boat to finish the Raid. So they were scored in real time also. Carnac & Texel both rewards blue ribbons. Marstroms 20s, later Nacra 20s and now the FP are going for the first place real time in those events and all aim to break the records too. I think the flying F20c will be racing Texel and the FP too, first clash of foiling concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Nice. Thanks. FP wasn't scored but it does demonstrate seaworthiness of the craft. Very cool stuff.

The FP Crew was awarded at the Eurocat 2014 with a first boat to finish the Raid. So they were scored in real time also. Carnac & Texel both rewards blue ribbons. Marstroms 20s, later Nacra 20s and now the FP are going for the first place real time in those events and all aim to break the records too. I think the flying F20c will be racing Texel and the FP too, first clash of foiling concepts.
If I remember correctly - the barrier islands to the north of the Netherlands can get windy - and given Texel looks relatively oblate, that should be a good all around performance test. Hope they are carefully commissioning the Nacra - the FP captains stated: "glad we didn't break anything!"

 

Archipelago raid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at VS

-/

Foiling in just 8 knots: the new Mk2 GC32

Posted on 14 May 2014 by Valencia Sailing

0

[source: The Great Cup] After six months of intense R&D, the GC32 has been fitted with its Mk2 set of foils and has now joined the twin-hulled elite like the AC72s of the last Americas Cup in becoming a fully foiling, airborne, racing catamaran.

The Martin Fischer design, in production at Premier Composite Technologies in Dubai, had its first sailing season last year. Then it was fitted with L-shaped rudders and double-S shaped main lifting foils, which, above 15 knots, typically held 80% of the boats displacement. New state of the art T-shaped rudders and J-shaped main lifting foils now enable the GC32 to sail clear of the water.

http://www.vsail.info/2014/05/14/foiling-in-just-8-knots-the-new-mk2-gc32/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nice. Thanks. FP wasn't scored but it does demonstrate seaworthiness of the craft. Very cool stuff.

The FP Crew was awarded at the Eurocat 2014 with a first boat to finish the Raid. So they were scored in real time also. Carnac & Texel both rewards blue ribbons. Marstroms 20s, later Nacra 20s and now the FP are going for the first place real time in those events and all aim to break the records too. I think the flying F20c will be racing Texel and the FP too, first clash of foiling concepts.

Hi k2mav,

 

until now the Eurocat long distance has always been won by Tornados, Nacra F20c and Marstrom 20 with huge margins, pretty equivalent to the FP. Were some participating this year ?

 

I doubt it as the second is a F18 but, if yes, it could show the difference of performance between the Flying Phantom and the F20s.

 

If not, we will have to wait for the Texel where conditions are often pretty tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

GunboatG42014.jpg

 

That'll leave a mark!

the really interesting thing about this design is that it's for a cruising boat. And, to that end, they have made a really interesting decision - perhaps brilliant - to leave both boards in the water - full time.

 

The flying performance of the FP and GC are truly seductive - but these are race boats. And have we already forgot what wins the race (or at least what will lose the race)? It's the turns (or lack of speed through them)!

 

It's board control folks. Who needs it - whose got it?

 

The Gunboat, with both boards down, may not need it. If it ever gets to fly, it will be fascinating to see how it jibes.

 

I just watched the Artemis foiling 45 attempt a jibe while foiling - brought back a lot of painful memories from last summer: both bows reared skyward and the sterns dropped completely. Lack of board control? That's my guess.

 

So of all the flying boats we have seen, who will be next to execute a flying jibe? AFAIK only a few AC72's ever mastered the technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Floater, I think they showed both foils for illustration purposes. Those UptiP foils work with leeway for altitude control(heave stability) though Dario Valenza, among others, has proved that they will work with both foils down when leeway is low. To sail in apparent wind forward of the beam, with leeway, the windward foil would probably need to be retracted because it wouldn't work too well. They may be planning on using the "uptip" portion of the foil sort of like a surface piercing foil w/o leeway coupling but I doubt it-at least upwind.

It's the designed in leeway coupling that was the big deal about these foils to start with. It will be interesting to see how it all comes together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites