Archived

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

JeronimoII

VOR 2014-15 Leg 4 Sanya-Auckland

Recommended Posts

OK if I respond to the breakages questions in the breakages thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyone want any questions asked in Auckland? I will arrive on 7th

 

From my own point of view I am concerned that the mast track failure on DFRT has re-occurred on a different part of the track and as DFRT has boat No 1 perhaps it was the first mast manufactured.

 

Using engineering logic, 2 weakness in 2 different parts of the same item points to an overall weakness in the fixing method across the whole track.

 

Surely the whole thing should be ripped off and re-done or as someone suggested area the whole mast swapped out. This race was lost bt less than 9 minutes. I am sure that the track failure cost DFRT way more than that.

 

If it was the first time they had track problems - well shit happens, but their mast track attachment already had a proven attachment weakness from leg 2 and the whole track attachment obviously wasn't checked/strengthened adequately. If it had been it wouldn't have failed again.

 

Not blaming the Boatyard but the advice they received plainly wasn't adequate

 

Just my thoughts on it

 

SS.

My goodness, you'd think that those posting here were about to put their own lives on the line going out in these unsafe boats <_<

 

These are new boats. You cannot test everything little thing in test conditions for no matter how you test, something else will break in real, live conditions (re Comet aircraft). Given that these boats have sailed in a wide variety of conditions, though not all, and the worst that has happened has been non-critical systems, a valid claim could be made that these boats are built well, strong, and with good quality. Yet, they are new boats and they will continue to show issues as they get tested.

 

The only mast that has shown issues with track separation has been DFRT. That does not show a systemic issue with the mast track issue across the fleet. It could show (1) a defective part which needs to be replaced or (2) a part that is getting stressed past its design point which not only means getting replaced, but information needs to be shared regarding how that is done and then either the track gets strengthened some how (smooth rivets?) or the teams told to not bend the mast so much (good luck with that).

 

Padeyes have been re-enforced when use exceeded design, struts? sails? Nothing is perfect and like race cars, airplanes, or humans, when you place something in continued stress and use for extended periods you will eventually break something. I would hazard a guess that those 6 skippers would not take out a boat with known weak points without raising a huge stink, because it is not just their reputation, but lives on the line. Especially heading out into the southern ocean.

 

As a final thought on the strength and durability of these boats, consider that one team piled a VOR65 onto a reef at 19 kts. Not only did everyone survive, the keel did not fall off (aka Drum), the mast did not crumble (aka too many boats), the hull did not break apart, but for where it ground into hard coral, and as we speak it was not only floated off under its own displacement, but is currently being repaired and may be ready to sail again. That is one tough boat! Failures occur. it is how we learn from and correct that matter the most. I'll trust 6 skippers to make sure those corrections happen.

 

bucc5062 makes valid points that these are new boats and that "you cannot test every little thing in test conditions", "something else will break in real live conditions", "they will continue to show issues as they get tested".

 

The logical conclusion however, is not the one he makes, that the boats are reliable. Rather the more obvious one is that these are examples of a boat which has been designed and built, but not so far fully tested in "real live conditions", and that they are unreliable as the "issues" which he expects to see, have not been discovered and eliminated before the race.

 

It must therefore be true that the only real test bed for the series production VOR 65 is actually the 2015 VOR!

 

If that is the case and the world ecoonmic state meant that full prototype testing to the expected environmental limits could not be afforded, then fair enough, but lets not pretend that the boats are, as series production items, reliable.

 

The interesting question is were any prototypes built and tested in severe weather before this design was marketed? Surely if this had been done, as is the norm for many (most?) series built engineered products, the faults now adveresly affecting some teams' results should have been ironed out. I don't personally know of any 65 which has yet weathered an ocean storm. Has the 65 been tested in storm conditions yet? I am only aware of one 65 which has been through an Atlantic gale and that didn't come through unscathed. Have any of them yet faced anything more severe than a normal gale?

 

I am amused by the posts which ferociously come to the defence of VOR, Farr, and the VOR 65 as soon as any post dares criticise anything. One just has to wonder who the posters work for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anyone want any questions asked in Auckland? I will arrive on 7th

 

From my own point of view I am concerned that the mast track failure on DFRT has re-occurred on a different part of the track and as DFRT has boat No 1 perhaps it was the first mast manufactured.

 

Using engineering logic, 2 weakness in 2 different parts of the same item points to an overall weakness in the fixing method across the whole track.

 

Surely the whole thing should be ripped off and re-done or as someone suggested area the whole mast swapped out. This race was lost bt less than 9 minutes. I am sure that the track failure cost DFRT way more than that.

 

If it was the first time they had track problems - well shit happens, but their mast track attachment already had a proven attachment weakness from leg 2 and the whole track attachment obviously wasn't checked/strengthened adequately. If it had been it wouldn't have failed again.

 

Not blaming the Boatyard but the advice they received plainly wasn't adequate

 

Just my thoughts on it

 

SS.

My goodness, you'd think that those posting here were about to put their own lives on the line going out in these unsafe boats <_<

 

These are new boats. You cannot test everything little thing in test conditions for no matter how you test, something else will break in real, live conditions (re Comet aircraft). Given that these boats have sailed in a wide variety of conditions, though not all, and the worst that has happened has been non-critical systems, a valid claim could be made that these boats are built well, strong, and with good quality. Yet, they are new boats and they will continue to show issues as they get tested.

 

The only mast that has shown issues with track separation has been DFRT. That does not show a systemic issue with the mast track issue across the fleet. It could show (1) a defective part which needs to be replaced or (2) a part that is getting stressed past its design point which not only means getting replaced, but information needs to be shared regarding how that is done and then either the track gets strengthened some how (smooth rivets?) or the teams told to not bend the mast so much (good luck with that).

 

Padeyes have been re-enforced when use exceeded design, struts? sails? Nothing is perfect and like race cars, airplanes, or humans, when you place something in continued stress and use for extended periods you will eventually break something. I would hazard a guess that those 6 skippers would not take out a boat with known weak points without raising a huge stink, because it is not just their reputation, but lives on the line. Especially heading out into the southern ocean.

 

As a final thought on the strength and durability of these boats, consider that one team piled a VOR65 onto a reef at 19 kts. Not only did everyone survive, the keel did not fall off (aka Drum), the mast did not crumble (aka too many boats), the hull did not break apart, but for where it ground into hard coral, and as we speak it was not only floated off under its own displacement, but is currently being repaired and may be ready to sail again. That is one tough boat! Failures occur. it is how we learn from and correct that matter the most. I'll trust 6 skippers to make sure those corrections happen.

 

bucc5062 makes valid points that these are new boats and that "you cannot test every little thing in test conditions", "something else will break in real live conditions", "they will continue to show issues as they get tested".

 

The logical conclusion however, is not the one he makes, that the boats are reliable. Rather the more obvious one is that these are examples of a boat which has been designed and built, but not so far fully tested in "real live conditions", and that they are unreliable as the "issues" which he expects to see, have not been discovered and eliminated before the race.

 

It must therefore be true that the only real test bed for the series production VOR 65 is actually the 2015 VOR!

 

If that is the case and the world ecoonmic state meant that full prototype testing to the expected environmental limits could not be afforded, then fair enough, but lets not pretend that the boats are, as series production items, reliable.

 

The interesting question is were any prototypes built and tested in severe weather before this design was marketed? Surely if this had been done, as is the norm for many (most?) series built engineered products, the faults now adveresly affecting some teams' results should have been ironed out. I don't personally know of any 65 which has yet weathered an ocean storm. Has the 65 been tested in storm conditions yet? I am only aware of one 65 which has been through an Atlantic gale and that didn't come through unscathed. Have any of them yet faced anything more severe than a normal gale?

 

I am amused by the posts which ferociously come to the defence of VOR, Farr, and the VOR 65 as soon as any post dares criticise anything. One just has to wonder who the posters work for?

 

Well I work for a company that makes educational material and tools for teaching autistic and special needs children so there is no dog in the hunt for me.

 

My views (and maybe one for the breakage forum) are meant to provide a somewhat reasoned view in contrast to the ZOMYGODZ type statements that make it to seem the boats are falling apart. I'm not an expert on ocean racing, but it seems to me that most of the boats that sail at this level tend to be either one-offs or "new" one design/rules designed boats that tend to not have much time to establish a failure pattern before going into "production". EVen then, these vessels are hand built for the most part and that will always introduce a level of imperfections that could come out when stressed.

 

Were we so requiring VOR have well established ocean capable sailing vessels then perhaps have them consider a Cape Dory, J65, or provide this list to VOR to help them design a better boat. :rolleyes:

 

Actually, when you look through that list the VOR65 is WAY off from a safe ocean sailing vessel (what, no swim ladder?), but it is one heck of a ocean racing sailboat and while maybe the J65 would be a tried and true boat with "known" production issues, it would be like taking my dad's oldsmobile out to Lemans 24 hour race. Safe, but boring.

 

Will they survive the roaring forties or a full blown gale? Designers seem to think so for while eyepads and trimming equipment have failed (possibly due to overstressing), the boat as a whole has not. Will it survive getting hit by a meteor, running into a whale, getting run over by an automated tanker ship....who knows for we cannot design for everything possible event that may occur. This is not a defense of VOR (though if they want to pay me I will not mind) or the boat per se, but a defense of thinking that says "We know it is a racing vessel, we know we push it to the edge, and we know failure may occur, but we still go out for while a failure may risk a position in the fleet, it should not kill us. If you criticize, it has to be more that "VOR IS THE SUXZ" but maybe, VOR sucks because they are not fixing a known issue properly. That is a valid point (if true).

 

jat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anyone want any questions asked in Auckland? I will arrive on 7th

 

From my own point of view I am concerned that the mast track failure on DFRT has re-occurred on a different part of the track and as DFRT has boat No 1 perhaps it was the first mast manufactured.

 

Using engineering logic, 2 weakness in 2 different parts of the same item points to an overall weakness in the fixing method across the whole track.

 

Surely the whole thing should be ripped off and re-done or as someone suggested area the whole mast swapped out. This race was lost bt less than 9 minutes. I am sure that the track failure cost DFRT way more than that.

 

If it was the first time they had track problems - well shit happens, but their mast track attachment already had a proven attachment weakness from leg 2 and the whole track attachment obviously wasn't checked/strengthened adequately. If it had been it wouldn't have failed again.

 

Not blaming the Boatyard but the advice they received plainly wasn't adequate

 

Just my thoughts on it

 

SS.

 

My goodness, you'd think that those posting here were about to put their own lives on the line going out in these unsafe boats <_<

 

These are new boats. You cannot test everything little thing in test conditions for no matter how you test, something else will break in real, live conditions (re Comet aircraft). Given that these boats have sailed in a wide variety of conditions, though not all, and the worst that has happened has been non-critical systems, a valid claim could be made that these boats are built well, strong, and with good quality. Yet, they are new boats and they will continue to show issues as they get tested.

 

The only mast that has shown issues with track separation has been DFRT. That does not show a systemic issue with the mast track issue across the fleet. It could show (1) a defective part which needs to be replaced or (2) a part that is getting stressed past its design point which not only means getting replaced, but information needs to be shared regarding how that is done and then either the track gets strengthened some how (smooth rivets?) or the teams told to not bend the mast so much (good luck with that).

 

Padeyes have been re-enforced when use exceeded design, struts? sails? Nothing is perfect and like race cars, airplanes, or humans, when you place something in continued stress and use for extended periods you will eventually break something. I would hazard a guess that those 6 skippers would not take out a boat with known weak points without raising a huge stink, because it is not just their reputation, but lives on the line. Especially heading out into the southern ocean.

 

As a final thought on the strength and durability of these boats, consider that one team piled a VOR65 onto a reef at 19 kts. Not only did everyone survive, the keel did not fall off (aka Drum), the mast did not crumble (aka too many boats), the hull did not break apart, but for where it ground into hard coral, and as we speak it was not only floated off under its own displacement, but is currently being repaired and may be ready to sail again. That is one tough boat! Failures occur. it is how we learn from and correct that matter the most. I'll trust 6 skippers to make sure those corrections happen.

bucc5062 makes valid points that these are new boats and that "you cannot test every little thing in test conditions", "something else will break in real live conditions", "they will continue to show issues as they get tested".

The logical conclusion however, is not the one he makes, that the boats are reliable. Rather the more obvious one is that these are examples of a boat which has been designed and built, but not so far fully tested in "real live conditions", and that they are unreliable as the "issues" which he expects to see, have not been discovered and eliminated before the race.

It must therefore be true that the only real test bed for the series production VOR 65 is actually the 2015 VOR!

If that is the case and the world ecoonmic state meant that full prototype testing to the expected environmental limits could not be afforded, then fair enough, but lets not pretend that the boats are, as series production items, reliable.

The interesting question is were any prototypes built and tested in severe weather before this design was marketed? Surely if this had been done, as is the norm for many (most?) series built engineered products, the faults now adveresly affecting some teams' results should have been ironed out. I don't personally know of any 65 which has yet weathered an ocean storm. Has the 65 been tested in storm conditions yet? I am only aware of one 65 which has been through an Atlantic gale and that didn't come through unscathed. Have any of them yet faced anything more severe than a normal gale?

I am amused by the posts which ferociously come to the defence of VOR, Farr, and the VOR 65 as soon as any post dares criticise anything. One just has to wonder who the posters work for?

I see what you're getting at. Maybe it's the word "reliable" that's confusing the issue. Oh, if only I had such an "unreliable" boat!

 

It's not entirely fair to compare the 70's to the 65's, but what struck me from the beginning of this race about the 65's was the absence of the fear of imminent death, never knowing if the boat you were on was going to come unglued and fold up and sink in the middle of the ocean. True, we haven't seen the conditions we've seen in other editions, but to me, I've never seen the crews look more relaxed and confident in their boat than they are in the 65's. That is a big improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good points. I guess we need to define reliable. Zero failure rate? I know you know that it would be silly to think nothing will break. What failure rate would be acceptable? Not including human error, of course.

 

 

My definition of reliable:

 

Keel and rudders stay attached to hull in a single bit unless something solid and heavy is hitted

Hull stays in a single bit with no holes in it unless it hits something solid

mast and rigging keep their integrity under normal loads. Normal loads include racing fully powered for weeks in a row.

Decks and structural ancillaries bolted to it stay attached under normal loads.

 

Sails, halyards, engines, sheets and electronics can fail from time to time but not in a systemic way.

 

I know that expectations were lowered last time. But these were prototypes designed to the edge and unfortunately on could understand that masts would fall down from time to time as much can be gained from minimising weight up there. On the other hand, I find that hulls failures from just sailing the boat were much harder to understand.

 

Now it's one design, the designer can afford to up the safety factor a bit and be a few % slower and a well engineered boat shouldn't fail. We live in the 21st century IT is cheap and powerful, structural analysis is well understood, materials used in boat building are well characterised, they had a decent budget. I can't find a valid excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Good points. I guess we need to define reliable. Zero failure rate? I know you know that it would be silly to think nothing will break. What failure rate would be acceptable? Not including human error, of course.

 

My definition of reliable:

 

Keel and rudders stay attached to hull in a single bit unless something solid and heavy is hitted

Hull stays in a single bit with no holes in it unless it hits something solid

mast and rigging keep their integrity under normal loads. Normal loads include racing fully powered for weeks in a row.

Decks and structural ancillaries bolted to it stay attached under normal loads.

 

Sails, halyards, engines, sheets and electronics can fail from time to time but not in a systemic way.

 

I know that expectations were lowered last time. But these were prototypes designed to the edge and unfortunately on could understand that masts would fall down from time to time as much can be gained from minimising weight up there. On the other hand, I find that hulls failures from just sailing the boat were much harder to understand.

 

Now it's one design, the designer can afford to up the safety factor a bit and be a few % slower and a well engineered boat shouldn't fail. We live in the 21st century IT is cheap and powerful, structural analysis is well understood, materials used in boat building are well characterised, they had a decent budget. I can't find a valid excuse.

"Yeah, no worries mate. She'll be right. We structurally analyzed it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yeah, no worries mate. She'll be right. We structurally analyzed it".

 

 

.....in the 80's that would have meant that..... ''5 of us were in the cabin and smoked a big'un!'' :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Yeah, no worries mate. She'll be right. We structurally analyzed it".

 

 

.....in the 80's that would have meant that..... ''5 of us were in the cabin and smoked a big'un!'' :rolleyes:

 

Stress testing in the 60s.

 

required active ingredients for best results.

 

Xn2TpDGEEl2O4.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Yeah, no worries mate. She'll be right. We structurally analyzed it".

 

 

.....in the 80's that would have meant that..... ''5 of us were in the cabin and smoked a big'un!'' :rolleyes:

 

Stress testing in the 60s.

 

required active ingredients for best results.

 

Xn2TpDGEEl2O4.gif

 

 

....do they sell awlgrip like that? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

finish and elapsed times are up on http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/route/8_Sanya-Auckland.html

 

Awaiting the distance and speed stats.

Stats now up. Converted elapsed time to decimal hours and added a nm/h average and sorted by distance. Deep, huh?

 

MAPF sailed the fewest miles; only Alvi was slower than MAPF.

 

Aha! Nélias won them the race by pointing the grinders on the most efficient path because he was the one with the least weather info :D

 

Howwwzat for a carefully considered argument?

Finish	Team	Miles	Hours	Avg
1	MAPFRE	6130.0	482.522	12.704
3	DFRT	6137.0	482.656	12.715
4	Alvi	6140.8	483.969	12.688
2	ADOR	6147.0	482.596	12.737
6	SCA 	6359.6	489.540	12.991
5	Brunel	6374.6	486.508	13.103

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 17 miles different length of course for the first 4 boats over 5200nm? That's almost absurd. You can get that much difference in a couple of hundred miles long coastal race. This is like slot car racing.

 

There is something to be said for seat-of-the-pants/head-out-of-the-boat when you are micro-managing local weather and fleet position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

finish and elapsed times are up on http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/route/8_Sanya-Auckland.html

 

Awaiting the distance and speed stats.

Stats now up. Converted elapsed time to decimal hours and added a nm/h average and sorted by distance. Deep, huh?

 

MAPF sailed the fewest miles; only Alvi was slower than MAPF.

 

Aha! Nélias won them the race by pointing the grinders on the most efficient path because he was the one with the least weather info :D

 

Howwwzat for a carefully considered argument?

Finish	Team	Miles	Hours	Avg
1	MAPFRE	6130.0	482.522	12.704
3	DFRT	6137.0	482.656	12.715
4	Alvi	6140.8	483.969	12.688
2	ADOR	6147.0	482.596	12.737
6	SCA 	6359.6	489.540	12.991
5	Brunel	6374.6	486.508	13.103

The second slowest boat wins the race by sailing a shorter distance.

 

Stief, don't know if you're of the mind to do it but would be interesting to keep a tally beginning with the first Leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Good points. I guess we need to define reliable. Zero failure rate? I know you know that it would be silly to think nothing will break. What failure rate would be acceptable? Not including human error, of course.

 

 

My definition of reliable:

 

Keel and rudders stay attached to hull in a single bit unless something solid and heavy is hitted

Hull stays in a single bit with no holes in it unless it hits something solid

mast and rigging keep their integrity under normal loads. Normal loads include racing fully powered for weeks in a row.

Decks and structural ancillaries bolted to it stay attached under normal loads.

 

Sails, halyards, engines, sheets and electronics can fail from time to time but not in a systemic way.

 

I know that expectations were lowered last time. But these were prototypes designed to the edge and unfortunately on could understand that masts would fall down from time to time as much can be gained from minimising weight up there. On the other hand, I find that hulls failures from just sailing the boat were much harder to understand.

 

Now it's one design, the designer can afford to up the safety factor a bit and be a few % slower and a well engineered boat shouldn't fail. We live in the 21st century IT is cheap and powerful, structural analysis is well understood, materials used in boat building are well characterised, they had a decent budget. I can't find a valid excuse.

 

It has been suggested quite a few times in these forums that while structural analysis and boat building materials are well understood, we have an incomplete understanding of the peak loads imposed on racing sail boats. Look at all of the rudders and keels falling off programs with significant development budgets in the last 10 years. The structural analysis is simple enough, but translating the loading cases into a model is much more complex

I would personally question whether we have a proper understanding of an appropriate reductions in strength of material for a given level of productions quality, particularly bonding materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Yeah, no worries mate. She'll be right. We structurally analyzed it".

 

 

.....in the 80's that would have meant that..... ''5 of us were in the cabin and smoked a big'un!'' :rolleyes:

 

 

In the 80s engineers used to do old fashioned analysis, ie a lot of knowledge combined with mostly hand calculations and common sense.

 

The switch to relying on computation heavy methods wasn't without glitches : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipner_A

 

I've had the chance to work with some engineers who still had the skills dating from the old way of doing things and it was humbling to see that in most cases they were getting very close to the optimum answer very quickly. I am not saying that we should ditch modern methods of analysis, just that if you design something and you can afford to have a safety factor (ie you don't need to be right at the limit), there is no reason why you should get repetitive failures. There are always mistakes creeping into a design but once you are aware of them it is easy to troubleshoot even if it means ending up with a slightly heavier part.

 

If you take the example of the halyard lock, once they had doubt about their suitability, it was easy to load test a few of them to verify that the design and manufacturing were up to the job. If not they could simply beef it up or choose an alternative design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stief, don't know if you're of the mind to do it but would be interesting to keep a tally beginning with the first Leg.

 

As. You. Wish. (Inconceivable!)

Looks like some interesting fodder when each team is sorted by distance sailed (esp DF).

leg 1	Team	Miles	Hours	Avg
2	DFRT	8363.9	603.380	13.862
5	Alvi	8405.5	637.127	13.193
6	SCA	8499.9	647.630	13.125
7	MAPFRE	8525.9	648.792	13.141
4	TVW	8531.5	624.813	13.654
1	ADOR	8772.4	603.179	14.544
3	Brunel	8788.9	607.557	14.466
				
				
leg 2	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
2	DFRT	6391.7	568.694	11.239
1	Brunel	6417.5	568.422	11.290
3	ADOR	6417.6	571.138	11.237
5	Alvi	6567.6	597.490	10.992
4	MAPFRE	6615.3	587.305	11.264
6	SCA	?	606.393	n/a
				
Leg 3	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
3	Alvi	5394.3	569.854	9.466
4	MAPFRE	5396.6	570.389	9.461
6	SCA 	5401.8	578.696	9.334
1	DFRT	5403.2	565.527	9.554
2	ADOR	5444.7	568.842	9.572
5	Brunel	5449.7	570.419	9.554
				
leg 4	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
1	MAPFRE	6130.0	482.522	12.704
3	DFRT	6137.0	482.656	12.715
4	Alvi	6140.8	483.969	12.688
2	ADOR	6147.0	482.596	12.737
6	SCA	6359.6	489.540	12.991
5	Brunel	6374.6	486.508	13.103

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Yeah, no worries mate. She'll be right. We structurally analyzed it".

 

.....in the 80's that would have meant that..... ''5 of us were in the cabin and smoked a big'un!'' :rolleyes:

In the 80s engineers used to do old fashioned analysis, ie a lot of knowledge combined with mostly hand calculations and common sense.

 

The switch to relying on computation heavy methods wasn't without glitches : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipner_A

 

I've had the chance to work with some engineers who still had the skills dating from the old way of doing things and it was humbling to see that in most cases they were getting very close to the optimum answer very quickly. I am not saying that we should ditch modern methods of analysis, just that if you design something and you can afford to have a safety factor (ie you don't need to be right at the limit), there is no reason why you should get repetitive failures. There are always mistakes creeping into a design but once you are aware of them it is easy to troubleshoot even if it means ending up with a slightly heavier part.

 

If you take the example of the halyard lock, once they had doubt about their suitability, it was easy to load test a few of them to verify that the design and manufacturing were up to the job. If not they could simply beef it up or choose an alternative design.

Pan, I was just having some fun. I agree with your list of what is expected as reliable.

 

For the most part I think you can load test for a variety of situations. But the only real test is in a real world situation. Maybe it's because there is an infinite variety of conditions acting on the boat at any given time, none repeatable, environments as yet impossible to simulate. For example, pressure from one wave is not universally distributed or from any one direction. Add to this, air pressure and human interaction etc. It's no wonder, after coming out of a nasty blow, we find previously imagined indestructible parts completely obliterated or contorted beyond recognition. "How in the @¥*+#% did that happen?"

 

So, as the 65's have demonstrated, I think a lot of the reliability issues can be accomplished through simulation, more can be ironed out through a prototype. But it's all intelligent speculation until the boats get out into a real world situation, into what they were designed for, which is multiple laps around the world. They need at least one lap. They'll be that much more reliable next time.

 

And no, I do not work for Farr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Byce talking about the reliability of the V65's and comparing them to the 70's at around 8:00.

 

 

Paraphrasing: "Failures are going to happen. It's still the Volvo Ocean Race. It's still life at the extreme. It's Mother Nature. Anything can happen".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

....Will Oxley.....

''I LOVE naked sailing. It's also proven well in encouraging the team to sail as fast as they can,,win-win!''

post-3217-0-87209900-1425403877_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stief, don't know if you're of the mind to do it but would be interesting to keep a tally beginning with the first Leg.

 

As. You. Wish. (Inconceivable!)

Looks like some interesting fodder when each team is sorted by distance sailed (esp DF).

leg 1	Team	Miles	Hours	Avg
2	DFRT	8363.9	603.380	13.862
5	Alvi	8405.5	637.127	13.193
6	SCA	8499.9	647.630	13.125
7	MAPFRE	8525.9	648.792	13.141
4	TVW	8531.5	624.813	13.654
1	ADOR	8772.4	603.179	14.544
3	Brunel	8788.9	607.557	14.466
				
				
leg 2	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
2	DFRT	6391.7	568.694	11.239
1	Brunel	6417.5	568.422	11.290
3	ADOR	6417.6	571.138	11.237
5	Alvi	6567.6	597.490	10.992
4	MAPFRE	6615.3	587.305	11.264
6	SCA	?	606.393	n/a
				
Leg 3	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
3	Alvi	5394.3	569.854	9.466
4	MAPFRE	5396.6	570.389	9.461
6	SCA 	5401.8	578.696	9.334
1	DFRT	5403.2	565.527	9.554
2	ADOR	5444.7	568.842	9.572
5	Brunel	5449.7	570.419	9.554
				
leg 4	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
1	MAPFRE	6130.0	482.522	12.704
3	DFRT	6137.0	482.656	12.715
4	Alvi	6140.8	483.969	12.688
2	ADOR	6147.0	482.596	12.737
6	SCA	6359.6	489.540	12.991
5	Brunel	6374.6	486.508	13.103

Going by elapsed time - Brilliant Mapfre beats DFL SCA by a whopping 1.4%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Byce talking about the reliability of the V65's and comparing them to the 70's at around 8:00.

 

Paraphrasing: "Failures are going to happen. It's still the Volvo Ocean Race. It's still life at the extreme. It's Mother Nature. Anything can happen".

 

Nick Bice throws down the gauntlet (at 8:12) that the One Design is an "absolute success." No hedging there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chase group coming into NZL.

And a skipper recap.

Quite the repairs on SCA's headsail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Stief, don't know if you're of the mind to do it but would be interesting to keep a tally beginning with the first Leg.

 

As. You. Wish. (Inconceivable!)

Looks like some interesting fodder when each team is sorted by distance sailed (esp DF).


leg 4	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
1	MAPFRE	6130.0	482.522	12.704
3	DFRT	6137.0	482.656	12.715
4	Alvi	6140.8	483.969	12.688
2	ADOR	6147.0	482.596	12.737
6	SCA	6359.6	489.540	12.991
5	Brunel	6374.6	486.508	13.103

Going by elapsed time - Brilliant Mapfre beats DFL SCA by a whopping 1.4%

 

..... and SCA sailed the leg 2.26% faster than Mapfre. Just shows that weather routing and navigation choices are what win and lose legs. Not the raw speed ability of the crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Good points. I guess we need to define reliable. Zero failure rate? I know you know that it would be silly to think nothing will break. What failure rate would be acceptable? Not including human error, of course.

 

 

My definition of reliable:

 

Keel and rudders stay attached to hull in a single bit unless something solid and heavy is hitted

Hull stays in a single bit with no holes in it unless it hits something solid

mast and rigging keep their integrity under normal loads. Normal loads include racing fully powered for weeks in a row.

Decks and structural ancillaries bolted to it stay attached under normal loads.

 

Sails, halyards, engines, sheets and electronics can fail from time to time but not in a systemic way.

 

I know that expectations were lowered last time. But these were prototypes designed to the edge and unfortunately on could understand that masts would fall down from time to time as much can be gained from minimising weight up there. On the other hand, I find that hulls failures from just sailing the boat were much harder to understand.

 

Now it's one design, the designer can afford to up the safety factor a bit and be a few % slower and a well engineered boat shouldn't fail. We live in the 21st century IT is cheap and powerful, structural analysis is well understood, materials used in boat building are well characterised, they had a decent budget. I can't find a valid excuse.

 

It has been suggested quite a few times in these forums that while structural analysis and boat building materials are well understood, we have an incomplete understanding of the peak loads imposed on racing sail boats. Look at all of the rudders and keels falling off programs with significant development budgets in the last 10 years. The structural analysis is simple enough, but translating the loading cases into a model is much more complex

I would personally question whether we have a proper understanding of an appropriate reductions in strength of material for a given level of productions quality, particularly bonding materials.

 

 

IMHO keels are falling off because people are taking risks to edge out a little bit of extra performance out of a design. But on a OD boat there is no need to do this.

 

It is engineering not science. You don't need to understand completely loads, you just need to draw a safe line above the upper bound. Moving down the line is tempting and necessary to design a competitive prototype, but the 0.5% or even 5% speed penalty from a bit of overdesign doesn't matter for a OD boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Good points. I guess we need to define reliable. Zero failure rate? I know you know that it would be silly to think nothing will break. What failure rate would be acceptable? Not including human error, of course.

 

 

My definition of reliable:

 

Keel and rudders stay attached to hull in a single bit unless something solid and heavy is hitted

Hull stays in a single bit with no holes in it unless it hits something solid

mast and rigging keep their integrity under normal loads. Normal loads include racing fully powered for weeks in a row.

Decks and structural ancillaries bolted to it stay attached under normal loads.

 

Sails, halyards, engines, sheets and electronics can fail from time to time but not in a systemic way.

 

I know that expectations were lowered last time. But these were prototypes designed to the edge and unfortunately on could understand that masts would fall down from time to time as much can be gained from minimising weight up there. On the other hand, I find that hulls failures from just sailing the boat were much harder to understand.

 

Now it's one design, the designer can afford to up the safety factor a bit and be a few % slower and a well engineered boat shouldn't fail. We live in the 21st century IT is cheap and powerful, structural analysis is well understood, materials used in boat building are well characterised, they had a decent budget. I can't find a valid excuse.

 

It has been suggested quite a few times in these forums that while structural analysis and boat building materials are well understood, we have an incomplete understanding of the peak loads imposed on racing sail boats. Look at all of the rudders and keels falling off programs with significant development budgets in the last 10 years. The structural analysis is simple enough, but translating the loading cases into a model is much more complex

I would personally question whether we have a proper understanding of an appropriate reductions in strength of material for a given level of productions quality, particularly bonding materials.

 

 

IMHO keels are falling off because people are taking risks to edge out a little bit of extra performance out of a design. But on a OD boat there is no need to do this.

 

It is engineering not science. You don't need to understand completely loads, you just need to draw a safe line above the upper bound. Moving down the line is tempting and necessary to design a competitive prototype, but the 0.5% or even 5% speed penalty from a bit of overdesign doesn't matter for a OD boat.

 

 

Que? OD gives all the more reason to edge out a little bit more performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon is anisotropic, if you don't know at least the proportions between your forces and loads you are wasting your time trying to optimise your structure.

They could just keep adding cloth until it is bulletproof, and we have a full professional clipper race

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK--I'm confused. For the Navigator's prize for Leg4, Néias is the winner, the winner will be revealed later?

Click here to check out the feedback from Will Oxley of Team Alvimedica, Andrew Cape of Team Brunel and from Jean-Luc Nélias of MAPFRE, the winner of Leg 4.

The three others will send their comments in the next days. They were also asked to provide their scores for the B&G Navigators’ Prize for Leg 4 and the winner will be revealed later in the week.

http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/news/8532_The-navigators-navigator.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are talking about MAPFRE being the winners of leg 4, not of Nelias being the winner of the Navigator's prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are talking about MAPFRE being the winners of leg 4, not of Nelias being the winner of the Navigator's prize.

Thanks. That makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still find that a bit odd, Hard to argue that the best navigator wasn't the first one over the finish line.

 

Only assuming that the rest of the team's capabilities don't matter, or that luck plays no part.

 

This time around I would be prepared to give Libby Greenhalgh a vote. SCA may have been last, but they she made a number of good calls, not all obvious. And she has the guts not to play follow the pack, which is something sorely lacking in the fleet at the moment. One gets the feeling some of the navigators just sit watching the AIS and never actually make any tactical calls at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still find that a bit odd, Hard to argue that the best navigator wasn't the first one over the finish line.

 

Only assuming that the rest of the team's capabilities don't matter, or that luck plays no part.

 

This time around I would be prepared to give Libby Greenhalgh a vote. SCA may have been last, but they she made a number of good calls, not all obvious. And she has the guts not to play follow the pack, which is something sorely lacking in the fleet at the moment. One gets the feeling some of the navigators just sit watching the AIS and never actually make any tactical calls at all.

 

On the other hand, when boat speed is an issue, follow-the-leader is never a winning strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sam created this video...well done.

 

Impressive vid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

 

...in a way,,the video comes across as continued bleating that they're the only team that needed to repair stuff :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

 

...in a way,,the video comes across as continued bleating that they're the only team that needed to repair stuff :mellow:

I like it except for the choice of music. They all have music now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.

 

 

...in a way,,the video comes across as continued bleating that they're the only team that needed to repair stuff :mellow:

I like it except for the choice of music. They all have music now.

 

.

 

....''yahhh,BOO HOO we had to fix things. It was tough. We ended up eight minutes behind.

...... Feel sorry for us!'' <_<

 

tumblr_mt7aayJj7v1qh0epso5_500_zps1204bf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

.

 

 

...in a way,,the video comes across as continued bleating that they're the only team that needed to repair stuff :mellow:

I like it except for the choice of music. They all have music now.

 

.

 

....''yahhh,BOO HOO we had to fix things. It was tough. We ended up eight minutes behind.

...... Feel sorry for us!'' <_<

 

 

 

Dude.....a little harsh, and the initial comment was not on the content, but the production. Have not seen the same from the other OBRs.

 

You know there is that old saying, those who criticize in public tend to love in private.... :ph34r: We know you love Dong Feng, its okay... let it out :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude.....a little harsh, and the initial comment was not on the content, but the production. Have not seen the same from the other OBRs.

 

You know there is that old saying, those who criticize in public tend to love in private.... :ph34r: We know you love Dong Feng, its okay... let it out :mellow:

 

 

 

..certainly the production quality was fine...nothing like a 5 minute cinematographic lead up to the bleating :P

 

yeh, you caught me. I went from a lot of sheitteslinging** th'Dong at the start, to a mix of respect and sheitteslinging** now, depending how much they push the primadonna factor. :mellow:

 

 

...**...autocorrect wants me to say...' chitterlings ' :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Stief, don't know if you're of the mind to do it but would be interesting to keep a tally beginning with the first Leg.

 

As. You. Wish. (Inconceivable!)

Looks like some interesting fodder when each team is sorted by distance sailed (esp DF).


leg 4	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
1	MAPFRE	6130.0	482.522	12.704
3	DFRT	6137.0	482.656	12.715
4	Alvi	6140.8	483.969	12.688
2	ADOR	6147.0	482.596	12.737
6	SCA	6359.6	489.540	12.991
5	Brunel	6374.6	486.508	13.103

Going by elapsed time - Brilliant Mapfre beats DFL SCA by a whopping 1.4%

 

..... and SCA sailed the leg 2.26% faster than Mapfre. Just shows that weather routing and navigation choices are what win and lose legs. Not the raw speed ability of the crews.

 

 

It's more complicated than that.

 

SCA's speed deficit shows itself in their inability (so far) to stay on the same pace as the faster competitors for longer than a day or two when sailing in the same wind as them. In this leg SCA made the (excellent) strategic decision to sail a lot of extra miles on the northern Taiwanese route. It paid off in faster speed through the water, but they were sailing farther, such that when they rejoined the fleet they were still at the back. So: more miles sailed, faster through the water speed. But still last. (Though admittedly, probably not as far behind as if they'd taken the southerly route.)

 

It's a race. Crossing the finish line first is what counts, not how long or how fast you go in getting there.

 

And as to your point that navigation and weather routing wins and loses races, not boatspeed: again, it's more complicated than that. A boat that is faster head to head in identical winds has the benefit of more options. A boat that is slower in a head-to-head matchup can only win by making good strategic and tactical decisions, and then only if the result is a benefit so great as to outweigh their boatspeed disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nick Byce talking about the reliability of the V65's and comparing them to the 70's at around 8:00.

Paraphrasing: "Failures are going to happen. It's still the Volvo Ocean Race. It's still life at the extreme. It's Mother Nature. Anything can happen".

 

Nick Bice throws down the gauntlet (at 8:12) that the One Design is an "absolute success." No hedging there.

From a race organizer's perspective, having three boats finish in eight minutes is a huge success. "Improving the breed" by having a design competition, but which goes against close racing, is not so captivating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Nick Byce talking about the reliability of the V65's and comparing them to the 70's at around 8:00.

Paraphrasing: "Failures are going to happen. It's still the Volvo Ocean Race. It's still life at the extreme. It's Mother Nature. Anything can happen".

Nick Bice throws down the gauntlet (at 8:12) that the One Design is an "absolute success." No hedging there.

From a race organizer's perspective, having three boats finish in eight minutes is a huge success. "Improving the breed" by having a design competition, but which goes against close racing, is not so captivating.

 

Not so sure I agree, SS. I'm really missing the VOR 'design competition" nuances this time around. I find the new breed IMOCA 60 prospects much more interesting, in comparison. Just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Stief, don't know if you're of the mind to do it but would be interesting to keep a tally beginning with the first Leg.

 

As. You. Wish. (Inconceivable!)

Looks like some interesting fodder when each team is sorted by distance sailed (esp DF).


leg 4	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
1	MAPFRE	6130.0	482.522	12.704
3	DFRT	6137.0	482.656	12.715
4	Alvi	6140.8	483.969	12.688
2	ADOR	6147.0	482.596	12.737
6	SCA	6359.6	489.540	12.991
5	Brunel	6374.6	486.508	13.103

Going by elapsed time - Brilliant Mapfre beats DFL SCA by a whopping 1.4%

 

..... and SCA sailed the leg 2.26% faster than Mapfre. Just shows that weather routing and navigation choices are what win and lose legs. Not the raw speed ability of the crews.

 

 

It's more complicated than that.

 

SCA's speed deficit shows itself in their inability (so far) to stay on the same pace as the faster competitors for longer than a day or two when sailing in the same wind as them. In this leg SCA made the (excellent) strategic decision to sail a lot of extra miles on the northern Taiwanese route. It paid off in faster speed through the water, but they were sailing farther, such that when they rejoined the fleet they were still at the back. So: more miles sailed, faster through the water speed. But still last. (Though admittedly, probably not as far behind as if they'd taken the southerly route.)

 

It's a race. Crossing the finish line first is what counts, not how long or how fast you go in getting there.

 

And as to your point that navigation and weather routing wins and loses races, not boatspeed: again, it's more complicated than that. A boat that is faster head to head in identical winds has the benefit of more options. A boat that is slower in a head-to-head matchup can only win by making good strategic and tactical decisions, and then only if the result is a benefit so great as to outweigh their boatspeed disadvantage.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, when boat speed is an issue, follow-the-leader is never a winning strategy.

 

 

Nor is it winning strategy for anyone else - by definition follow the leader means you are not winning. At the moment percentage plays and fear seem to rule the main part of the fleet.

 

Superior boatspeed always make a navigator look good. If you are navigating a boat with a boatspeed deficit, then the navigator actually has to earn their keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Nick Byce talking about the reliability of the V65's and comparing them to the 70's at around 8:00.

Paraphrasing: "Failures are going to happen. It's still the Volvo Ocean Race. It's still life at the extreme. It's Mother Nature. Anything can happen".

Nick Bice throws down the gauntlet (at 8:12) that the One Design is an "absolute success." No hedging there.

From a race organizer's perspective, having three boats finish in eight minutes is a huge success. "Improving the breed" by having a design competition, but which goes against close racing, is not so captivating.

 

 

I've been thinking about the contrast with the last race, which seemed more like a "design competition" among JuanK's three flavours, Botin, one new Farr and one previous generation Farr. Is that what you meant?

 

There was some incredibly close racing and finishes, esp between Telefonica and Camper. The fleet chasing ADOR across the Atlantic was captivating too. Puma's race to overcome the deficit of their leg 1 dismasting was captivating. So, not much difference this time.

 

However, when the race really became one of attrition when no team was unscathed, captivating became a somewhat ghoulish demolition derby IMHO. Too, once AbuDhabi, Sanya (and maybe Camper) were deemed slow, watching their struggles was more . . . pitiful, I guess.

 

The reduced 'developmental dividend' is perhaps a weakness of OD ocean racing, but nonetheless I think I'm becoming a fan.

 

It's a different kind of captivating, where navigational choices cannot be dismissed by saying "pfft--they went that way because that maximized their design's optimal mode". Trying to see the reasons for boat speed differences is becoming captivating, not to mention the team dynamics which seem to get even more focus than last time.

 

There are other areas for 'developmental' opportunities in this OD racing that can have aspects of a design competition. A leg by leg competition of components like the mast track/ outrigger/ padeye/ halyard locks is one example, a competition in media reporting such as a use of drones is another. Too, reporting has a long way to go before we can see if, say, Iker/ Xabi is a better driver- trimmer combination than, say, Greenhalgh/ Xabi.

 

So, just some thoughts on how this race is succeeding in being captivating. Thanks for the prompt ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Stief, don't know if you're of the mind to do it but would be interesting to keep a tally beginning with the first Leg.

 

As. You. Wish. (Inconceivable!)

Looks like some interesting fodder when each team is sorted by distance sailed (esp DF).


leg 4	 	Miles	Hours	Avg
1	MAPFRE	6130.0	482.522	12.704
3	DFRT	6137.0	482.656	12.715
4	Alvi	6140.8	483.969	12.688
2	ADOR	6147.0	482.596	12.737
6	SCA	6359.6	489.540	12.991
5	Brunel	6374.6	486.508	13.103

Going by elapsed time - Brilliant Mapfre beats DFL SCA by a whopping 1.4%

 

..... and SCA sailed the leg 2.26% faster than Mapfre. Just shows that weather routing and navigation choices are what win and lose legs. Not the raw speed ability of the crews.

 

 

It's more complicated than that.

 

SCA's speed deficit shows itself in their inability (so far) to stay on the same pace as the faster competitors for longer than a day or two when sailing in the same wind as them. In this leg SCA made the (excellent) strategic decision to sail a lot of extra miles on the northern Taiwanese route. It paid off in faster speed through the water, but they were sailing farther, such that when they rejoined the fleet they were still at the back. So: more miles sailed, faster through the water speed. But still last. (Though admittedly, probably not as far behind as if they'd taken the southerly route.)

 

It's a race. Crossing the finish line first is what counts, not how long or how fast you go in getting there.

 

And as to your point that navigation and weather routing wins and loses races, not boatspeed: again, it's more complicated than that. A boat that is faster head to head in identical winds has the benefit of more options. A boat that is slower in a head-to-head matchup can only win by making good strategic and tactical decisions, and then only if the result is a benefit so great as to outweigh their boatspeed disadvantage.

 

Somehow you missed the one key issue with SCA, when they had not one, but two system failures that pulled them out of the same weather system that TBRU was also sailing in. Till that moment they were hanging quite well with TBRU. Even later on they not only made up some deficits, but made so strategic and performance moves that kept them close. When you lose gas (wind) is is really hard to do anything, but even then, and I'll find numbers to show, they wrung a lot of speed out of that boat.

 

While it was 8 hours, it was 40 miles separation and this is a crew that has been honest to say they are not as experienced as some others, but they are learning and getting better. We have 5 legs to go and if I were the other 5 teams, I'd be starting to worry, SCA will be gunning for that podium position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow you missed the one key issue with SCA, when they had not one, but two system failures that pulled them out of the same weather system that TBRU was also sailing in. Till that moment they were hanging quite well with TBRU. Even later on they not only made up some deficits, but made so strategic and performance moves that kept them close. When you lose gas (wind) is is really hard to do anything, but even then, and I'll find numbers to show, they wrung a lot of speed out of that boat.

 

While it was 8 hours, it was 40 miles separation and this is a crew that has been honest to say they are not as experienced as some others, but they are learning and getting better. We have 5 legs to go and if I were the other 5 teams, I'd be starting to worry, SCA will be gunning for that podium position.

 

 

I'd love to see them do that, and hope that they do. I don't expect it to happen overnight, though, and even in this leg after they rejoined the fleet there was that part that Sam talked about at the skipper's debrief where they were unable to hang with Dongfeng and MAPFRE even without any gear-failure issues. But I do think they're closing the gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Somehow you missed the one key issue with SCA, when they had not one, but two system failures that pulled them out of the same weather system that TBRU was also sailing in. Till that moment they were hanging quite well with TBRU. Even later on they not only made up some deficits, but made so strategic and performance moves that kept them close. When you lose gas (wind) is is really hard to do anything, but even then, and I'll find numbers to show, they wrung a lot of speed out of that boat.

 

While it was 8 hours, it was 40 miles separation and this is a crew that has been honest to say they are not as experienced as some others, but they are learning and getting better. We have 5 legs to go and if I were the other 5 teams, I'd be starting to worry, SCA will be gunning for that podium position.

 

 

I'd love to see them do that, and hope that they do. I don't expect it to happen overnight, though, and even in this leg after they rejoined the fleet there was that part that Sam talked about at the skipper's debrief where they were unable to hang with Dongfeng and MAPFRE even without any gear-failure issues. But I do think they're closing the gap.

 

Still slagging off the girls jbc! Anyone says they can sail the boat, sail it fast even, quotes facts or numbers we have all seen (except jbc of course) and we can rely on jbc for an instant rebuttal. He has made his point often enough; he "knows" girls are weak and can't sail raceboats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....the gauntlet is down!....

 

http://www.dongfengraceteam.cn/news/view/dongfeng-crew-changes-damian-foxall-joins-for-tough-southern-ocean-leg

 

Dongfeng crew changes: Foxall on, Rouxel off, Bidegorry is back, and Riou returns as leg 5 Onboard Reporter.

 

Leg 5 crew list – Auckland (NZL) to Itajai (BRA), (at least) 6,776nm:

Charles Caudrelier (FRA) 

Pascal Bidegorry (FRA) 

Martin Strömberg (SWE)

Eric Peron (FRA) 

Kevin Escoffier (FRA)

Damian Foxall (IRE) 

Yang Jiru (CHN)

8th (Chinese) crew to be decided
Onboard Reporter: Yann Riou (FRA)

Damian Foxall:
Four Volvo Ocean Race appearances
2001-02 (Tyco)
2005-06 (Ericsson)
2008-09 (Green Dragon)
2011-12 (Groupama sailing team)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....the gauntlet is down!....

 

http://www.dongfengraceteam.cn/news/view/dongfeng-crew-changes-damian-foxall-joins-for-tough-southern-ocean-leg

 

Dongfeng crew changes: Foxall on, Rouxel off, Bidegorry is back, and Riou returns as leg 5 Onboard Reporter.

 

Leg 5 crew list – Auckland (NZL) to Itajai (BRA), (at least) 6,776nm:

Charles Caudrelier (FRA) 


Pascal Bidegorry (FRA) 


Martin Strömberg (SWE)


Eric Peron (FRA) 


Kevin Escoffier (FRA)


Damian Foxall (IRE) 


Yang Jiru (CHN)


8th (Chinese) crew to be decided

Onboard Reporter: Yann Riou (FRA)

Damian Foxall:

Four Volvo Ocean Race appearances

2001-02 (Tyco)

2005-06 (Ericsson)

2008-09 (Green Dragon)

2011-12 (Groupama sailing team)

No Sam? :angry::(:mellow:

 

I will miss his writing and his videos. Doubt the wind will be light enough for Drone 2.0, but he did some of the best video of leg 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Somehow you missed the one key issue with SCA, when they had not one, but two system failures that pulled them out of the same weather system that TBRU was also sailing in. Till that moment they were hanging quite well with TBRU. Even later on they not only made up some deficits, but made so strategic and performance moves that kept them close. When you lose gas (wind) is is really hard to do anything, but even then, and I'll find numbers to show, they wrung a lot of speed out of that boat.

 

While it was 8 hours, it was 40 miles separation and this is a crew that has been honest to say they are not as experienced as some others, but they are learning and getting better. We have 5 legs to go and if I were the other 5 teams, I'd be starting to worry, SCA will be gunning for that podium position.

 

 

I'd love to see them do that, and hope that they do. I don't expect it to happen overnight, though, and even in this leg after they rejoined the fleet there was that part that Sam talked about at the skipper's debrief where they were unable to hang with Dongfeng and MAPFRE even without any gear-failure issues. But I do think they're closing the gap.

 

Still slagging off the girls jbc! Anyone says they can sail the boat, sail it fast even, quotes facts or numbers we have all seen (except jbc of course) and we can rely on jbc for an instant rebuttal. He has made his point often enough; he "knows" girls are weak and can't sail raceboats!

 

 

Not sure who you're quoting there. But it's not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still slagging off the girls jbc! Anyone says they can sail the boat, sail it fast even, quotes facts or numbers we have all seen (except jbc of course) and we can rely on jbc for an instant rebuttal. He has made his point often enough; he "knows" girls are weak and can't sail raceboats!

 

 

Not sure who you're quoting there. But it's not me.

 

 

...yeh,It'd be pretty farkin funny if it wasn't so stupid :lol:

 

...if anyone's made their point enough,it'd be Staysail....he even threw -me- under the SCA hater-bus, it's pretty hard to figure what he's trying to prove <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

...a bit of unseen -sailing- footage....and more details on how Mapfre caught the big one! ......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

...a bit of unseen -sailing- footage....and more details on how Mapfre caught the big one! ......

 

Scraping the barrel? I feel ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...^^...no really..some unseen footage! :)

 

 

 

...it sounds like Iker's in Auckland now..........the team asked for credentials.....Iker who?

 

 

 

....they thought he was a swedish furniture salesman! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life at the Extreme Ep 22 is up. I don't recall some of the footage, like Brunel's 'Chinese Flu' comment at 4:00, and Iker's interview at 16:45. Music was not as intrusive as in the past (MHO), and the equator crossing crap was OK. Interesting title--"Losing Ground"

 

So, decent review of the middle of leg 4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites