• 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.  
Sign in to follow this  
DRIFTW00D

Boss Sinking?

Recommended Posts

 

 

2. The argument about flexibility absorbing energy does very well hold because the energy for deformation is (partly) taken from a forward movement (in the example of a slam the pitch motion as well as the forward motion/speed are reduced). However, when springing back (after turning part of the energy into heat because of course a hull is not a perfect spring) the mass/spring system that is our hull is damped by the water radiating waves in all directions. Hence this does not go back into propulsion of the yacht.

So over all, deformation leads to energy from a (desired) forward movement being transformed into (undesired) water surface waves. Minimising this transformation will lead to faster forward movement ;)

 

methinks you would have a very hard time proving any of your point 2. It is much the same as denying that springs on a car are beneficial to forward motion over a rough terrain. I would suggest that a car with an effective and flexible suspension system would in scientific terms, "do less work", on the terrain, i.e. heat the ground up less, and use less fuel, than a car of the same weight and speed which had no suspension. Why would that not be the case with a boat going over rough water? I accept that it will be easy to criticise my analogy, but seriously, the energy involved in flexing the boat must be trivial compared with the brute force smashing of the water aside and generating heat by large scale turbulence, and a few mm shape change in the object doing the bashing are going to make pretty little difference and it would be very hard to prove that the flexibility would in fact increase, and not reduce, drag.

Incidentally, the energy of deformation is actually imparted as an impulse from the slam (isn't it?) and comes from the change in momentum of the boat as its generally downward velocity changes due to hitting the wave. The definition of impules is force x time, and for the stiffer hull the same impulse generates a higher force which moves faster and through a shorter distance. For an elastic structure will this not mean that the work done will be the same? Higher force and shorter distance for the stiff one, proportionately lower force but greater distance for the less stiff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think mad was referring to Thomson speaking to the underwriter rather than the clean brand of challenging interview

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

2. The argument about flexibility absorbing energy does very well hold because the energy for deformation is (partly) taken from a forward movement (in the example of a slam the pitch motion as well as the forward motion/speed are reduced). However, when springing back (after turning part of the energy into heat because of course a hull is not a perfect spring) the mass/spring system that is our hull is damped by the water radiating waves in all directions. Hence this does not go back into propulsion of the yacht.

So over all, deformation leads to energy from a (desired) forward movement being transformed into (undesired) water surface waves. Minimising this transformation will lead to faster forward movement ;)

 

methinks you would have a very hard time proving any of your point 2. It is much the same as denying that springs on a car are beneficial to forward motion over a rough terrain. I would suggest that a car with an effective and flexible suspension system would in scientific terms, "do less work", on the terrain, i.e. heat the ground up less, and use less fuel, than a car of the same weight and speed which had no suspension. Why would that not be the case with a boat going over rough water? I accept that it will be easy to criticise my analogy, but seriously, the energy involved in flexing the boat must be trivial compared with the brute force smashing of the water aside and generating heat by large scale turbulence, and a few mm shape change in the object doing the bashing are going to make pretty little difference and it would be very hard to prove that the flexibility would in fact increase, and not reduce, drag.

 

I think IMHO apples and oranges. In cars you're aiming to keep the wheels stuck to the ground always in any case because if not your'e loosing power. In sailboats particulary in this foiling mode, you're searching to lift the structure. Going stiffer is better than going flexible, between certain ranges. Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing also to remember is that slamming mostly occur when sailing close hauled and boats that are mostly sailed around the cans usually have less volume in the bow, thus better suited for upwind sailing than eg IMOCAs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going stiffer might mean that you are planing better. This means less friction. If the hull could take the form of the water surface (without losing energy) and fill all the gaps that are often less than millimeter thick, it would definitely go slower. Stiff surface traps more air under the hull as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think IMHO apples and oranges. In cars you're aiming to keep the wheels stuck to the ground always in any case because if not your'e loosing power. In sailboats particulary in this foiling mode, you're searching to lift the structure. Going stiffer is better than going flexible, between certain ranges. Am I wrong?

 

You may be right. I just think it isn't quite so simple or obvious. The main reason why cars have suspension is to minimise accelerations of the major part of the car, i.e. the engine, chassis and body so that they dont all get shaken up (and damaged!!). The suspension helps to keep the centre of mass going reasonably straight without having to be bounced up and down as it would have to if it followed the shape of the ground. Sure it is also beneficial for obvious reasons like steering and traction, to keep the wheels on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling the end result of the forensic examination is going to show that the design itself is fine, but that the tolerances it has to build too are to tight for the boat yards. Every one of those riblets has to be placed within such a small range and bonded perfectly or the entire structure becomes suspect due to point loading. This may just be a case where the engineering tolerances are tighter than the yard, or the designers, imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or...it was an impact. Alex gave me the full story, all on video, uploading to Petey to join a few pieces together and then get it online.

 

Here's the outside of the hull forward of the crash bulkhead. Alex says he is 99.9% sure they bashed something, which broke the ribs up front and started the cascade.

 

 

 

I have a feeling the end result of the forensic examination is going to show that the design itself is fine, but that the tolerances it has to build too are to tight for the boat yards. Every one of those riblets has to be placed within such a small range and bonded perfectly or the entire structure becomes suspect due to point loading. This may just be a case where the engineering tolerances are tighter than the yard, or the designers, imagined.

 

IMG_2379.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics posted by, ijaure in TJV thread #600 suggest port foil was recovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex: "When the boat rolled back upright, the port foil had been removed from the case and was laying on deck"..."we just moved it forward a bit and lashed it down"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex agreed that it was the first time he'd heard of an IMOCA turtling with a keel on. "It took me 30 or 40 seconds just to register that we were upside down. It was something I didn't think was possible."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually thinking of the largest issues with the design that seem to be showing up as opposed to BOSS. But obviously an impact changes the analysis substantially.

 

 

 

 

Or...it was an impact. Alex gave me the full story, all on video, uploading to Petey to join a few pieces together and then get it online.

 

Here's the outside of the hull forward of the crash bulkhead. Alex says he is 99.9% sure they bashed something, which broke the ribs up front and started the cascade.

 

 

 

 

I have a feeling the end result of the forensic examination is going to show that the design itself is fine, but that the tolerances it has to build too are to tight for the boat yards. Every one of those riblets has to be placed within such a small range and bonded perfectly or the entire structure becomes suspect due to point loading. This may just be a case where the engineering tolerances are tighter than the yard, or the designers, imagined.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex: "When the boat rolled back upright, the port foil had been removed from the case and was laying on deck"..."we just moved it forward a bit and lashed it down"

Ha. Thanks, Mr Clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no worries. really fascinating interview, AT is a good storyteller and it's a fucking doozy.

 

VPLP looking better in the whole thing. Still serious issues to be worked out and solved, but they are all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or...it was an impact. Alex gave me the full story, all on video, uploading to Petey to join a few pieces together and then get it online.

 

Here's the outside of the hull forward of the crash bulkhead. Alex says he is 99.9% sure they bashed something, which broke the ribs up front and started the cascade.

 

 

 

I have a feeling the end result of the forensic examination is going to show that the design itself is fine, but that the tolerances it has to build too are to tight for the boat yards. Every one of those riblets has to be placed within such a small range and bonded perfectly or the entire structure becomes suspect due to point loading. This may just be a case where the engineering tolerances are tighter than the yard, or the designers, imagined.

 

sorry if this sounds a bit cynical but 99.9% ? Does that mean there is no real evidence of a collision such as an obvious first impact point, a scrape of paint from a container?, some trace of the object hit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[....] Am working on getting my video inside Boss up but it is pretty fucked.

 

Did I miss the link, or did that vid never get released?

 

I'm guessing the link to your latest will be be on the front page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat tour did not get released so far. Clean said the footage has major sound problems.

Maybe we'll see some of it anyway, say spliced into todays post crash Skype interview, but then we wan't to see that right NOW. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no worries. really fascinating interview, AT is a good storyteller and it's a fucking doozy.

 

VPLP looking better in the whole thing. Still serious issues to be worked out and solved, but they are all over it.

 

.

 

 

 

...the interview will be up ....... 'soon' :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that the rib issues are due to average loads vs peak loads. The design codes usually specify an average pressure load for the hull. Lets say peak pressure is 100 but it acts only on 1/3 of the typical surface between frames. Outside this area pressure is only 25 over 2/3 of the area. Design code specifies a pressure of 100*1/3 + 25*2/3 = 50.

 

On a regular boat frames are spaced at 1.5m (assumption) so each frame has to support a transverse hull strip 1.5m in the boat longitudinal direction. Lets also assume that in reality the slamming peak pressure of 100 acts on a 500mm long strip, the remaining 1m strip only sees a pressure of 25. In this case the loads on the frame match between design code and reality. Frame doesn't break.

 

Now lets space the frames at 500mm. If you design by code you only apply a pressure of 50 to this strip. In reality the frame might see a direct hit with a pressure of 100. If you design the frame per code frame will break in reality. You would have to design each frame for the peak load or ensure that there is some longitudinal structure able to distribute the load over more than one frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ask him if he thinks he hit any of his other abandoned boats. :ph34r:

Did the gunboat ever get salvaged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex agreed that it was the first time he'd heard of an IMOCA turtling with a keel on. "It took me 30 or 40 seconds just to register that we were upside down. It was something I didn't think was possible."

When they were nursing the boat back, just before the wave hit them, was the keel centered or was it canted to starboard to keep the port side out of the water a bit while they were effecting a repair? Just curious, because there was some discussion earlier about HB taking on water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or...it was an impact. Alex gave me the full story, all on video, uploading to Petey to join a few pieces together and then get it online.

 

Here's the outside of the hull forward of the crash bulkhead. Alex says he is 99.9% sure they bashed something, which broke the ribs up front and started the cascade.

 

 

 

I have a feeling the end result of the forensic examination is going to show that the design itself is fine, but that the tolerances it has to build too are to tight for the boat yards. Every one of those riblets has to be placed within such a small range and bonded perfectly or the entire structure becomes suspect due to point loading. This may just be a case where the engineering tolerances are tighter than the yard, or the designers, imagined.

 

"Chance in a million"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apart from a foil being pulled out during the capsize/dis-masting, the foils don't appear to have had much to do with the problems of HB.

 

Any lightly built boat is going to have problems if it hits a solid object at >20kn. Obviously question here is the boat too light and will the foiling solution work if they have to add a bit more strength?

 

The only contribution I can see that the foils might have made to the cascade failure were that they perhaps made the boat easier to roll when they were hit by the freak wave?

I'm still wondering if the foils were in or out when they were hove to???

 

I don't think it is a big surprise that the foil was pulled out, as that is a load direction they probably didn't think too much about. Perhaps in hind sight they will strengthen that so that a roll doesn't result in a detached flailing strong blade next to the boat. If you want to think of something that will chomp through 4mm thick carbon hull, you probably couldn't find anything better than one of those foils!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you design a boat to withstand impacts with UFOs? Something designers should consider. There is a lot of shit out there.

 

 

...maybe develop a crashtest the boats have to pass.........drop 20' onto a floating container :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*So again (like always) the tradeoff is speed vs probability of breaking*

As HBs very fine ribs in the hull started to show compression fractures... twould seem that gamble erred on weight loss rather than bully-beef? One would now presume VPLP/Verdie will revisit the structural dynamics?

Seems the hydraulic keel saved the crews bacon, and at least they walk away, retrieve the vessel, learn rebuild and have another go for the 2016 Vendee Globe...

 

 

And lest we forget well done the Spanish coastguard for the quick and highly pro evac.

Then again they’ve had good practice in that zone this year, they rescued an Oyster crew off Polina Star III back in the summer…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

2. The argument about flexibility absorbing energy does very well hold because the energy for deformation is (partly) taken from a forward movement (in the example of a slam the pitch motion as well as the forward motion/speed are reduced). However, when springing back (after turning part of the energy into heat because of course a hull is not a perfect spring) the mass/spring system that is our hull is damped by the water radiating waves in all directions. Hence this does not go back into propulsion of the yacht.

So over all, deformation leads to energy from a (desired) forward movement being transformed into (undesired) water surface waves. Minimising this transformation will lead to faster forward movement ;)

 

methinks you would have a very hard time proving any of your point 2. It is much the same as denying that springs on a car are beneficial to forward motion over a rough terrain. I would suggest that a car with an effective and flexible suspension system would in scientific terms, "do less work", on the terrain, i.e. heat the ground up less, and use less fuel, than a car of the same weight and speed which had no suspension. Why would that not be the case with a boat going over rough water? I accept that it will be easy to criticise my analogy, but seriously, the energy involved in flexing the boat must be trivial compared with the brute force smashing of the water aside and generating heat by large scale turbulence, and a few mm shape change in the object doing the bashing are going to make pretty little difference and it would be very hard to prove that the flexibility would in fact increase, and not reduce, drag.

Incidentally, the energy of deformation is actually imparted as an impulse from the slam (isn't it?) and comes from the change in momentum of the boat as its generally downward velocity changes due to hitting the wave. The definition of impules is force x time, and for the stiffer hull the same impulse generates a higher force which moves faster and through a shorter distance. For an elastic structure will this not mean that the work done will be the same? Higher force and shorter distance for the stiff one, proportionately lower force but greater distance for the less stiff?

 

 

During a slam all energy that is taken from the boat is radiated by waves (first during the slam, the rest during 'springing back' after structural deformation). Indeed I think it makes sense that a flexible hull would radiate (slightly) less waves during the initial slam, while radiating more waves due to the deformation. In contrast to yours, my intuition tells me that it would still be better to have a stiffer boat (mainly because in a non-dynamic case it would take way more force and energy to deform a hull 1cm than it would take to slam a boat 1 cm deeper into the water).

 

But this is very hard, if not impossible to prove using calculations or numerical simulations. As done in most of the cases in yacht design i guess the best approach is to rely on past experience. From lectures of various yacht designers during my study i know that without any exception they all generally, all other things being equal, prefer boats to be as stiff as possible (remember, there are still the other arguments about the sail plan and rig tension as well ;). In addition to that, from years of racing in different one design classes, generally the boat speed starts to decrease as hulls become soft over time. The only exception that I know is the Finn that is deliberately being build soft in one area in the bow. Again nobody rally knows why (there are educated guesses though), but experience clearly shows that in this case a hull that is softer in that particular area sails faster...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nededv -

Relying on past experience as the engineering tool to progress these designs hasn't turned out too well has it? I agree with you that calculations on these things are very difficult, and I fully understand why you don't attempt to answer the questions in my post.

If one is going to use computational stress analysis tools for detailed structural design, first the basic physics and engineering factors involved need to be fully understood. I readily accept I don't fully understand them but I do know a little about physics, engineering and materials science and I see no evidence that yacht designers understand what they are grappling with in these boats either.

They remind me of the nuclear engineers who said a meltdown wasn't possible before Chernobyl!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean: So did that impact happen before or after the roll? No sign of any scratches or direction of motion in the impact area. How do they know this didn't happen as the rig wrapped itself around the boat in the capsize or aftermath with so much of the boat in the water?

Impact is all part of the life of a race boat. Even water is pretty hard to slam into at the speeds these things go at when they fall off the foils.It is all about load distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if HB gets to start the next VG, can we run a sweepstakes as to how far it gets before it falls apart again? AT hardly has a good track record on finishing big races, now does he?

 

Does Hugo Boss (the company) have the mindset that any publicity is good publicity? One must think so considering all the money they have poured into AT's boats for so little to show in the way of (race) results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Impact is all part of the life of a race boat. ............It is all about load distribution.

 

 

. ......I'm beginning t'think this is all just a PC way to play Russian roulette :mellow:

 

 

 

giphy.gif1631522-rurou.pngrussian_roulette.gif

 

 

 

3884f24876e2724df75436b48b882dc6.500x255

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound is a little touch and go for about 5% of this, but those parts are easy to get through. Thank Western spanish intarweb speeds.

 

 

 

How are you getting on with the interview footage, Clean? Is it going to be broadcast-able?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to confirm Hugh, the capsize was completely unrelated to the foils. Hove to, around 70 deg to the prevailing waves, with Alex asleep and Guillermo drinking some coffee. Port foil was removed by the ocean and was sitting on deck when they righted.

 

But Alex tells it in shining detail and you will love it. Great interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nededv -

Relying on past experience as the engineering tool to progress these designs hasn't turned out too well has it? I agree with you that calculations on these things are very difficult, and I fully understand why you don't attempt to answer the questions in my post.

If one is going to use computational stress analysis tools for detailed structural design, first the basic physics and engineering factors involved need to be fully understood. I readily accept I don't fully understand them but I do know a little about physics, engineering and materials science and I see no evidence that yacht designers understand what they are grappling with in these boats either.

They remind me of the nuclear engineers who said a meltdown wasn't possible before Chernobyl!

 

What i am trying to explain (apparently to no success) is that there is no and never will be a general answer to the question 'is a stiffer boat faster?'. The physics behind this are very well understood (Fluid dynamics), the equations to solve are the Navier-Stokes equations. The problem is the infinite number of cases these physics have to be applied to (you can calculate everything up to a very good approximation for one hull shape and for one wave, but maybe for the next wave the results are entirely different.

 

The cheaper, quicker and more applicable solution is to go out and compare two boats that are similar except for the hull stiffness. And then you will see that exactly that has already been done hundreds of times in the past with the pretty clear conclusion that in almost all cases a stiffer hull is faster, but that there are certain exceptions.

 

You can say this approach hasn't turned out too well (I would say it turns out almost astonishingly well considering the progress in yacht building over the past years...), that is a matter of opinion and an entirely different discussion. But unfortunately in engineering, when dealing with random environmental influences, in the end this is and always will be the only approach that is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rainbow Alex finished the last Vendee Globe in 3rd place. He's also broken a number of records, including several "big ones" - the 24-hour solo mono record.

 

But as anyone who understands the most basic parts of sponsorship will tell you, Alex and his team are clearly doing a great job for Boss; hence the more than a decade of partnership in a part of the sport where non-french sponsors are almost non-existent.

 

Even more importantly, who do you think brought in Mercedes-Benz? Do you think Boss would have done that if ATR wasn't going to deliver?

 

 

So if HB gets to start the next VG, can we run a sweepstakes as to how far it gets before it falls apart again? AT hardly has a good track record on finishing big races, now does he?

 

Does Hugo Boss (the company) have the mindset that any publicity is good publicity? One must think so considering all the money they have poured into AT's boats for so little to show in the way of (race) results.

 

Screen Shot 2015-11-04 at 7.33.53 AM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sound is a little touch and go for about 5% of this, but those parts are easy to get through. Thank Western spanish intarweb speeds.

 

 

 

How are you getting on with the interview footage, Clean? Is it going to be broadcast-able?

 

.

 

....thanks, Cween :)

 

 

.....3:00...'''slam slam slam slam SLAM...then I saw the hull flexing 8''

...4:30....''5 ribs broken, so we went hove to to fix it''

6:15..''2 1/2 meters of unsupported hull''

'' the repair lasted a while,,,~200 miles''

7:30 ''8 hours rerepair,,,all materials used up. 12 hours total,, 120 miles from coast''

8:00 a low with forecast of ~25...we knew it would be 40''

8:40 '' we knew we'd have to be 'careful''.....what's 'careful' in one of those things!? :mellow:

~10.. description of final hove-to

~12....we were comfy,, I was sleeping........wave hit,, water pouring in door

I pushed the keel button,,don't know if I did anything

14:50 ''after a while the keel started canting,, ~10 seconds after he 'might' have hit button''

17:30..'' listing 15*,,,near full water,up to the tunnel,,chest height'' :blink:

22........Guillermo...'' hey,this is my first time in a helicopter''

26...''took me ~ 45sec to comprehend we were actually upside down''

27:50 ''we went through a full 360, and the port foil was just sitting there on the deck'' :mellow:

28:30...... we thought it was structural,, but then saw what was clearly an impact,,grooved and scored on the skin,,,99% sure it started with an impact''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

 

........he wants us to beg. :mellow:

 

Those of you who love complaining that you didn't get your free shit on time can of course head over and subscribe to the SA Vimeo page, where you would have seen the video yesterday at around 9 PM, when I was rescuing my wife from a milk-spewing baby before turning over the house to find her passport. And hey you might even like the 92 other interviews, highlight reels, and full shows over there too.

 

vimeo.com/sailinganarchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

nededv -

Relying on past experience as the engineering tool to progress these designs hasn't turned out too well has it? I agree with you that calculations on these things are very difficult, and I fully understand why you don't attempt to answer the questions in my post.

If one is going to use computational stress analysis tools for detailed structural design, first the basic physics and engineering factors involved need to be fully understood. I readily accept I don't fully understand them but I do know a little about physics, engineering and materials science and I see no evidence that yacht designers understand what they are grappling with in these boats either.

They remind me of the nuclear engineers who said a meltdown wasn't possible before Chernobyl!

 

What i am trying to explain (apparently to no success) is that there is no and never will be a general answer to the question 'is a stiffer boat faster?'. The physics behind this are very well understood (Fluid dynamics), the equations to solve are the Navier-Stokes equations. The problem is the infinite number of cases these physics have to be applied to (you can calculate everything up to a very good approximation for one hull shape and for one wave, but maybe for the next wave the results are entirely different.

 

The cheaper, quicker and more applicable solution is to go out and compare two boats that are similar except for the hull stiffness. And then you will see that exactly that has already been done hundreds of times in the past with the pretty clear conclusion that in almost all cases a stiffer hull is faster, but that there are certain exceptions.

 

You can say this approach hasn't turned out too well (I would say it turns out almost astonishingly well considering the progress in yacht building over the past years...), that is a matter of opinion and an entirely different discussion. But unfortunately in engineering, when dealing with random environmental influences, in the end this is and always will be the only approach that is available.

 

Within the context of the thread, i.e. Hugo Boss sinking? your approach which you are so confident with, hasn't worked out too well. That does lead me to believe that in this case the designers knowledge of the situation is inadequate. Maybe you will ask VPLP (or any other well known yacht designer) to design a slightly lighter, faster yacht for yourself to sail in next years TJV?

 

Thankfully areoplane designers don't follow the same approaches!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.

 

 

........he wants us to beg. :mellow:

 

Those of you who love complaining that you didn't get your free shit on time can of course head over and subscribe to the SA Vimeo page, where you would have seen the video yesterday at around 9 PM, when I was rescuing my wife from a milk-spewing baby before turning over the house to find her passport. And hey you might even like the 92 other interviews, highlight reels, and full shows over there too.

 

vimeo.com/sailinganarchy

 

.

 

 

....so you posted it and didn't tell anyone? :mellow:

 

 

. .......and whut's 'free' about spending 24/7 on SA!? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rainbow Alex finished the last Vendee Globe in 3rd place. He's also broken a number of records, including several "big ones" - the 24-hour solo mono record.

 

But as anyone who understands the most basic parts of sponsorship will tell you, Alex and his team are clearly doing a great job for Boss; hence the more than a decade of partnership in a part of the sport where non-french sponsors are almost non-existent.

 

Even more importantly, who do you think brought in Mercedes-Benz? Do you think Boss would have done that if ATR wasn't going to deliver?

 

 

So if HB gets to start the next VG, can we run a sweepstakes as to how far it gets before it falls apart again? AT hardly has a good track record on finishing big races, now does he?

 

Does Hugo Boss (the company) have the mindset that any publicity is good publicity? One must think so considering all the money they have poured into AT's boats for so little to show in the way of (race) results.

 

 

Can you explain WHAT value he is providing to HB that they keep him around and spend so much money on boats for him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thankfully areoplane designers don't follow the same approaches!

 

yeah why dontcha ask 'em how much flexibility they allow in a jet turbine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Can you explain WHAT value he is providing to HB that they keep him around and spend so much money on boats for him?

 

 

T'aint magic; they just go by the book. Something like this:

 

http://blog.sportaroo.com/post/59033356204/what-do-sponsors-want-4-steps-to-understanding

 

 

So you've never asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain WHAT value he is providing to HB that they keep him around and spend so much money on boats for him?

 

 

 

...winners and crashers are top publicity.....crashers possibly more :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Can you explain WHAT value he is providing to HB that they keep him around and spend so much money on boats for him?

 

 

T'aint magic; they just go by the book. Something like this:

 

http://blog.sportaroo.com/post/59033356204/what-do-sponsors-want-4-steps-to-understanding

 

 

So you've never asked?

 

Plenty of people have asked the question, and Alex has pretty much answered all of them over the years. Essentially, although he has not always produced competitive results (VG 3rd, BWR 1st, various speed records), he HAS always produced good marketing results (rescues, background gorilla marketing at F1 and Golf, Mast walk, Keel walk).

There are plenty of people who have complained about Alex over the years, but managing relationships and giving value for money are obviously 2 things he is very good at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Hugo Boss (the company) have the mindset that any publicity is good publicity? One must think so considering all the money they have poured into AT's boats for so little to show in the way of (race) results.

 

For one thing they have been with him for so long that they certainly know what to expect. Which pretty much boils down to lots of activation and many kind activities between races on one hand. Heaps of media work before, during and after races on the other. (And post crash too!)

 

It has been said before in the sponsorship discussions. THE rule in shorthanded sailing sponsorship is: If you did not give your sponsor(s) their all moneys worth and and made happy BEFORE race day: You are playing with fire, and you are likely to get burned.

As far as you (the sailor) working for the sponsors the race itself is just overtime, a bonus. Because chances are that you'll crash and burn on day one of the VG. If you needed to make it to day three to satisfy you sponsors you done in more than just one way.

 

 

Why does HB continue? Time to put on the cynical hat.

Alex is about running hard, getting knocked down, standing up again and continuing to run as hard as if nothing happened. (But taking lessons learned into account!)

 

Who wears suits like HB needs to sell? Management and leadership types.

Guess what, they know something about failing and continuing anyway as if nothing happened. (Using the lessons learned!) That is very job description. (Well, the unspoken one anyway.) So the HB clients can see themselves in Alex. The same is true for the HB management, who makes the sponsorship decision after all. And more importantly they can also project themselves into him.

 

 

So basically HB sponsors Alex because the decision makers can see themselves in Alex, and they know that the customers they want are of the same mindset (but in a different line of business). Therefor their clients can see themselves in Alex. And Alex does all that adventurous stuff they'll never even contemplate doing themselves while wearing Hugo Boss. They can see him in all all kinds of media and even could meet him at one of the many other sports events HB sponsors. Golf is after all a bit closer to them. Or much more mundanely at one of the store events.

 

 

And there you have it, why Hugo Boss sponsors Alex Thomson. The more cynical view. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thankfully areoplane designers don't follow the same approaches!

 

yeah why dontcha ask 'em how much flexibility they allow in a jet turbine?

 

The correct degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within the context of the thread, i.e. Hugo Boss sinking? your approach which you are so confident with, hasn't worked out too well. That does lead me to believe that in this case the designers knowledge of the situation is inadequate. Maybe you will ask VPLP (or any other well known yacht designer) to design a slightly lighter, faster yacht for yourself to sail in next years TJV?

 

Thankfully areoplane designers don't follow the same approaches!

 

 

It is all a question about performance vs. probability of breakage...

 

Aeroplane designers generally do follow the same approach, but (very understandably) more on the side of less probability of breakage and less performance. That is why airplanes are still hold together by rivets instead of being welded or glued.

 

Cruising yachts (or even less on the edge racing yachts from the very same designers) will not break as often, because they as well are build more to the less performance and less probability of breakage side of this trade off..

 

If you find a racing team that is willing to take a significant risk of breaking the boat in exchange for the possibility of winning the race, than you move more towards the performance and higher probability of failure side.

If the boat then breaks, it is not a sign of a wrong design approach, it is a sign that either the design pushed too far in a certain area (and should be altered for the next time around), or (as the impact and breaking wave in the HB case might have been) an occurrence of circumstances that you do not want to design for because that would eliminate all chances of winning any race (while the chance of winning a race is the very reason these boats exist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Can you explain WHAT value he is providing to HB that they keep him around and spend so much money on boats for him?

 

 

T'aint magic; they just go by the book. Something like this:

 

http://blog.sportaroo.com/post/59033356204/what-do-sponsors-want-4-steps-to-understanding

 

 

So you've never asked?

 

actually weve done full interviews on it and even a talk show back in like '09.

 

so you dont like the answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does Hugo Boss (the company) have the mindset that any publicity is good publicity? One must think so considering all the money they have poured into AT's boats for so little to show in the way of (race) results.

 

For one thing they have been with him for so long that they certainly know what to expect. Which pretty much boils down to lots of activation and many kind activities between races on one hand. Heaps of media work before, during and after races on the other. (And post crash too!)

 

It has been said before in the sponsorship discussions. THE rule in shorthanded sailing sponsorship is: If you did not give your sponsor(s) their all moneys worth and and made happy BEFORE race day: You are playing with fire, and you are likely to get burned.

As far as you (the sailor) working for the sponsors the race itself is just overtime, a bonus. Because chances are that you'll crash and burn on day one of the VG. If you needed to make it to day three to satisfy you sponsors you done in more than just one way.

 

 

Why does HB continue? Time to put on the cynical hat.

Alex is about running hard, getting knocked down, standing up again and continuing to run as hard as if nothing happened. (But taking lessons learned into account!)

 

Who wears suits like HB needs to sell? Management and leadership types.

Guess what, they know something about failing and continuing anyway as if nothing happened. (Using the lessons learned!) That is very job description. (Well, the unspoken one anyway.) So the HB clients can see themselves in Alex. The same is true for the HB management, who makes the sponsorship decision after all. And more importantly they can also project themselves into him.

 

 

So basically HB sponsors Alex because the decision makers can see themselves in Alex, and they know that the customers they want are of the same mindset (but in a different line of business). Therefor their clients can see themselves in Alex. And Alex does all that adventurous stuff they'll never even contemplate doing themselves while wearing Hugo Boss. They can see him in all all kinds of media and even could meet him at one of the many other sports events HB sponsors. Golf is after all a bit closer to them. Or much more mundanely at one of the store events.

 

 

And there you have it, why Hugo Boss sponsors Alex Thomson. The more cynical view. :ph34r:

 

 

And AT is very clear about it, it is even in his strapline: SAIL SURVIVE SUCCEED => let's go for a sail (yawn), survive a crash or 2, and only then you succeed :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you explain WHAT value he is providing to HB that they keep him around and spend so much money on boats for him?

 

 

T'aint magic; they just go by the book. Something like this:

 

http://blog.sportaroo.com/post/59033356204/what-do-sponsors-want-4-steps-to-understanding

 

 

So you've never asked?

 

actually weve done full interviews on it and even a talk show back in like '09.

 

so you dont like the answer?

 

 

You reply with some lame marketing link and now a dismissive hipster "OH THATS OLD NEWS" crap line instead of "Well, this is what Alex and/or HB say about it" but I get it, you're far above answering a simple question. I'm not sure if you're being defensive because you can't answer that question, or you can't remember the answer, or you just don't care, but I'll go find someone who can answer it. Thanks! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....^^......faaak,,,you got the whole story a very few days after it happened. Ironically the answer to your question is staring you in the face! :lol:

 

 

 

"Sound is a little touch and go for about 5% of this."
Nice example of Clean's credibility problem.

.

 

...aww c'mon...I don't believe I'm saying this,, but give him a break.

...he got through a lot of 'technical hurdles'** to give us a great horses-mouth,,,just a couple of days after the event.

 

Alex really knows how to shake it, ROI wise.

 

 

 

 

. ........**...including some sort of diaper explosion :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Does Hugo Boss (the company) have the mindset that any publicity is good publicity? One must think so considering all the money they have poured into AT's boats for so little to show in the way of (race) results.

For one thing they have been with him for so long that they certainly know what to expect. Which pretty much boils down to lots of activation and many kind activities between races on one hand. Heaps of media work before, during and after races on the other. (And post crash too!)

 

It has been said before in the sponsorship discussions. THE rule in shorthanded sailing sponsorship is: If you did not give your sponsor(s) their all moneys worth and and made happy BEFORE race day: You are playing with fire, and you are likely to get burned.

As far as you (the sailor) working for the sponsors the race itself is just overtime, a bonus. Because chances are that you'll crash and burn on day one of the VG. If you needed to make it to day three to satisfy you sponsors you done in more than just one way.

 

 

Why does HB continue? Time to put on the cynical hat.

Alex is about running hard, getting knocked down, standing up again and continuing to run as hard as if nothing happened. (But taking lessons learned into account!)

 

Who wears suits like HB needs to sell? Management and leadership types.

Guess what, they know something about failing and continuing anyway as if nothing happened. (Using the lessons learned!) That is very job description. (Well, the unspoken one anyway.) So the HB clients can see themselves in Alex. The same is true for the HB management, who makes the sponsorship decision after all. And more importantly they can also project themselves into him.

 

 

So basically HB sponsors Alex because the decision makers can see themselves in Alex, and they know that the customers they want are of the same mindset (but in a different line of business). Therefor their clients can see themselves in Alex. And Alex does all that adventurous stuff they'll never even contemplate doing themselves while wearing Hugo Boss. They can see him in all all kinds of media and even could meet him at one of the many other sports events HB sponsors. Golf is after all a bit closer to them. Or much more mundanely at one of the store events.

 

 

And there you have it, why Hugo Boss sponsors Alex Thomson. The more cynical view. :ph34r:

Or perhaps HB is making tons of money and need a nice sponsorship tax write off?

Whatever the reasons, it's great that they are spending the money.

I don't think crashing out makes the "brand" any less valuable, just look at Red Bull.

There is probably more people killed or maimed while wearing a helmet with Red Bull stickers on it than any other brand, yet they seem to be doing ok, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re post 150.

Thanks a lot Mr Clean. Brilliant to get us this interview. Where else could we find any comparable reporting about sailboat racing (icluding the problems) than on this website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is probably more people killed or maimed while wearing a helmet with Red Bull stickers on it than any other brand, yet they seem to be doing ok, no?

.

 

...until people realize the product causes the crashes. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Clean's vimeo interview

 

Thanks Clean — nice job getting “the sailor’s side of the story.” Sound was manageable considering the tight timeframe and At's circumstances.

Another hour well spent. Lots to think about. Hulls designed to take 25% more stress than the older builds and that the situation would likely have been worse in an older design (Sanya); Armel’s chances are now better (and that he’s probably holding some reserve). IMOCA class shares structural info (but not performance data). Designers are on this.
So, HB's Vendee 2016 campaign still on track if HB can get sailing in 3 months. If 6 months, well, . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

nededv -

Relying on past experience as the engineering tool to progress these designs hasn't turned out too well has it? I agree with you that calculations on these things are very difficult, and I fully understand why you don't attempt to answer the questions in my post.

If one is going to use computational stress analysis tools for detailed structural design, first the basic physics and engineering factors involved need to be fully understood. I readily accept I don't fully understand them but I do know a little about physics, engineering and materials science and I see no evidence that yacht designers understand what they are grappling with in these boats either.

They remind me of the nuclear engineers who said a meltdown wasn't possible before Chernobyl!

 

What i am trying to explain (apparently to no success) is that there is no and never will be a general answer to the question 'is a stiffer boat faster?'. The physics behind this are very well understood (Fluid dynamics), the equations to solve are the Navier-Stokes equations. The problem is the infinite number of cases these physics have to be applied to (you can calculate everything up to a very good approximation for one hull shape and for one wave, but maybe for the next wave the results are entirely different.

 

The cheaper, quicker and more applicable solution is to go out and compare two boats that are similar except for the hull stiffness. And then you will see that exactly that has already been done hundreds of times in the past with the pretty clear conclusion that in almost all cases a stiffer hull is faster, but that there are certain exceptions.

 

You can say this approach hasn't turned out too well (I would say it turns out almost astonishingly well considering the progress in yacht building over the past years...), that is a matter of opinion and an entirely different discussion. But unfortunately in engineering, when dealing with random environmental influences, in the end this is and always will be the only approach that is available.

 

Thanks nedevd, that's moreless what i've been thinking, but do not have sufficient technical background. "(you can calculate everything up to a very good approximation for one hull shape and for one wave, but maybe for the next wave the results are entirely different.)" Nature is unpredictable !!! in spite all human efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, they rushed the boat to the line, apparently not testing it properly, and it failed. Is there still a race going on including people who may actually finish? Sorry but I do not see the need for all this hype about an ill prepared effort. First it was a "rogue wave". Now, it seems, there is a panel to look at that indicates an "initial impact". I prefer ocean racing to professional wrestling coverage.
Oh am I going to get crap for this heresy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks nedevd, that's moreless what i've been thinking, but do not have sufficient technical background. "(you can calculate everything up to a very good approximation for one hull shape and for one wave, but maybe for the next wave the results are entirely different.)" Nature is unpredictable !!! in spite all human efforts.

 

 

 

In some areas of vessel design (mainly fatigue loads for commercial vessels) they even have pretty good knowledge about the chances of exceeding certain loads (they can say that statistically a certain wave that leads to a certain load on the structure will occur for example once in 100 years of non-stop sailing). And of course the higher the load, the lower the chance that that load will be exceeded, but the crux is that it will never reach zero.

 

So even if nature would be 100% predictable, naval architects will still have to make a choice to build a vessel that will statistically fail at some point (maybe a wave that occurs once every hundred years of sailing, maybe once every 1000 years). And then if you have bad luck, on the maiden voyage the vessel meets a 'once in 1001 years' wave and breaks.

 

This just to illustrate that breaking is a more or less (in case of the imocas probably less) calculated risk that anyone who designs a vessel (or an airplane, or some other structure subject to nature) has to take!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, they rushed the boat to the line, apparently not testing it properly, and it failed. Is there still a race going on including people who may actually finish? Sorry but I do not see the need for all this hype about an ill prepared effort. First it was a "rogue wave". Now, it seems, there is a panel to look at that indicates an "initial impact". I prefer ocean racing to professional wrestling coverage.

Oh am I going to get crap for this heresy!

 

Two different panels failed according to the interview - sail area which is forward of the mast and then right forward which is other side of a frame or bulkhead. Would one failure chain react to other side of a hard point? Doesn't totally hold up that its been an impact from anything other than slamming loads and they'd already been held up getting the start by board casing problems. bit more to the story than is being said at the moment it would seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the five frame blowout in the bow is being attributed to a solid impact,

 

the single frame in the sail area seems standard in the slamming zone for the new monoskin vplps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No court182, you get crap for posting "Take Alex to his own thread!" ...in his own thread...

 

 

My take form the interview, as I understood it.

 

We have learned that the delamination damage in the fwd. watertight compartment (As I understand the skin got detached from the transverse ribs, they did not break) was caused by a collision that scored the 2.5mm thick skin ~2mm deep. Similar scoring damage to a cored boat would have lead to loss of outer skin, loss of coring and then loss of inner skin in quick succession. Aka a hole.

See Sanya in the previous VOR for this damage in the same position, see also a previous HB which delaminated at the start of the VG 2008(?) . This type of damage would be much harder/impossible to repair with only the classic 2 main stringers to anchor repairs on. On HB the ribs are 200mm apart (~8"), so "get home" repairs were possible if time consuming. (2x8h)

 

This compartment is not really considered a slamming zone. The hull here is engineered for 25 tons of load, the previous generation was engineered for 20 tons.

Full NDT in the yard will tell much about the causes.

 

This type of damage did not happen -as far as we know- to other boats.

HB also cracked a transverse rib (in 3 places) in the sail locker area near the foil case. St.Michel-Virbac has similar damage, they cracked at least 2 ribs in the same area.

 

No other major damage to, or problems with HB - until the rollover that is.

Gitana has problems with the mast.

Safran has problems with the side hull near a foil case, including taking water. Speculation in the TVR thread was a foil impact.

BP8 has no known problems, they are informed about all the problems the others had.

 

VPLP/Verdier shares structural information across the programs but not performance stuff. As do the teams, there are no point to be won by holding back information that could prevent someone else from sinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Clean. Great effort to get this out. And assuming you were at home, not having have howling baby in the background partway though.

 

When they're older you get business calls interrupted by, "No Cory, it's not OK to hit the dog!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice interview....really liked the question about bow to wave orientation when hove to before the roll....not ideal hove set up. I have not read everything...but it seems the half section ribs that failed were secondary bonding issues....otherwise they would have broken not released....finding which failed first would be key in understanding the cascading chain of event

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, they rushed the boat to the line, apparently not testing it properly, and it failed. Is there still a race going on including people who may actually finish? Sorry but I do not see the need for all this hype about an ill prepared effort. First it was a "rogue wave". Now, it seems, there is a panel to look at that indicates an "initial impact". I prefer ocean racing to professional wrestling coverage.

Oh am I going to get crap for this heresy!

 

Somehow you are making the assumption that a better prepared boat would have survived a collision better and survived a rollover better. I don't see that preparation has anything to do with surviving either of those conditions. You could just as easily argue that more serious damage would have occurred to an earlier generation boat, because in reality we have no idea what would have happened to any other IMOCA in those exact situations. The fact that the newest boat hit something is related almost entirely to bad luck, not preparation. Look what happened to the Multi 50 that hit a container. Ripped half the ama right off and they retired immediately.

 

I don't think this sport would even exist if one of the requirements were hitting immovable objects at speed with no damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random speculation but is this not possible?

 

Boat is hove to with keel to leeward, sliding sideways down waves.

 

Boat 'trips' over foil, which is in a place foils did not normally exist before, causing it to roll over while sliding down wave. This could be exacerbated by HB's foils, which have a more open 'V' than Safran's, which are almost parallel to hull side when retracted.

 

Boat is now upside down, sitll sliding down wave, and foil tip pointing downwards. This motion is now pulling foil out of case (which did happen)

 

Foil gets loose, is still tethered to boat via adjusting lines, bangs hole in the bow before boat returns upright. These foils are seriously heavy duty and could probably do some damge while flailing about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites