strider470

Luna Rossa Challenge. AC 36

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, RobG said:

Headsails must must be stored "on the upper surface of the deck" when not hoisted (19.16), so no disappearing down hatches, though they might go inside a sock or hard cover. I doubt that there will be time for headsail changes during racing (other than hoisting/lowering the code 0).

None of boats seem to have set aside an area for stowing "not hoisted' sails, maybe they don't plan on carrying any.

Are we certain Code 0s are categorised as 'headsails' in this instance? Are there specific mid-girth definitions in the AC36 rule to determine between upwind headsails and Code 0s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for some pictures of that sail up.  Maybe they are afraid of copying?

Maybe it looks good and sounds good but does not function well?

It will be interesting to speculate, once we have more than the ovals to go on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maxmini said:

Not a shock . 

08C60D83-975E-47D9-B1CC-4B4E91EE4AAF.jpeg

Ha ha ha

“A brilliant document that’s piloted the America’s Cup through the years, dictating terms for a fair event”.

What fucking version of the history of the America’s Cup is this idiot reading? Obviously not the one where America held onto it for 134 years by, amongst other things, maintaining the requirement that yachts had to be able to cross the Atlantic before they turned up to the start line!

The whole reason the America’s Cup has gained its reputation is because it’s so hard to win!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defender nearly always has the upper hand in the mutual consent negotiation. 

If the challenger doesn't agree, the defender points out the window at his yacht and says "fine, i'll see you in 9 months with something that can beat that." 

(Picture Larry/Russel pointing at Dogzilla)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, maxmini said:

Not a shock . 

08C60D83-975E-47D9-B1CC-4B4E91EE4AAF.jpeg

Consent? Given in a signed document.

Regret? Evidently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Consent? Given in a signed document.

Regret? Evidently...

Buyers remorse. Even the mega-rich can suffer from it, apparently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say the best thing would have been to open up the AC50 spec as a box rule: keep one-design/supplied cross-beams & wing D but let them have at it with hullshape & wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hoom said:

I still say the best thing would have been to open up the AC50 spec as a box rule: keep one-design/supplied cross-beams & wing D but let them have at it with hullshape & wings.

Nah, as cool as they were, just too small! 

For me the America's Cup needs the granduer of bigger boats, the AC72 was much more appropriate and way cooler than the AC50, especially if it had been developed into the full fledged foiling class like it finally ended up as.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, maxmini said:

Not a shock

Not a shock because that was nearly all in my friend @Stingray 's post #1603 at the top of this page.

And we don't give a shit about Buttscuttle's view here, you know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

The whole reason the America’s Cup has gained its reputation is because it’s so hard to win!

And to the winner goes the spoils, including dictating the rules…

But then again, PB has always had a petulant streak anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boybland said:

especially if it had been developed into the full fledged foiling class like it finally ended up as.

The first AC72 on the water was a full foiler, out of 6 (or was it 7?) built 4 (or 5) were full foilers.

But they were too big & Expen$ive.

 

I think a big fleet of opened up AC50s could have been expected for the coming cup, rivalling AC2000/2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big fleet of AC50s, would, indeed be spectacular. But the AC has never had a big fleet. Not sure I or many long time fans would appreciate it as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Liquid said:

Awfully quiet in this camp...

They're all afraid of saying anything or posting pictures in case Dotard Bertelli goes donald trump again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CheekyMonkey said:

PB has always had a petulant streak anyway.

He responded in a straight forward way to a direct question about why there are only 3 Challengers. It’s only the NZ Media who are going apeshit into a feeding-frenzy and trying to create conflict clickbait out of a basically-reasonable comment he made in response to the question. Get used to it!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

He responded in a straight forward way to a direct question about why there are only 3 Challengers. It’s only the NZ Media who are going apeshit into a feeding-frenzy and trying to create conflict clickbait out of a basically-reasonable comment he made in response to the question. Get used to it!

We might finally believe you about ETNZ's win being a fluke too if you say it enough

Yea Na!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Consent? Given in a signed document.

Regret? Evidently...

Probably a little sphincter pucker. Maybe they need to pull that boat off theirs around a bit, pretend they are sailing, have some fun, lighten up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Kiwing said:

We might finally believe you about ETNZ's win being a fluke too if you say it enough

Yea Na!

That’s a complete non-sequitor but I will respond anyway:

If you don’t believe the fact that ETNZ won in the very-lightest conditions of the month in AC35 you are a fluke of nature since all evidence proves it! 

The reason I reminded folks here of that fact is because of the comments Nick Holroyd made about nobody being privy to ETNZ’s wind limits - Read that article again..

Kiwingers like you go on about how wind limits in SF got reduced (because of a freaking death by the way) but conveniently leave out how in the race ETNZ ran out of time it was due to an opposite fact; and leave out that in no racing did WS ever reach 33 Knots anyway - as would any analysis of SF Bay during that month predict anyway.

Try sticking to facts, fan-boy! You might even earn a touch of respect that way ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stingray~ said:

..........

The reason I reminded folks here of that fact is because of the comments Nick Holroyd made about nobody being privy to ETNZ’s wind limits - Read that article again..

 

ETNZ's wind limits are public knowledge (as they don't have any in the sense you are using) and will let Nature dictate.  Unless all challengers agree to the change.

ETNZ would have won any way as they beat the strongest challenge (Artemis) in all conditions! But the world you live in is nearly as one eyed as we are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kiwing said:

ETNZ would have won any way as they beat the strongest challenge (Artemis) in all conditions! 

They may have but if the AC Finals had been raced in typical conditions for the month, who knows? 

These coming wind limits will, exactly as NH said right at the start of that interview, have a truly massive bearing on the various compromises made by the different teams. That coming decision is being made all the more critical due to the massive slide in B1 launches for this cycle. Yes, ETNZ is affected too, they thought they’d not even need a T boat because of the original schedule, but ETNZ still gets to hold privy until November what their real intentions are.

Do you honestly think GD won’t spring a completely self-serving decision? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup

now .... them crackers are waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

yup

now .... them crackers are waiting

Yep, with only very-similar-design LR (huge coincidence!) to agree whatever ETNZ decides, the other 2 getting ZERO say in the matter!

Given a bit of foil-design freedom still remaining, hopefully it won’t be as big a kicker as what NH suggests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

If you don’t believe the fact that ETNZ won in the very-lightest conditions of the month in AC35 you are a fluke of nature since all evidence proves it! 

 

Are you able to point me to historic records of wind conditions for that month and time of day? I can't seem to find anything decent.

49 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Kiwingers like you go on about how wind limits in SF got reduced (because of a freaking death by the way) but conveniently leave out how in the race ETNZ ran out of time it was due to an opposite fact

If they had built a light boat for lighter conditions perhaps they might have finished that race in time? ;-)

51 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

And leave out that in no racing did WS ever reach 33 Knots anyway - as would any analysis of SF Bay during that month predict anyway.

But they had to be prepared for such an event no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

But they had to be prepared for such an event no?

As did everyone. There is no cheating conspiracy to be had there, it was run fairly to everyone.

Truth is, OR ultimately got faster than ETNZ in the upper ranges anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Are you able to point me to historic records of wind conditions for that month and time of day? I can't seem to find anything decent.

57 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

I found 10it by the end of the month, but that's consumer weather. Last time smugray went on and on about freak light winds in bda he was going to produce a data base but couldn't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, barfy said:

I found 10it by the end of the month, but that's consumer weather. Last time smugray went on and on about freak light winds in bda he was going to produce a data base but couldn't find it.

Still have all the races in a database on a now-two-gen-old laptop in the basement office and if I cared enough to prove you wrong then I would fire it back up and ask it a bunch of questions again about what the slowest races were in order, across all races in BDA.

Am very confident the Finals had the lowest wind speeds, SOG speeds and VMG speeds. 

Am also confident that AR and TJ recorded the fastest races by all three measures!

You could easily Google for news articles for that exact timeframe too, to rediscover how much the Finals got dictated by how unusually weak the conditions were, Martin Tasker and others were wetting their old-man pants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raptorsailor said:

When are we going to see it foil... hurry up and finish your pizza or whatever already. 

Agreed, looking forward to seeing the Sardine and the Manta foiling!

LR received their mast and rigging 4 months ago, then delayed their launch from August 25 until Oct 2 (?) - wth else beside the very-late FCS arms is causing their delays? Foil problems out of Persico? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Agreed, looking forward to seeing the Sardine and the Manta foiling!

LR received their mast and rigging 4 months ago, then delayed their launch from August 25 until Oct 2 (?) - wth else beside the very-late FCS arms is causing their delays? Foil problems out of Persico? 

Typical Italians..! But it's one of the reasons they their own worse enemy... Oh well... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

They may have but if the AC Finals had been raced in typical conditions for the month, who knows? 

These coming wind limits will, exactly as NH said right at the start of that interview, have a truly massive bearing on the various compromises made by the different teams. That coming decision is being made all the more critical due to the massive slide in B1 launches for this cycle. Yes, ETNZ is affected too, they thought they’d not even need a T boat because of the original schedule, but ETNZ still gets to hold privy until November what their real intentions are.

Do you honestly think GD won’t spring a completely self-serving decision? 

If AC 2003 was raced in conditions suited to Team NZ, the Cup may never have left NZ! If ETNZ hadn't blown out a spinnaker in Valencia, they might have gone on to win the Cup. If The Cup was raced in RAK, Oracle may never have held the AC. If Oracle hadn't screwed with the wind limits in 2013, ETNZ would've surely won the AC. What if's are irrelevant. As Ken Read said during commentary "The teams have known what the conditions were going to be like for years" Coincidentally, the Bermuda ACWS was also light. 

Wind limits only add to the complexity. They don't introduce it. Every team has a dedicated weather team. It is their job to compile the data so the team has an idea of what conditions prevail in Auckland over the summer months. Its all publicly available. ETNZ made the mistake of designing to the wind limits specified in the 2013 protocol. They never made that mistake again. 

Has GD sprung a completely self serving decision to date? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Has GD sprung a completely self serving decision to date? 

Agreed, not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stingray~ said:

Agreed, not yet.

Glad you agree. How many self serving decisions had Ellison and Coutts made by now? Or should it be, how many self serving decisions had they not made by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Forourselves said:

Glad you agree. How many self serving decisions had Ellison and Coutts made by now? Or should it be, how many self serving decisions had they not made by now?

We disagree.

RC ran good competitions imo but kiwis invented all kinds of acrimonious bullshit regardless which is clearly a normal attitude in an NZ culture where hurling cheating allegations is normal given their local swimming pool’s corrupt sporting scenery.

Raw Aggressiveness is clickbait down there.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

We disagree.

RC ran good competitions imo but kiwis invented all kinds of acrimonious bullshit regardless which is clearly a normal attitude in an NZ culture where hurling cheating allegations is normal given their local swimming pool’s corrupt sporting scenery.

Raw Aggressiveness is clickbait down there.

Haha Good old Stingray...Can't you just type "The slower boat won the Americas Cup" one more time... its good for a laugh! lol

"Russell Coutts ran good competitions" lol sure he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

"Russell Coutts ran good competitions" lol sure he did.

Yep, he did! 

His perspective is way above our trivial insights here, there’s a much bigger picture going on - thankfully!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

He responded in a straight forward way to a direct question about why there are only 3 Challengers. It’s only the NZ Media who are going apeshit into a feeding-frenzy and trying to create conflict clickbait out of a basically-reasonable comment he made in response to the question. Get used to it!

True indeed about PB's basically reasonable comment.

However you seem to have gone off the rails with your "media feeding frenzy and attempts to create clickbait".  Examples please. Five or six  hardly constitute a feeding frenzy but they'll do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

They may have but if the AC Finals had been raced in typical conditions for the month, who knows? 

These coming wind limits will, exactly as NH said right at the start of that interview, have a truly massive bearing on the various compromises made by the different teams. That coming decision is being made all the more critical due to the massive slide in B1 launches for this cycle. Yes, ETNZ is affected too, they thought they’d not even need a T boat because of the original schedule, but ETNZ still gets to hold privy until November what their real intentions are.

Do you honestly think GD won’t spring a completely self-serving decision? 

Get with the fucking program, mate. Ultimately GD will not have major influence  into any wind limits decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Agreed, not yet.

:rolleyes:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

We disagree.

 RC ran good competitions imo but kiwis invented all kinds of acrimonious bullshit regardless which is clearly a normal attitude in an NZ culture where hurling cheating allegations is normal given their local swimming pool’s corrupt sporting scenery.

Raw Aggressiveness is clickbait down there.

A Trumpian touch to this rant!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Are you able to point me to historic records of wind conditions for that month and time of day? I can't seem to find anything decent.

If they had built a light boat for lighter conditions perhaps they might have finished that race in time? ;-)

But they had to be prepared for such an event no?

in 34 it really didn't matter, they had plenty of opportunities to win another race, they couldn't, they lost to a faster boat.

in 35 it really didn't matter either, they won, they had the faster boat. 

regardless of any of the bs tossed in any direction, the faster boat always wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bigrpowr said:

in 34 it really didn't matter, they had plenty of opportunities to win another race, they couldn't, they lost to a faster boat.

regardless of any of the bs tossed in any direction, the faster boat always wins.

in 34 OTUSA had the faster boat, after 17 19 races.

But up to and including the moment race 13 was abandoned, ETNZ had won more races and were nearly a mile ahead, so objectively had the faster boat.

They only required one opportunity to win another race and that opportunity was denied them by incompetent race management.

Every race after that didn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mogs said:

They only required one opportunity to win another race and that opportunity was denied them by incompetent race management.

I think that you will find it was denied them because they agreed to a layday which allowed Oracle to make changes to configuration that they otherwise didn’t have time for. If they hadn’t agreed to that, it would have been over the following day.

nothing to do with race management, they denied themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mogs said:

in 34 OTUSA had the faster boat, after 17 races.

But up to and including the moment race 13 was abandoned, ETNZ had won more races and were nearly a mile ahead, so objectively had the faster boat.

They only required one opportunity to win another race and that opportunity was denied them by incompetent race management.

Every race after that didn't matter.

Again... blame everything on others.  Nice sportsmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Herfy said:

Again... blame everything on others.  Nice sportsmanship.

Nope, only blaming a single incident on a single entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

Complacency lost it for GD ETNZ in AC34

and Complacency lost it for Jimmy in AC35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

I think that you will find it was denied them because they agreed to a layday which allowed Oracle to make changes to configuration that they otherwise didn’t have time for. If they hadn’t agreed to that, it would have been over the following day.

nothing to do with race management, they denied themselves.

They were entitled to take the lay day, sure they were dumbasses for doing so, but they were entitled to do so.

Race management set a course that could not be completed in the time limit despite the conditions being well within the race wind limits and one of the boats demonstrating speeds never seen before in those conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race management didn’t have a lot of course options available and unfortunately the lower wind limit was too low for the available courses they had to choose from, which the competitors had agreed on. 

In reality the lower limit was too low for the courses, or the time limit too tight. None of which was race management’s decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

Race management didn’t have a lot of course options available and unfortunately the lower wind limit was too low for the available courses they had to choose from, which the competitors had agreed on. 

In reality the lower limit was too low for the courses, or the time limit too tight. None of which was race management’s decision. 

Nope, in reality the course was too long for the wind limits.

The course is what changed not the lower limits (when they switched from live to laid marks).

The problem would have been trivial to solve, put a second set of top gate marks part way up the course, (or simply use the reaching mark as a substitute top mark).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mogs said:

Nope, in reality the course was too long for the wind limits.

The course is what changed not the lower limits (when they switched from live to laid marks).

The problem would have been trivial to solve, put a second set of top gate marks part way up the course, (or simply use the reaching mark as a substitute top mark).

The live marks were temperament and not reliable. The time limit set by tv requirements was too tight in my view. Race management had limited real options considering how fast the race boats got around the course. I am sure in hindsight that would have set a shorter course if they had a better handle on the real speeds of the boats in the lower range. But they were evolving so fast, and lower limit races so rare, they didn’t have a huge amount of data to go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

The live marks were temperament and not reliable. The time limit set by tv requirements was too tight in my view. Race management had limited real options considering how fast the race boats got around the course. I am sure in hindsight that would have set a shorter course if they had a better handle on the real speeds of the boats in the lower range. But they were evolving so fast, and lower limit races so rare, they didn’t have a huge amount of data to go on.

Plus the fatman had to earn his paycheque hehehe!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

and lower limit races so rare, they didn’t have a huge amount of data to go on

You mean like almost the entire AC33?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the boom.

It’s not a real yacht without a boom.

Bet the crew hasn’t even got socks on.

Oh the humanity.

 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what happened in SF for 2 reasons:

1. I live in SF and OR was the home team.
2. It proved that all of the people who say that the AC is determined years in advance are talking out of their ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Priscilla said:

Where is the boom.

It’s not a real yacht without a boom.

Bet the crew hasn’t even got socks on.

Oh the humanity.

 

The boom could be below the deck :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

If the boom is below the deck it is going to make one hell of a mess when it gybes.

These boats are always sailing face to the wind. That said if they want to ease it could be a wetted mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah true, a bear away in a decent breeze and seaway after a dial up could be pretty ugly with your boom thrashing around below decks.

Not sure the cunning design idea will trickle down to the charter market unless the accomodation is relocated to the decks.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 4:28 AM, NZK said:

Are we certain Code 0s are categorised as 'headsails' in this instance? Are there specific mid-girth definitions in the AC36 rule to determine between upwind headsails and Code 0s?

Certain. See rule 19 Headsails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

The boom could be below the deck :unsure:

if I have to search on Instagram we definitely have a lack of journalism

Please mr Instagram could you zoom on the boom?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the hidden boom was half the cost of construction, it better be more than a gimmick to justify the costs.  You can still see under the sail, maybe it isn't adjusted yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They’re already one step ahead of ETNZ. Their main went all the way up on the first try!  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Herfy said:

Considering that the hidden boom was half the cost of construction, it better be more than a gimmick to justify the costs.  You can still see under the sail, maybe it isn't adjusted yet.

Not a design corner exactly,but pretty far down the road if it doesn't work out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Capture.PNG

I can't find the photo of the deck, but these four shapes look like they align with the the four oval shapes we've seen where the boom would usually be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Italian boom a way of getting around the limit of 1 metre high of control mechanism at the bottom of the sail? as below the deck is not part of the sail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Herfy said:

Here are larger pics from that instagram site.

Weight concentrated aft (& possibly extra ppl aboard) but its clearly got a decent proportion of weight floating on the bottom rather than mostly on the skeg/TNZ belly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

I can't find the photo of the deck, but these four shapes look like they align with the the four oval shapes we've seen where the boom would usually be.

I think so, now we need to have a better photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit, this is really intriguing. Given the splashdowns we've seen already they have to be anticipating quite a lot of deckwash coming back into the cockpits - having 4 large sections if thru-deck controls is going to be a nightmare to waterproof. Even if you have dedicated wet-boxes with drains and bilge-pumps they're still going to hold water temporarily...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ like after a year these guys are gonna be Dumping the boats on a regular basis. Yeah right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks arse heavy in every photo. I hope they get their act together because if they are an early failure I don't see them getting the funding to continue after this AC MO. What worries me is all their intelligent design press comes from MF. In all due respect I would prefer if Martin was in fact VPLP. I just can't get my head around MF leading the charge for the Italians but I'll gladly eat my words if they do well. I would love to see them do well. I'll say it over and over to beat the Kiwis you'd better come up with a bag of tricks and not follow them into the competition. You'd be better off donating the money to charity IMO. If I were paying the big bucks I'd have everyone on success money rather than retainers otherwise those in the team make too much money regardless of results. That applies to all the challengers though whereas the Kiwis are a whole different model. You must beat them at their own game.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, barfy said:

^ like after a year these guys are gonna be Dumping the boats on a regular basis. Yeah right

You mean like ETNZ didn't pitchpole in Bermuda...???

The teams are planning for every eventuality, including capsized, so every single through-hull/deck opening on these boats will be waterproofed or have some sort of 'ingress management' that funnels water to bilge drains to avoid control systems. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

I can't find the photo of the deck, but these four shapes look like they align with the the four oval shapes we've seen where the boom would usually be.

They'll have doggie door flaps for the crew to scoot thru on tacks and gybes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NZK said:

You mean like ETNZ didn't pitchpole in Bermuda...???

The teams are planning for every eventuality, including capsized, so every single through-hull/deck opening on these boats will be waterproofed or have some sort of 'ingress management' that funnels water to bilge drains to avoid control systems. 

 

No, your right, big open hatches would be a pain to manage. The rule says something about it tho:

11.14 Water shall not be retained anywhere in the yacht. Any deck recess, cockpit, or other surface that could
retain water must be self-draining with the following criteria:
(a) Competitors must provide calculations to the Measurement Committee demonstrating that any
water temporarily retained, at any water level, will drain at least 90% of its volume within 30 seconds.
(b) For any distinct retained water volume, the drainage requirement of Rule 11.14 (a) will be deemed
to be met if at any water level, for every 1.000 m3 of retained volume, an area open to drainage and
free from obstructions of at least 0.100 m2
is present below that water level.
(c) In these calculations, water volumes resulting from a sheet of water of more than 100 mm depth
being uniformly deposited over the entire yacht need not be considered.
(d) These drainage requirements must be satisfied for the case when MWP is horizontal, and for a range
of orientations bounded by:
(i) a rotation of the yacht by up to ±10° about a longitudinal axis; followed by
(ii) a rotation of the yacht by up to ±2° about a (rotated) transverse axis.
(e) These requirements shall be satisfied accounting for the presence of any fairing flaps permitted by
Rule 11.17.
(f) The Measurement Committee may specify an alternative calculation method or drainage require-
ment if they believe that the above criteria are insufficient to ensure that water is not retained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

I can't find the photo of the deck, but these four shapes look like they align with the the four oval shapes we've seen where the boom would usually be.

 

Screenshot_20191013-110302.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Purple Headed Warrior said:

I am a little slow on the Luna boat.... What are we guessing these are for?! 

 

Beer holders

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Purple Headed Warrior said:

I am a little slow on the Luna boat....

 

Now you know how Max Sirena’s gonna feel. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites