• 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.  
Tornado-Cat

The foil of the future

Recommended Posts

What is the foil of the future : V, L, C, J, Z, T, W, flaps ?

- V, also called uptip is used on the GC 32, Flying Phantom, Nacra 20 fcs, but is not competitive with the L

- L is fast but need oil and slaves, the worst demontration of hamster sailers, slaves working to get green lights for hydro when their light gets red. This is not sailing for sailors.

- C is old story now

- J is old story too

- Z is used but A cats because of their rule, the "slow" Phantom essential and the Olympic Nacra 17. Considered excellent by A class users, I don't think they ever won any open race, always beaten by V -  uptip foils

- T with wands is used on Petrucci boat and the Vampire project, seems promising.

- W or "Whomper" is the AC winning foil but also requires hamster with no head to be efficient.

- Flaps are used on the Moth, UFO from Steve Clark and a few others.

I think the future is L, T or W with flaps, what do you think ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L with variable angle in the L? plus solar powered hamsters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Bulb shaped with 20 tonne of lead in it if I get my way!

Ah, the " ! " foil!

Share this post


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

Bulb shaped with 20 tonne of lead in it if I get my way!

its going to take more than batwings to get that flying

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like foiling cats, and for my two cents worth ETNZ foils works well in light winds. However at high speed they are a problem. 

I will be really surprised if we have foiling cats in New Zealand. If they do someone is going to die.  You would also  lose too many filming days due to high winds. Dont forget in a previous americas cup a IACC boat sank because of  bad wind wave combination. After all, its a boat race, its not worth anyone being killed over.  I suspect ETNZ and Luna Rossa already have agreed on a boat design. They will be quietly assemblying the design talent they want,  and let everyone else fight over whats left.  My guess a 90 foot box design with very few parameters to stop someone else coming up with breakthrough design.

Team NZ does not have the money to compete in a full design race. Using testing tanks is expensive.  We cannot get into a race with the Billionares out there. I feel at least two if not three will fund a syndicate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Groucho Marx said:

Mako23, what a negative sack of defecation you are.

Why thankyou  Its nice to be appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L or T with flaps and a big carbon and vacuum gyro (spun by the cyclors): No need for heel, always stays upright !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/07/2017 at 9:05 PM, mako23 said:

I like foiling cats, and for my two cents worth ETNZ foils works well in light winds. However at high speed they are a problem. 

I will be really surprised if we have foiling cats in New Zealand. If they do someone is going to die.  You would also  lose too many filming days due to high winds. Dont forget in a previous americas cup a IACC boat sank because of  bad wind wave combination. After all, its a boat race, its not worth anyone being killed over.  I suspect ETNZ and Luna Rossa already have agreed on a boat design. They will be quietly assemblying the design talent they want,  and let everyone else fight over whats left.  My guess a 90 foot box design with very few parameters to stop someone else coming up with breakthrough design.

Team NZ does not have the money to compete in a full design race. Using testing tanks is expensive.  We cannot get into a race with the Billionares out there. I feel at least two if not three will fund a syndicate. 

This after ETNZ just designed the fucking shit out of AC36 and destroyed all comers due to superior technology...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Boybland said:

This after ETNZ just designed the fucking shit out of AC36 and destroyed all comers due to superior technology...

Yes but I think mako23's point is that they designed the fucking shit out of the limited design parameters that were modifiable within the class-rule.

A really open class rule opens up hundreds of bottomless chasms where you can throw your money away to eke out that last few thousandths of a knot, and definitely favours the billionaires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, KoW said:

Yes but I think mako23's point is that they designed the fucking shit out of the limited design parameters that were modifiable within the class-rule.

A really open class rule opens up hundreds of bottomless chasms where you can throw your money away to eke out that last few thousandths of a knot, and definitely favours the billionaires.

I just have a high level of confidence in ETNZ to pick the right chasms for their cash. :P

If there are clever places to work magic ETNZ will find them, it's one of the primary reasons they have been probably the most consistent and successful cup team in history.

I just feel the more doors that are open the more clever tricks they will pull and the bigger the advantage to them.  There is much more to clever design than just throwing money at the problem and lets be honest ETNZ for all their underdog card playing are certainly not exactly poorly financed most campaigns.

Share this post


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

L with flaps.  Likely the safest way to foil fast without focusing the crew on being hamsters.

Fixed main foils, with a few settings however, and rudder with flaps + a soft wing with reef, would make a cheap, stable, amazingly fast, and seaworthy boat.

Share this post


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

This after ETNZ just designed the fucking shit out of AC36 and destroyed all comers due to superior technology...

ETNZ had considerable help from Luna Ross in regards to foil design. A number of key staff from Luna Ross worked inside ETNZ. Any design secrets that ETNZ have Luna Ross will have as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mako23 said:

ETNZ had considerable help from Luna Ross in regards to foil design. A number of key staff from Luna Ross worked inside ETNZ. Any design secrets that ETNZ have Luna Ross will have as well. 

Were they paid or do they have a debt with LR ? if they have a debt, is there a signed agreement as some rumors seem to accredit ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Were they paid or do they have a debt with LR ? if they have a debt, is there a signed agreement as some rumors seem to accredit ?

I personally find it impossible that ETNZ did not make some concessions to LR in a formal document.

I don't think those concessions will fly in the face of ETNZ's general philosophy nor will it place LR at an advantage over them.

I suspect it involves ETNZ keeping the LVC at arms reach and some basic boat characteristics.

Could also be an agreement to dump Louis Vuitton as challenger series sponsor - who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Were they paid or do they have a debt with LR ? if they have a debt, is there a signed agreement as some rumors seem to accredit ?

A very good question.....to which I have no answer. Im starting to believe that no actual cash was given to ETNZ and the reported 30 millon was the value of the technology transfer.  This money is a debt owed to Luna Rossa which is payable if ETNZ breaks its agreement to Luna Rossa. So does Luna Rossa have ETNZ balls in its hand......yes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mako23 said:

A very good question.....to which I have no answer. Im starting to believe that no actual cash was given to ETNZ and the reported 30 millon was the value of the technology transfer.  This money is a debt owed to Luna Rossa which is payable if ETNZ breaks its agreement to Luna Rossa. So does Luna Rossa have ETNZ balls in its hand......yes

 

+1, it doesn't matter how much if any of the E30M was in pure cash. 

What actually matters now is if P$B can (or has already) agreed the AC36 Match arrangement. P$B may or may not be willing to agree with GD, it is P$B who already bought that leverage over de Noro/GD/the RNZYS....whatever.... He basically owns them. 

Share this post


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

Could also be an agreement to dump Louis Vuitton as challenger series sponsor - who knows?

Your correct who knows ?  ETNZ seems to have gone silent on the issue. Its true they are sorta busy at the moment.  To be honest I thought they would had said more by now. 

Share this post


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

+1, it doesn't matter how much if any of the E30M was in pure cash. 

What actually matters now is if they can (or have already) agreed the AC36 Match. P$B may or may not be willing to agree with GD, it is him who already bought the leverage over de Noro/GD/the RNZYS....

I agree with you........... P$B isnt a billionare because hes stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 9:05 PM, mako23 said:

I like foiling cats, and for my two cents worth ETNZ foils works well in light winds. However at high speed they are a problem. 

I will be really surprised if we have foiling cats in New Zealand. If they do someone is going to die.  You would also  lose too many filming days due to high winds. Dont forget in a previous americas cup a IACC boat sank because of  bad wind wave combination. After all, its a boat race, its not worth anyone being killed over.  I suspect ETNZ and Luna Rossa already have agreed on a boat design. They will be quietly assemblying the design talent they want,  and let everyone else fight over whats left.  My guess a 90 foot box design with very few parameters to stop someone else coming up with breakthrough design.

Team NZ does not have the money to compete in a full design race. Using testing tanks is expensive.  We cannot get into a race with the Billionares out there. I feel at least two if not three will fund a syndicate. 

"Team NZ does not have the money to compete in a full design race" Isn't that what they've just done? Isn't that what they did in San Francisco, and those efforts were after failed efforts. Now that they are AC winners, there are bound to be more sponsors/ financial backers who are willing to get a piece of the pie. There was a lot of OD elements in this cycle, but those OD elements were largely irrelevant. Hull shapes, wing shapes etc. They took a largely OD rule and took so far away from OD that it was virtually a whole different design. ETNZ have more than enough money to compete in a full design race. Its not about how much money you have, its about what you do with the money you do have. If there was one lesson everyone learned from this cycle it was just that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Your correct who knows ?  ETNZ seems to have gone silent on the issue. Its true they are sorta busy at the moment.  To be honest I thought they would had said more by now. 

Yeah, me too.

But shit happens I guess. I think if a month passes without so much as a smoke signal, it would be pretty disappointing after Dalton's comments about coming out with details quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mako23 said:

A very good question.....to which I have no answer. Im starting to believe that no actual cash was given to ETNZ and the reported 30 millon was the value of the technology transfer.  This money is a debt owed to Luna Rossa which is payable if ETNZ breaks its agreement to Luna Rossa. So does Luna Rossa have ETNZ balls in its hand......yes

 

Pure speculation for sure, but if such an agreement exists, how could an MC be dictated by another YC before it is even a challenger ?

I would side with the Kiwis ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sclarke said:

"Team NZ does not have the money to compete in a full design race" Isn't that what they've just done?

I would argue no .....this was not a full design race. At 40 knots the shape of hull and mast makes a big difference. Yet there design was fixed. Nearly everyting was fixed except Dagger boards, rudders and foil shapes. There was even a strict limit to how many you could build. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD cried poverty back in AC34 too, yet it was reported in the NZ Govt audit how they had actually raised NZ $180 MILLION! Why on earth does anyone buy the line they were outspent in AC35? They probably OUTSPENT everyone else, all over again.

Which is fine, but would be just PR and #fakenews again this time if true. GD is aiming for $Ms, even the victory tour around NZ has the be aimed in part around that.

Share this post


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

GD cried poverty back in AC34 too, yet it was reported in the NZ Govt audit how they had actually raised NZ $180 MILLION! Why on earth does anyone buy the line they were outspent in AC35? They probably OUTSPENT everyone else, all over again.

Which is fine, but would be just PR and #fakenews again this time if true. GD is aiming for $Ms, even the victory tour around NZ has the be aimed in part around that.

Absolutely correct. Now tell me why this is wrong or undesirable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Absolutely correct. Now tell me why this is wrong or undesirable?

It's GOOD for them, for sure. But if true then can't de Noro and GD please stop with the endless #fakenews over this subject? It is just bit transparently tedious.. 

They will obviously want to drum up public support even if it is to help politicians to open taxpayer spigots to invest in and run this event, let alone to funnel their money directly to the team. But let's get real about the 'poverty' bit..

Share this post


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

GD cried poverty back in AC34 too, yet it was reported in the NZ Govt audit how they had actually raised NZ $180 MILLION! Why on earth does anyone buy the line they were outspent in AC35? They probably OUTSPENT everyone else, all over again.

Which is fine, but would be just PR and #fakenews again this time if true. GD is aiming for $Ms, even the victory tour around NZ has the be aimed in part around that.

Well, I don't necessarily suggest they outspent them, but I don't buy anything GD says about being poor.

Its probably the one thing that has pissed me off about him the most. I'd rather him just come out and say we have enough to be competitive, but a bit more would make it more likely we can seal the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mako23 said:

I would argue no .....this was not a full design race. At 40 knots the shape of hull and mast makes a big difference. Yet there design was fixed. Nearly everyting was fixed except Dagger boards, rudders and foil shapes. There was even a strict limit to how many you could build. 

The OD elements like the hulls, were largely irrelevant because they're pretty much just foil delivery systems. If the Hulls don't touch the water, the design becomes largely irrelevant. As was evident in San Francisco, the hulls of Aotearoa were a lot bigger and heavier than those of 17. Yet speed difference came down to foil and wing control systems, giving Oracle the ability to foil upwind more effectively than ETNZ. In both cycles ETNZ in 2013, were instrumental in changing the Americas Cup into what it is today. ETNZ introduced and revolutionised foiling in large Catamarans, and in this cycle were, I believe instrumental and revolutionary in their ability to again change the Americas Cup through innovation and forward thinking. They clearly out designed, out thought, out built, and out sailed Oracle. If the Kiwi's stick with foiling cats, look for cyclists to be a common feature on most, if not all of the teams boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 4:45 PM, jaysper said:

Bulb shaped with 20 tonne of lead in it if I get my way!

did you know that is about $30,000 worth of lead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Qman said:

did you know that is about $30,000 worth of lead.

 

Worth every cent too, if you want the thing to stay on its feet. 

Share this post


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

The OD elements like the hulls, were largely irrelevant because they're pretty much just foil delivery systems. If the Hulls don't touch the water, the design becomes largely irrelevant. 

Why do you thing the A Class and Moth manufactures work so hard on improving the aero on the hulls and rigs?  The aero is far from irrelevant.

Take a look at what DNA have produced in their latest design and it will blow you away.  The rigs are changing dramatically as well with masts being made shorter and lower aspect sails.

Share this post


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

The OD elements like the hulls, were largely irrelevant because they're pretty much just foil delivery systems. If the Hulls don't touch the water, the design becomes largely irrelevant. As was evident in San Francisco, the hulls of Aotearoa were a lot bigger and heavier than those of 17. Yet speed difference came down to foil and wing control systems, giving Oracle the ability to foil upwind more effectively than ETNZ. In both cycles ETNZ in 2013, were instrumental in changing the Americas Cup into what it is today. ETNZ introduced and revolutionised foiling in large Catamarans, and in this cycle were, I believe instrumental and revolutionary in their ability to again change the Americas Cup through innovation and forward thinking. They clearly out designed, out thought, out built, and out sailed Oracle. If the Kiwi's stick with foiling cats, look for cyclists to be a common feature on most, if not all of the teams boats.

irrelevant? they could have been made more aerodinamically efficient.

Share this post


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

The OD elements like the hulls, were largely irrelevant because they're pretty much just foil delivery systems. 

I have done some studies in aerodynamics in my life time. Im no expert but I do know the basics. My reply to you is.........Utter bullshit. Around the 50mph area aerodynamics comes a major factor in total resistance in a car. The amount of Aerodynamic drag on a AC50 would be massive at around the 40 knot area. To say they are irrelevant is beyound belief and must be a major relief to Car manufacturers who wind test cars at 50 mph which is standard motorway speed in is so many countries.  I guess they can stop spending all that money, after sclarke the areodynamic wizz kid has so happily infomed us that aerodynmaic drag is irrelevant at 40 knots, actualy more like 50 knots considering there heading into the wind in some of the legs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mako23 said:

I have done some studies in aerodynamics in my life time. Im no expert but I do know the basics. My reply to you is.........Utter bullshit. Around the 50mph area aerodynamics comes a major factor in total resistance in a car. The amount of Aerodynamic drag on a AC50 would be massive at around the 40 knot area. To say they are irrelevant is beyound belief and must be a major relief to Car manufacturers who wind test cars at 50 mph which is standard motorway speed in is so many countries.  I guess they can stop spending all that money, after sclarke the areodynamic wizz kid has so happily infomed us that aerodynmaic drag is irrelevant at 40 knots, actualy more like 50 knots considering there heading into the wind in some of the legs. 

What I'm saying is, the original comment was "ETNZ do not have the money to compete in a full design race" this is clearly incorrect, as they have, they can, they did, and they will continue to do so.

Share this post


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

What I'm saying is, the original comment was "ETNZ do not have the money to compete in a full design race" this is clearly incorrect, as they have, they can, they did, and they will continue to do so.

sClarke in my last response to you I was a bit terse to you, which you did not respond in kind. I might not agree with you but I do admire your manners.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on one central issue. You feel that the last AC was an open design race and I don't think it was. I accept that ETNZ has design talent but there is only so many aspects that a highly talented design team cover. If all aspects of design are opened up we have a problem. If the rumors are true then P$B with Luna Rossa have the right to pick the next boat design. How or Why is this so ?? they gave thirty million to ETNZ for this privilege. If they pick a monohull.....phew stone the crows were got a problem.

I guess Tank test operators around the world will rejoice. I believe through comments in this forum that ETNZ budget for this last cup was about NZ$ 60 million. We would need a budget of at least  NZ$ 150 million this time. We would have to build two complete boats with two complete crews. They also will have to hire a lot more talent in the design department. The hull will need a complete new design team. Appendages will be done by existing team. If P$B picks sails instead of a wing then extra scramble for mast design experts, they are very expensive. Sail designers and wind tunnel facilities are needed. Your design team will start looking like a F1 design team with similar costs. ETNZ cannot afford this, other syndicates can.  

ETNZ are well aware of the rumours about Luna Rossa and the "deal done"  yet they refuse to deny it. The story about Luna Rossa could be complete bollocks...why doesnt ETNZ say something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mako23 said:

sClarke in my last response to you I was a bit terse to you, which you did not respond in kind. I might not agree with you but I do admire your manners.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on one central issue. You feel that the last AC was an open design race and I don't think it was. I accept that ETNZ has design talent but there is only so many aspects that a highly talented design team cover. If all aspects of design are opened up we have a problem. If the rumors are true then P$B with Luna Rossa have the right to pick the next boat design. How or Why is this so ?? they gave thirty million to ETNZ for this privilege. If they pick a monohull.....phew stone the crows were got a problem.

I guess Tank test operators around the world will rejoice. I believe through comments in this forum that ETNZ budget for this last cup was about NZ$ 60 million. We would need a budget of at least  NZ$ 150 million this time. We would have to build two complete boats with two complete crews. They also will have to hire a lot more talent in the design department. The hull will need a complete new design team. Appendages will be done by existing team. If P$B picks sails instead of a wing then extra scramble for mast design experts, they are very expensive. Sail designers and wind tunnel facilities are needed. Your design team will start looking like a F1 design team with similar costs. ETNZ cannot afford this, other syndicates can.  

ETNZ are well aware of the rumours about Luna Rossa and the "deal done"  yet they refuse to deny it. The story about Luna Rossa could be complete bollocks...why doesnt ETNZ say something. 

Thanks mako23. I am well aware that the last AC (AC35) was far from an open design contest, However, i also think it has to be acknowledged that the AC, I believe, unless the world economy strengthens significantly, will not be an open design contest. It is just an unbelievably expensive game if the design is completely open for really not much gain. A box rule is achievable, and possibly a good idea, although it does make absolute sense to have OD components, in areas that are less relevant than others as was done this time around. Completely opening the design rules would almost mean certain death for even the most financially strong teams, not just ETNZ. I don't think we will see a completely open design rule for a long, long time, because as was proved this time, and in San Francisco, the Americas Cup needs the teams, more than the teams need the Americas Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tornado_ALIVE said:

Why do you thing the A Class and Moth manufactures work so hard on improving the aero on the hulls and rigs?  The aero is far from irrelevant.

Take a look at what DNA have produced in their latest design and it will blow you away.  The rigs are changing dramatically as well with masts being made shorter and lower aspect sails.

Dan Bernasconi himself stated the hull designs are largely irrelevant. But what would he know? He only won the Americas Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2017 at 4:50 PM, sclarke said:

"Team NZ does not have the money to compete in a full design race" Isn't that what they've just done? ...

For the third America's Cup Match in a row, the winning boat - hulls, beams, pod, wingsail, jib, rigging - was designed by OTUSA.

Share this post


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

For the third America's Cup Match in a row, the winning boat - hulls, beams, pod, wingsail, jib, rigging - was designed by OTUSA.

For the last two cup matches in a row the Kiwi's have taken an average design and turned it into something far more spectacular and revolutionary.

Share this post


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

For the third America's Cup Match in a row, the winning boat - hulls, beams, pod, wingsail, jib, rigging - was designed by OTUSA.

For the second America's Cup Match in a row, the top two boats were built in New Zealand.

Share this post


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

Thanks mako23. I am well aware that the last AC (AC35) was far from an open design contest, However, i also think it has to be acknowledged that the AC, I believe, unless the world economy strengthens significantly, will not be an open design contest. It is just an unbelievably expensive game if the design is completely open for really not much gain. A box rule is achievable, and possibly a good idea, although it does make absolute sense to have OD components, in areas that are less relevant than others as was done this time around. Completely opening the design rules would almost mean certain death for even the most financially strong teams, not just ETNZ. I don't think we will see a completely open design rule for a long, long time, because as was proved this time, and in San Francisco, the Americas Cup needs the teams, more than the teams need the Americas Cup.

Something we can agree with :)   I agree with most of what you have said. Id like some box rule with only a few dimensions at play. I've had a look at the Maxi-72 rules and that looks like a good box rule. Maybe a maxi-90 rule could be used. What ever these boats are I want them to be light. Ie some rule saying the maximum weight of the bulb is 4 tonnes. I want these boats too surf on the downward leg to make them visually exciting. To be honest if I had my pick Id want AC62 cats. However I have this gut feeling that they will be monohulls with foils.

Share this post


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

For the second America's Cup Match in a row, the top two boats were built in New Zealand.

For the 5th post in a row a yank and a kiwi have gotten pissy with each other :D

Share this post


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

For the third America's Cup Match in a row, the winning boat - hulls, beams, pod, wingsail, jib, rigging - was designed by OTUSA.

As a Kiwi (Hang on let me install flameproof trousers here) I thought OTUSA did a good job in keeping the cost down for every one. I'm a fan of tight box rules of some sort. A completely open Box rule like IACC was too wide. It proved a bottomless hole for design cash to be spent.  Nearly a 80 yachts had to be built  before everyone being in the same area for design parameters. If an average of 25 million (design and build costs) went into each boat, that means we spent 2 Billion on boats before the design matured. In Valencia the challenger and Defender were very close in performance. In 95, 2000 and 2003 the racing wasn't close due to the IACC rule not having matured yet. We saw the same effect in the 12 Meter rule were boats were starting to look the same with corresponding closer racing, until Australia II came up with a winged keel. Correction until dutch scientist came up with a winged keel

I don't want to wait for 3 or 4 Americas cup cycles before the design matures so we get close racing. In reality both the 12 Meter rule and IACC rule became a tight box rule, Some parameters came fixed because everyone knew these parameters were best set to certain values. So to save everyone a lot of cash and boring racing lets stick to a tight box rule with only two dimensions ie length and sail area.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mako23 said:

As a Kiwi (Hang on let me install flameproof trousers here) I thought OTUSA did a good job in keeping the cost down for every one. I'm a fan of tight box rules of some sort. A completely open Box rule like IACC was too wide. It proved a bottomless hole for design cash to be spent.  Nearly a 80 yachts had to be built  before everyone being in the same area for design parameters. If an average of 25 million (design and build costs) went into each boat, that means we spent 2 Billion on boats before the design matured. In Valencia the challenger and Defender were very close in performance. In 95, 2000 and 2003 the racing wasn't close due to the IACC rule not having matured yet. We saw the same effect in the 12 Meter rule were boats were starting to look the same with corresponding closer racing, until Australia II came up with a winged keel. Correction until dutch scientist came up with a winged keel

I don't want to wait for 3 or 4 Americas cup cycles before the design matures so we get close racing. In reality both the 12 Meter rule and IACC rule became a tight box rule, Some parameters came fixed because everyone knew these parameters were best set to certain values. So to save everyone a lot of cash and boring racing lets stick to a tight box rule with only two dimensions ie length and sail area.

 

 

I don't doubt they thought the OD components would keep costs down but I don't think they actually did keep them down.

The next AC could be sailed in 10 foot dinghies and the teams would still find ways to spend a hundred million on making them the fastest ten foot dinghies they can. It's just the nature of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jaysper said:

I don't doubt they thought the OD components would keep costs down but I don't think they actually did keep them down.

The next AC could be sailed in 10 foot dinghies and the teams would still find ways to spend a hundred million on making them the fastest ten foot dinghies they can. It's just the nature of the game.

I would agree with you if there is no limit on what materials could be used.  Hell you could make a keel out of plutonium. In fact Eric Taberly on one of his Pen Duick transatlantic racers used spent plutonium which was 1.7 times as dense as uranium. 

If exotic materials are banned then there would be a point of diminishing return for expenditure if 10 foot dinghies were used which had an OD rule.

In terms of cost I still am reflective of this Challenge with the 92 challenge in San Diego were we built four boats. The Italians built 5 boats !!!!!

I suspect that was the heyday of Americas Cup spending which we will not see for a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sclarke said:

Dan Bernasconi himself stated the hull designs are largely irrelevant. But what would he know? He only won the Americas Cup.

Really...... One thing he obviously doesn't know is how wrong he is in that subject then..... 

So tell be why any designer of foiling sailboats (and even non foiling designers) work hard at designing hulls and rigs with minimum drag?

Share this post


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

Really...... One thing he obviously doesn't know is how wrong he is in that subject then..... 

So tell be why any designer of foiling sailboats (and even non foiling designers) work hard at designing hulls and rigs with minimum drag?

Obviously Bernasconi was speaking in relation to the current AC class rule. However, a lot of designers of foiling multihulls have the ability to start with a blank canvas, they can look at pretty much everything with very little regard to cost. This is why they can design and build hulls and rigs with a minimum of drag. In the AC, and we are talking about the AC, as this is Americas Cup Anarchy, the event needs competitors in order to sustain itself as an international sporting event, therefor, designers must consider costs, design and build schedules (time is money) and availability of resource, as well as freedom of design. In the case of other foiling multi designers, it is more of an explorative, and inventive stance, "a blue sky approach" designing, building and sailing a modern, fast and somewhat revolutionary craft. When you have freedom of design, you can do whatever you like without having to consider consequences, unlike the world of the modern AC. The Americas Cup is not an open design event, and won't be for a very long time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mako23 said:

I would agree with you if there is no limit on what materials could be used.  Hell you could make a keel out of plutonium. In fact Eric Taberly on one of his Pen Duick transatlantic racers used spent plutonium which was 1.7 times as dense as uranium. 

If exotic materials are banned then there would be a point of diminishing return for expenditure if 10 foot dinghies were used which had an OD rule.

In terms of cost I still am reflective of this Challenge with the 92 challenge in San Diego were we built four boats. The Italians built 5 boats !!!!!

I suspect that was the heyday of Americas Cup spending which we will not see for a long time. 

Do you honestly think ANY of the teams got to the end of this cup and said to themselves "fuck what do we do with all this money that we couldn't find shit to spend on"?

Of course not, they spent every dollar they could find and would have spent twice as much if it was available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, sclarke said:

 

Hope Melvin and RC are looking after Doug with Royalties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S Clarke, we are not talking the OD rules of the last cup but what will happen if it was more open design for the next cup.

Your comments below

Quote

If the Hulls don't touch the water, the design becomes largely irrelevant. As was evident in San Francisco, the hulls of Aotearoa were a lot bigger and heavier than those of 17.

Stop back peddling 

 

 

Share this post


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

Do you honestly think ANY of the teams got to the end of this cup and said to themselves "fuck what do we do with all this money that we couldn't find shit to spend on"?

Of course not, they spent every dollar they could find and would have spent twice as much if it was available. 

Of course if you have more money you would spend it. The point I'm trying to say that you start hitting diminishing returns the more money you spend.  That's exactly what happened in the IACC rule. The IACC design go so refined that you could use an exact copy of Su100 hull and keel  and you would have a boat that was semi competitive if racing was done in IACC boats for the next cup. If you have excellent  sails and a really good crew you would win races. Ok you wouldn't win the Americas cup but you wouldn't be losing races by 5 minutes but more like 30 seconds or a minute. No matter how much money you would spend on designing a new IACC hull your not going to find an extra 3 minutes of boat speed. I would think there's definitely 3 minutes to find in mast and sail design. I believe one of the reasons that Alinghi wanted to drop the IACC rule was they knew that there wasn't extra speed to be found in hull and keel design. So that's why they wanted to create the AC90 class, were plenty of time could be found with the extra cash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 5:44 PM, sclarke said:

. As was evident in San Francisco, the hulls of Aotearoa were a lot bigger and heavier than those of 17.

Which would be one of the reasons why they lost. Foiling upwind requires the boat being light. Oracles  could use there weight advantage to foil up wind. It was the ability to foil upwind that made Oracle the winner. They just killed us upwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mako23 said:

Which would be one of the reasons why they lost. Foiling upwind requires the boat being light. Oracles  could use there weight advantage to foil up wind. It was the ability to foil upwind that made Oracle the winner. They just killed us upwind

The reason they were able to foil upwind, was because they were able to make more rapid, finer and effective adjustments to the foils through the control system (I'm not going there) which they were using, as well the ability to make fine adjustments to their wing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Are you suggesting weight has nothing to do with foiling upwind

In AC34 the boat's weight was tightly controlled by the class rules so the boats both weighed the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

In AC34 the boat's weight was tightly controlled by the class rules so the boats both weighed the same.

I have to accept that as a fair point, which makes sclark point of 

The reason they were able to foil upwind, was because they were able to make more rapid, finer and effective adjustments to the foils through the control system (I'm not going there) which they were using, as well the ability to make fine adjustments to their wing

as correct......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/07/2017 at 8:37 PM, mako23 said:

I have to accept that as a fair point, which makes sclark point of 

The reason they were able to foil upwind, was because they were able to make more rapid, finer and effective adjustments to the foils through the control system (I'm not going there) which they were using, as well the ability to make fine adjustments to their wing

as correct......

It could have been their slimmer hulls allowed them to overcome the barrier at which foiling occurred. 

Share this post


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

It could have been their slimmer hulls allowed them to overcome the barrier at which foiling occurred. 

Yes that could be true, but I was making an issue about weight which was wrong. 

Considering what you said I do feel that Oracle slender hulls had an advantage in two ways........increase speed upwind and more likely to hit the target speed to generate enough lift to push the hull out of water, and once airborne provide less wind resistance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/07/2017 at 0:42 PM, mako23 said:

Which would be one of the reasons why they lost. Foiling upwind requires the boat being light. Oracles  could use there weight advantage to foil up wind. It was the ability to foil upwind that made Oracle the winner. They just killed us upwind

 

On 15/07/2017 at 5:42 PM, Terry Hollis said:

In AC34 the boat's weight was tightly controlled by the class rules so the boats both weighed the same.

Wow. Talk about the blind leading the blind. 

I haven't got the figure with me, but IIRC, the weight limit for the 72's had a 200kgs range (might have been only 100kgs). Oracle reconfigured the boat each day depending on the forecast and the boat was remeasured every single morning because of that and the  new gear they were adding. If the winds were forecast light, they had the boat moded as light as allowed. If they expected to foil upwind, the boat was at the heaviest allowed. Why? Because on a foiling cat, the heavier the boat the more the righting moment and the extra weight doesn't cause more drag than the advantage gained by the extra righting moment.

You seem to have forgotten that by the end, ETNZ was also foiling upwind, which shows it wasn't a hull design issue. Oracle learnt how to foil upwind before ETNZ and then kept getting better meaning they had a speed advantage even when ETNZ started upwind foiling.

FWIW, I think in both AC34 and AC35, people are making far more of the foils as a source of advantage rather than the biggest advantage, which was how the rigs were played. While the ETNZ foils and control system for the 50's were better, I believe that wasn't their biggest gain. Because the rig loads the foils, they were able to use the rig in such a way as to unload the foils compared with Oracle and that gave them options Oracle would never have had. Less load on the foils allows more extreme foils and makes them less power hungry to move. It all builds to a winning package, but the key is the rig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A Class Sailor said:

Wow. Talk about the blind leading the blind. 

 

Wow. Talk about a pontificating , arrogant self assured post....you take the cake for that buddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mako23 said:

Wow. Talk about a pontificating , arrogant self assured post....you take the cake for that buddy

Says the guy making a lot of totally wrong statements as if they were fact.:P Maybe I should have put a smiley face to show it was meant to be a lighthearted comment, but it does seem many on here have lost their sense of humour of late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, A Class Sailor said:

Says the guy making a lot of totally wrong statements as if they were fact.:P Maybe I should have put a smiley face to show it was meant to be a lighthearted comment, but it does seem many on here have lost their sense of humour of late.

If you make condescending comments why complain if you get a bit of flak back.

Also just remember they are also your opinions they are not facts.  Nearly everything in here to some extent is opinion based. Some facts are indisputable but most threads in here are people giving an opinion. You seem to treat your opinions as fact as much as anyone, we are all guilty of this to some extent and that includes you.  But you also try and belittle people in the process. 

"Says the guy making a lot of totally wrong statements as if they were fact"    Aren't you guilty doing the same thing here..as you have accused me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A Class Sailor said:

It was a f$%#ing joke. Get over yourself.

Are you getting stressed over this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2017 at 4:41 PM, mako23 said:

Correction until dutch scientist came up with a winged keel

That is bullshit. Lexcen had been designing and building boats with winged keels since at least 1958.

 

Share this post


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

That is bullshit. Lexcen had been designing and building boats with winged keels since at least 1958.

 

I think you getting confused with a tongue in check comment as a factual comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drop in from time to time to see if this thread will actually reveal something about foils, but just see a  bunch of crap left over from other threads. It's worse than DL turning every thread into something about UpTiP foils, instead every thread is turned into endless waffle about TNZ.

At least I can spell (and capitalise) "12 Metre" correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now