pacice

Foiling Monohull - what would it look like?

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, carcrash said:

Probably want to sail it sideways: length means almost nothing if foiling, while beam still means stability which means power which means speed.

Right, but it means in terms of safety.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't care what it looks like or how fast it goes as long as it is more suitable to match races to and can race for substantially longer periods than the AC50s which were even more disappointing than the 72s. 

Darn right.  We need some 'anything can happen' potential drama. Tacking duels and sail changes supply that in spades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 12:10 PM, Monofoiler said:

You're saying something like this then ?

 

AC Monohull.JPG

How does the foil go inside the hull when retracted? What shape of strut is required to still allow cant but also tuck the windward foil close to the hull without being in the water when foiling?

And likely a centreboard can be deployed, which will reduce leeway coupling with heave but maybe there will be manual control of ride height instead, so it might foil to windward quite well. I'd love to see a 75 footer doing a foiling tack into a lee bow position!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that all of those who are looking forward to the return of spinnaker sets and gybes are going to be hugely disappointed.  In addition, if the boats are to be as rumored, they are not going to be anymore relatable to the average sailor than the cats were.  With the knock on cats being that more sailors relate to monohulls, it seems that they are creating a class that neither multihull sailors nor traditional monohull sailors can relate to.  One that certainly will not have the "style & grace" that the Italians so seem to cherish.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 10:07 PM, Groucho Marx said:

If this turns out to be true then the retrograde traditionalists expecting the 75 to be like a conventional TP52 plus 1 are going to be spewing in huge quantities?

Sooo true.... on one hand, but they won't admit it....

 

So relatable :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 10:59 PM, jaysper said:

I don't care what it looks like or how fast it goes as long as it is more suitable to match races to and can race for substantially longer periods than the AC50s which were even more disappointing than the 72s. 

Does this 75' long / 18m wide swiss-army knife sound even remotely likely than would have been possible with a 65 flying cat with flaps?

Share this post


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

I think that all of those who are looking forward to the return of spinnaker sets and gybes are going to be hugely disappointed.  In addition, if the boats are to be as rumored, they are not going to be anymore relatable to the average sailor than the cats were.  With the knock on cats being that more sailors relate to monohulls, it seems that they are creating a class that neither multihull sailors nor traditional monohull sailors can relate to.  One that certainly will not have the "style & grace" that the Italians so seem to cherish.

Yeah, but I'm sure these crazy-ass-mo-fos will have a rich and long history after being retired from the AC.... you know, because there are going to be plenty around that will be capable of handling such a beast, and plenty of berthing options.

Share this post


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

Does this 75' long / 18m wide swiss-army knife sound even remotely likely than would have been possible with a 65 flying cat with flaps?

Ok, so don't quite understand the sentence, but I am assuming you are asking if I think the new AC75 will meet my criteria.

If so, the answer is that I wouldn't have a fucking clue.

I am simply expressing my hope for what the boats will perform like.

Share this post


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

Ok, so don't quite understand the sentence, but I am assuming you are asking if I think the new AC75 will meet my criteria.

If so, the answer is that I wouldn't have a fucking clue.

I am simply expressing my hope for what the boats will perform like.

Yeah, poor wording, but you got the point.  I can't fathom how, if they are really doing as extreme as they are talking about (keelless, 18m total beam "mono"), they are going to be "more suitable to match races to and can race for substantially longer periods".  I have to think the racing will end up HUGE time gaps with such development infancy in a boat never really before tried, and tacking will be so severely punished that maneuvers would be kept to an absolute minimum, and I see no reason to believe these would be any more seaworthy or safe for the gulf than an upgraded foiling cat (say, 60-70', with flap-controlled foils and adjustable/reefable sail area).

On the plus side, I do very much like the direction that they are likely to have in wide open development, rather than the insanely limited design parameters they instituted in AC35.  I am looking forward to widely ranging solutions to the problem, and very likely highly different looking boats.

Share this post


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

Yeah, poor wording, but you got the point.  I can't fathom how, if they are really doing as extreme as they are talking about (keelless, 18m total beam "mono"), they are going to be "more suitable to match races to and can race for substantially longer periods".  I have to think the racing will end up HUGE time gaps with such development infancy in a boat never really before tried, and tacking will be so severely punished that maneuvers would be kept to an absolute minimum, and I see no reason to believe these would be any more seaworthy or safe for the gulf than an upgraded foiling cat (say, 60-70', with flap-controlled foils and adjustable/reefable sail area).

On the plus side, I do very much like the direction that they are likely to have in wide open development, rather than the insanely limited design parameters they instituted in AC35.  I am looking forward to widely ranging solutions to the problem, and very likely highly different looking boats.

So, I was incredibly vocal about hating the AC50s, but that is the prerogative of the defender and so beyond saying the class sucked arse, there is not much that you could say without going all "Indio".

I agree with you that, considering the rumours that we have now, it seems that the AC75 will suffer from some of the same problems as the AC50 (i.e. no good for match racing and massive gaps) but looks like at least they will be able to have matches that last more than 20 minutes.

It seems difficult to believe that any foiler will be able to engage in a match race with shit loads of tacks/gybes without completely knackering the crew and resulting in a huge loss of ground due to the relative cost of manoeuvres.

This is why I have always pined for lead mines. Even over a race of 1.5 hours, the differences were not often more than 500m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 4:12 AM, Erwankerauzen said:

Available informations, provide a little data to guess the righting moment and other features under some candid assumptions.

Assuming:

1-10 crew members are at 15m from the leeward foil CoE = crew righting moment

2-The CoG of the 5000 kg boat at 6 m from the leeward foil CoE=boat righting moment

20knts apparent wind @ 20° windward 

a 28 m  mast with sailplan's CoE at 42% height max

With a sail plan Cl=1 it would required circa: 650 square meter of sail area.

You can increase the lift coef by 20% and reduce the sail area accordingly, but it should be in the ball park.

The point is which kind of rig with such area is manoeuvrable for match race ??

and the related control systems .. of course

The problem with conventional mainsails is the high leech tension that is required to control twist.  This leads to the need for high mechanical advantage, which requires time and energy to crank on for every maneuver.  One of the big advantages of wingsails is the torsion load is taken internally, which leads to light loads on the sheet and the ability to trim the wing rapidly with minimal effort.

I think a wingmast wishbone rig, ala Team Philips, is a good choice.  The leech tension can be maintained by a vang to the wishbone, so the sheet loads would be comparable to a wingsail.  It's reefable and different sized mainsails could be used for different conditions, with a big roached flathead for light winds and a more tapered sail for heavy winds.

Image04team-phillips_1396685509.jpg&widt

(From Pete Goss gallery)

 

Share this post


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

The problem with conventional mainsails is the high leech tension that is required to control twist.  This leads to the need for high mechanical advantage, which requires time and energy to crank on for every maneuver.  One of the big advantages of wingsails is the torsion load is taken internally, which leads to light loads on the sheet and the ability to trim the wing rapidly with minimal effort.

I think a wingmast wishbone rig, ala Team Philips, is a good choice.  The leech tension can be maintained by a vang to the wishbone, so the sheet loads would be comparable to a wingsail.  It's reefable and different sized mainsails could be used for different conditions, with a big roached flathead for light winds and a more tapered sail for heavy winds.

Image04team-phillips_1396685509.jpg&widt

(From Pete Goss gallery)

 

Very cool.

Put a 75’ slither of a hull somewhere in between and then convince P$B it’s a monohull :D

Share this post


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

The problem with conventional mainsails is the high leech tension that is required to control twist.  This leads to the need for high mechanical advantage, which requires time and energy to crank on for every maneuver.  One of the big advantages of wingsails is the torsion load is taken internally, which leads to light loads on the sheet and the ability to trim the wing rapidly with minimal effort.

I think a wingmast wishbone rig, ala Team Philips, is a good choice.  The leech tension can be maintained by a vang to the wishbone, so the sheet loads would be comparable to a wingsail.  It's reefable and different sized mainsails could be used for different conditions, with a big roached flathead for light winds and a more tapered sail for heavy winds.

Image04team-phillips_1396685509.jpg&widt

(From Pete Goss gallery)

 

Interesting, it has the advantage of a soft sail without the inconvenience, allowing a lighter platform.

The leech tension and the twist can be controlled with less power but also by tension on the luff with the cunningham if the mast is flexible enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The problem with conventional mainsails is the high leech tension that is required to control twist.  This leads to the need for high mechanical advantage, which requires time and energy to crank on for every maneuver.  One of the big advantages of wingsails is the torsion load is taken internally, which leads to light loads on the sheet and the ability to trim the wing rapidly with minimal effort.

I think a wingmast wishbone rig, ala Team Philips, is a good choice.  The leech tension can be maintained by a vang to the wishbone, so the sheet loads would be comparable to a wingsail.  It's reefable and different sized mainsails could be used for different conditions, with a big roached flathead for light winds and a more tapered sail for heavy winds.

 

 

 

^ This - people need to realize that the wings both exponentially reduce the loads on the platform and - in practice - are actually cheaper than soft sail rigs. Never mind the fact that they are both more efficient and faster.

Team Phillips was a really cool boat - as a long time windsurf sail designer I was very excited about the concept at the time. It's a shame the front fell off before they were able to do anything with it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2994396/Yachting-Goss-dream-dashed-by-cruel-blow.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I can't fathom how, if they are really doing as extreme as they are talking about (keelless, 18m total beam "mono"), they are going to be "more suitable to match races to and can race for substantially longer periods". 

Agree.

There seems far too much risk of creating a lemon that makes AC50s look cheap, reliable & safe.

 

4 hours ago, Basiliscus said:

ala Team Philips

I really loved the concept of that boat, such a shame that it proved ultimately so very flawed.

An excellent example of a radical concept that needed proving in a smaller form before going ahead with the full-size.

 

23 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

It's a shame the front fell off before they were able to do anything with it.

Its OK though, they towed it out of the environment ;)

Share this post


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

^ This - people need to realize that the wings both exponentially reduce the loads on the platform and - in practice - are actually cheaper than soft sail rigs.

So you have a wing on your boat because cheaper, more convenient to rig and faster ?

Share this post


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

So you have a wing on your boat because cheaper, more convenient to rig and faster ?

Why would you think a wing is 'more convenient"? You should consider using your friend 'Google', maybe check out some pics from AC34.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think the biggest mistake were the unstayed masts - I can't even imagine how the designers would've mitigated the cyclical cantilever loads from those two heavy masts (they were foam cored wings) on those long skinny hulls (with no support at the ends) when the thing was crashing into a seaway at 35 kts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why would you think a wing is 'more convenient"? You should consider using your friend 'Google', maybe check out some pics from AC34.

 

Indeed. ETNZ actually had a couple of injuries in Auckland when the wind picked up and flung the wing around taking some team members with it.

Plus...you need a fucking crane.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time ago, the C-Cat serie drop the classic teardrop mast and full batten sail for the wing-sail, not only for aero efficiency, but because the rear beam of the C-Cat was too much stressedby the mainsheet control.

 

Post-Scriptum: the above mentionned assumption of 650 sqm sail area is a bit fantasy as the 28m mast will not provide a reasonnable aspect ratio..So the mast might be longer and the sail area significantly lower, for the same righting moment.

The 60 feet width could be put at full use as a lifting surface with windward part at negative AoA and leeward part with a positive AoA, just like an airplane with ailerons= extra righting moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that would require flaps on the foils, it would take a lot of energy if the entire foil is articulated. There would also need to be additional ventilation mitigation, it would suck to suddenly lose a big chunk of RM.

The rumoured weight of 5t is about the same as an AC72. Allowing say 3m each side for foils, that leaves 12m beam for the hull. Is it possible to build a 23 scow or skiff to that weight, even without a keel or ballast? And make it strong enough for windward downforce? That would seriously stress the platform. The AC 72 foils had to withstand up to "15t pressure" during manoeuvres. Downforce will only increase that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a crazy thought: basic central hull beam, arched beam out to say, 15 metres overall, then two sets of foils each side set off beam, one set high lift with thick sections above WL then the high speed foils set outward and deeper than the "semi flotation" foils ... kind of like my wacko foiler Frog but without the tiny floats. If the flotation foils could be angle of attack altered, talking up to 10 degrees, and there is buoyancy in the upper sections, maybe, with the proposed huge overall beam - and with a double, lower rig, this monster would survive when not sailing. Moving, of course, the foils would provide rock solid stability.

Here's my Frog. Just imagine 75 foot version.

frog7copy.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  ^ "Here's my Frog. Just imagine 75 foot version."

Do you think you can get away with just that? Full story, please

(but somehow, I cannot help thinking that's not quite what Bertelli had in mind ... :D )

Share this post


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

Just a crazy thought: basic central hull beam, arched beam out to say, 15 metres overall, then two sets of foils each side set off beam, one set high lift with thick sections above WL then the high speed foils set outward and deeper than the "semi flotation" foils ... kind of like my wacko foiler Frog but without the tiny floats. If the flotation foils could be angle of attack altered, talking up to 10 degrees, and there is buoyancy in the upper sections, maybe, with the proposed huge overall beam - and with a double, lower rig, this monster would survive when not sailing. Moving, of course, the foils would provide rock solid stability.

Here's my Frog. Just imagine 75 foot version.

frog7copy.jpg

What speed did you reach with Frog ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been very slack since launching Frog; working on too many other boats - so Frog has not been completely finished. The small floats (if you can call them that) were inadequate, boat would lean way over on mooring in decent wind, so built slightly larger ones, discarded the originals and set the new ones lower to waterline. Which seems to have made a difference. But seeing my stability at rest problems, imagine what would occur on a 75 foot Frog. Although there has to be a solution. And yet still loosely maintain that the craft is a monohull.

Another point of vague interest is the double luff, D shaped wing mast - but I still haven't got round to getting the double sided  wing main built. Will do, now that summer is arriving. And another slightly interesting thing is the beam can be detached and swung fore and aft for trailering, see photograph.

frogbowbeam.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Groucho Marx said:

Just a crazy thought: basic central hull beam, arched beam out to say, 15 metres overall, then two sets of foils each side set off beam, one set high lift with thick sections above WL then the high speed foils set outward and deeper than the "semi flotation" foils ... kind of like my wacko foiler Frog but without the tiny floats. If the flotation foils could be angle of attack altered, talking up to 10 degrees, and there is buoyancy in the upper sections, maybe, with the proposed huge overall beam - and with a double, lower rig, this monster would survive when not sailing. Moving, of course, the foils would provide rock solid stability.

Here's my Frog. Just imagine 75 foot version.

frog7copy.jpg

Beams alone might provide sufficient 'safety' buoyancy at 75ft scale.   So maybe it can work - really only needed at zero speed.  And with such a wide craft should not need to lower and raise foils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foils would be fixed down but able to change angle of attack. Windward foils would fly clear of surface, only leeward and rudder foils working.. Also you would have a central dagger - with T foil too, maybe. Beam would naturally hook down at ends but you could increase buoyancy by having large chord of both beam and also top sections of foil. The cheating accusation would come from these last tricky interpretations? But legally you would be okay so screw the critics?

Share this post


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

Only GD and P$B can decide that for the AC B)

Agree, but if they need to split hairs to define a monohull vs a trimaran, they've lost the argument.

What has changed in regard to the MW680 since the last time it was posted here? It seems to be a nice boat, but also is another that goes foiling for the sake of it. I thought it was established that V shapes (or "closed") are stable but slow, especially when they pierce the surface twice. Straight, "open" angle foils (say 90° or more) are fast.

Massive generalisation of course, but I think for fast boats the primary lifting surface should be flat (or very close to flat) with flaps for fine height control, combined with AoA for gross adjustment. Can never have too many strings to pull. ;-) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Beams alone might provide sufficient 'safety' buoyancy at 75ft scale.   So maybe it can work - really only needed at zero speed.  And with such a wide craft should not need to lower and raise foils.

I love the idea that we have gone from "multi-hulls" are inconsistent with what the average sailor uses and therefore not relateable or safe, to now talking about a "monohull" with a HUGE beam, no keel, wide-set foils set off some form of buoyancy device (maybe just a big buoyant beam) that is only necessary when the boat is at rest but is the support mechanisim for foils that would effectively equate the "monohull" to a multihull.  I'm not saying this is the route ETNZ is going to take, but this whole exercise is getting comical.  Where are all of those people that were lamenting the multi-hulls in AC34 & AC35 for taking up too much berthing space, for being unstable, for not having a life after the Cup, for not looking like a sailboat, etc?

Share this post


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

I love the idea that we have gone from "multi-hulls" are inconsistent with what the average sailor uses and therefore not relateable or safe, to now talking about a "monohull" with a HUGE beam, no keel, wide-set foils set off some form of buoyancy device (maybe just a big buoyant beam) that is only necessary when the boat is at rest but is the support mechanisim for foils that would effectively equate the "monohull" to a multihull.  I'm not saying this is the route ETNZ is going to take, but this whole exercise is getting comical.  Where are all of those people that were lamenting the multi-hulls in AC34 & AC35 for taking up too much berthing space, for being unstable, for not having a life after the Cup, for not looking like a sailboat, etc?

Well, that's almost me.

My problem with the AC72s and AC50s is that weekend sailors could never sail them and that they sucked arse at match racing.

But then, whilst some of the boats proposed here are interesting I would not like to see them in the AC.

In fact, I am not sure that I will necessarily like what ETNZ come up with if it is a foiling mono. I was happy with the so-called "mono-slugs".

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think for fast boats the primary lifting surface should be flat (or very close to flat) with flaps for fine height control, combined with AoA for gross adjustment. Can never have too many strings to pull. ;-) 

I agree with 90%.

AoA could be fix, as wings on planes, and they could have gross adjustements with the main wing flaps and fine ones with T rudder flaps, that could also help for take off.

And you know what, they could tack and gybe like plane pilots: rudder - foil, like hand - foot for pilots.

Probably what TNZ had computer automated during last AC.

Share this post


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

New drawings from Wilson Marquinez

https://wilson-marquinez.com/mw680f/

portada-mw-680-1.jpg

2-1.jpg

3-1.jpg

5-1.jpg

4.png

This is very similar to what I have been imagining. I had something In mine which was a little... Kinkier ;)

Please excuse the crude drawing, I was only toying with foil shapes (just is nicer to have a semi-realistic hull or something to put them in). 

AC75-01.png

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

This is very similar to what I have been imagining. I had something In mine which was a little... Kinkier ;)

Please excuse the crude drawing, I was only toying with foil shapes (just is nicer to have a semi-realistic hull or something to put them in). 

AC75-01.png

Better hope there is never light air!!! 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

This is very similar to what I have been imagining. I had something In mine which was a little... Kinkier ;)

Please excuse the crude drawing, I was only toying with foil shapes (just is nicer to have a semi-realistic hull or something to put them in). 

AC75-01.png

Thanks darth reapius, nice drawing, pretty close from Wilson Marquinez.

I understand the need to increase the W to more RM and be able to fly, but why no regular L foils with flaps and the possibility to fly to winward like AC50s ?

If we keep the same ratio L / W than the AC50, then mono would have 13m W, which is very feasible IMO.

So we would have:

- L foils with flaps

- Canted sail plan

- Winward flying

A big 23m Moth !

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, no drop off in performance compared to a foiling cat with that..... I'm sure that much more wetted surface area won't represent much of a punishment in tacks.  Yep, it will be SOOOO much better match racing than the AC50s or AC72s.  Start with an extremely wide mono, then have at least five appendages, some going way wide of the already wide boat, still highly unlikely to foil-tack.... but hey, it's not a multihull.  :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yeah, no drop off in performance compared to a foiling cat with that..... I'm sure that much more wetted surface area won't represent much of a punishment in tacks.  Yep, it will be SOOOO much better match racing than the AC50s or AC72s.  Start with an extremely wide mono, then have at least five appendages, some going way wide of the already wide boat, still highly unlikely to foil-tack.... but hey, it's not a multihull.  :lol:

Yeah and don't forget it's more likely what the every day sailor is used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Yeah, no drop off in performance compared to a foiling cat with that..... I'm sure that much more wetted surface area won't represent much of a punishment in tacks.  Yep, it will be SOOOO much better match racing than the AC50s or AC72s.  Start with an extremely wide mono, then have at least five appendages, some going way wide of the already wide boat, still highly unlikely to foil-tack.... but hey, it's not a multihull.  :lol:

 

15 minutes ago, jorge said:

Yeah and don't forget it's more likely what the every day sailor is used to.

Get over it boys. The world has moved on.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Get over it boys. The world has moved on.

:lol:, yeah, back to the past, or wanna-be-future.... I'm sorry, what are we moving on to?  Are we not supposed to be critical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to look at this from a Myth Busters point of view. If the myth is "a 75' foiling monohull that can be match raced", then:

  1. Start with a conventional boat and try to make it foil. I think that's where the IMOCA 60s are at, they've shown it kind of works, but not very well
  2. Failing that, do whatever it takes to see if the myth is plausible. The foiling Mini 650 and Quant 23 fit that bill, but they aren't 75' and while exciting developments in their own right (I genuinely hope they are a step in the right direction), they haven't set the world on fire in terms of outright performance.
  3. If "plausible" worked, do whatever it takes to see if the myth is possible, even if impractical, cost prohibitive or nonsensical (or all 3). This is where the rumoured AC75 is right now.
  4. Not part of the Myth Buster's methodology, but hopefully the next step is to address the practicality and cost issues through developments in other classes

I don't fall for the match racing thing. That only works in practically identical boats, which the AC has never been about. Match racing only comes into it because any time you have a two boat race where first over the line wins, it's a match race by definition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think you need to look at this from a Myth Busters point of view. If the myth is "a 75' foiling monohull that can be match raced", then:

  1. Start with a conventional boat and try to make it foil. I think that's where the IMOCA 60s are at, they've shown it kind of works, but not very well
  2. Failing that, do whatever it takes to see if the myth is plausible. The foiling Mini 650 and Quant 23 fit that bill, but they aren't 75' and while exciting developments in their own right (I genuinely hope they are a step in the right direction), they haven't set the world on fire in terms of outright performance.
  3. If "plausible" worked, do whatever it takes to see if the myth is possible, even if impractical, cost prohibitive or nonsensical (or all 3). This is where the rumoured AC75 is right now.
  4. Not part of the Myth Buster's methodology, but hopefully the next step is to address the practicality and cost issues through developments in other classes

I don't fall for the match racing thing. That only works in practically identical boats, which the AC has never been about. Match racing only comes into it because any time you have a two boat race where first over the line wins, it's a match race by definition.

The fun thing about this is that if (AND that may be a big IF) ETNZ/LR do go with something like those concepts bandied about here ("Option 3", probably even "Option 2"), it seems that the arguments made for going away from multihulls are total crap.  These are NOT going to be more like what the regular sailor identifies with, they are NOT going to be less expensive, they are NOT going to facilitate match racing more than the cats, they will not be any more seaworthy, they will NOT have a life after the Cup, and the innovation will be primarily focused on crazy-ass foils and stability systems that will not exactly translate well to the 6ksb.  If they simply go to a pretty open rule monohull without canting keel or foils, then there is a good chance that the boats will be reasonably well suited to match racing, seaworthy, and there will be innovation bleeding down to the every-day-joe, but it will certainly not look as dynamic or exciting as the AC50s, let alone the AC72s (nor would they be as interesting or exciting as a new AC65 or equivalent foiling cat suitable to open water).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:lol:, yeah, back to the past, or wanna-be-future.... I'm sorry, what are we moving on to?  Are we not supposed to be critical?

Be critical by all means. Just stop your petulant whining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To achieve "good" match racing it doesn't matter what the boats are like, or how fast they are, it only requires that the boat behind has a speed advantage.

So why not instigate an F1 DRS type system in which the leading boat is slowed by an RO-controlled device that increases drag by a fixed proportion, then you'll get match racing and can still have spectacular boats?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29-10-2017 at 2:44 AM, Monofoiler said:

The apple rarely drops far from the tree ^_^

 

59eff25d2416c_ACMonohull.JPG.5cef1cc5856073a1fb35c2d43b2791d1.JPG

Looks more like this according to Dan Bernasconi.(Head design ETNZ)
20170910-foiling-monohull.jpg.b6f1b7bf26e76fb8b1acc77c178bb501.jpg
Almost the same but with neccessary daggerboards and perhaps even a (kanting) keel.
Source (in Dutch):
https://www.clubracer.be/2017/9/11/emirates-team-new-zealand-bevestigt-foiling-monohull-tijdens-36ste-americas-cup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, schakel488 said:

Looks more like this according to Dan Bernasconi.(Head design ETNZ)
20170910-foiling-monohull.jpg.b6f1b7bf26e76fb8b1acc77c178bb501.jpg
Almost the same but with neccessary daggerboards and perhaps even a (kanting) keel.
Source (in Dutch):
https://www.clubracer.be/2017/9/11/emirates-team-new-zealand-bevestigt-foiling-monohull-tijdens-36ste-americas-cup

That would be a serious letdown for anyone expecting a foiling monohull to actually foil. The Figaro 3 is foil assist. Given that it's already sailing as a production boat, if a similar layout is adopted by the AC75 it would be a serious case of trickle up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alinghi4ever said:

God, I hope you are right. A Foiling Mono is excatly what we need for the AC. Ben Ainslie pointing out in an Article by the Telegraph that the new Boats could be as exciting as the cats we had in AC 34 & 35.

Dalts & Bernasconi need to push that over Bertellis throat.

Comical, at best.  In what world would these be 1) "as exciting as the cats", 2) result in better match racing given the pain induced by each maneuver, 3) have any chance of truly foiling (since you are calling it "foiling mono"), 4) be less expensive.....  FFS, just slapping foils on a boat does not make it "foiling", nor exciting, nor better than a simple powerful archimedian mono if you are determined to focus on "mono" and "match racing".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, schakel488 said:

Looks more like this according to Dan Bernasconi.(Head design ETNZ)
20170910-foiling-monohull.jpg.b6f1b7bf26e76fb8b1acc77c178bb501.jpg
Almost the same but with neccessary daggerboards and perhaps even a (kanting) keel.
Source (in Dutch):
https://www.clubracer.be/2017/9/11/emirates-team-new-zealand-bevestigt-foiling-monohull-tijdens-36ste-americas-cup

Damn, that is too funny.  "almost the same"????  Because it has one hull and some adaptation of foils?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Be critical by all means. Just stop your petulant whining. 

"Whining"?  More like mocking, deriding stupid ideas, and pointing out hypocrisy.  I have stated I would prefer a very wide open rule allowing multi-hulls, but absent that, believe the most honest  and logical alternative is a very simple open rule to involve a monohull limited to two appendages.  Pointing out stupid ideas and hypocrisy is kind of what this board is all about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Damn, that is too funny.  "almost the same"????  Because it has one hull and some adaptation of foils?

Until the final design is being released it's all speculation.

2021 AMERICA'S CUP KEY DATES

November 30, 2017: AC75 class concepts released to key stakeholders
January 1, 2018: Entries for challengers open
March 31, 2018: AC75 class rule published
June 30, 2018: Entries for Challengers Close
August 31, 2018: Location of the America's Cup match and the challenger series confirmed; specific race course area confirmed
December 31, 2018: Late entries Deadline
March 31, 2019: Boat one can be launched
Second half of 2019: two America's Cup World Series preliminary events
February 1, 2020: Boat two can be launched
2020: three America's Cup World Series preliminary events
10th-20th December 2020: America's Cup Christmas regatta
January and February 2021: Challenger series
March 2021: America's Cup

So two dates are important for the design.

November 30 2017 concepts being handed out to fixed teams>
March 31 2018 Final design AC 75 being released.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The million dollar question is........

 

Can't you just build the yacht with form stabilty in mind, use a smaller RIG, no bulb and employ a counter lifting foils with variable AoA?

 

Ie - use a lifting foil out the side to replace the bulb at low speed or if the hull is heeled.

 

When up to speed the normal foil(s) lift the hull and use windward foil to control ride height or to provide downforce? 

Share this post


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

"Whining"?  More like mocking, deriding stupid ideas, and pointing out hypocrisy.  I have stated I would prefer a very wide open rule allowing multi-hulls, but absent that, believe the most honest  and logical alternative is a very simple open rule to involve a monohull limited to two appendages.  Pointing out stupid ideas and hypocrisy is kind of what this board is all about.

+ zillion!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hump101 said:

To achieve "good" match racing it doesn't matter what the boats are like, or how fast they are, it only requires that the boat behind has a speed advantage.

So why not instigate an F1 DRS type system in which the leading boat is slowed by an RO-controlled device that increases drag by a fixed proportion, then you'll get match racing and can still have spectacular boats?

And why is match racing key for a good AC when we know the fastest boat wins ?

Fantasy vs reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my hunch is it'll be foil assisted taken to the 'extreme', and I don't think the designers care how far shit is protruding outboard. their philosophy is accept the fact a little distance will have to be maintained boat to boat as a result.

Share this post


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

  ^ Don't know if your idea is repulsive - or pure genius !! Bravo, anyway :)

 

1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

And why is match racing key for a good AC when we know the fastest boat wins ?

Fantasy vs reality.

I was being facetious, sort of.....but the reality is that match racing is a ridiculous construct at the best of times in anything but absolutely identical boats, and the AC is the proof of that, with the only decent races occurring in mature classes when the performance differentials are basically zero.

However, if you handicap the leading boat, then it becomes a game of chess to see who can be the last leader in each race. That would be real skill.

Personally, I'm only interested in the technical developments in any case, hence my flippancy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hump101 said:

 

I was being facetious, sort of.....but the reality is that match racing is a ridiculous construct at the best of times in anything but absolutely identical boats, and the AC is the proof of that, with the only decent races occurring in mature classes when the performance differentials are basically zero.

However, if you handicap the leading boat, then it becomes a game of chess to see who can be the last leader in each race. That would be real skill.

Personally, I'm only interested in the technical developments in any case, hence my flippancy.

I agree 101%

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Real NZAC????  see the other thread for more(or less)

may be a TNZ render(or not) :

NZAC--AC_75_15841.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if Red Bull ran a series of WarpDrivinHoverBoats

With Spinning SawBlades and Swinging Axes & Sprits with Exploding DiePackx

and the AC had J-CLASS (Not jboat) Racers with MEN in the Rigging and 40 on the Rail

The Congressional Cup is Moving closer to the Pinnacle of Match Racing with every Morph of AC/X-Games

BUT STILL Better in AUCKLAND than GGYC letting it run w/o a leash 

 

Share this post


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

The Real NZAC????  see the other thread for more(or less)

may be a TNZ render(or not) :

NZAC--AC_75_15841.jpg

The real NZAC?

Mate this looks absolutely nothing like the NZAC. No wings, no buoyancy pods, completely different foils (I mean there is nothing remotely similar about those foils and yours), no concave hull shapes with a narrow beam, no curved deck. Infact out of like 30 different things in your drawing the only thing is that the foils pivot... That's it, the only thing, jesus christ how wrong can one person be.

NZAC ONE     9-25-17  dl 002 - Copy.JPG

It is virtually identical to my drawings, the only difference being a single rudder not twin and T foils not L. Fuck I even got the shapes dead on!

Even the flat and beamy hull form, the rear cockpit size and shape, the flat decks, the rig and sails are virtually identical (except mounted slightly further forward with a prodder).

AC75-01.png

Maybe I should email them to congratulate them on using a similar shaped foil to the one I designed?

(That was a joke)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here's a challenge for you. If the foils are supposed to provide sufficient RM when fully lowered to right from a capsize, how much do they need to weigh? Now work out what material they need to be made of to be efficient as foils and have sufficient weight.

One cubic metre of steel weighs 7.9 tonne, so if the "keel" weighs 4 tonne, there needs to be about half a cubic metre of steel in the the foils and maybe lower few decimetres of the "strut". No mean feat of design and engineering. And 2 tonne of foil-shaped steel going 40 kn through the air may present an OH&S issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NZAC- I wonder if this render is an illustration of the TNZ intention to have one design boats OR is it but one possibility under a rule yet to be released?

Share this post


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

The real NZAC?

Mate this looks absolutely nothing like the NZAC. No wings, no buoyancy pods, completely different foils (I mean there is nothing remotely similar about those foils and yours), no concave hull shapes with a narrow beam, no curved deck. Infact out of like 30 different things in your drawing the only thing is that the foils pivot... That's it, the only thing, jesus christ how wrong can one person be.

NZAC ONE     9-25-17  dl 002 - Copy.JPG

It is virtually identical to my drawings, the only difference being a single rudder not twin and T foils not L. Fuck I even got the shapes dead on!

Even the flat and beamy hull form, the rear cockpit size and shape, the flat decks, the rig and sails are virtually identical (except mounted slightly further forward with a prodder).

AC75-01.png

Maybe I should email them to congratulate them on using a similar shaped foil to the one I designed?

(That was a joke)

Your fat hull with twin rudders, poorly shaped uptip foils and stubby rig is not even close to the TNZ render of the Real NZAC!!! At least I got the single rudder right.......

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might TNZ and thr CoR be so vengeful as to throw out a bone 

Sending those who fucked them over the last time ( by changing the field after they were so far along with the development of one size, boat then having to start over) down a false trail

Foiley intending to change the concept in about a year to what TNZ  and the CoR are actualy working in now

Just like oracle did the last go around :-O

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your fat hull with twin rudders, poorly shaped uptip foils and stubby rig is not even close to the TNZ render of the Real NZAC!!! At least I got the single rudder right.......

Your drawing has no rudder or rudder foil shown...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DA-WOODY said:

Might TNZ and thr CoR be so vengeful as to throw out a bone 

Sending those who fucked them over the last time ( by changing the field after they were so far along with the development of one size, boat then having to start over) down a false trail

Foiley intending to change the concept in about a year to what TNZ  and the CoR are actualy working in now

Just like oracle did the last go around :-O

Nah, they won't and I would stop supporting them entirely if they did as this was my main bone of contention with Orifice.

If there are some changes between now and when the rule is published, then so be it as presumably it will be as a result of continued R&D (particularly around the wing).

But if they pull the same shit as Orifice did then they can fuck right off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your drawing has no rudder or rudder foil shown...

And we were wondering what the new "All Purpose" would be for AC36 and now we know.

I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

Share this post


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

If there are some changes between now and when the rule is published, then so be it as presumably it will be as a result of continued R&D (particularly around the wing).

In the Bob Fisher article, he refers to how smaller versions will be built as test boats. It’s ~possible~ they will find that downsizing helps with a whole raft of issues, with little to no performance loss.

Share this post


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

In the Bob Fisher article, he refers to how smaller versions will be built as test boats. It’s ~possible~ they will find that downsizing helps with a whole raft of issues, with little to no performance loss.

That's fine as long as they find that BEFORE the rule is published. If not, they can fuck off (unless unanimous consent from all defenders is gained).

As an aside, the 50s were too small to properly convey the majesty that an AC boat should IMO, although I think some of that also came from them looking like an oversized beach cat. Therefore, I would prefer they keep the boats at 75 feet.

As with Orifice, I cannot damn ETNZ to hell for their choice of boat even though at first glance I don't really like it. Its the rule changes that fucked me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites