• 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.  
pacice

Foiling Monohull - what would it look like?

Recommended Posts

Good grief. Doug Lord is the embodiment of an internet troll. He's probably the most successful troll on SA, maybe in the history of mankind.

Please, everyone put him on ignore and there's a chance we can stop him destroying yet another thread. He has done this time and time again over many years: sucking people into his destructive spiral of self aggrandisement and personal slurs. If you must respond, do so in one of Doug's threads. There are plenty of them, most of them full of his own posts. Topping them up with more rubbish won't hurt anyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I haven't been paying very close attention. Did some large number of people construct and deliver craft similar to what we expect to see in AC75 while I was out?

It's really only the ballasted foils and their articulation systems that are novel, and even those will use fairly conventional components albeit in a very challenging concept. The rest of the boat is fairly conventional, though with some interesting design parameters. Of course there will be much effort in materials and design to keep the new boats on the bleeding edge, but probably no more so than had the AC continued with the AC50s, 72s, whatever.

There's likely a kind of Parkinson's Law that the cost of an AC program expands so as to expend the budget available plus any contingency, no matter how large. And them some.

Share this post


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

Good grief. Doug Lord is the embodiment of an internet troll. He's probably the most successful troll on SA, maybe in the history of mankind.

Please, everyone put him on ignore and there's a chance we can stop him destroying yet another thread. He has done this time and time again over many years: sucking people into his destructive spiral of self aggrandisement and personal slurs. If you must respond, do so in one of Doug's threads. There are plenty of them, most of them full of his own posts. Topping them up with more rubbish won't hurt anyone.

That is just bullshit.  

Says you as you spew out yet another personal slur-amazing!

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Doug Lord said:

I never "declared" that because the published TNZ renders show the exact opposite. What I said was that it ought to be possible to do a less expensive, easier to sail monofoiler that would be nearly as fast as the War of the Worlds creatures...........

and the doug bullshit train rolls on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 

Well beside all the interesting questions above-mentionned, I didn t understand what exactly will be the mast and the mainsail package. 

which kind of concept behind? A double face morphing wing ???

Sorry Doug it is not about hydrofoils

Cheers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Juan K interview at

http://observer.com/2018/01/interview-yacht-designer-juan-kouyoumdjian-on-how-he-innovated-racing/

This question is on many sailors’ minds. Now that the New Zealand Americas Cup has returned to monohulls, will you be designing a boat for a challenger?

I am in conversations with a few potential challengers, nothing to announce at this time, but stay tuned.

 
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artwork by Mike Trim:

TNZ Attacks!

TNZ attacks-drawn by Mike Trim.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

From a Juan K interview at

http://observer.com/2018/01/interview-yacht-designer-juan-kouyoumdjian-on-how-he-innovated-racing/

This question is on many sailors’ minds. Now that the New Zealand Americas Cup has returned to monohulls, will you be designing a boat for a challenger?

I am in conversations with a few potential challengers, nothing to announce at this time, but stay tuned.

 
 

More from there,

Which of the great races Volvo, America’s Cup, Sydney to HobartVendee Globe or any other you can think of is the proving ground for the latest in racing yacht design?

Well it used to be the America’s Cup, but clearly it is not anymore. Foiling or flying catamarans or monohulls do not influence the larger world of boat design. They will not trickle down. For sure there is something there that will evolve into the future. There is however another side to this.

One should not think this is the only way of yachting. There are plenty of sailors who want to be in contact with the water, who want to relate to the water and the ocean. If you look at the most watched, most in demand videos or even still photographs, they are always about boats off-shore sailing through waves and in touch with a wet environment. The pinnacle of our sport should never be about avoiding the water. So, to the extent that the America’s Cup with its “fly time” clock celebrates the opposite, it limits the overall appeal.

The Volvo, when it went to one design, basically killed off any possibility to innovate or improve the engineering.

So, basically you’re left with the Vendee Globe. As of now it is the primary place for monohull development. There is no other race that pushes the limits of design like the Vendee.

Share this post


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

There are plenty of sailors who want to be in contact with the water, who want to relate to the water and the ocean. If you look at the most watched, most in demand videos or even still photographs, they are always about boats off-shore sailing through waves and in touch with a wet environment. The pinnacle of our sport should never be about avoiding the water.

+1

Share this post


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

More from there,

Which of the great races Volvo, America’s Cup, Sydney to HobartVendee Globe or any other you can think of is the proving ground for the latest in racing yacht design?

Well it used to be the America’s Cup, but clearly it is not anymore. Foiling or flying catamarans or monohulls do not influence the larger world of boat design. They will not trickle down. For sure there is something there that will evolve into the future. There is however another side to this.

One should not think this is the only way of yachting. There are plenty of sailors who want to be in contact with the water, who want to relate to the water and the ocean. If you look at the most watched, most in demand videos or even still photographs, they are always about boats off-shore sailing through waves and in touch with a wet environment. The pinnacle of our sport should never be about avoiding the water. So, to the extent that the America’s Cup with its “fly time” clock celebrates the opposite, it limits the overall appeal.

The Volvo, when it went to one design, basically killed off any possibility to innovate or improve the engineering.

So, basically you’re left with the Vendee Globe. As of now it is the primary place for monohull development. There is no other race that pushes the limits of design like the Vendee.

i agree that it isn't the Volvo anymore for obvious reasons, and the Sydney to Hobart is being won by 12 year old boats, so neither of these i don't think

but the Americas Cup does have a fairly substantial trickle down, just maybe not in the kinds of boats that Juan would like

instead of improving current and existing monohulls, it had created a new kind of class entirely

before the 72's of san fran, there were really only moths foiling, and i believe that it is because of the AC that foiling cats are in the olympics now, A class cats are foiling upwind and that there is now numerous foiling boats of substantial size (unlike the moth) that can be bought and foiled away out of the package

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

One should not think this is the only way of yachting. There are plenty of sailors who want to be in contact with the water, who want to relate to the water and the ocean. If you look at the most watched, most in demand videos or even still photographs, they are always about boats off-shore sailing through waves and in touch with a wet environment. The pinnacle of our sport should never be about avoiding the water.

What a very silly comment JuanK makes. Mothists don't "avoid the water". Learning to sail a Moth involves more immersion in water than most of us wish to experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

From a Juan K interview at

http://observer.com/2018/01/interview-yacht-designer-juan-kouyoumdjian-on-how-he-innovated-racing/

This question is on many sailors’ minds. Now that the New Zealand Americas Cup has returned to monohulls, will you be designing a boat for a challenger?

I am in conversations with a few potential challengers, nothing to announce at this time, but stay tuned.

 
 

Translation:

I’ve contacted everyone I can think of but they all ask how I can justify my price given my history in the event.

I’m going to start offering to work cheap like I did with the French, so maybe someone wil bite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2018 at 3:49 PM, barfy said:

you forgot the big advantage the kiters have is to fly patterns/loops that influence apparent wind angle..never gonna get that with a sail. watched a top 10 foiler last week tack with no loss of speed, or ride height, and huck himself 10m into the air when board with no problem at all. Foil kiting dev is moving fast.

The top guys aren't moving their kites going to windward , they are as low as possible, but downwind different story. If the rider feels comfortable they increase apparent wind to go faster 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11978376

After unveiling the concept of yachts to be raced in the 36th America's Cup in 2021, Team New Zealand now face the arduous task of turning a concept into a rule.

.. About 12 designers from both Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa are working together to pool ideas and turn concepts and systems into words on a page.

Share this post


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

 About 12 designers from both Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa are working together to pool ideas and turn concepts and systems into words on a page.

 

Wonder who these would be

 

Share this post


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

Wonder who these would be

also at https://www.americascup.com/en/news/18_THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-THE-AC36-CLASS-RULE.html

The process of writing the rule is a collaborative process with Luna Rossa, the Challenger of Record. Around 12 designers in Emirates Team New Zealand, and a similar number in Luna Rossa are working together to pool ideas and turn concepts and systems into words on a page. 
The process is currently about half way through, with the Rule issue date of 31st March approaching fast. 
Other interested Challengers are being kept well up to date with progress as the rule develops, with questions being answered and feedback listened to.
Most teams understandably wish to see the final rule before lodging their challenges and paying the first entry fee of US$1 mill ahead of the initial entry period deadline on 30 June, hence the need to meet the 31 March deadline for the issue of Class Rule.  

All entries including those received in the interim since the January 1st entry period opened must go through a full process of compliance in accordance with the Deed of Gift and the Protocol so a list of accepted entires will be published by June 30th unless announced publicly prior to then.

Share this post


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

All entries including those received in the interim since the January 1st entry period opened must go through a full process of compliance in accordance with the Deed of Gift and the Protocol so a list of accepted entires will be published by June 30th unless announced publicly prior to then.

Nice enough but I wonder where they pulled a June 30 publish date from? It's not in the Protocol, or in Memorandum 1.

Perhaps it is tied to this, the close of the first 'Challenging Period.'

6. ACCEPTANCE OF FURTHER CHALLENGES.

6.1 As from the 1st of January 2018 ("Start of the Challenging Period") RNZYS shall accept every bona fide notice of challenge (as per the template in Appendix ) for the CSS and the Match from an organised yacht club from a foreign country ("Yacht Club”) as more particularly required by the Deed of Gift, which is either:

a ) Received by RNZYS no later than 17:00 hours NZT on the 30th of June 2018 ("End of the Challenging Period"), together with a declaration in writing by such Yacht Club that it accepts, and will be bound by, the Deed of Gift, this Protocol, the Rules and all subsequent decisions pertaining thereto including but not limited to insurance requirements set out in Appendix 3; or

b ) Received by RNZYS, no later than 17:00 hours NZT on the 30th of November 2018 ("Late Entry") provided RNZYS (i) is satisfied that the Deed of Gift, and the spirit and intent of this Protocol has been complied with by such Yacht Club until the date that the notice of challenge is received, and (ii) has received from such Yacht Club a declaration in writing that it has, from the Final Race 2017 until the date its notice of challenge is received, complied with the Deed of Gift, the spirit and intent of this Protocol and that it accepts, and will be bound by, this Protocol, the Rules and all subsequent decisions pertaining thereto, including but not limited to insurance requirements set out in Appendix 3.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/01/2018 at 8:15 AM, Stingray~~ said:

 

Which of the great races Volvo, America’s Cup, Sydney to HobartVendee Globe or any other you can think of is the proving ground for the latest in racing yacht design?

Well it used to be the America’s Cup, but clearly it is not anymore. 

I think you meant to say “it used to NOT be the AC but clearly it is now” (since AC-33.)

12m were never ever ahead of any curve ever and were so antiquated and became increasingly so as to become a laughing stock. Someone who knows AC better than me would know about pre 12 metres but I suspect the J-class as huge, powerful and as graceful  as they were weren’t really breaking any new design ground bar metal technology. The more recent 80 footers also were majestic (oh god! did I really say that!?) but they weren’t anytthing particularly innovative however since then you’d have to say that ACs 33, 34 & 35 brought to sailing stuff that were game changers.

As, I suspect, the AC 36 gizmos will be, 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Most teams understandably wish to see the final rule before lodging their challenges and paying the first entry fee of US$1 mill ahead of the initial entry period deadline on 30 June, hence the need to meet the 31 March deadline for the issue of Class Rule.  

All entries including those received in the interim since the January 1st entry period opened must go through a full process of compliance in accordance with the Deed of Gift and the Protocol so a list of accepted entires will be published by June 30th unless announced publicly prior to then.

 

Fishy - how can they go ahead with the Resource Consent process on this basis now?

Plus ça change ... Sigh

Share this post


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

Nice enough but I wonder where they pulled a June 30 publish date from? It's not in the Protocol, or in Memorandum 1.

Perhaps it is tied to this, the close of the first 'Challenging Period.'

6. ACCEPTANCE OF FURTHER CHALLENGES.

6.1 As from the 1st of January 2018 ("Start of the Challenging Period") RNZYS shall accept every bona fide notice of challenge (as per the template in Appendix ) for the CSS and the Match from an organised yacht club from a foreign country ("Yacht Club”) as more particularly required by the Deed of Gift, which is either:

a ) Received by RNZYS no later than 17:00 hours NZT on the 30th of June 2018 ("End of the Challenging Period"), together with a declaration in writing by such Yacht Club that it accepts, and will be bound by, the Deed of Gift, this Protocol, the Rules and all subsequent decisions pertaining thereto including but not limited to insurance requirements set out in Appendix 3; or

b ) Received by RNZYS, no later than 17:00 hours NZT on the 30th of November 2018 ("Late Entry") provided RNZYS (i) is satisfied that the Deed of Gift, and the spirit and intent of this Protocol has been complied with by such Yacht Club until the date that the notice of challenge is received, and (ii) has received from such Yacht Club a declaration in writing that it has, from the Final Race 2017 until the date its notice of challenge is received, complied with the Deed of Gift, the spirit and intent of this Protocol and that it accepts, and will be bound by, this Protocol, the Rules and all subsequent decisions pertaining thereto, including but not limited to insurance requirements set out in Appendix 3.

 

 

What are you smoking .... I wonder where they pulled a June 30 publish date from? It's not in the Protocol, or in Memorandum 1.

Perhaps it is tied to this.....

 

Yeah perhaps it is :blink:

As in the Protocol clauses you quoted yourself and as per the article;  before lodging their challenges and paying the first entry fee of US$1 mill ahead of the initial entry period deadline on 30 June

 

Any yacht?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Shrug. It's just like I said, "I wonder where they pulled a June 30 publish date from? It's not in the Protocol, or in Memorandum 1."  Neither the Protocol nor the Memorandum refer to any 'publish' date. But whatever.. I guess they can make up new stuff as they wish.

Share this post


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

also at https://www.americascup.com/en/news/18_THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-THE-AC36-CLASS-RULE.html

..  a list of accepted entires will be published by June 30th unless announced publicly prior to then.

Yes it’s a somewhat-trivial thing but another issue, aside from that not being any specific stipulation in the Prot, is what happens to Challenges filed immediately prior to the deadline? Good chance it will happen, which raises the question of how long their ‘vetting’ process takes. I would have announced this ‘publication’ date as July 30 instead, to make more sense. There are 5 ‘June’ occurrences in the Prot; 3 of them are June 2018; 1 of the 3 is quoted above and the other 2 relate to competitor web sites and to competitor apps.

The recent Protocol changes included a Club age requirement reduction from 5 to 3 years; but while they changed one clause for that they failed to also change Appendix 4, the Challenge form, which still has a 5 year age specified.

So it’s been a bit sloppy so far; hopefully no indicator of bigger problems ahead. 

 

Share this post


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

 

The recent Protocol changes included a Club age requirement reduction from 5 to 3 years

 

Did we find out which YC they want to help?

Share this post


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

 you’d have to say that ACs 33, 34 & 35 brought to sailing stuff that were game changers.
 

No you don't "have to say" that.

There was a wing technology that's a huge operational PITA and irrelevant except to a minute fringe of sailing.

A foil control technology in AC34 that was a contrived rule-beater and will prove as relevant in sailing in the long term as the winged keel. I believe foiling is the future for much of of high performance sailing but what AC34 brought is an irrelevant footnote.

"Cyclors" that was such a horrible development that even its originators are writing it out of the next rule.

The contribution of the AC to sailing technology is much exaggerated. Significant developments far more often come from much smaller and cheaper classes where clever and ingenious people can more readily find the ways and means to pursue their ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stingray~~ said:
Most teams understandably wish to see the final rule before lodging their challenges and paying the first entry fee of US$1 mill ahead of the initial entry period deadline on 30 June, hence the need to meet the 31 March deadline for the issue of Class Rule.  

All entries including those received in the interim since the January 1st entry period opened must go through a full process of compliance in accordance with the Deed of Gift and the Protocol so a list of accepted entires will be published by June 30th unless announced publicly prior to then.

I put that into Google Translate and it said "The tiny number of entries to date is a bit embarrassing. Let's keep quiet about it for now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  ^ Not likely. The Pisa yacht club the Lacortes belong to - actually it seems to be the reverse, it's a bit like LE and GGYC with one of the brothers being president - was founded in '89 and organizes well-known offshore races. And no doubt Bertelli would block dodgy Italian entries

Share this post


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

No you don't "have to say" that.

There was a wing technology that's a huge operational PITA and irrelevant except to a minute fringe of sailing.

A foil control technology in AC34 that was a contrived rule-beater and will prove as relevant in sailing in the long term as the winged keel. I believe foiling is the future for much of of high performance sailing but what AC34 brought is an irrelevant footnote.

"Cyclors" that was such a horrible development that even its originators are writing it out of the next rule.

The contribution of the AC to sailing technology is much exaggerated. Significant developments far more often come from much smaller and cheaper classes where clever and ingenious people can more readily find the ways and means to pursue their ideas.

Thats just plain wrong. The UptiP foil invented by TNZ was one of the most significant developments in the history of foils and certainly in the history of the AC. It was responsible for a great deal of "trickle down" with versions of the foil being used on everything from beachcats to 40fters to every large foiling trimaran .

The remarkable thing about that foil is it's ability to be designed to maintain flight altitude with no moving parts and generally without regard to speed.

I imagine it will be some time before we see innovation again in the AC anywhere near as significant as the uptip foil is.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Doug Lord said:

Thats just plain wrong. The UptiP foil invented by TNZ was one of the most significant developments in the history of foils and certainly in the history of the AC. It was responsible for a great deal of "trickle down" with versions of the foil being used on everything from beachcats to 40fters to every large foiling trimaran .

The remarkable thing about that foil is it's ability to be designed to maintain flight altitude with no moving parts and generally without regard to speed.

I imagine it will be some time before we see innovation again in the AC anywhere near as significant as the uptip foil is.

please explain the use of capital letters in the word UptiP??

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

please explain the use of capital letters in the word UptiP??

Now you've gone and done it...

UptiP is the first special spelling in the history of the universe that has/is/will revolutionise the spelling of all things foiling as well as trickledown innovations to other lower forms of spelling, the "people's spelling" really! Other areas of first in history innovations involve color highlighted responses, bold letters, cut and pasted posts over and over and over... again!

Best to let DL trickle down into your ignore list

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

please explain the use of capital letters in the word UptiP??

Sure. I think it's a cool spelling for a foil based on the name the designers came up with for the foil they invented in 34. Especially considering that so many people don't have a clue what the name of that type of foil is and call it "J", "L", A/V, "V", and more or they just make up something.You can call it UptiP or uptip, but anything else is just bullshit........

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Sure. I think it's a cool spelling for a foil based on the name the designers came up with for the foil they invented in 34. Especially considering that so many people don't have a clue what the name of that type of foil is and call it "J", "L", A/V, "V", and more or they just make up something.You can call it UptiP or uptip, but anything else is just bullshit........

no doug

thats not the answer i was looking for

why do you call them UptiP instead of Uptip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he has demented delusions of going down in history for being the inventor of that stupid typographical rendering of that name?

All sane people refuse to use it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Because he has demented delusions of going down in history for being the inventor of that stupid typographical rendering of that name?

All sane people refuse to use it.

Thats just not true-its used by the inventors of the foil. And by anybody that has the common decency to give them credit for the invention of the foil and the name they chose! 

http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-pete-melvin-foils-multihulls-13146.php      Part 1, paragraph 4

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget it.

No matter how you spell it uptip is obsolete technology as far as the AC and other high peformance boats are concerned. It was a rule dodge by TNZ for the AC72s but at least initially was really only a very old fashioned V foil mounted under the leeward hull to get catamaran righting moment advantage. During the SF cup all teams developed them to the extent the V became an L. The uptip was obsolete before the final match.

V foils are for motor boats not sailing boats. Any foil with the windward part sloping upward generates lift in the downwind direction and so overloads the other part which is trying to resist leeway. The AC50s certainly did not have any upward slope on the foil when they were down. Moths, ACats and the renders of the AC75s have the leeward foil canted to provide leeway resistance as well as lift.

OK there are a few production beach cats with AC72 style V foils but it does not matter in a one design class if everyone is equally as inefficient. In classes where development is allowed they have long gone.

-------------------------------------------------- Line drawn, now move on.

Now back to the AC75s. I still have serious reservations about the boats having the power to actually take off, there just seems to be too much drag with the hull and the two foils in the water. Similarly with boat foils in the water for tacks and gybes, the drag is at least doubled, while RM is reduced. I think we will be seeing a lot of low riding races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Phil S said:

Forget it.

No matter how you spell it uptip is obsolete technology as far as the AC and other high peformance boats are concerned. It was a rule dodge by TNZ for the AC72s but at least initially was really only a very old fashioned V foil mounted under the leeward hull to get catamaran righting moment advantage. During the SF cup all teams developed

Wrong to the point of being utter nonsense! UptiP foils have been used for ama foils on two of the state of the art maxi trimarans designed from scratch to use a version of the foil configuration pioneered on the Fire Arrow test model. You can't get more high performance than Gitana and Banque Populaire! They use UptiP foils because they can be designed to have automatic altitude control.

Guillaume Verdier specifically referenced the TNZ foils from 34 in explaining his choice of ama foil.

A llittle over half way through he mentions TNZ's discovery of an auto stable foil--click on the sound icon:

Gitana UptiP ama foil pictures by Fred Monsennec--

 

 

gitana-17-foil-babord-f-monsonnec-04-04-17.jpg

gitana-17-vue-arric3a8re-photo-2-f-monsonnec-04-04-17 - Copy.jpg

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

Now back to the AC75s. I still have serious reservations about the boats having the power to actually take off, there just seems to be too much drag with the hull and the two foils in the water. Similarly with boat foils in the water for tacks and gybes, the drag is at least doubled, while RM is reduced. I think we will be seeing a lot of low riding races.

They were apparently able to foil by 13 kn of wind back in 1950, surely they will be able to take off now as well in similar or lower wind speed. Hopefully they will also refined the design along the way. 

Wonder how much of a problem it is to upscale the boat. The bigger it becomes, the most difficult it gets to fly. Does anyone know which percentage of the weight of an IMOCA is sustained by the foil? To have representative figure for a similar scale boat. 

https://www.cupexperience.com/blog/2017/03/1950s-foiling-sailboat-monitor/

Quote

1950’s Foiling Sailboat “Monitor”

Gordon Baker developed and tested Monitor in the 1950’s. Monitor could get up on the foils in about 13 knots of wind and sail at about twice the true wind speed. Top speed was reported at over 30 knots, with some reports claiming 40 knots. At 40 knots, cavitation would probably have set in.

Monitor is on display at the Mariners’ Museum in Newport News, Virginia.

Gordon Baker's Monitor hydrofoil monohull sailboat for US Navy Monitor hydrofoil monohull sailboat

 

Share this post


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

Thats just not true-its used by the inventors of the foil. And by anybody that has the common decency to give them credit for the invention of the foil and the name they chose! 

http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-pete-melvin-foils-multihulls-13146.php      Part 1, paragraph 4

Quote

At Team New Zealand, we developed a new type of foil that allows you to keep your height above the water more or less steady. No one had been able to do that before, at least not on a course-racing boat that was not going downwind. We developed that mostly on our SL33 test boats -- they came with the stock constant curvature �C� foils and with those kinds of foils, you can generate 50% boat weight lift before they get unstable.  But we noticed that when we could get one boat up fully foiling for a few seconds it would really accelerate away from the other boat � and that got the wheels turning. How, with such a huge potential benefit, can we achieve stable flight downwind? So our design team came up with the �up-tip� type of boards.  We refined those on the 33s and our 72 is designed to do that and fortunately it worked right of the box.�

note the spelling

Share this post


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

They were apparently able to foil by 13 kn of wind back in 1950, surely they will be able to take off now as well in similar or lower wind speed. Hopefully they will also refined the design along the way. 

Wonder how much of a problem it is to upscale the boat. The bigger it becomes, the most difficult it gets to fly. Does anyone know which percentage of the weight of an IMOCA is sustained by the foil? To have representative figure for a similar scale boat. 

https://www.cupexperience.com/blog/2017/03/1950s-foiling-sailboat-monitor/

 

Note that Monitor was able to tack and gybe on foils..........

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monitor was so successful that only one was ever built, the research project it was built for was suspended and no one has ever built a similar successful sailing boat since. There seems to have been few photos.  

The performance claims are hard to believe. 30kts is 13kt wind maybe but tacking and gybing is not believable since now 70 years later only maybe a few hundred people have achieved this and only on moths and AC50s.

My reference is Bernard Smith's 40 Knot Sail Boat from 1963. He has the same 50/13kt figures for Monitor but says it only foiled on reaches and runs and was dismal upwind. There is no mention of tacks or gybes. He also says that below 13kts wind speed the RM from the foils was minimal and this presented stability problems. Just as many of us think the AC75s will have in marginal foiling winds.

Since Smith was also a US military researcher working on sailing foilers in the following decade, we must assume he had the full data on the Monitor research. Bringing up Monitor as a foilng success this century is a joke.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2018 at 7:51 AM, Groucho Marx said:

Because he has demented delusions of going down in history for being the inventor of that stupid typographical rendering of that name?

All sane people refuse to use it.

 

23 hours ago, Doug Lord said:

Thats just not true-its used by the inventors of the foil. And by anybody that has the common decency to give them credit for the invention of the foil and the name they chose! 

http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-pete-melvin-foils-multihulls-13146.php      Part 1, paragraph 4

DL, you are clueless, rude and arrogant. There is not one single case of the foil inventors using "UptiP", as you spell it. You claim it is common decency to use the name they chose, but you do not. In the link you provide, it is written "up-tip". If it is common decency to use the term they chose, why do you think you can rewrite it in a different style. 

What's the opposite of common decency? In your case it probably is rude, arrogant and delusional.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to try gardening dLoRd. What about digging up that overgreen phony looking lawn so prevalent as background in your wacko photographs of your grass displayed bath toys, plant roses or rhododendrons - or how about phormium tenax from Aotearoa (just so you can remember one of the many who exposed you as FoS).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

DL, you are clueless, rude and arrogant. There is not one single case of the foil inventors using "UptiP", as you spell it. You claim it is common decency to use the name they chose, but you do not. In the link you provide, it is written "up-tip". If it is common decency to use the term they chose, why do you think you can rewrite it in a different style. 

What's the opposite of common decency? In your case it probably is rude, arrogant and delusional.

Tell me, gbs: what version do you use when you talk to people about the foil: up-tip, UptiP or uptip?!   One things for sure : you don't use any version when you write about it........

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

Tell me, gbs: what version do you use when you talk to people about the foil: up-tip, UptiP or uptip?!   One things for sure : you don't use any version when you write about it........

I don't use the term "up-tip" very often at all because people barely use it these days when talking about foils. How many times did you heard a designer from one of the AC50 teams use that word last time around? Almost never.

As usual, you change the subject to avoid the glaring problem with what you write. On one hand, you say that common decency dictates you should use the term that the foil inventors came up with (up-tip) while on the other, you choose to change the style it is written, confirming, in your words, you have no common decency. All you are is an attention whore and a hypocrite. You want the foils to be referred to by what you say is the correct term. How about you lead by example and stop your self-styled BS. It's "up-tip".

Share this post


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

Posting this just because it’s cool to think about - including where almost all of 7 tons of vertical lift is at..

maxresdefault.jpg

 

and showing the first poster what a foiling monohull would look like?

Share this post


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

Posting this just because it’s cool to think about - including where almost all of 7 tons of vertical lift is at..

Given that the leeward foil is also providing RM and resisting leeway (it's not horizontal), it's likley producing more than 7 tons of lift (z axis) plus forces in both x (drag) and y (leeway) directions. With a lot of torque on the axle connecting it to the boat. There's a lot to think about. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Bruce King's angled double bilge board Terrorist? Imagine that foil setup, that is lifting one up, one down conventional angled daggerboards ... so imagine the proposed AC75 with angled out L foils instead of the lifting pivoting iizard legs ... where the leeward foil works similarly as per the AC75 drawings ... but the windward is lifted, again as per Terrorist - so that the lifting section is out of the water. So instead of "massive" bearings required to pivot the as-drawn AC75, you have simple sliding foils in daggerboard cases. Okay, you're going to need a fast acting crane pull/push system. But still less complex than the engineering required for the said hot leg lizard setup?

Terrorist copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RobG said:

Given that the leeward foil is also providing RM and resisting leeway (it's not horizontal), it's likley producing more than 7 tons of lift (z axis) plus forces in both x (drag) and y (leeway) directions. With a lot of torque on the axle connecting it to the boat. There's a lot to think about. :o

The bare boat weight is supposed to be 7 tons, but there is also 1 tons of crew weight. Z-axis lift needs to be the sum of those, ie 8 tons.

Y-axis lift 3...5 tons and X-axis drag something like 0.1 ... 1 tons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 1:57 PM, Stingray~~ said:

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

I wonder if in early sails, before gaining full confidence, we’ll see them sailing with the ww foil raised not that far, maybe just barely clear of the water or even immersed a touch, with a touch of lift on that ww foil’s trim - as a safety precaution?

Yikes - lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing Dr Dan was not yet certain of back when asked was how they’d be able to somehow guarantee that nobody would use negative trim on the ww wing to add RM, even by mistake. That’d be a potentially boat-breaking proposition since the boat won’t be beefy enough to be able to handle it, for weight reasons.

Something else to see in the coming Rule is if the rudder trim (mostly for pitch control) will be done via rudder rake or via trim tabs - and if those will be limited to (computer-intelligence-free) manual power. The choreography between changes to that rudder trim and the main foil trim(s) could get wild too - especially during maneouvers. 

Share this post


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

Another thing Dr Dan was not yet certain of back when asked was how they’d be able to somehow guarantee that nobody would use negative trim on the ww wing to add RM, even by mistake. That’d be a potentially boat-breaking proposition since the boat won’t be beefy enough to be able to handle it, for weight reasons.

Something else to see in the coming Rule is if the rudder trim (mostly for pitch control) will be done via rudder rake or via trim tabs - and if those will be limited to (computer-intelligence-free) manual power. The choreography between changes to that rudder trim and the main foil trim(s) could get wild too - especially during maneouvers. 

Sounds like the rule will be somewhat self policing then eh ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue I have with the overall design is that the lifting force on that top part of the T has to be pretty perpendicular, or...  Not sure what. But it would seem to me that as they sail, the variation in the wind and on maneuvers, this will not be trivial. I keep thinking about what happened when  BAR slid sideways into Team Japan (If I have the teams correct). I am very much looking forward to seeing how it all works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Juan Kalphabet, Gtran https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://m.velaemotore.it/intervista-juan-kouyoumdjian-coppa-america-volvo-ocean-race-ac-75-ac50-vendee-globe-17065&usg=ALkJrhjSOsdQvGqlWkkm8MqFA1Ewf_7XAw

Are you happy with the return to the monohulls in the America's Cup? 
"Personally I do not think there is any return to the monohulls, the AC75 can hardly be called monohulls, it is just a fuselage in the middle of a pair of foils. If the question on the table was to keep flying, then it would have been much better to continue with a more modern version of the AC50s seen in Bermuda in the last edition of the Cup. The teams would have had more experience, there would have been about ten boats available and ready to sail, so it would have been much better to continue with those boats, also because when flying length and size do not count much. The second part of the answer is that in the context of a return of the so-called monohulls, I think that the proposal of Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa is brilliant and clever, there are many interesting ideas and concepts behind, so I think it's brilliant but I repeat if the goal was to fly then it would have been better to do it with the AC50 ».

Share this post


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

Juan Kalphabet, Gtran https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://m.velaemotore.it/intervista-juan-kouyoumdjian-coppa-america-volvo-ocean-race-ac-75-ac50-vendee-globe-17065&usg=ALkJrhjSOsdQvGqlWkkm8MqFA1Ewf_7XAw

Are you happy with the return to the monohulls in the America's Cup? 
"Personally I do not think there is any return to the monohulls, the AC75 can hardly be called monohulls, it is just a fuselage in the middle of a pair of foils. If the question on the table was to keep flying, then it would have been much better to continue with a more modern version of the AC50s seen in Bermuda in the last edition of the Cup. The teams would have had more experience, there would have been about ten boats available and ready to sail, so it would have been much better to continue with those boats, also because when flying length and size do not count much. The second part of the answer is that in the context of a return of the so-called monohulls, I think that the proposal of Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa is brilliant and clever, there are many interesting ideas and concepts behind, so I think it's brilliant but I repeat if the goal was to fly then it would have been better to do it with the AC50 ».

The AC50's would have needed so many changes the wouldn't be AC50's any more.

They needed to get rid of the cyclors .. they need to be able to cope with a  wider wind range .. they need to be able to handle bigger seas without falling apart.

I felt the AC62's were possible and with enough crew they could have avoided the motor powered foils although the powered foils and manpowered everything else is a reasonable compromise.

The AC75 has one advantage over the cats .. it seems to be self righting.

Share this post


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

..... if the goal was to fly then it would have been better to do it with the AC50 ».

It wasn't.

Next....

Share this post


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

It wasn't.

Next....

 Are you sure It wasn't? then why didn´t they go for a more conventional, monohull?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hutch, Phil Lotz, and Hap Fauth presented a bunch of stuff about their campaign this morning at the US Sailing Leadership Forum.  

IMG_8737-1.JPGIMG_8736-1.JPGIMG_8732-1.JPG

IMG_8731.JPGIMG_8730.JPG

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

IMG_8737-1.JPG

 

 

Very interesting, Clean!!

First reaction, about VPP: if I read it correctly, take-off both upwind and downwind is shown around 14 kts - consistent if slightly lower than Jean Sans' report

Another consideration, and it really isn't nitpicking: it absolutely makes no sense marking the boatspeed scale in hundreths of a knor (e.g. 20.00)

About the wing sail, it's remarkably close to what we had on our C-Class Miss Lancia in 1978. Good luck to them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

That kills one of the favourite narratives here.....according to ^ PB wanted it more radical!?

Well done Clean - & it's not even Monday.

Share this post


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

 

That kills one of the favourite narratives here.....according to ^ PB wanted it more radical!?

Right :D

Also, a second US team still through the NYYC?

Share this post


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

 

First reaction, about VPP: if I read it correctly, take-off both upwind and downwind is shown around 14 kts - consistent if slightly lower than Jean Sans' report

Sorry, my mistake: mixed up TWS and boat speed. Now, the downwind prediction looks reasonable: 14 kts TWS, a (VMG?) displacement boatspeed of between 16 (both foils equally loaded) and 22 kts (entire load on one foil) should be feasible > take off

OTOH, the upwind case looks unrealistic

 

Edit: looking at 2nd video now, 130M$ budget, 50% covered right now

31 people on design team already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Xlot said:

Right :D

Also, a second US team still through the NYYC?

Missed/skipped that one but did hear THutch refer to BAR, the possible second team, and a possible China team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Xlot said:

Sorry, my mistake: mixed up TWS and boat speed. Now, the downwind prediction looks reasonable: 14 kts TWS, a (VMG?) displacement boatspeed of between 16 (both foils equally loaded) and 22 kts (entire load on one foil) should be feasible > take off

OTOH, the upwind case looks unrealistic

 

Edit: looking at 2nd video now, 130M$ budget, 50% covered right now

31 people on design team already

I thought I heard 12.5 as the early projected TWS (or BS?) for liftoff? 

In case anyone missed it, the blue in the charts above are for displacement mode, the black for when flying.

They mentioned possibly multiple  events in Europe, plus Newport, possibly SE USA, and Dubai, and China, before the Christmas Cup in NZ. Still TBD how soon they’d sail in NZ.

Sounded like along with DB and Bora, that JS is a possible candidate at helm.

Share this post


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

Missed/skipped that one but did hear THutch refer to BAR, the possible second team, and a possible China team. 

TH interview, no?

Also, no events in Italy??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Xlot said:

TH interview, no?

Also, no events in Italy??

It’s in the video above, somewhere, where TH takes a Q from the audience about Challengers. 

He never said Italy specifically but suggested multiple events in Europe. He also suggested that the schedule of ACWS events will factor into when they set up a base in Auckland. And said their Challenge arrived within 7 seconds of the midnight challenge date, which reminded me of the Artemis/NZ race for AC34 when NZ’s arrived 2 seconds too early and so AR won, and so therefore AR became CoR after Hamilton dropped out - after an unsuccessful argument lodged by NZ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I read correctly they will need 14 kts of tws to take off, will fall under under 20 kts of vmg which means faster real speed, will have a top speed of 50 kts vmg for about 20-25 kts tws.

So the prestart game will be to get on foil as early as possible make competitors fall of their foils.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites