Recommended Posts

Just another thought.  If you could have angled the foil when airborne so that instead of being horizontal to the water surface it was angled down I.e. slicing into the water on impact there would have been the same energy/force but dissipated in the water rather than transferred to the hull and the boat would have swung more easily to port.

Share this post


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

A cooler full of bananas,

How about one of these - very funny I think . . 

image.jpeg.5151e7d38f2e554c46ef4b2c968e7ada.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Just another thought.  If you could have angled the foil when airborne so that instead of being horizontal to the water surface it was angled down I.e. slicing into the water on impact there would have been the same energy/force but dissipated in the water rather than transferred to the hull and the boat would have swung more easily to port.

The foil was well off of horizontal when it hit the water; it was atleast 15-20 degrees heeled to the port side and probably something similar towards the stern.

Share this post


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

How about one of these - very funny I think . . 

image.jpeg.5151e7d38f2e554c46ef4b2c968e7ada.jpeg

Jesus, my first car could have used a box of those.

 

It'll be interesting to see if the American syndicate has a sense of humor. Somehow I doubt it.

Share this post


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

It'll be interesting to see if the American syndicate has a sense of humor. Somehow I doubt it.

Never heard a single joke from any of the DeVos clan - oops, sorry, that should be "Klan"  

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

The batteries aren't cargo they're equipment.

The lithium batteries were removed asap after they found out they were taking on water to keep them from shorting out and/or blowing up.

Doesn't explain why there were divers out there the next morning.

Share this post


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

The foil was well off of horizontal when it hit the water; it was atleast 15-20 degrees heeled to the port side and probably something similar towards the stern.

Disagree.  When it hit the water first it was parallel with the surface and it planed/skidded before it dug in.  The downward force went straight up the foil arm first.  When it dug in the forward velocity then bent the foil arm back.

 

Share this post


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

The foil was well off of horizontal when it hit the water; it was atleast 15-20 degrees heeled to the port side and probably something similar towards the stern.

Then why did it plane?

Share this post


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

Doesn't explain why there were divers out there the next morning.

Proof?  Or just more gossip?  12 hours later in that piece of water you would find zip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Then why did it plane?

Go watch a skimboard at the beach.  Why does it plane?  I promise you, it isn't an Airbus produced foil shape.

Heck, go grab a skimboard and try it for yourself.  Experience if first hand.

If you like your wrists, the next best thing is to skip a stone.  

Two objects that have zero foil shape, yet can momentarily plane on the water.  AM's foil didn't need to hit perfectly square to the water to have this same appearance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Terry Hutchinson was on NewstalkZB this morning talking to Mike Hoskings and gave a clearer explanation for the hole than he did at the presser.

Earlier this week I got messages sent to me from someone who had got information from an "inside source" that the cause of the hole was the "flying battery" hypothesis.  I said that was BS and didn't make sense for a number of reasons and would infer that AM's Skipper Terry Hutchinson was lying.  I see that someone also posted a video from the two Italians saying it was the "flying battery."

My personal theory had been (the short version) that the forces exerted by the foot planting of the foil/foil arm transmitted considerable force upwards into the hull when the boat was coming down.  That energy would flex the hull.  When the foil went rapidly from the foot plant planing phase to digging in more forces were transmitted into the hull causing deflection of the hull.  Inwards aft of the foil arm and outwards between the arm and the bow akin to ripping a leg off a turkey.  Initially I didn't understand Terry's guillotine analogy in the presser where he mixed that analogy with the force of the water.  I couldn't see how the water acted as a guillotine.  

However on the radio this morning he talked specifically about the ribs in the boat acting as the guillotine(s).  That I understand and fits with the forces and where they would be transmitted to in the hull.  The ribs sliced the hull when the hull flexed be it on the outward flex or when the hull try to rubber band back into shape.  The "flying battery" "loose cargo" theory is crap.

Another analogy I drew was where you have a blister pack of lozenges.  If you consider each lozenge a panel in between ribs and the outside of the blister pack as the skin of the hull when you hold the blister pack at each end and flex in and out the skin will break but if you localise that flex at one lozenge (panel) then the lozenge also pops out.

I though Terry explained it very well in his first press conference about the frame and the guillotine effect.  I don’t see where the confusion came from. The forces caused it to slice along the support lines.

I know we all seemed to jump on the battery story because it was easy to believe.  But, as they said, the batteries were one of the first things removed from the boat.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Doesn't explain why there were divers out there the next morning.

Maybe Terry lost his watch....  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sounds like it got a little crazy with a couple of the sailors trapped under the sail:

Of the five sailors in the port cockpit, Dressler says, grinder Tim Hornsby managed to get washed out behind the boat. Barker had an easy exit from his position, but trimmer/grinder Maciel Cicchetti, Dressler and Hutchinson were briefly pinned beneath the mainsail. As previously reported, Dressler had to free Hutchinson, who was still attached to his cockpit with a tether. “We were pretty much fully underwater and pressed by the mainsail,” he says. “It was not a situation where we could stay there for very long and keep breathing.”

“[Because] we can’t brace our feet against the cockpit wall, we use tethers and padding to keep our bodies stable while we grind because the boats have a lot of jerking around going through maneuvers. They all have quick releases. I think, at that moment, Terry’s, for whatever reason, wasn’t releasing so Cicho was supporting him from behind to make sure he could breathe and I just went down, took my knife out and either cut it or it gave free.”

Dressler says he doesn’t feel Hutchinson was ever in danger, because it happened so quickly—a matter of seconds—but the tether system is something they’re now revisiting, with regard to both equipment and extraction technique.

“Since the capsize, we’ve done a pool session where we practiced. We went in the pool with our gear and spare air and had a little brush-up session.”

Share this post


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

Go watch a skimboard at the beach.  Why does it plane?  I promise you, it isn't an Airbus produced foil shape.

Heck, go grab a skimboard and try it for yourself.  Experience if first hand.

If you like your wrists, the next best thing is to skip a stone.  

Two objects that have zero foil shape, yet can momentarily plane on the water.  AM's foil didn't need to hit perfectly square to the water to have this same appearance. 

So we agree it planed.  However if you could adjust the angle of attack with regard to hitting the water then it would pierce the surface NOT plane!

Share this post


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

Doesn't explain why there were divers out there the next morning.

FFS

 

image.png.de350735f85eb7a07f52906a6a427854.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Maybe Terry lost his watch....  

More likely.  Why worry about looking for a Lithium battery?  It would be fucked anyway and easily replaced.  If in the unlikely event there wasn't a spare in NZ amongst one of the teams then buy one off Amazon and pay the extra $100 freight charge and get it tomorrow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Just another thought.  If you could have angled the foil when airborne so that instead of being horizontal to the water surface it was angled down I.e. slicing into the water on impact there would have been the same energy/force but dissipated in the water rather than transferred to the hull and the boat would have swung more easily to port.

What the fuck are you on KateyBob you think that the AC75 should have a dive dive dive mode crikey thats up there with enlarge the hole in your sinking boat.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Just another thought.  If you could have angled the foil when airborne so that instead of being horizontal to the water surface it was angled down I.e. slicing into the water on impact there would have been the same energy/force but dissipated in the water rather than transferred to the hull and the boat would have swung more easily to port.

^^ What did you drink today ? So you think that in the slip of a second the foil was out they could have guessed the position of the boat falling back and the perfect angle of the foil to "slice" the water ? :blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So we agree it planed.  However if you could adjust the angle of attack with regard to hitting the water then it would pierce the surface NOT plane!

I never said it did or didn't plane.  I said it hit the water off axis.  If it had hit square then the forces would have likely been substantially higher.

 

Share this post


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

^^ What did you drink today ? So you think that in the slip of a second the foil was out they could have guessed the position of the boat falling back and the perfect angle of the foil to "slice" the water ? :blink:

For a start they couldn't change the angle of attack for re-entry.  From what I've seen there is very little ability to lower the front of the foil below the horizontal.

But if you could alter it and you went airborne then pointing the front of the foil down would have been better than foot planting.

 

Share this post


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

What the fuck are you on KateyBob you think that the AC75 should have a dive dive dive mode crikey thats up there with enlarge the hole in your sinking boat.

 

Didn't expect you to display much intelligence.  Just think about the basic physics rather than forming a position on defence.

 

Share this post


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

I've followed TE's high profile career ever since his five years in the seat in the '80s as Exec Director of the United States Yacht Racing Union -- now US Sailing. His achievements as sailor, innovator,  jurist, rule-maker and administrator were unmatched. He was astute, sharp and edgy. You always waited for the next words out of his mouth. That was then. I've tried on a number of recent occasions to watch his show. Sorry. It is slow and wordy. I'm sure he still has occasional pearls of wisdom to offer from his far-flung network but this fan can't devote the time and effort to dive for 'em!

When I watch TE's show I use my mouse to skip the uninteresting bits, the show can be covered in about 20 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2021 at 5:23 PM, southseasbill said:

Lets hope Donald will be back in 2024 for MAGA V2!

Fuck yes! Will miss his insane rambling and the snow flakes who all lose their shit over him.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

FFS

 

image.png.de350735f85eb7a07f52906a6a427854.png

They was lookin fer shrimp for the Bubba Shrimp Co.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How about one of these - very funny I think . . 

image.jpeg.5151e7d38f2e554c46ef4b2c968e7ada.jpeg

The could have just left the hole and pointed a canon out? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

More likely.  Why worry about looking for a Lithium battery?  It would be fucked anyway and easily replaced.  If in the unlikely event there wasn't a spare in NZ amongst one of the teams then buy one off Amazon and pay the extra $100 freight charge and get it tomorrow!

To save it from being there? 35Kg of lithium battery is not something you want to have lying around on the seabed. More so since AM are guests in another country and it is good practice to clean your own mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Then why did it plane?

Why did it capsize? 

Share this post


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

The could have just left the hole and pointed a canon out? 

"Looks like we will cross them"

"Great, let's give them a broadside and rake them from stem to stern"

:D

Share this post


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

Fuck yes! Will miss his insane rambling and the snow flakes who all lose their shit over him.

I see he's going to name his new party after AM's boat, the Patriot.

Hope it crashes and burns like the boat did last week.

 

The only difference is that I (as a Rita man) would like to see the AM boat back on the water next week competing for the Prada Cup.

Chapeau and Bon Chance, mes braves.

 

Share this post


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

I've followed TE's high profile career ever since his five years in the seat in the '80s as Exec Director of the United States Yacht Racing Union -- now US Sailing. His achievements as sailor, innovator,  jurist, rule-maker and administrator were unmatched. He was astute, sharp and edgy. You always waited for the next words out of his mouth. That was then. I've tried on a number of recent occasions to watch his show. Sorry. It is slow and wordy. I'm sure he still has occasional pearls of wisdom to offer from his far-flung network but this fan can't devote the time and effort to dive for 'em!

He is still sharp and edgy but he has to entertain for an hour which may not be always easy LIVE, no cuts, and with slow actuality.

As far as organizing this video show at his age, chapeau.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

From what I've seen there is very little ability to lower the front of the foil below the horizontal.

Even if they could, are we imaging that in a split-second, while the boat is airborne and heeling and coming down from speed, some person (or system) would be able to calculate the right foil-pitch to address a dynamic combination of height, speed, heel-angle and re-entry angle to minimize damage?

Yeah, ok.

Share this post


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

Fuck yes! Will miss his insane rambling and the snow flakes who all lose their shit over him.

The biggest snowflake was Cry-Baby in Chief himself. It would be hard to stand another four years of permanent self-victimization, especially since his dementia will be even worse until then. He is not a well man, and life would be so much easier for him if he had a more positive attitude towards life and would not permanently feel attacked.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Main Man said:

"Looks like we will cross them"

"Great, let's give them a broadside and rake them from stem to stern"

:D

With the best will in the world, if AM get back on the water, they'll be in a hastily and significantly repaired boat, with (presumably) their new go fast bits bolted on, because they're in a do or die situation. 

The canon may be best option. Do the rules specifically preclude naval warfare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2021 at 10:23 PM, southseasbill said:

Lets hope Donald will be back in 2024 for MAGA V2!

People can be entertained by having deranged people in many occupations, but not as the President of the United States.  That is not funny!

It is so nice to see competent people in charge again that intend do do things for the country and not just for themselves. He will have killed at least a half a million people!

  • Like 7
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Fuck yes! Will miss his insane rambling and the snow flakes who all lose their shit over him.

You are sick!

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Even if they could, are we imaging that in a split-second, while the boat is airborne and heeling and coming down from speed, some person (or system) would be able to calculate the right foil-pitch to address a dynamic combination of height, speed, heel-angle and re-entry angle to minimize damage?

Yeah, ok.

Split-second is an exaggeration.  Seconds maybe.  All I'm saying is the ability to adjust the forward pitch of the foil would help avoid the foot plant that we saw take place.  That would divert a considerable amount of force away from the hull and alleviate the sudden deceleration which caused all the damage.  Also that deceleration actually stops recovery and the boat slows to a stop and the wing gets blown over.  With further development (not in this cycle) and practice recovering from the situation we saw would be achievable. 

 Just ideas.  Even if it is the SA modus operandi no need to get aggressive in defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Split-second is an exaggeration.  Seconds maybe.  All I'm saying is the ability to adjust the forward pitch of the foil would help avoid the foot plant that we saw take place.  That would divert a considerable amount of force away from the hull and alleviate the sudden deceleration which caused all the damage.  Also that deceleration actually stops recovery and the boat slows to a stop and the wing gets blown over.  With further development (not in this cycle) and practice recovering from the situation we saw would be achievable. 

 Just ideas.  Even if it is the SA modus operandi no need to get aggressive in defence.

Split second isnt an exaggeration.  The driver would need to make the decision to move the foil and the foil arm would require time to move,  which is by far the largest portion of time required.  Assuming 2-3 seconds airborne, 1.5-2 seconds to move the arm (improbable to move it that fast) the driver is left with a fraction of a second to initiate the arm movement. 

Nevermind that the rules dont allow the arm to be moved in the axis you are proposing. 

Nevermind that the extra weight is a non-starter. 

Nevermind that if you over rotate the foil it'll act as a brake and actually pull the boat down harder into the water.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow, can you imagine if you pitched way too far down and you sent the bow in, rotating around the foil location? That would be nutso.

For a while there I was really digging the AC75s, but the last couple weeks have really highlighted some of the flaws, at least where  they're at so far in their devlelopment.

You need wind for these boats to race in an interesting way.  I can recall a lot of AC50 racing in light air that didn't look so ridiculous.

The dynamics of these unusual boats make for some really weird behavior, sometimes dangerously so.  I think AM have a design flaw in that they don't have enough ease on the main or traveler; even in regular sailing they hit the endstops regularly to say nothing of maybe saving a crash. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Nevermind that the rules dont allow the arm to be moved in the axis you are proposing. 

I know it is against the rules.  I'm looking forward and at ways to make the boat safer and self recoverable.  In my opinion the damage to the hull wasn't caused by the hull hitting the water - it was caused by the foot plant of the foil (try jumping of the dining table onto one leg with the knee locked) and then the lateral forces on the foil arm is it entered the water.  A smoother re-entry into the water would have dissipated some of those forces into the water rather than transferring to the hull.

5 minutes ago, tDot said:

 Nevermind that the extra weight is a non-starter. 

Where would the extra weight come from?  The pivot axis could be on the foil or the arm.  Currently the arms only go up and down.

7 minutes ago, tDot said:

 Nevermind that if you over rotate the foil it'll act as a brake and actually pull the boat down harder into the water.

Perhaps but it also may get the control surfaces back into action quicker and aid recovery.  In my opinion it wasn't the hull hitting the water that caused the hull damage it was the forces on the foil and foil arm having nowhere to go but into a localised part of the hull.  We've seen these boats crash from a height and dive submarine style with no apparent damage to the hull.

What are your ideas to prevent the damage and aid a non-assisted recovery?  Make the hull thicker?

Share this post


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

Holy cow, can you imagine if you pitched way too far down and you sent the bow in, rotating around the foil location? That would be nutso.

 

We've already seen that scenario happen with no damage occurring.

4 minutes ago, RMac said:

The dynamics of these unusual boats make for some really weird behavior, sometimes dangerously so.  I think AM have a design flaw in that they don't have enough ease on the main or traveler; even in regular sailing they hit the endstops regularly to say nothing of maybe saving a crash. 

You are generalising.  Two of the boats have taken a different approach (LR and ETNZ) to their boom setup and main control with more traveller scope than the other two particularly than AM.  ETNZ seems to have more ability to depower their main than any of the teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I know it is against the rules.  I'm looking forward and at ways to make the boat safer and self recoverable.  In my opinion the damage to the hull wasn't caused by the hull hitting the water - it was caused by the foot plant of the foil (try jumping of the dining table onto one leg with the knee locked) and then the lateral forces on the foil arm is it entered the water.  A smoother re-entry into the water would have dissipated some of those forces into the water rather than transferring to the hull.

Where would the extra weight come from?  The pivot axis could be on the foil or the arm.  Currently the arms only go up and down.

Perhaps but it also may get the control surfaces back into action quicker and aid recovery.  In my opinion it wasn't the hull hitting the water that caused the hull damage it was the forces on the foil and foil arm having nowhere to go but into a localised part of the hull.  We've seen these boats crash from a height and dive submarine style with no apparent damage to the hull.

What are your ideas to prevent the damage and aid a non-assisted recovery?  Make the hull thicker?

Having been foiling on a kiteboard for 6 years, I can tell you that coming down from height onto the foil creates far less force then when the board hits.  Our foils produce far more lift and have far greater surface area relative to the amount of weight vs an AC75.  The off camber attitude that AM entered the water with would have mitigated the force even further. 

What you are suggesting woukd have created far more damage then what is seen. I also don't think it's plausible from an experience perspective.

Borrow your daughter's opti.  Jump in it.  Have a crane lift you 2m and then drop it. Thats what a flat hull will do hitting the water.  

After that,  go jump in the water from the same height,  keep your feet flat, that's a relative force that the foil woukd have hit with.

Tell us which was more damaging. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://movingimage.nls.uk/film/8774?search_term=sceptre&search_join_type=AND&search_fuzzy=yes 

 

American Magic, watch and learn. 
How they made a Scottish America’s Cup boat, a few tips here, although not so much safety precautions. She is still sailing today, so might learn something useful. 

Edited by K4W
Comments

Share this post


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

Having been foiling on a kiteboard for 6 years, I can tell you that coming down from height onto the foil creates far less force then when the board hits.  Our foils produce far more lift and have far greater surface area relative to the amount of weight vs an AC75.  The off camber attitude that AM entered the water with would have mitigated the force even further. 

 What you are suggesting woukd have created far more damage then what is seen. I also don't think it's plausible from an experience perspective.

Borrow your daughter's opti.  Jump in it.  Have a crane lift you 2m and then drop it. Thats what a flat hull will do hitting the water.  

After that,  go jump in the water from the same height,  keep your feet flat, that's a relative force that the foil woukd have hit with.

Tell us which was more damaging. 

You are focussed on the theory that it was the hull impact with the water that caused the damage.  That's where we fundamentally disagree.  Go back and have a look again at the crash.  By the time the hull forward of the foil arm hits the water considerable energy has dissipated - it isn't as great an impact as you infer.  The large impact forces were generated when the foil arm planted and when it entered the water those forces were transferred to the hull.  That's when the damage occurred NOT when forward part of the hull hit the water!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You are focussed on the theory that it was the hull impact with the water that caused the damage.  That's where we fundamentally disagree.  Go back and have a look again at the crash.  By the time the hull forward of the foil arm hits the water considerable energy has dissipated - it isn't as great an impact as you infer.  The large impact forces were generated when the foil arm planted and when it entered the water those forces were transferred to the hull.  That's when the damage occurred NOT when forward part of the hull hit the water!

Go back and listen to the onboard audio and you can actually hear the loud bang as the hull hits the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in any case tdots explanatoon was why it would have been worse if they changed as you suggest. The foil entering would not slow the drop, so the hull would slam with even more energy

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Go back and listen to the onboard audio and you can actually hear the loud bang as the hull hits the water.

The damage to the hull had already been done in my opinion when the foil hits and flexes back.

No holes in the hull in this crash.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, enigmatically2 said:

so the hull would slam with even more energy

Again you are basing your explanation solely on the hull hitting the water.  In my opinion that isn't what weakened the hull in the first instance.  Just do some force/velocity vectors on the whole crash from the moment it reaches the apex until stop.  The final splashdown forces are nowhere near as great as the kinetic energy that was dissipated before that happened.  Not withstanding the AM hull design makes it more vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Again you are basing your explanation solely on the hull hitting the water.  In my opinion that isn't what weakened the hull in the first instance.  Just do some force/velocity vectors on the whole crash from the moment it reaches the apex until stop.  The final splashdown forces are nowhere near as great as the kinetic energy that was dissipated before that happened.  Not withstanding the AM hull design makes it more vulnerable.

You really don't read what people write do you

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The damage to the hull had already been done in my opinion when the foil hits and flexes back.

No holes in the hull in this crash.

 

Not the same crash, not the same conditions, not relevant.

Have you ever broken a honeycomb carbon panel, seen a carbon ring frame or bulkhead. The forces you're talking about would also have transferred to the starboard hull frame to skin attachment, where no work is going on.

I'd say you're dummer than a lead filled king post, but you wouldn't know what I was talking about.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, See Level said:

 

I'd say you're dummer than a lead filled king post, but you wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Funniest thing I've seen on SA in a good while. Even down to the spelling of the word "dumber" for obvious reasons. HA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You are focussed on the theory that it was the hull impact with the water that caused the damage.  That's where we fundamentally disagree.  Go back and have a look again at the crash.  By the time the hull forward of the foil arm hits the water considerable energy has dissipated - it isn't as great an impact as you infer.  The large impact forces were generated when the foil arm planted and when it entered the water those forces were transferred to the hull.  That's when the damage occurred NOT when forward part of the hull hit the water!

I'm not focused on any one theory.  I'm focusing on the reality of the situation.

A) the foil hit at an angle of incident that would not allow it to provide lift due to its foil profile

B) the only force the foil applied to the boat was due to it's surface area.  

C) the force vector applied to the foil is still applied in the same direction as the force vector from normal foiling operations.  ie essentially square to the lower surface of the foil.

D) the rotational force you are describing would come from hitting a log or something along the leading edge of the foil or the arm. Or a salmon... trust me on that one.

E) the water below the foil is easily displaced and force is mitigated.  The water can only apply so much force to the foil, based on surface area and speed.

F) the hull continues to fall after the foil is in the water. When it hits the water 100% of the remaining force is distributed through the hull. The hull impact is substantially greater then the foil impact.

Back to my earlier example,  you jumping in with feet first is comparable to the foil.  You being dropped in an Opti is comparable to the hull hitting.   Again please tell me which one causes more damage.  

I actually suspect that only a portion of the hull was fractured due to the guillotine effect, but the force of the water bent that hull skin and then tore it out of the boat.   Which is why you see the bent piece of hull skin recovered and not a perfectly incised line along the framing members. 

 

The forces you are talking about I cant see being achieved from the crash I saw. If what you suggested happened,  then I would have expected severe damage to the FCS system, oil leaking,  ring frames popped across the boat, damage behind the foil arm, etc. 

Maybe you are watching a different video then the rest of us.

Share this post


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

 

Maybe you are watching a different video then the rest of us.

Perhaps a video of a different sport?

Share this post


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

You are sick!

You are making the mistake that Trump is any more of a sociopath than the rest of the US' presidential wannabes.

It's funny how Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, et al are all suddenly worth $100 Million+ isn't it?

I think the US has the most corrupt politicians of any democracy.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

You are making the mistake that Trump is any more of a sociopath than the rest of the US' presidential wannabes.

It's funny how Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, et al are all suddenly worth $100 Million+ isn't it?

I think the US has the most corrupt politicians of any democracy.

Did you go to college Jaysper?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You are making the mistake that Trump is any more of a sociopath than the rest of the US' presidential wannabes.

It's funny how Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, et al are all suddenly worth $100 Million+ isn't it?

I think the US has the most corrupt politicians of any democracy.

Don't mention Xi Jin Biden

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Don't mention Xi Jin Biden

Let's not pick on the Dems, the Bushes and many Republicans have managed to greatly enrich themselves at the expense of the proletariat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Fuck yes! Will miss his insane rambling and the snow flakes who all lose their shit over him.

College Grad?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

You are making the mistake that Trump is any more of a sociopath than the rest of the US' presidential wannabes.

It's funny how Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, et al are all suddenly worth $100 Million+ isn't it?

I think the US has the most corrupt politicians of any democracy.

There is some degree of corruption in many politicians, but Trump was on a whole different level of incompetence and corruption.  I do not want to hijack a sailing thread to go off on politics, but your comments needed a response.  History will label him as one of the most dangerous leaders in recent history and most certainly the worst President the US has ever had, by far.  You are making the mistake of not really knowing the damage he has done to the world.

Back to sailing.

  • Like 8
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


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

 

Back to sailing.

Back to sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you clowns knock off the political bullshit.  You are wrecking an otherwise very interesting discussion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LR wins tonight against Ineos and Sunday gets blown out, maybe even Monday and Tuesday too, then are both teams disadvantaged by the Wed cert deadline for the (forecasted so far) lighter airs next weekend? It’s a smallish but still possible advantage to AM, given how they unlike the other two are not cert-frozen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't both boats in the Challenger semis have to declare their set-up again on Wednesday, not just AM?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems it would be bullshit for AM not to have to declare at the same time as LR and UK.  They shouldn't gain an advantage due to a fuck up!

Share this post


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

Don't both boats in the Challenger semis have to declare their set-up again on Wednesday, not just AM?

 

 

Yes, but reconfiguring a boat for a measurement takes time. Apparently foil changes, and whatever-all is involved with associated hydro systems, can take 2 to 3 days to sort. 
 

If conditions are higher-pressure this weekend than next weekend, and if the loser this weekend gets short on time to make a big switch, there’s a (small) chance AM could benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not on the course but there plenty of breeze at my place so wont be a driftfest  today.

Share this post


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

I'm not on the course but there plenty of breeze at my place so wont be a driftfest  today.

Yes it’s blowing 20km south of course 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The large impact forces were generated when the foil arm planted and when it entered the water those forces were transferred to the hull. 

I don't think so.

Explain how these forces blew out a rectangular shaped panel and not just fractured the panel at the edge of the ring frame where the loads would be highest with your theory? Carbon is very stiff. It does not transfer forces well to structures that are far away from the loaded structure itself.

Blue is structure (guesstimated). Red is forces and moments. Start with your foil force pushing at the pivot pin, into the boat's structure. The peak loads are where any long'l support for the pivot pin hits the ring frame (A). They are not where the panel failed. The foil support structure is very likely symmetrical.

So why didn't the panel aft of the aft ring frame at D fail? Or at C or B?

A slam is a far more likely type of failure. Slamming failure of bow sections of Open 60 is well known, at lower speeds and smaller impacts than this impact. And they used to be built the same way (carbon skins/honeycomb core). Now they don't do that anymore. They use solid monolithic carbon in the slamming regions.

image.png.37325529ae09a2b3b089319cb4b1e942.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't think so.

Explain how these forces blew out a rectangular shaped panel and not just fractured the panel at the edge of the ring frame where the loads would be highest with your theory? Carbon is very stiff. It does not transfer forces well to structures that are far away from the loaded structure itself.

Blue is structure (guesstimated). Red is forces and moments. Start with your foil force pushing at the pivot pin, into the boat's structure. The peak loads are where any long'l support for the pivot pin hits the ring frame (A). They are not where the panel failed. The foil support structure is very likely symmetrical.

So why didn't the panel aft of the aft ring frame at D fail? Or at C or B?

A slam is a far more likely type of failure. Slamming failure of bow sections of Open 60 is well known, at lower speeds and smaller impacts than this impact. And they used to be built the same way (carbon skins/honeycomb core). Now they don't do that anymore. They use solid monolithic carbon in the slamming regions.

image.png.37325529ae09a2b3b089319cb4b1e942.png

Unless you have been crawling around in the boat you don’t know the internal structure better than anyone else.

The failure wasn’t from som object punching thru from the inside. That has been made abundantly clear from the crew interviews. They have no reason to lie or say otherwise.

His explanation makes a lot of sense given what we do know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my world of Naval Architecture a "slam" is an external water pressure event, typically acting over a small area. I was not suggesting the 'battery got loose theory' was correct. 

You are right, I'm guessing about the internal structure. But it is an educated guess based on my personal design experience with IACC mono designs, Volvo RTW racing boats, etc. 

You can also see a ring frame through the hole! When Terry said an internal structure caused a gulliotine type failure in the panel I knew what he was talking about. 

It wasn't the internal structure transferring loads into a panel that caused it to fail in shear that way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Title and opening shots make that look like a rehash, but it is an update of repair progress - at least for us 'outsiders'

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How can it be that TH coming from the greatest country in the world have such bad teeth? Shit his personal wealth is in the 10's of millions and they put him on TV? Sort of sum's up the whole team really. Why in god's name would they not have got Outteridge to drive it? And's that's why they won't even get to challenge, Answer on the teeth probably the more relevant question considering they're fucked.....................

Would you mind providing a picture of your chiclets?  Teeth. For comparison reasons of course. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

^ Title and opening shots make that look like a rehash, but it is an update of repair progress - at least for us 'outsiders'

Thanks for sharing and it’s encouraging.  Long way to go. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The screen grab below makes a visual point as to the scope of assistance provided by ETNZ builders.  Look at the size of that panel.

 

ETNZ Help.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The screen grab below makes a visual point as to the scope of assistance provided by ETNZ builders.  Look at the size of that panel.

Panel appears to be somewhat smaller than the fixture.... but obviously a lot larger than the hole was.

panel.thumb.JPG.bbc921ac04be347a4b090a948bf59589.JPG

Share this post


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

The screen grab below makes a visual point as to the scope of assistance provided by ETNZ builders.  Look at the size of that panel.

 

ETNZ Help.png

Looks to be longitudinal / horizontal not a vertical patch are they going to put it on over the existing hull rather than scarf it in.

Share this post


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

The screen grab below makes a visual point as to the scope of assistance provided by ETNZ builders.  Look at the size of that panel.

 

ETNZ Help.png

There is also footage of a Team NZ member by the damaged hull inside the AM building.

Share this post


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

There is also footage of a Team NZ member by the damaged hull inside the AM building.

Ah this picture causes me massive cognitive dissonance. On the one hand I believe in good sportsmanship and when a competitor is down other teams should help. On the other hand I dislike the New York Yacht Club and their desire to go back to boring maxi yachts. 
I guess at times you have to stick to ones sense of moral behaviour even if it’s done through gritted teeth. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ah this picture causes me massive cognitive dissonance. On the one hand I believe in good sportsmanship and when a competitor is down other teams should help. On the other hand I dislike the New York Yacht Club and their desire to go back to boring maxi yachts. 
I guess at times you have to stick to ones sense of moral behaviour even if it’s done through gritted teeth. 

 

 

No dissonance for me.

The AM team itself seem full of a great bunch of people.

Also, who knows if the NYYC are anything like the bastards of old. If you assume they are you are really visiting the sins of the father on the child.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No dissonance for me.

The AM team itself seem full of a great bunch of people.

Also, who knows if the NYYC are anything like the bastards of old. If you assume they are you are really visiting the sins of the father on the child.

I’m sure the people in the AM syndicate are nice enough people. However there’s a saying

Fool me once shame on you

Fool me twice shame on me

The NYYC went a 150 years without changing is nature, I doubt it’s changed much. It’s still full of rich New York  business men who got to the top of the corporate world by not playing nice. I remember when the NYYC held the cup and they were ruthless in their conduct. I doubt very much they would of helped a challenger who needed to repair their yacht. 
 

 

Share this post


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

I’m sure the people in the AM syndicate are nice enough people. However there’s a saying

Fool me once shame on you

Fool me twice shame on me

The NYYC went a 150 years without changing is nature, I doubt it’s changed much. It’s still full of rich New York  business men who got to the top of the corporate world by not playing nice. I remember when the NYYC held the cup and they were ruthless in their conduct. I doubt very much they would of helped a challenger who needed to repair their yacht. 
 

 

Maybe, maybe not.

But remember that the NYYC aren't who ETNZ are helping. They are helping AM who seem like a good bunch of cunts.

Aside from that, I hold Etnz to a higher standard than NYYC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The screen grab below makes a visual point as to the scope of assistance provided by ETNZ builders.  Look at the size of that panel.

 

ETNZ Help.png

Hope the boys weren't using Imperial Measurements. They'd have been bound to fuck it up. ;-)

Share this post


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

Maybe, maybe not.

But remember that the NYYC aren't who ETNZ are helping. They are helping AM who seem like a good bunch of cunts.

Aside from that, I hold Etnz to a higher standard than NYYC.

Yes I agree I hold ETNZ to a higher standard than NYYC 

Share this post


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

Would you mind providing a picture of your chiclets?  Teeth. For comparison reasons of course. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

A would love a set of Waterloo gnashers. 

Share this post


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

No dissonance for me.

The AM team itself seem full of a great bunch of people.

Also, who knows if the NYYC are anything like the bastards of old. If you assume they are you are really visiting the sins of the father on the child.

I agree, I am being blamed for slavery, The British Empire, gender issues and being nasty to the environment. I have no idea where I am going to get the time to sort this out. My Great Grandfather...what a bastard!

Share this post


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

I agree, I am being blamed for slavery, The British Empire, gender issues and being nasty to the environment. I have no idea where I am going to get the time to sort this out. My Great Grandfather...what a bastard!

 I think the UK is better on gender issues than most countries (Inc the other entrants in this AC) and I'm not sure a team sponsored by an airline can lecture us on the environment (and the yanks can keep quiet too).

So I'll take responsibility for the first one:

To all Maoris and Native Americans, we are sorry for the shower of shits we dumped on you. 

That cover it?

:)

Edited by enigmatically2
Shots to shits
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

 I think the UK is better on gender issues than most countries (Inc the other entrants in this AC) and I'm not sure a team sponsored by an airline can lecture us on the environment (and the yanks can keep quiet too).

So I'll take responsibility for the first one:

To all Maoris and Native Americans, we are sorry for the shower of shots we dumped on you. 

That cover it?

:)

 

4 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

 I think the UK is better on gender issues than most countries (Inc the other entrants in this AC) and I'm not sure a team sponsored by an airline can lecture us on the environment (and the yanks can keep quiet too).

So I'll take responsibility for the first one:

To all Maoris and Native Americans, we are sorry for the shower of shots we dumped on you. 

That cover it?

:)

Its a guns and blankets thing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites