Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

On that subject.. ‘Unmatched Shoes’

 

He makes some very good points. They are only allowed to make 6 foils!  So that gives them the 2 they launched the boat with, 2 more variations and then the 2 final matching pair.  So no foils to trick the competition.  

Another good reason to have a test boat is to get real world results on your foil designs.  I would assume that NZ will be getting a test boat in the water ASAP.

If the AM foil design is significantly better than the NZ design, then the cup may already be heading back home to the US.  Since the NZ foils look like the GB or AM foils that they started with on their test boats, it may be safe to assume that NZ is behind on the foil development.  And since the rules only allow a couple of iterations, NZ may be in trouble!

Share this post


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

He makes some very good points. They are only allowed to make 6 foils!  So that gives them the 2 they launched the boat with, 2 more variations and then the 2 final matching pair.  So no foils to trick the competition.  

If they can race with different foils in Cagliari then they could presumably do so in the Cup too. That would allow a max of 6 different foil designs.

More likely is they’ll design, build and test 5, then eventually build a 6th to match 1 of those 5. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If they can race with different foils in Cagliari then they could presumably do so in the Cup too. That would allow a max of 6 different foil designs.

More likely is they’ll design, build and test 5, then eventually build a 6th to match 1 of those 5. 

It it at all possible that Emirates Team New Zealand  are building a test boat right now?

Share this post


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

It it at all possible that Emirates Team New Zealand  are building a test boat right now?

One Kiwi article suggested it again just recently but in the past they appear to have been mistaking ‘test boat’ for ‘Boat 1.’ Perhaps ETNZ sources sometimes referred to B1 as a test boat, and the media got confused. So... it’s still hard to tell! 

Share this post


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

IMG_3752.jpg

Looks like they've almost got a couple of keel bulbs attached to their foils. Training wheels? 

They look just like a gannet/booby  or an albatross and those fuckers can go upwind like nothing else 

 

9 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

IMG_3752.jpg

Looks like they've almost got a couple of keel bulbs attached to their foils. Training wheels? 

Those lower foils look just like a gannet/booby or an albatross and those fuckers can go upwind like nothing else 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Looks like they've almost got a couple of keel bulbs attached to their foils. Training wheels? 

That's maybe not the dumbest idea, trade off a bit of drag for more righting moment. Wasn't that the initial intention of the foil concept?

is there a max weight for the foil assembly?

Share this post


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

They look just like a gannet/booby  or an albatross and those fuckers can go upwind like nothing else 

 

Those lower foils look just like a gannet/booby or an albatross and those fuckers can go upwind like nothing else 

No wonder she flys. Strap on a couple of Canada geese and let rip.

images.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birds and fishes lives depend on high lift -low drag so makes sense to look for ideas there 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Sting. That's pretty damn impressive I must say.

The arm drop looks to be causing a lot of momentary drag as it sweeps through the arc. This is one of the potential "flaws" with this system over the vertical drop of the cats. It will be interesting to see how it affects performance and balance during racing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thanks for that Sting. That's pretty damn impressive I must say.

The arm drop looks to be causing a lot of momentary drag as it sweeps through the arc. This is one of the potential "flaws" with this system over the vertical drop of the cats. It will be interesting to see how it affects performance and balance during racing.

But they're all doing it, so it won't matter, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If AM has bulbs of that size, and they’re used to house the ballast, where does ETNZ put theirs in such skinny foils?

AM looks to have considerably more wetted surface. Is it possible that:

  • ETNZ have distributed their ballast within the wings to keep wetted surface low whilst AM have concentrated it in a bulb, perhaps making the wings easier to alter?
  • The AM design is a hydro/aerodynamic shape which accepts greater wetted surface for other benefits?

0B213B0B-8C52-4A82-BB63-3F24CD26AC9C.jpeg

4F8C8DFC-41E9-46AF-AFF6-26D4D3DDA71E.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ex-yachtie said:

If AM has bulbs of that size, and they’re used to house the ballast, where does ETNZ put theirs in such skinny foils?

AM looks to have considerably more wetted surface. Is it possible that:

  • ETNZ have distributed their ballast within the wings to keep wetted surface low whilst AM have concentrated it in a bulb, perhaps making the wings easier to alter?
  • The AM design is a hydro/aerodynamic shape which accepts greater wetted surface for other benefits?

0B213B0B-8C52-4A82-BB63-3F24CD26AC9C.jpeg

4F8C8DFC-41E9-46AF-AFF6-26D4D3DDA71E.jpeg

Chalk and cheese. 

Share this post


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

Is there a foil limit this time?

 

For your two AC75’s you can build only 6 foils, for example 3 for port, 3 for SB. 

Share this post


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

But they're all doing it, so it won't matter, right? 

That's true. But when top-tier designers are basically insisting that all the racers use a crutch - that's not all that awesome.

Again, we'll see what happens in the racing. But this reminds me a lot of the ill-fated Osprey program...promising on paper, a bit of a disaster in real life application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agh. There's not a lot of sophistication to this shape. It looks like it was finished by a teenager with an angle grinder. Sure it got it up and running but that gybe as posted above shows the drag with two down to be a game killer. 

Screenshot_20190915-080240_Chrome.jpg

Share this post


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

finished by a teenager with an angle grinder

The roughness must surely be an optical illusion due to the finish and the reflections? 

Share this post


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

If AM has bulbs of that size, and they’re used to house the ballast, where does ETNZ put theirs in such skinny foils?

All I can think, is that the extra volume those torpedoes give to AM’s foils is not necessary to house the ballast; ETNZ being able to fit the weight into their wings would suggest it. That said, they may well have put some in there, perhaps it helps for accommodating flap controls in the wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those bulbs must have a huge frontal surface area, which in turn is going to take a few extra HP to push through the water

what have the got to gain? extra volume for extra weight for righting moment, are their fold internally so complex that they cant fit in the weight inside?

instead of making the foils out of weight. are they full carbon fibre? will they start having flexible foils as the load comes on?

will the bulb cause a similar effect as to large tankers/cruise ships so the drag/wake of the arm is reduced?

 

sooooooo many questions!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I would expect the stubby low aspect foils, and the huge fuselage sticking out not providing lift will have heaps more drag than the high aspect foil of etnz. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agh. There's not a lot of sophistication to this shape. It looks like it was finished by a teenager with an angle grinder. Sure it got it up and running but that gybe as posted above shows the drag with two down to be a game killer. 

 

Dennis used this finish the beat KZ7 in Fremantle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lickindip said:

sooooooo many questions!!!!

I’m wondering if the bulb’s shape creates some lift too? The hull itself looks like a flattened torpedo, the foredeck almost looks like the top leading edge of a wing.

Share this post


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

All I can think, is that the extra volume those torpedoes give to AM’s foils is not necessary to house the ballast; ETNZ being able to fit the weight into their wings would suggest it. That said, they may well have put some in there, perhaps it helps for accommodating flap controls in the wings.

I can't take credit for that excellent question, Stinger. It was Ex-yachtie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Italian video, they liken ETNZ’s combination of leeward foil/ hull “keel” at lift-off (and landing) to a catamaran, i.e. this configuration will cause minimum disruption just like when a catamaran lifts a  (narrow) hull. So, they say this should be an advantage in marginal foiling conditions, while AM.’s hull would be better in 100% foiling races

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

About the Italian video, they liken ETNZ’s combination of leeward foil/ hull “keel” at lift-off (and landing) to a catamaran, i.e. this configuration will cause minimum disruption just like when a catamaran lifts a  (narrow) hull. So, they say this should be an advantage in marginal foiling conditions, while AM.’s hull would be better in 100% foiling races

Grazie!

Share this post


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

thats a gybe, not a tack

Correct but there’s a good chance the apparent was well forward, at that speed!

Share this post


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

All I can think, is that the extra volume those torpedoes give to AM’s foils is not necessary to house the ballast; ETNZ being able to fit the weight into their wings would suggest it. That said, they may well have put some in there, perhaps it helps for accommodating flap controls in the wings.

Why put the weight in bulbs when you can put in in the lower leg of the arm? It appears American Magic have opted for stability over speed in these first foils. Sure the psychological war sees their early forays on the water publicised nicely but I dont believe for a moment they are intimidating any team.

In seven days our outlook is going to be different. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I’m wondering if the bulb’s shape creates some lift too? The hull itself looks like a flattened torpedo, the foredeck almost looks like the top leading edge of a wing.

I'm going to guess the bulbs are there to accelerate the water and generate a low pressure region around the connection of the foils and the arm. With AM's low aspect foils, this region would likely be very draggy, and otherwise divert the flow outboard, reducing efficiency.

Right or wrong.. these may be compensation for AM's foil concept, rather than a go-fast feature on their own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why put the weight in bulbs when you can put in in the lower leg of the arm? 

Good point. A diagram from the Rule posted up-thread specifies how far from the arm’s attachment point to the FCS the whole foil’s COG must be, good chance those pretty-fine wings are light on both boats.

Share this post


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

Good point. A diagram from the Rule posted up-thread specifies how far from the arm’s attachment point to the FCS the whole folks COG must be, good chance those pretty-fine wings are light on both boats.

The cost would be righting weight, slightly. The benefit would be go with whatever foil shape you desire. Emirates Team New Zealand's foils have a lot of shape. These are not your mums ironing boards glued onto the bottom of the arm. The hydraulic pistons for the flaps will need to have perhaps 1.5" of girth? I dont recall the pressure limitation in the rule. Was it 200 Bar? These may very well be in the lower arm too. Or it could be that the shape is such that the pistons are higher up the arm and the flaps are controlled by morse cables?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that the rule controls foil wing change by mass, not area.  Assuming that the bulb is considered part of the wings (not "fairings" or "flaps"), then by concentrating mass in the bulb, you have much greater flexibility in modifying your wings (because they represent less of a percentage of the total mass).

That could be a good thing when you're sailing the first of a kind, and you want to test ideas, but it should be asked whether those tests are valid if they're done in the presence of the bulb.  Can any of those learnings be applied to later designs where the weight is more evenly distributed between bulb and wings?

Theory: They may intend to test the cavitation barrier with these foils, seeing if they can design foils that take them through the ~50knt limit before applying that to their next iteration of foils. The bulb has been designed to be as low drag as possible (to reduce any effect) and will be removed later.

Haven't we seen an AM wing that was identified as possibly being a cavitating foil?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ex-yachtie said:

I note that the rule controls foil wing change by mass, not area.  Assuming that the bulb is considered part of the wings (not "fairings" or "flaps"), then by concentrating mass in the bulb, you have much greater flexibility in modifying your wings (because they represent less of a percentage of the total mass).

That could be a good thing when you're sailing the first of a kind, and you want to test ideas, but it should be asked whether those tests are valid if they're done in the presence of the bulb.  Can any of those learnings be applied to later designs where the weight is more evenly distributed between bulb and wings?

Theory: They may intend to test the cavitation barrier with these foils, seeing if they can design foils that take them through the ~50knt limit before applying that to their next iteration of foils. The bulb has been designed to be as low drag as possible (to reduce any effect) and will be removed later.

Haven't we seen an AM wing that was identified as possibly being a cavitating foil?

This?

Didn't the OTAUS AC72 rudder have a Bieker protrusion?

 

0B213B0B-8C52-4A82-BB63-3F24CD26AC9C.jpeg.f6b4e7139daae2d9738260d829f99dd9.jpeg

Share this post


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

He makes some very good points. They are only allowed to make 6 foils!  So that gives them the 2 they launched the boat with, 2 more variations and then the 2 final matching pair.  So no foils to trick the competition.  

Another good reason to have a test boat is to get real world results on your foil designs.  I would assume that NZ will be getting a test boat in the water ASAP.

If the AM foil design is significantly better than the NZ design, then the cup may already be heading back home to the US.  Since the NZ foils look like the GB or AM foils that they started with on their test boats, it may be safe to assume that NZ is behind on the foil development.  And since the rules only allow a couple of iterations, NZ may be in trouble!

The ETNZ foils really don't look that much like the GB or AM test foils when you look closely, they are much more complex shapes in both directions and look far closer to finished products.  The ETNZ foils last time around were crazy when we got a really good look at them, especially the scalloped undersides.

Remember it was the straight out of the box first set that ETNZ used to win the cup, they know how to do this.

Credit to American Magic for going with a radical new concept for sure, but ETNZ are not sitting back where GB and AM were at test boat launch stage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

This?

Didn't the OTAUS AC72 rudder have a Bieker protrusion?

 

0B213B0B-8C52-4A82-BB63-3F24CD26AC9C.jpeg.f6b4e7139daae2d9738260d829f99dd9.jpeg

not sure about protrusion but he did add filets at the root of the foil to reduce cavitation and drag and apparently upped their speed in doing so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't help feeling the AM B1 is a very AIRBUS-driven design direction - a very aero-optimised hull shape. Going to be a very exciting 14 months...

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Can't help feeling the AM B1 is a very AIRBUS-driven design direction - a very aero-optimised hull shape. Going to be a very exciting 14 months...

Maybe we should call her, Spruce Goose II ?

Share this post


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

. Or it could be that the shape is such that the pistons are higher up the arm and the flaps are controlled by morse cables?

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely puzzled by the performance of AM. with the mule they made a perfect show but we could suspect they were selecting what to present. Here we have direct vids from locals and it's a no fault. They are more advanced than than teams for AC33 at the same time.  Even more asthonishing, they seem to have the same stability whatever foil they use, which would mean that their controls make the difference more that the foil itself.

At the same time we have not seen Ineos or LR and the defender made two tries and two fails.

Let's hope to see them sailing asap, fantastic times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe those bulbs/cones on the hydro-foils has solved the cavitation problem that vexes at high speed.

 

sorry If I missed previous reference but that seems clearest conclusion but maybe entz have it in the pipe line too..

Edited by chocoa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bulbs greatly reduce the interference drag at the junctions of the strut and the foils. Bieker led the way with this and if those bulbs are housing the ballast all the better for lowering the CG of the ballast. Is Bieker on the AM design team. He has been a part of the Eagle 53 cat team which is just down the road from the AM facility in Bristol. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

During one of many sleepless nights since the Cup started on September 7, Bieker pulled up data onto a computer showing the area of the cavitation. Without waiting for further analysis, he drew a line around this area. Then he and OTUSA boatbuilder Manu Armenazas crafted what he called the “stinger,” a spear-like structure protruding fore and aft from the area of worst cavitation. With no time to test, the concept was implemented with some designers commenting that the forward protrusion was unnecessary. Bieker, nevertheless, stuck with his design and attached the stinger. Meanwhile, the design went to a super computer in Italy for flow analysis. When it came back, the analysis yielded two stunning results: the forward protrusion was necessary, and the stinger was adding four-tenths of a knot downwind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to summarize this week, Flipper made positive tests, successfully jumped out of the water at the expected speed, towed above speed limits between 15 to 20 kts, Flipper fell as tested in the simulator, TNZ learnt a lot as says Kiwi joker, they then successfully tested the Alinghy halyard, came back with unvaluable lessons, had to keep Flipper inside to protect her from dangerous weather conditions, and now the boys have to rest the weekend. All is well.

Share this post


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

So to summarize this week, Flipper made positive tests, successfully jumped of the water as expected speed towed above speed limits between 15 to 20 kts, Flipper fell as tested in the simulator, TNZ learnt a lot of thing as says Kiwi Joker, they then successfully tested the Alinghy halyard, came back with unvaluable lessons, had to stay inside because of the dangerous gusts, and now the boys have to rest the weekend. All good.

That's all pretty exhausting stuff, TC. Work/life balance is not done yet. ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Four tenths of a knot doesn't sound like much for a foiling boat.

doing 40knots thats1% ... id like to be a meter ahead of the other guy after 100m

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

doing 40knots thats1% ... id like to be a meter ahead of the other guy after 100m

1% is worth at least a million bucks in the AC game, maybe more! :lol:

Share this post


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

That's all pretty exhausting stuff, TC. Work/life balance is not done yet. ;-)

Yep Sailbydate, lots of time on the water, wife,  kids, and for the price they are paid I can understand GD lets some slack to the boys this weekend, sounds rigth. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rasputin22 said:

Bieker led the way with this

Aircraft were doing it long before though, it goes back at least to the Gloster Meteor

Gloster_Meteor_III_ExCC.jpg

I'm quite sure they've been seen in ships around the skeg/propshaft at least as long.

And in hydrofoils at least back to the '60s

USS_Plainview_(AGEH-1)_moored_near_Seatt

HMCS_Bras_d'Or_03.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agh. There's not a lot of sophistication to this shape. It looks like it was finished by a teenager with an angle grinder. Sure it got it up and running but that gybe as posted above shows the drag with two down to be a game killer. 

Screenshot_20190915-080240_Chrome.jpg

Massive foil arms, not the same as one we saw on the water.

Can we guess that they used the fairing for the ballast as well as part of the "goose neck" ?

Share this post


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

FareVela publishes the usual pictures, PLUS a gallery of details I hadn’t seen yet - LR would be apoplectic if something similar came out on their boat. Don’t understand the spreaders, though

https://farevela.net/2019/09/14/american-magic-le-foto-dei-dettagli-dellac75-americano/

Finally, some amazing detail.  Best published of any 75 thus far.  Thanks Xlot.

That's gotta be the ugliest bow I've ever seen .... although I understand its porpoise, purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could be seeing two different design philosophies? AM designed as a pure speed machine whilst airborne. Small area, low cav, high speed foils. Flat ground assist hull. Designed to get airborne and sail away - see yah later, thanks for coming. Not designed for any down speed manoeuvering or engaging whatsoever. Te Aihe, more of an all around boat, ready to engage in tacking/gybing duels. Quicker to get airborne, but trading a bit of top end speed, for manoeuvering capability. Te Aihe having the advantage in lighter conditions where 100% foiling might not be possible. AM having the edge in a breeze when airborne throughout.

I know it's early days for such speculating, but just shooting the shit for fun as it were......

Share this post


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

So to summarize this week, Flipper made positive tests, successfully jumped out of the water at the expected speed, towed above speed limits between 15 to 20 kts, Flipper fell as tested in the simulator, TNZ learnt a lot as says Kiwi joker, they then successfully tested the Alinghy halyard, came back with unvaluable lessons, had to keep Flipper inside to protect her from dangerous weather conditions, and now the boys have to rest the weekend. All is well.

Nice analysis TC.  Just don't park your tongue too far back in your cheek. You might choke to death.

And, we'd miss you!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No images or video from AM today. 

Probably broke something in that gybe. They’ve got it back in the shed, fixing it and contemplating how they could have fucked everything up so badly.

Share this post


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

We could be seeing two different design philosophies? AM designed as a pure speed machine whilst airborne. Small area, low cav, high speed foils. Flat ground assist hull. Designed to get airborne and sail away - see yah later, thanks for coming. Not designed for any down speed manoeuvering or engaging whatsoever. Te Aihe, more of an all around boat, ready to engage in tacking/gybing duels. Quicker to get airborne, but trading a bit of top end speed, for manoeuvering capability. Te Aihe having the advantage in lighter conditions where 100% foiling might not be possible. AM having the edge in a breeze when airborne throughout.

I know it's early days for such speculating, but just shooting the shit for fun as it were......

Just so!

Many a lop twixt the lip and the Cup.  

A veritable raft of conjecture and changes ahead  before the eve of the first Cup match.

Share this post


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

Finally, some amazing detail.  Best published of any 75 thus far.  Thanks Xlot.

That's gotta be the ugliest bow I've ever seen .... although I understand its porpoise, purpose.

After the first sailing shot of NYYC's AC75, I thought the boat was beautiful, but then from every other angle it really is pretty ugly. Still, if she's fast then she's pretty I guess.  But she's still ugly, especially those foils.. 

Share this post


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

 

What's with the large amount of spray off the port side 48 seconds in? Everything seems pretty calm up to that moment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What's with the large amount of spray off the port side 48 seconds in?

Looks like spray coming off the foil arm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the video above the bulb on the foils looks quite a bit smaller than the bulb in those detail shots. They might be sailing with a different foil set, although it is hard to tell. The gybe manoeuver was more reminiscent of how a multi hull does it, rather than the snap of a traditional mono. She was very slow to get around.

Share this post


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

Correct but there’s a good chance the apparent was well forward, at that speed!

  7 hours ago,  Rskiff said: "thats a gybe, not a tack"
S'plain me please Stinger.
I never made it out of North U.
 

Share this post


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

Looks like spray coming off the foil arm?

Yes they dropped the windward foil in as they turned and finished with both foils in the water.

Share this post


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

He makes some very good points. They are only allowed to make 6 foils!  So that gives them the 2 they launched the boat with, 2 more variations and then the 2 final matching pair.  So no foils to trick the competition.  

Another good reason to have a test boat is to get real world results on your foil designs.  I would assume that NZ will be getting a test boat in the water ASAP.

If the AM foil design is significantly better than the NZ design, then the cup may already be heading back home to the US.  Since the NZ foils look like the GB or AM foils that they started with on their test boats, it may be safe to assume that NZ is behind on the foil development.  And since the rules only allow a couple of iterations, NZ may be in trouble!

...and then you woke up with a mess on your lap :lol:

Share this post


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

He makes some very good points. They are only allowed to make 6 foils!  So that gives them the 2 they launched the boat with, 2 more variations and then the 2 final matching pair.  So no foils to trick the competition.  

Another good reason to have a test boat is to get real world results on your foil designs.  I would assume that NZ will be getting a test boat in the water ASAP.

If the AM foil design is significantly better than the NZ design, then the cup may already be heading back home to the US.  Since the NZ foils look like the GB or AM foils that they started with on their test boats, it may be safe to assume that NZ is behind on the foil development.  And since the rules only allow a couple of iterations, NZ may be in trouble!

"If the AM foil design is significantly better than the NZ design" then again, if the NZ design is significantly better than the AM design, AM will not only struggle to win the Americas Cup, but they may not even make the match itself as they will have their work cut out for them just beating Stars + Stripes.

Share this post


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

"If the AM foil design is significantly better than the NZ design" then again, if the NZ design is significantly better than the AM design, AM will not only struggle to win the Americas Cup, but they may not even make the match itself as they will have their work cut out for them just beating Stars + Stripes.

Nothing to worry about until AM gets into the Match. But I like their commitment to the Challenge, and I like their aero approach. AIRBUS have clearly taken a front seat in their design philosophy, perhaps more involved than they were allowed in AC35 by OR-Xerox.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No images or video from AM today. 

Probably broke something in that gybe. They’ve got it back in the shed, fixing it and contemplating how they could have fucked everything up so badly.

REALLY windy yesterday. At least 25 where I live, several miles up the bay.

Share this post


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

We could be seeing two different design philosophies? AM designed as a pure speed machine whilst airborne. Small area, low cav, high speed foils. Flat ground assist hull. Designed to get airborne and sail away - see yah later, thanks for coming. Not designed for any down speed manoeuvering or engaging whatsoever. Te Aihe, more of an all around boat, ready to engage in tacking/gybing duels. Quicker to get airborne, but trading a bit of top end speed, for manoeuvering capability. Te Aihe having the advantage in lighter conditions where 100% foiling might not be possible. AM having the edge in a breeze when airborne throughout.

I know it's early days for such speculating, but just shooting the shit for fun as it were......

Interesting speculation. Can we compare the length of races of AC34, AC35 and AC36 ? I think it is pretty short next time, so advantage to an all around boat. But AM is in the very early stage, they soon will be foil tacking and gybing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites