Qman

first surrogate

Recommended Posts

so, who you think will launch a first test boat.  i am picking someone will float a modified tp52 or similar as a test platform early on. 

what you think it will be 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/2 scale built from scratch.

By the time you modify a 52 for a test bed, what's left but the hull skin and a few structural components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first boat with similar foil concepts as the 75 is going to be sketchy as fuck hahaha

someone's gotto bite the bullet though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test boats have to be less than 12m LOA, otherwise they are classified as "surrogate yachts", which are banned in the protocol.

They should have built some test boats before they introduced this new "concept", but that doesn't seem to have been the case. My guess is the performance of the test boats are going to require a lot of changes in the AC75 class rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn ... Towed full-size platform, rudder on gantry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably need a thread about who’s going to be the first person to die sailing this stupid contraption.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Yawn ... Towed full-size platform, rudder on gantry

The decision about what is a "surrogate yacht" is up to the measurement committee, but the definition is very broad. It basically talks about any yacht more than 12m LOA that produces meaningful data.

I suspect that it doesnt need to have sails to qualify as a surrogate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  ^ It will be a 12 m hull with a rudder gantry duplicating the AC75 geometry. Only catch I see is LOA is not defined in the Prot: is it measured like on a Moth or is it the "marina dock occupation" dimension?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a recent article Verdier said the concept originated with an earlier design done for ‘a client in NZ.’ Turns out, that design was (surprise) for a 12m Yacht. So that’s one possibility..

In another article (video?) BAR’s Grant Simmer refers to a ‘test boat’ and so perhaps they are already working on one. And while Land Rover gave them wind-tunnel testing assistance last time around it is banned this time, which may make real-world prototyping even more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With no definition to the rule yet?

Doubtful for LARBAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a hypothetical, suppose the teams manage to build a 12m LOA test boat that sails well, which would be a major design and engineering feat.

The obvious question will then be: what is the point of making a 68 foot long version? Everything about the 68 footer is worse. The structural problems are much harder. The cost goes through the roof. Safety is worse. The top speed may be a bit faster, but that just causes more problems with cavitation. 

It will be like the AC72s and the AC50s. The AC50s were better boats in every respect. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Just as a hypothetical, suppose the teams manage to build a 12m LOA test boat that sails well, which would be a major design and engineering feat.

The obvious question will then be: what is the point of making a 68 foot long version? Everything about the 68 footer is worse. The structural problems are much harder. The cost goes through the roof. Safety is worse. The top speed may be a bit faster, but that just causes more problems with cavitation. 

It will be like the AC72s and the AC50s. The AC50s were better boats in every respect. 

Throw another $200 million or so at the 72’s and they would have been awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12m

minimum for any AC is 44' LWL but in this case must also satisfy the AC36 class rule of course

Share this post


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

12m

minimum for any AC is 44' LWL but in this case must also satisfy the AC36 class rule of course

Which has not yet been published.. and once it has been published can be changed per the current Prot by COR/D as much as they want for 3 months without any Chall input whatsoever even after that March 31 date. I suspect this will be addressed in another coming Prot change, guess we’ll see..

The move to AC50’s did make the AC45’s in their various forms a great deal more important and useful. Fireball above makes a decent enough point.

Share this post


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

It will be like the AC72s and the AC50s. The AC50s were better boats in every respect. 

Not every respect: they were shorter. There is a significant dick measuring component to these things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Which has not yet been published.. and once it has been published can be changed per the current Prot by COR/D as much as they want for 3 months without any Chall input whatsoever even after that March 31 date. I suspect this will be addressed in another coming Prot change, guess we’ll see..

The move to AC50’s did make the AC45’s in their various forms a great deal more important and useful. Fireball above makes a decent enough point.

Sorry - you've lost me in all the repetition. I know when the rule is due and what the Protocol allows.

So which decent point did Fireball make? The suggestion that they use a non-Deed-compliant boat in the AC - because it would be 'better' than a compliant one? :lol: Yeah brilliant......

Share this post


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

So which decent point did Fireball make? The suggestion that they use a non-Deed-compliant boat in the AC - because it would be 'better' than a compliant one? :lol: Yeah brilliant......

Fireball’s post that began with ‘Just as a hypothetical.’ He was not suggesting a non-Deed anything, simply asking if an AC68 would be reconsidered if a smaller scale test boat proved that less LOA would still be plenty good.

Share this post


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

 

So which decent point did Fireball make? The suggestion that they use a non-Deed-compliant boat in the AC - because it would be 'better' than a compliant one? :lol: Yeah brilliant......

Did you read the prot ? "Surrogate Yacht means any monohull yacht exceeding 12m LOA"

So, what Fireball suggestion is non compliant ? Moreover you don't even know if the team he is thinking of is competitor now. For the case you wouldn't know, only competitors are bent by the prot :)

 

 

Share this post


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

... He was not suggesting a non-Deed anything, simply asking if an AC68 would be reconsidered if a smaller scale test boat proved that less LOA would still be plenty good.

........reconsidered for something between 44 and 68 feet rather than using the 12m boat he mentions? That's what you took him to mean?

Perhaps you are right.

But it ain't gonna happen....

So back to the Non-surrogate discussion? Will anyone actually build one? Italians first to hit the water? Will it be autonomous or crewed?

But perhaps teams will only mock up systems and wing etc but never a complete, sailable, scaled version? Or will they just go virtual then direct to Boat #1

 

^ Councillor, you are not helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RG ran a two-article interview with Dan Bernasconi and in (I think it was) Part 1, DB suggested they would likely not be building a non-surrogate and gave a few reasons why; but he did allow that other teams still might do so.

I think that at even 38’ the canting systems would be tricky to do; and since they will be OD in the AC75 then you aren’t earning yourself much from that part of all that effort. The foil-arms may also end up OD.

The recent Prot change to explicitly include >12m multihulls as also being illegal surrogates was interesting and may have been in response to some team’s intentions; may even suggest that multi’s <12m still could get used as test boats in some fashion since you could achieve similar power-to-weight ratios and test tabbed foil-wing designs without also building the canting system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ from that article, found it at https://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup---Dan-Bernasconi-explains-the-foiling-AC75---Part-1/158994

America's Cup - Dan Bernasconi explains the foiling AC75 - Part 1

by Richard Gladwell on 22 Nov 2017

... 
In fact, Dan Bernasconi has such confidence in the simulation software that he doesn't think there is any point in testing in a prototype of the AC75.

'The Protocol allows test boats up to 12 metres long. So teams have the option of whether to build a test boat small scale. I think some teams will do that. But in terms of timing, it takes almost as long to design a 12-metre boat as it does to design a 75ft boat. 

“It is not something that you could go through the full cycle of designing building sailing a small boat and then start work on a bigger boat. I think that reduces the benefits you would get from a test boat. However, it may be something that we or other teams consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on the timing, Dr Dan brought up in the TE video interview how there’s only 6 months of Design time before you need to start into 6 months of build, to be able to launch on the 1 year date after the Rule gets published. Design would continue of course but you need to cram enough in to at least get the first build started. It’s one of the benefits he also gave, in addition to cost reduction and such, for mandating OD and/or single-supplier parts that will include the canting mechanism but perhaps also the foil-arms, mast and such. Good news included his intention to keep the hull pretty wide open, acknowledging also the traditional AC fan interest in boat hull differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was saying that there's no point in making foilers any bigger than necessary. The top speed may be a bit higher, but that can cause more problems with cavitation. Safety and cost are much worse.

For the America's Cup there's the 44' minimum lwl and there's the dick size factor mentioned above.

I think they got it right in AC35 with the 50 foot cats by making the boats just long enough to comply with the minimum lwl.

If they run a foiling cat circuit outside of the America's Cup they should make the boats  even smaller.

For AC36 the Kiwis seem to be making the same mistakes and 50 foot would be a better choice.

Even better would be to build a small test boat and see whether any of the new "concept" actually works in practice.

Share this post


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

For AC36 the Kiwis seem to be making the same mistakes and 50 foot would be a better choice.

My favorite all-time AC boat is for several reasons the AC72. Yes, it being a visually big beast mattered but it’s also that it was so damn powerful. That will be even more true of the beasts that will be these AC75’s.

Too over the top? Bring it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I was saying that there's no point in making foilers any bigger than necessary. The top speed may be a bit higher, but that can cause more problems with cavitation. Safety and cost are much worse.

For the America's Cup there's the 44' minimum lwl and there's the dick size factor mentioned above.

I think they got it right in AC35 with the 50 foot cats by making the boats just long enough to comply with the minimum lwl.

If they run a foiling cat circuit outside of the America's Cup they should make the boats  even smaller.

For AC36 the Kiwis seem to be making the same mistakes and 50 foot would be a better choice.

Even better would be to build a small test boat and see whether any of the new "concept" actually works in practice.

Toss enough money at this concept and someone will make it work.

the question is whether enough teams will make it work well enough to make the racing interesting.

Share this post


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

My favorite all-time AC boat is for several reasons the AC72. Yes, it being a visually big beast mattered but it’s also that it was so damn powerful. That will be even more true of the beasts that will be these AC75’s.

Too over the top? Bring it!

+1 to this

it's not our money they are spending hahaha

but it's us that are watching them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would there be any sense in making a change to the protocol to stop people just chucking a fat gantry on the back?

otherwise there's almost no point in allowing surrogates, if they will be nearly identical performance wise

on another note, how did teams go around the 1992 IACC rule for the first time around?

did they do it like the cats and go surrogates or was the rule not inhibiting lots of boats?

i had a quick look online and i couldn't find too much info on it, and i'm not grey enough to remember back that far hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan makes a good point about the need of a surrogate or not. CFD becomes better and better and they can correlate their data from last cup and it certainly provides more relevant data than a 12m hull on the water. The problem with a scale model is that compromises are needed and some parameters can't be scaled easily (like viscosity).

Iterations and optimization are also faster on CFD instead of on water tests.

 

 

Share this post


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

would there be any sense in making a change to the protocol to stop people just chucking a fat gantry on the back?

otherwise there's almost no point in allowing surrogates, if they will be nearly identical performance wise

on another note, how did teams go around the 1992 IACC rule for the first time around?

did they do it like the cats and go surrogates or was the rule not inhibiting lots of boats?

i had a quick look online and i couldn't find too much info on it, and i'm not grey enough to remember back that far hahaha

If you get a chance, look up a copy of 'To the Third Power', coffee table book detailing the 1992 campaign by Bill Koch for the Cup. The rule was discovered to have similarities to the then Maxi boat rule, so developments were done from those boats, not surrogates as such. Koch's A3 campaign built 4 hulls and Rual Gardini's Il Moro de Venezia built a total of 5 hulls.

This was before the rule included a limit on boats built for a specific cup cycle. Conner in 87 built/modified 4 12 metres for his winning Stars and Stripes campaign.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Dan makes a good point about the need of a surrogate or not. CFD becomes better and better and they can correlate their data from last cup and it certainly provides more relevant data than a 12m hull on the water. The problem with a scale model is that compromises are needed and some parameters can't be scaled easily (like viscosity).

Iterations and optimization are also faster on CFD instead of on water tests.

 

 

the only problem i see with that is for the sailors hahaha

either they're going to get contacted early and sit around doing not much

or get poached hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there will be any trimarans on foils for testing purposes, which essential what this boat is but without the armas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This sad circle again?

It's not (going to be) a tri.

It's not (gtb) a traditional monohull

First and foremost it's a foiler - which already breaks all that 'dinosaur' nomenclature  anyway, so just relax and let it happen.....:)

Share this post


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

^ This sad circle again?

It's not (going to be) a tri.

It's not (gtb) a traditional monohull

First and foremost it's a foiler - which already breaks all that 'dinosaur' nomenclature  anyway, so just relax and let it happen.....:)

Read again what rlmike said: "on training purposes" thus less than 12 .

Share this post


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

Read again what rlmike said: "on training purposes" thus less than 12 .

zzzzzzz

read what he had to say about the AC75s instead...which is what sparked my comment - he being one of a long line of "It's really a multi-hull you know" dinos.

I mean it's a binary world right, it simply must be one or the other! Duh.....

 ...trimarans .... which essential what this boat is but without the armas. (sic)

Share this post


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

I mean it's a binary world right, it simply must be one or the other! Duh.....

Agreed for that, and it will be a mono, whether surrogate and not. The modification of the protocol to include multis was just to avoid a discussion about the definition of a trimaran which could have been a loophole, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/01/2018 at 11:32 AM, Fireball said:

Just as a hypothetical, suppose the teams manage to build a 12m LOA test boat that sails well, which would be a major design and engineering feat.

The obvious question will then be: what is the point of making a 68 foot long version? Everything about the 68 footer is worse. The structural problems are much harder. The cost goes through the roof. Safety is worse. The top speed may be a bit faster, but that just causes more problems with cavitation. 

It will be like the AC72s and the AC50s. The AC50s were better boats in every respect. 

The AC50's were awesome because of the rules, the AC72's were awesome in spite of the rules!

A 72 foot class built to perform like the AC50's would be absolutely mind blowing to watch! They just looked much better fully powered up than the AC50's.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 11:06 AM, RImike said:

I wonder if there will be any trimarans on foils for testing purposes, which essential what this boat is but without the armas. 

Considering they are using a tri for the sail testing, I wonder if a foiling tri will be the next step. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ineos team uk

 

Ineos Team UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I was impressed! Looked pretty stable as well. Can't tell too much from such a short clip but nice to see something besides a simulation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those were animations you speak of, figments of someone's imagination. We haven't had a simulation released, they look way less exciting, but are computationally driven.

Share this post


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

Not slow...

Well about a week after the other 2 or 3 threads it's already on....;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now