Recommended Posts

No matter what they do, the rules are going to change the moment they put the first boat on the water, and realize the kind of shit they have done.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Will they be anything like the AC72 Class rules that are due at the same time?

Possibly more like the AC75 class rule. Length matters, apparently.

Share this post


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

No matter what they do, the rules are going to change the moment they put the first boat on the water, and realize the kind of shit they have done.

 

 Is there some kind of "naval-architect (and pundits) generational thing" going on?

Which tools do you trust more?

Modeling should be physical or virtual?

How many iterations before committing to the final build?

Which methodology will give the desired result most efficiently?

What say the builders?

The sailors?

image.thumb.png.d01c9faa6825b87cc986ae51cea2d1cc.png

Who will go for the scow bow?

Share this post


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

What say the builders?

The sailors?

 

What do you think? It's a pay-check, Jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

That is a very interesting perspective, @nav.  I am  interested on how many of the "experts, me being one" out there who would hold an opinion.

So if the simulation software is very accurate and you the materials live up to the specs.  You can do many years worth of development in a few months.  Try many left field ideas almost at the same time.  This is why design is making such big steps using this virtual method.

If you have to do water tank test and secret river, lake and scaled down boat tests (which produced the foiling 72) then the process is much longer and you are less able to play in left field.

1) will ETNZ produce a scaled down version (or have they secretly already)?

2) what ever the first AC75 trail boat is will it foil out of the box.

My guess is 1) no, 2) yes.  But what would I know? I have never played with this software or .... but watching ETNZ's first cyclor boat gives me absolute confidence.  It foiled out of the box and with some sailor experience foiled a full course very soon.

What do you guys think? Can we have an intelligent conversation/discussion, please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@nav

Can we have an intelligent conversation/discussion, please.

Hahahahaha, you do know what forum you are on don't you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Will they be anything like the AC72 Class rules that are due at the same time?

Just chopped the title from the etnz site after I noticed it was up.

I guess they know what to title their documents?

Maybe the length is still up in the air? That happened before 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

I know it is a low news time but is virtual verse physical worth discussing?

I guess not many have experienced to virtual as good as the big teams have?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

^^

That is a very interesting perspective, @nav.  I am  interested on how many of the "experts, me being one" out there who would hold an opinion.

So if the simulation software is very accurate and you the materials live up to the specs.  You can do many years worth of development in a few months.  Try many left field ideas almost at the same time.  This is why design is making such big steps using this virtual method.

If you have to do water tank test and secret river, lake and scaled down boat tests (which produced the foiling 72) then the process is much longer and you are less able to play in left field.

1) will ETNZ produce a scaled down version (or have they secretly already)?

2) what ever the first AC75 trail boat is will it foil out of the box.

My guess is 1) no, 2) yes.  But what would I know? I have never played with this software or .... but watching ETNZ's first cyclor boat gives me absolute confidence.  It foiled out of the box and with some sailor experience foiled a full course very soon.

What do you guys think? Can we have an intelligent conversation/discussion, please.

The best "expert" take on the boats for AC36 and whether the rule will work came this month in the American mag Sailing World. Editor Dave Reed interviewed Adolfo Carrau with Botin Partners who are designing for the American challengers Bella Mente Quantum Racing..  Good article.  Little doubt here that the concept will work, based on modelling.  Spotted this somewhere else on SA but here it is again.  

 https://www.sailingworld.com/americas-cup-75

And for what it's worth, I agree with your 1) no, 2) yes assessment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Possibly more like the AC75 class rule. Length matters, apparently.

Oh the irony… a poor attempt at pointing out the amateur reporting effort (no reflection on @barfy though).

8 hours ago, Kiwing said:

… but watching ETNZ's first cyclor boat gives me absolute confidence.  It foiled out of the box and with some sailor experience foiled a full course very soon.

Where "right out of the box" was after several year's development with a pretty successful AC72 first. Though I think you're right about the AC75, it will foil if built to the spec (which might be challenging).

The issue is whether it will meet the goals of lower cost and more relevance (to sailors?) compared to an AC50. Opinion seems to be "no", but I guess we'll have to wait and see, not only for the final rules, but for a couple to be built and put through their paces.

It seems a no brainer that there will be drop–in kits to fully automate everything for the purpose of testing and training, that may be the biggest takeaway from the program. Imagine two boat testing where the boats are talking directly to each other to work out optimal settings—the world of AI comes to sailing… They'll likely get more useful information from a single 5 minute reach than a month of manual testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RobG I guess you are right with "right the out of the box" statement.

Although I think it is more about being able to trust the simulation software rather than bring too much from the AC72.  And actually I was more talking about the wing control. At least 50% of the reason they were able to win IMHO.

I don't care about the "too much $", for me it is the new amazing Tech that does trickle eventually.  Trowing the ball along way ahead, is the most important for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 2:46 PM, nav said:

 

 Is there some kind of "naval-architect (and pundits) generational thing" going on?

Which tools do you trust more?

Modeling should be physical or virtual?

How many iterations before committing to the final build?

Which methodology will give the desired result most efficiently?

What say the builders?

The sailors?

image.thumb.png.d01c9faa6825b87cc986ae51cea2d1cc.png

Who will go for the scow bow?

 

OK and will the rule allow...

image.png.7590f3a1b2d6749c5f6b17ed6be972b4.png

 

image.png.c0b219d8a7c04556bac97ad65266fcbf.png

Early take off vs crash dives?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Mmmm... Does not look cool but it will be well worth some thought, every second floundering is quite a few metres lost.

Share this post


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

Oh the irony… a poor attempt at pointing out the amateur reporting effort (no reflection on @barfy though).

Where "right out of the box" was after several year's development with a pretty successful AC72 first. Though I think you're right about the AC75, it will foil if built to the spec (which might be challenging).

The issue is whether it will meet the goals of lower cost and more relevance (to sailors?) compared to an AC50. Opinion seems to be "no", but I guess we'll have to wait and see, not only for the final rules, but for a couple to be built and put through their paces.

It seems a no brainer that there will be drop–in kits to fully automate everything for the purpose of testing and training, that may be the biggest takeaway from the program. Imagine two boat testing where the boats are talking directly to each other to work out optimal settings—the world of AI comes to sailing… They'll likely get more useful information from a single 5 minute reach than a month of manual testing.

The article was perhaps taken out of context, "developing the rule for the AC36" might have been clearer.

I'm not sure lower costs was ever a consideration...I heard "limiting costs" with spec'd components and no wing sails but GD has always been keen for

spectacle spectacle.

Wow, two boat AI driven testing...mind blown at that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame two boat testing is banned* then eh...

 

*except for ETNZ during the CSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Correct, as per the protocol:

The Yacht Construction
• The requirement for a yacht to be constructed in the country of its yacht club is a
fundamental principle of the Deed of Gift and this Protocol returns to the rule in previous
America’s Cup cycles requiring the lamination of the hulls of the race boats to be
undertaken in the competitors own country

• All other components including the decks, masts, appendages, fittings are free to be
manufactured anywhere.

• Each competitor is limited to build two yachts.

Launch Dates
• The first boat is not allowed to be launched prior to the 31st March 2019

• The second boat is not allowed to be launched before 1st February 2020

Each competitor is only permitted to sail one boat at a time with the exception being the
Defender which is permitted to sail both boats simultaneously for the duration of The
Challenger Selection Series.

• The Competitors are not allowed to sail with each other except during official regattas or
official practice racing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So challengers are limited to boat–on–boat testing during official races and practices, and only against other challengers (who may not wish to cooperate), while the NZ team can sail its robot's arse off in two boat testing for the duration of the CSS?

The Shaky Isles' version of a level playing field.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you @barfly, I would love to be a fly on the wall while simulation software simulated a boat race with slightly different boats (representing different approaches to the problem) raced.  It would not be called two boat testing I don't think.  Two boat testing would have to be two physical boats.

Share this post


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

So challengers are limited to boat–on–boat testing during official races and practices, and only against other challengers (who may not wish to cooperate), while the NZ team can sail its robot's arse off in two boat testing for the duration of the CSS?

The Shaky Isles' version of a level playing field.

I wish I had the energy to find and play you the snippet of when GD addresses this... in short... who are they supposed to optimise against? The other challengers get match fit racing each other, so it's fair enough that ETNZ get a chance to optimise themselves in a two-boat configuration too...

Share this post


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

• Each competitor is limited to build two yachts.

Launch Dates
• The first boat is not allowed to be launched prior to the 31st March 2019

• The second boat is not allowed to be launched before 1st February 2020

Each competitor is only permitted to sail one boat at a time with the exception being the
Defender which is permitted to sail both boats simultaneously for the duration of The
Challenger Selection Series.

• The Competitors are not allowed to sail with each other except during official regattas or
official practice racing.

So is there anything preventing a non "competitor" building a boat or three and then  trial against a competitor and transfer their IP?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So is there anything preventing a non "competitor" building a boat or three and then  trial against a competitor and transfer their IP?

Yes. Surrogacy is not permitted..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh2600 said:

I wish I had the energy to find and play you the snippet of when GD addresses this... in short... who are they supposed to optimise against?

Cry me a river…

NZ are writing the rules, are you telling me they've deliberately dealt themselves a bad hand? They could race with the others until the actual CSS. They could allow two boat testing with the first boat, which apparently will be worth zero once the second boat hits the water—except for NZ.

Everyone will have backup crews, but only NZ can keep both sets of crew training right up to the finals. Only NZ can train against a precise datum and get data from both boats to use in optimisations, the others can never do that. Only NZ can have a robot first boat to train both crews in the second boat against, the others must divide training between crews so backup crew training takes away from main crew training. And they can never sail against each other in AC75s.

Poor bastards NZ.

Whether that's enough to tilt the balance one way or the other is yet to be seen, but it's a very different situation for challengers and defenders that leaves it wide open to criticism. No doubt fuel for the "Team NZ" thread to going for another 4 years after this cycle… ;-)

 

Share this post


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

So challengers are limited to boat–on–boat testing during official races and practices, and only against other challengers (who may not wish to cooperate), while the NZ team can sail its robot's arse off in two boat testing for the duration of the CSS?

The Shaky Isles' version of a level playing field.

time will tell if ETNZ find the resources for 2 x 72ft boats use for such a short period of time.

I would hope they don't recruit another team to train against ala team Jap/OR last cycle.

Share this post


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

Cry me a river…

NZ are writing the rules, are you telling me they've deliberately dealt themselves a bad hand? They could race with the others until the actual CSS. They could allow two boat testing with the first boat, which apparently will be worth zero once the second boat hits the water—except for NZ.

Everyone will have backup crews, but only NZ can keep both sets of crew training right up to the finals. Only NZ can train against a precise datum and get data from both boats to use in optimisations, the others can never do that. Only NZ can have a robot first boat to train both crews in the second boat against, the others must divide training between crews so backup crew training takes away from main crew training. And they can never sail against each other in AC75s.

Poor bastards NZ.

Whether that's enough to tilt the balance one way or the other is yet to be seen, but it's a very different situation for challengers and defenders that leaves it wide open to criticism. No doubt fuel for the "Team NZ" thread to going for another 4 years after this cycle… ;-)

 

Sounds like *you* need to do the crying then mate :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Draft Rule to be issued to teams (?) for comments on March 15, published by March 31

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do not see how this is any better than oracle saying that only they can build 2 cats

sure, challengers can race their boats among one another, but they will not know what equipment that the other will have, or odds are, any of their data.

same goes for the challenger selection series

this is more of an advantage than last cup's rules about this situation for sure, assuming ETNZ will actually build two boats

alternatively, they could just build one and race it against luna rossa, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oracle had a second boat, it was skippered by Dean Barker.

If you think LR are going to do ETNZ any favours then you are sorely mistaken - LR are in this to win it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um? This rule is nothing new fellas.

It was also included in the Protocol summary, on day 1.

 

and...

- NZ are writing the rules...

- Grant is Petrizio's bitch!

make up your minds :D

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

time will tell if ETNZ find the resources for 2 x 72ft boats use for such a short period of time.

I would hope they don't recruit another team to train against ala team Jap/OR last cycle.

GAshby has stated openly they're actively seeking younger talent wherever they can find them.

The there are these guys...

Youth_AC2017.JPG.cb9ee7f3a508054fc5f9684ea43d805d.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Oracle had a second boat, it was skippered by Dean Barker.

If you think LR are going to do ETNZ any favours then you are sorely mistaken - LR are in this to win it...

The rule that allows two-boat testing to only the Defender is fair enough, being as it is allowed only during the CSS.

Oracle even offered the same to the Challengers but because the benefit was so small there were no takers, and even Oracle built just one boat.

They did practice a few hours against SBTJ’s boat, a few starts, but it made zero difference.

I’ll be surprised if ETNZ ends up with two boats that are competitive enough by that late stage to meaningfully test between. One will be much faster.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The rule that allows two-boat testing to only the Defender is fair enough, being as it is allowed only during the CSS.

Oracle even offered the same to the Challengers but because the benefit was so small there were no takers, and even Oracle built just one boat.

They did practice a few hours against SBTJ’s boat, a few starts, but it made zero difference.

I’ll be surprised if ETNZ ends up with two boats that are competitive enough by that late stage to meaningfully test between. One will be much faster.

It made plenty of difference, just not enough... which might be the same thing :-)

Share this post


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

The rule that allows two-boat testing to only the Defender is fair enough, being as it is allowed only during the CSS.

Oracle even offered the same to the Challengers but because the benefit was so small there were no takers, and even Oracle built just one boat.

They did practice a few hours against SBTJ’s boat, a few starts, but it made zero difference.

I’ll be surprised if ETNZ ends up with two boats that are competitive enough by that late stage to meaningfully test between. One will be much faster.

was one of oracles ac72's much faster than the other in ac34?

i think that most of the development will be in internals, not structural components like hulls

i think that the daggerboard position was a little different between the two oracle 72's but not a whole lot in it i didn't think at the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs a second boat when the simulator is so accurate.  Practicing starts and crashes are just resets! and try again.

Get the boat out in the water and let the sailors have their input.  Redesign rudders, foils, safety harnesses refine the simulator within cms.

Better and cheaper!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humm, it's a totally new boat, not sure the simulator is so accurate, and even if so, two real boat racing will always be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I believe the simulator will be very good especially after it has been tuned from the real boat.

You can crash many times trying crazy things in the Simulator.

And the cost savings!!  Then the real boat can be given to the sailors to push to their limits and try their left field ideas.

I'll put the shirt of my back that there will be only one boat for ETNZ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to confess, this thread has opened my eyes, I was very much in the camp of "this whole concept is a disaster" shameful that I would neglect just how far computer simulations & dynamic modeling have come, hell, CRAY Research have an office right here in town, in some ways this cycle will highlight sailing skills all the more, & I find myself more stoked than ever to see the rule release, though I will be at an anime convention on that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Sounds like *you* need to do the crying then mate :-)

No tears here, as long as the challengers know the rules up front it's not for met to complain on their behalf. 

I just think the restrictions are unnecessary and may throttle innovation. If two boat testing isn't worth it, there's no need to ban it. Teams will spend whatever funds they can talk sponsors into coughing up, and presumably will spend it where they think they'll get the best return. It seems illogical for a rule to limit physical but not virtual assets, and to prescribe a key aspect of a team's development methodology.

Just because teams are doing better now with simulation and one boat than they were with legacy two boat development methodologies doesn't mean there isn't a better two boat methodology (say with simulation and real-time learning) that delivers even better results in less time and maybe lower overall cost. That option is simply ruled out. There may be all sorts of benefits as spinoffs that will never be discovered (or not) because that path wasn't allowed to be followed.

BTW, the boats don't need to be identical, there just needs to be sufficient data on each to be able to calibrate one against the other (like PHRF on steroids). ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can save heaps of money if they do the racing with the simulators, and with the quality of today's graphics we can all watch and not know that we are not watching the real thing, might even fool some NZers, if they do not look out the window. No venue issues with NZ govt either. Tough on the unemployed sailors though.

 

 

Sorry I find it hard to take all this specualtion seriously, Its like 3 years of cold war before the real event starts. Hopefully its more interesting in 3 years time.

Share this post


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

, Its like 3 years of cold war before the real event starts. Hopefully its more interesting in 3 years time.

What, you think Kim and Donald will be pressing buttons in 3 years? Not really a cheerful analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea gods! not cheerful at all! & the twit has fired everyone that might try to temper his enthusiasm for war! get this idiot impeached & far from the button!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 60s they made a movie about a nuclear war, the last place on earth with life was Melbourne, Seemed appropriate at the time. If they remake it now it would have to be somewhere even more remote, like Auckland, so analogy is not completely unreal. Sorry to upset those on edge about Mr T. We feel maybe a bit safer in the Sth Hemishere.

Share this post


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

They can save heaps of money if they do the racing with the simulators, and with the quality of today's graphics we can all watch and not know that we are not watching the real thing, might even fool some NZers, if they do not look out the window. No venue issues with NZ govt either. Tough on the unemployed sailors though.

 

You certainly don't save money on simulators, if they are any good then cheap they are not.   However, you can save time, which is the most valuable commodity in any of these sort of campaigns, F1 or AC or keeping type current in the aviation world.

As ever though, garbage in and garbage out, so simulators also need to be checked against the real world or you can end up chasing down the wrong design paths.  Red Bull had that last year with their aero correlations in F1.  Could easily happen in the AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Class Rules can be hard to decipher in detail but the limits on numbers of soft wings, rudders and foils will be interesting. Given that there are at least 4 well-funded teams and this is a new Class I hope it’s not too, too restrictive.

Share this post


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

Class Rules can be hard to decipher in detail

Not really, we have SA expert nav for that :)

Share this post


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

was one of oracles ac72's much faster than the other in ac34?

i think that most of the development will be in internals, not structural components like hulls

i think that the daggerboard position was a little different between the two oracle 72's but not a whole lot in it i didn't think at the time

Boat 1 had the daggerboard ahead of the forward beam and was a little faster upwind, but wasn't as stable, which made it harder to do the flying gybe.  Boat 2 had the beam moved forward and the daggerboard moved behind the beam - we called it the leap frog change.  This made the boat more stable in the vertical plane when flying, but created some lee helm that hurt upwind performance.  The changes to wing trim during the regatta alleviated the lee helm and improved the upwind performance.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant believe it,

Dont say it but this thread has not had a single post by he who must not be named lest we get tipped up

I am so tempted to say it

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I cant believe it,

Dont say it but this thread has not had a single post by he who must not be named lest we get tipped up

I am so tempted to say it

 

 

 

Lordy, lordy - don't tempt fate.B)

Share this post


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

Image result for sailing a pig

Updated renderings of the AC75 class...

Wrong - that's a picture from Wethog's honeymoon... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be that small Cay near Great Exuma Island in the Bahamas, have seen pigs swimming out there who look just like that - Slow :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At https://www.sail-world.com/news/203256/Americas-Cup-Hall-of-Fame-to-induct-Ken-McAlpine

America's Cup Hall of Fame to induct Ken McAlpine in 2018

Ken McAlpine has been at the heart of the competition for the America's Cup for over 30 years, witnessing the America's Cup evolve from the 12-Metre Class through the America's Cup Class to the foiling catamarans of the 35th America's Cup Match. During this period, he measured more America's Cup yachts than any other person in the history of the Cup. In this role, he demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the class rules; and, he also assisted in the development of the 12-Metre Class rule and the AC Class rule.

Share this post


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

At https://www.sail-world.com/news/203256/Americas-Cup-Hall-of-Fame-to-induct-Ken-McAlpine

America's Cup Hall of Fame to induct Ken McAlpine in 2018

Ken McAlpine has been at the heart of the competition for the America's Cup for over 30 years, witnessing the America's Cup evolve from the 12-Metre Class through the America's Cup Class to the foiling catamarans of the 35th America's Cup Match. During this period, he measured more America's Cup yachts than any other person in the history of the Cup. In this role, he demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the class rules; and, he also assisted in the development of the 12-Metre Class rule and the AC Class rule.

Long overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Boat 1 had the daggerboard ahead of the forward beam and was a little faster upwind, but wasn't as stable, which made it harder to do the flying gybe.  Boat 2 had the beam moved forward and the daggerboard moved behind the beam - we called it the leap frog change.  This made the boat more stable in the vertical plane when flying, but created some lee helm that hurt upwind performance.  The changes to wing trim during the regatta alleviated the lee helm and improved the upwind performance.  

So the balance of the boat had to be determined this way?  Really?

So much for design and simulation.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

So the balance of the boat had to be determined this way?  Really?

So much for design and simulation.

I’m guessing the daggerboard position on boat one was already a done deal when they made the call to go to 100% foiling.

I would also note that it was ORs simulation program that completely missed the lower faster upwind angles that ETNZ was already using at the beginning of the regatta  - and that this software had to be tweaked to even consider angles that low. But that was 6 plus years ago, which is a long time in IT world. The AC 50s were lightyears more advanced - seamless foiling tacks, for fucks sake! - and after that campaign, the programs will be supercharged - think of the data they have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

and after that campaign, the programs will be supercharged - think of the data they have now.

True! Given enough time and millions more dollars they might be able to match the performance of ETNZ! Over a year later and with no one watching a contest of less significance than the Plantation Island lunchtime hermit crab race ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure - if AC50s are happening -  they’ll match the performance of ETNZ right out of the box, and do it without fly-by-wire and Xbox wing control.

Although I could be wrong about the latter - as another poster noted, keeping those components and refining them would make the class more accessible. OR certainly have the data at this point to develop and implement IT fairly quickly - it would probably take them less than 6 months to get a system operational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I’m sure - if AC50s are happening -  they’ll match the performance of ETNZ right out of the box, and do it without fly-by-wire and Xbox wing control.

Although I could be wrong about the latter - as another poster noted, keeping those components and refining them would make the class more accessible. OR certainly have the data at this point to develop and implement IT fairly quickly - it would probably take them less than 6 months to get a system operational.

Oracle suck at IT innovation... seriously... I know it sounds like an oxymoron but a big shitty enterprise database company, but innovation does not live there AT ALL...

https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/12/understanding-the-innovators-dilemma/

Witness the result of being beaten in simulation tech by a bunch of whingey, whiney, sheep shagging, salty dogs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I’m sure - if AC50s are happening -  they’ll match the performance of ETNZ right out of the box, and do it without fly-by-wire and Xbox wing control.

With more flexible rules, I would bet 10% better performance than TNZ right out of the box, and more in the following months.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

We never saw ETNZ's flat out mode they still had things up their sleeve.  Artemis might have pushed them further if......

They could have wasted OR (or for that matter Artemis) by forcing them into a tacking duel.  Both would have run out of oil.  ETNZ could produce it almost as fast as they used it, they had to because they only had 1 reservoir tank.  We only saw one "no look" tack.

So an OR50 will never match ETNZ's AC50 IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Oracle suck at IT innovation... seriously... I know it sounds like an oxymoron but a big shitty enterprise database company, but innovation does not live there AT ALL...

https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/12/understanding-the-innovators-dilemma/

Witness the result of being beaten in simulation tech by a bunch of whingey, whiney, sheep shagging, salty dogs

Team ETNZ beat them, not the whingers on this forum - besides, according to the whingers, OR had this innovative data-intensive tech in 2013!

LOL

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

^

We never saw ETNZ's flat out mode they still had things up their sleeve.  Artemis might have pushed them further if......

They could have wasted OR (or for that matter Artemis) by forcing them into a tacking duel.  Both would have run out of oil.  ETNZ could produce it almost as fast as they used it, they had to because they only had 1 reservoir tank.  We only saw one "no look" tack.

So an OR50 will never match ETNZ's AC50 IMHO.

True - I doubt ANY boat will EVER beat the imaginary polars in your head. But if the AC50s come to pass, we'll be able to compare the reality-based polars. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

True - I doubt ANY boat will EVER beat the imaginary polars in your head. But if the AC50s come to pass, we'll be able to compare the reality-based polars. 
 

We’ll be able to compare them also to the JC75’s, which could be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go, dragging this thing kicking and screaming back on topic… :angry:

The target for the AC75s must be continuous foiling, anything less will be a large backward step. Deathly silence on progress though…

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

At https://www.sail-world.com/news/203256/Americas-Cup-Hall-of-Fame-to-induct-Ken-McAlpine

America's Cup Hall of Fame to induct Ken McAlpine in 2018

Ken McAlpine has been at the heart of the competition for the America's Cup for over 30 years, witnessing the America's Cup evolve from the 12-Metre Class through the America's Cup Class to the foiling catamarans of the 35th America's Cup Match. During this period, he measured more America's Cup yachts than any other person in the history of the Cup. In this role, he demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the class rules; and, he also assisted in the development of the 12-Metre Class rule and the AC Class rule.

A real gentleman.  Well deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

^

We never saw ETNZ's flat out mode they still had things up their sleeve.  Artemis might have pushed them further if......

They could have wasted OR (or for that matter Artemis) by forcing them into a tacking duel.  Both would have run out of oil.  ETNZ could produce it almost as fast as they used it, they had to because they only had 1 reservoir tank.  We only saw one "no look" tack.

So an OR50 will never match ETNZ's AC50 IMHO.

If the conversion of the AC50's means they will have electric motors driving the hydraulics there will be nothing to prevent an OR50 matching ETNZ's version of the AC50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

^

We never saw ETNZ's flat out mode they still had things up their sleeve.  Artemis might have pushed them further if......

They could have wasted OR (or for that matter Artemis) by forcing them into a tacking duel.  Both would have run out of oil.  ETNZ could produce it almost as fast as they used it, they had to because they only had 1 reservoir tank.  We only saw one "no look" tack.

So an OR50 will never match ETNZ's AC50 IMHO.

You are probably right to say that ETNZ did not show up everyting they had, but a new AC50 rule could allow flaps on the foil and rudder foil and perhaps kind of wand. So, no need of lots of hydro, no need of complicated automated control with a screen and a dot, and .... a cheaper, faster, easier to sail, more versatile boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

But what about the wing control, which was at least half of ETNZ's superiority.  They showed better VMG most of the time, and much better VMG for short bursts, but once again only enough to do what they had to.  IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

You are probably right to say that ETNZ did not show up everyting they had, but a new AC50 rule could allow flaps on the foil and rudder foil and perhaps kind of wand. So, no need of lots of hydro, no need of complicated automated control with a screen and a dot, and .... a cheaper, faster, easier to sail, more versatile boat.

Doesn't the AC75 allow all that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

^^ Did you read the rule ? :rolleyes:

No, not that anyone has, because it doesn't till next week, but Bernasconi was interviewed and said the rule will allow battery packs to control foils, as well as ailerons and flaps on the back side of the foils to control flight. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Good, alles klar, we can close the thread;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'll say it again...do not get too excited on the new boat and rule.

Because the Rule will continue to undergo changes at the will of ETNZ and LR, for 3 more months past April 1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Because the Rule will continue to undergo changes at the will of ETNZ and LR, for 3 more months past April 1?

No, that is their prerogative. It could be deeper than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

No, that is their prerogative. It could be deeper than that.

Umm, let me guess: Whenever they wipe out they will also sink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I heard rumblings that there was discussion of walking back the giant spider monkey design concept - but that was over a month ago, and I subsequently heard from the same source that he'd heard wrong and they were still all in. Maybe the release of the full rule is going to be delayed while they sort out rig options?

Either way, April fools day is coming right up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

^ I heard rumblings that there was discussion of walking back the giant spider monkey design concept - but that was over a month ago, and I subsequently heard from the same source that he'd heard wrong and they were still all in. Maybe the release of the full rule is going to be delayed while they sort out rig options?

Either way, April fools day is coming right up!

I heard similar comment last weekend from someone close to the action. More ominous than just 'walking it back',

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giant Hugo Boss style carbon monos would be pretty cool...if it came to that. I bet EV powered canting could be juiced up enough for real match racing, too.

But something like that wouldn’t be faster than an AC50. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Because the Rule will continue to undergo changes at the will of ETNZ and LR, for 3 more months past April 1?

Yep, in the most favourable interpretation of the protocol because that follows:

52.1         If this Protocol is amended pursuant to Article 52 after a challenge for AC36 has been received by RNZYS but before RNZYS has accepted or rejected such challenge, the applicant may withdraw its challenge by written notice to RNZYS within two (2) calendar days of being notified of the Protocol change, in which case all monies paid by the applicant with its challenge shall be refunded in full. If the applicant does not withdraw its challenge within the two (2) calendar days, its challenge for AC36 shall be considered to have been made under the revised Protocol.

Basically, STFU or bail out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that whenever it comes to a rule discussion - you get it wrong TC?

This thread concerns the CLASS RULE.

Yet your quote is concerned with changes to the PROTOCOL

The fact that you have misinterpreted the intent of 52.1 as well, comes as no surprise :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 28 occurrences of 'Class Rule' in the Protocol but here is the full text of 52, bold mine

52. PROTOCOL AND CLASS RULE AMENDMENTS.

52.1 This Protocol may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of RNZYS and the Challenger of Record.

52.2 Once published, the AC75 Class Rule cannot be replaced. For a period of three months after the date of publication it may be amended for any reason by COR/D but thereafter can only be amended by unanimous agreement of Competitors whose entries have been officially accepted at such time or when specifically allowed and in accordance with the provisions Contained in the AC75 Class Rule.

52.3 If this Protocol is amended pursuant to Article 52 after a challenge for AC36 has been received by RNZYS but before RNZYS has accepted or rejected such challenge, the applicant may withdraw its challenge by written notice to RNZYS within two (2) calendar days of being notified of the Protocol change, in which case all monies paid by the applicant with its challenge shall be refunded in full. If the applicant does not withdraw its challenge within the two (2) Calendar days, its challenge for AC36 shall be considered to have been made under the revised Protocol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, TCs mis-numbered misinterpreted quote has nothing to do with this Class Rule thread

^ Nothing new in there......all good and sensible, for transparency,  management of the event plus an additional clause protecting challengers from changes they may deem negative - made during their acceptance period.

No one is going to have to quit this time because of an ambush, a la OTUSA@AC35.

Share this post


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

Why is it that whenever it comes to a rule discussion - you get it wrong TC?

This thread concerns the CLASS RULE.

Yet your quote is concerned with changes to the PROTOCOL

The fact that you have misinterpreted the intent of 52.1 as well, comes as no surprise :(

^^ You should care reading before commenting,.

"52.1 This Protocol may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of RNZYS and the Challenger of Record."

Alles klar ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to read bloody care(fully) to see what was not there now wouldn't I

^ Larry's twin enablers - Groucho and Harpo.

He has retired by the way - did you not get an invite to the party?

Any boat

 

Share this post


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

I'd have to read bloody care(fully) to see what was not there now wouldn't I

 

If you read you still do not understand. You want to detach the rule, discussed in this thread, with the protocol, but the prot supercedes the rule and :

52.1 This Protocol may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of RNZYS and the Challenger of Record.

Alles klar ?  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can offer nothing new or pertinent to this particular case Councillor, I suggest you sit down.

There will be something for you and Harpo to misrepresent and whine about anew soon enough........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
</