McGyver

Foils fail.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, toad said:

Peter Montgomery is not a fan of Dalton, nor of foiling.

And RG is a huge ETNZ Fanboy so the truth is somewhere in between I guess

Share this post


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

The real question is what and from where that blow-hard PJM heard about it.

As to the weakness and ridiculousness of NZ media in general, that’ll be made even more painfully obvious in AC36 than during the past two AC’s. 

Yup, it sure will... Newsroom is probably going to be the only local journalism in regards to AC worth reading... - https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@sailing

There will likely be some small but decent coverage on Radio NZ too, but apart from that it will be pretty tiresome across the other channels... https://www.radionz.co.nz/tags/Americas Cup

Still... could be worse... could be listening to Ehman! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehman has an encyclopedia for a brain but yes, agreed with the rest of your post.

The very few surviving but still-provincial outlets down there will be all about publishing the most sensationalist bullshit they can dredge up, same as their rugby coverage and their AC coverage for 10 years or more. Hot-button clickbait, aimed directky at the Clarksey’s of that culture..

Understandable and regrettable but it will be an even bigger laugh this time!

Share this post


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

The real question is what and from where that blow-hard PJM heard about it.

As to the weakness and ridiculousness of NZ media in general, that’ll be made even more painfully obvious in AC36 than during the past two AC’s. 

"weakness and ridiculousness of NZ media in general" 

Aw! C'mon. I'm as hard as anyone in criticising NZ's popular print media and its internet clones.  However compared with Britain's counterparts they are positively pristine an and angelic!  And at least Kiwi dailies publish something for you to take pot shots at.

In your backyard the Seattle Times and the Post Intelligencer have been one and the same for the past 40 years, albeit with seperate newsrooms.  Both with sweet fuck all interest in the America's Cup. And the only Pulitzer prize  won locally was awarded to a cartoonist, ffs!

Share this post


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

Yup, it sure will... Newsroom is probably going to be the only local journalism in regards to AC worth reading... - https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@sailing

There will likely be some small but decent coverage on Radio NZ too, but apart from that it will be pretty tiresome across the other channels... https://www.radionz.co.nz/tags/Americas Cup

Still... could be worse... could be listening to Ehman! 

Agree re Newsroom and Suzanne McFadden. Radio NZ will be good for some coverage; it's part of their DNA. Don't forget though that Todd Niall has moved on and is now with stuff.co.nz. 

And still time for someone in the Herald sports department who looks beyond ball-related sports to rise to the occasion and bring us some useful news.

Share this post


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

Peter Montgomery is not a fan of Dalton, nor of foiling.

I listened to some of PJ's commentary last time (AC35), and it wasn't great. I think the boats go too fast for his old brain. Ken Read was great, and although the rugby guy did an okay job for a rugby guy, I'd wished there was another sailor for Ken to bounce comments off of, rather than having to bring Eckan along and up to speed. 

Share this post


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

Ehman has an encyclopedia for a brain but yes, agreed with the rest of your post.

The very few surviving but still-provincial outlets down there will be all about publishing the most sensationalist bullshit they can dredge up, same as their rugby coverage and their AC coverage for 10 years or more. Hot-button clickbait, aimed directky at the Clarksey’s of that culture..

Understandable and regrettable but it will be an even bigger laugh this time!

True, but that is a more a consequence of the fact that there is at least a vein of fervent nationality to tap when it comes to the AC down here... whereas up your parts its pure ambivalence by the majority of the population and as a result the press itself. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sr, your particular spin of weakness and ridiculousness  has become painfully obvious whenever I unblock one of your posts.

Wtf was that spew you just had? Pot meet kettle blow hard.

And your painful foreshadowing of the ac36 just highlights your bias.

Get a fucking life...try to engage in discussion, debate,...but just fuck right off on the heavy wine tweets

Share this post


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

"weakness and ridiculousness of NZ media in general" 

Aw! C'mon. I'm as hard as anyone in criticising NZ's popular print media and its internet clones.  However compared with Britain's counterparts they are positively pristine an and angelic!  

There are certainly some execrable British newspapers but also several good ones. At least in terms of what gets discussed here, all the general Kiwi media seems a bit shiite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US, the only newspaper stories I recall seeing in print or online about the AC in many Cup cycles were in Wall Street Journal and New York Times.  (Do not normally follow SF papers, am sure they had lots.). WSJ and NYT are thought of as elite papers. They typically have good reporters eg John Carreyrou. 

Share this post


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

In the US, the only newspaper stories I recall seeing in print or online about the AC in many Cup cycles were in Wall Street Journal and New York Times.  (Do not normally follow SF papers, am sure they had lots.). WSJ and NYT are thought of as elite papers. They typically have good reporters eg John Carreyrou. 

SF newspapers? Yes, a whole lot of nothing. 

First the American team was not winning, and who wants to cover a losing home team? Then the football season started and somehow Americans are much more interested in guys smashing into one another than into boats nearly smashing into one another and flying over the surface of the water. I think I am missing a third point ... oh yeah no one giving a shit about sailing anyway.

Share this post


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

Ehman has an encyclopedia for a brain but yes, agreed with the rest of your post.

The very few surviving but still-provincial outlets down there will be all about publishing the most sensationalist bullshit they can dredge up, same as their rugby coverage and their AC coverage for 10 years or more. Hot-button clickbait, aimed directky at the Clarksey’s of that culture..

Understandable and regrettable but it will be an even bigger laugh this time!

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 8:22 AM, toad said:

Peter Montgomery is not a fan of Dalton, nor of foiling.

Peter Montgomery wouldn't know a foiling arm from his elbow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way things won't break is if they are so over built the boats will never fly.

Models, as used in engineering, are not based on "first principles" ever. Many people think so, many people claim so, but it's just not the case at all. All models used in engineering are approximations over a limited domain. If you are in that domain, they can be pretty good. If you are out of a well known, extensively proven domain, they are simply fiction, at best misleading, at worst leading people into truly unworkable approaches.

Since there has never been vessels built like these, the useful models do not yet exist. It's not just that the models being used before construction are somewhat flawed. They are simply not correct.

Example: If all boats have L/D ratios over, say, 300, like fishing schooners or clipper ships, then the square root of waterline is a pretty darn good model of performance. We all know that there are many other factors in speed. For boats that look like IRC boats, the IRC formula that includes very many factors is a much better model for performance.

Science is required to do what has not been done before. Engineering is effective to do what has been done very many times before.

So these boats must be developed by science, not by engineering. Science requires hypothesis (which are often suggested by models), that are then demonstrated to work or not via experiments. The destructive tests are one sort of experiment, and if failures are not occurring, then the models being used are too conservative. The edges of the performance envelope must be discovered: this means they must break, or no learning is achieved.

As several people have mentioned, the dynamic loads are the interesting part of the problem domain. Static tests are quite easy to do, as done on airplane wings (expensive facilities are required, and the destruction of large highly loaded expensive structures are also required). And this is sufficient for airplane wings, because people have been building airplane wings for a long time (its engineering, the models are refined). Dynamic tests, where the loads are in any direction with dramatically varying rates of change to force magnitude and direction, is extremely hard. The useful models do not yet exist for this domain. They will come from the experiments. The experiments require failure, to determine the performance envelope, and therefore domain of applicability of the models.

So the thing I have been surprised about is that TNZ seems to think that they do have good models, and that the boats will work when splashed. I think T5 and Mule demonstrate that at small scale, small loads, the models are not too bad. The crashes T5 has done, and that I am sure Mule will experience, are part of generating useful models for control. Model development can be rapid, so I think they are going to get a handle on everything in months. However, the structural and performance models will also take awhile to converge, and plenty of breaks will occur as these models are improved.

TNZ has demonstrated their ability to truly do science, which is why they flew the AC72s first, and why they were so much faster in the AC50s. So I have high confidence in their eventual discovery of how to do this. And I am not at all surprised that failures are happening in this experimental phase.

  • Like 5

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