Recommended Posts

When are the foil arms going to be delivered ? and are they delivering 4 sets all at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foil arms were delivered a few weeks ago. Not sure how many the teams received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I don't know why Gladwell would have waited to publish the quote, and it's not a question of days but of weeks.

"We are just waiting for the foil arm delivery. There has been a slight delay recently but nothing too major - so once they turn up it will be a couple of weeks from there", Ainslie explains.

I guess they sent it by (slow) boat. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Or maybe Ben picked it up on one of his - that would explain the delay.............and upcoming damage!?

Share this post


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

^ Or maybe Ben picked it up on one of his - that would explain the delay.............and upcoming damage!?

It probably hit the dock on the way in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 8:36 AM, Horn Rock said:

Foil arms were delivered a few weeks ago. Not sure how many the teams received.

You may want to check your facts.  Reports are that it may even be couple more weeks before they get them.   That makes it at least a 3 month delay in getting the first boats on the water from the original schedule.   This is only the beginning of the learning curve on how to sail these new creatures....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hm. Has anybody said what nondestructive testing method they are using on the arms?

Cheers,

Earl

 

Yes. Check the AC YouTube feed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These new delays are not minor as says Gladwell, they are major because teams lost most of the summer test the new boat, that means that even if they train south they will have less training days, that they will try to sail in tougher conditions, wich means more breakage, more budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

These new delays are not minor as says Gladwell, they are major because teams lost most of the summer test the new boat, that means that even if they train south they will have less training days, that they will try to sail in tougher conditions, wich means more breakage, more budget.

Yet you're the only one crying about it.

'

Share this post


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

Yet you're the only one crying about it.

'

Oh won't somebody please think of the teams! The teams!

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been very impressive to build 8 Arms since the destruction testing  assuming they could not start until after the test. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 12:28 PM, hairyharford said:

It would have been very impressive to build 8 Arms since the destruction testing  assuming they could not start until after the test. 

When was the destruction test completed?  Just wondering what rate they’re building the new ones and much labour they’re throwing at it to catch up? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First one Sept 2018 busted too soon wrt loads, second one May 2019. At least per YouTube

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Passing a static stress test is a necessary but not sufficient step in the verification of a design. There are many possible reasons for such a further delay, few of them reassuring.

Earl

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Passing a static stress test is a necessary but not sufficient step in the verification of a design. There are many possible reasons for such a further delay, few of them reassuring.

Earl

 

You mean things like fabrication?

Share this post


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

You mean things like fabrication?

Yes, among others. Also results of nondestructive testing, further analysis of behavior under torsion, lateral flex and vibration, and life cycle estimates/testing.

Cheers,

Earl

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still impressive to build a min of 8 arms in less than 4 months my guess more likely no launch before September as they must all go out at same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any arm arrived yet ? is the delay due to the arms or to the FCS ?

Interestingly the rule for the FCS is opened to lots of changes until the restrictions are (supposidly) given november 30th 2019.

Foil cant system
27.1 Details of an FCS to control the cant rotation of the foils have been provided in a document supplied by
COR/D and the specification will be further developed as described in that document. The FCS cannot be
modified except as expressly permitted in the supplied specification.
27.2 The FCSwill allowcantto be changed during manoeuvres and to make low-frequency cantsetting changes,
but the system will not be designed to provide high-frequency cant adjustment.
27.3 Subject to physical limitations, the FCS will be capable of controlling the cant of a foil to:
(a) a fully raised position, being 119° ±1°; and
(b) any angle between:
(i) the fully lowered position, being 0°, as shown in Figure 13.1; and
(ii) the highest permitted sailing position, which will be confirmed in the FCS specification, but
is likely to be between 80° and 90°.

The FCS will not permit the holding of cant angles between the highest permitted sailing position and the
fully raised position, this range only being available through transitions.
27.4 The AC75 Class Yacht is not designed to resist righting-moment created by hydrodynamic downforce on
the windward foil. Following sailing trials and experience gained by Competitors, the Rules Committee,
with the agreement of COR/D and the Regatta Director, and in consultation with Competitors, may amend
this Rule to place restrictions on the use of the FCS including, but not limited to:
(a) a restriction of:
(i) the amount of negative cant moment (moment in the sense of reducing cant angle) that may
be sustained by the FCS; and
(ii) the cant angle that may be set for the windward foil;
(b) which may be applied at all times, or only in certain conditions, such as:
(i) when in a normal sailing mode, and not through a manoeuvre;
(ii) when within certain yacht speed or wind speed ranges; and
(iii) during certain stages of a race.
Such restrictions may be developed through sailing periods, but shall be frozen according to Rule 34.
27.5 The cant rotation of a foil can only be controlled using the FCS.
27.6 The FCS will provide, using specified protocols:
(a) an input for commands to be received from an ECC;
(b) an output for system information to be sent to the ILS.
27.7 The FCS will include supplied batteries, and this battery pack may be expanded with a specified battery
model to increase overall power capacity, unless otherwise indicated in the FCS specification. The supplied
batteries are exempt from the requirements of Rule 5.13 and may be replaced as required.
27.8 Unless otherwise indicated in the FCS specification, the following may be powered by the FCS’s batteries:
(a) ECC systems, the ILS and the CIS;
(b) systems required by COR/D, the Rules Committee or the Measurement Committee, and devices
permitted to be connected to those system;

27.9 Following sailing trials, COR/D might specify updates to the system which must be installed by all Com-
petitors, these updates being frozen according

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some test are currently on going in Persico... I do not know if on first pair, or because a pre-shipment test for some team.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 4:56 PM, hairyharford said:

Still impressive to build a min of 8 arms in less than 4 months my guess more likely no launch before September as they must all go out at same time

A couple of sets of tooling at least and a load of jigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 11:44 AM, Flippin Out said:

"It would seem that the carbon foil arms could be three weeks away from delivery. The reason for the delay isn't completely clear, given that the design has passed structural destruction testing."

https://www.sail-world.com/news/220079/Americas-Cup-Schedule-changes-Superyacht-cynics

In other words, Gladwell has no idea why they are delayed. But rest assured, the vacuum left by no explanation will be filled with speculation.

On 7/24/2019 at 1:35 PM, Earl Boebert said:

Passing a static stress test is a necessary but not sufficient step in the verification of a design. There are many possible reasons for such a further delay, few of them reassuring.

I'm sure there are at least as many possible reasons as there are people who put their mind to making them up.

Share this post


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

In other words, Gladwell has no idea why they are delayed. But rest assured, the vacuum left by no explanation will be filled with speculation.

I'm sure there are at least as many possible reasons as there are people who put their mind to making them up.

I wasn't asserting that I knew the reason, I was stating an opinion that of the reasons I could think of,  benign explanations were in the minority. 

My opinion was tempered by the previous major, and IMHO inexcusable, failure of the engineering management of this component. It is possible that they have turned things around completely, but in my experience it would be somewhat unlikely. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

Cheers,

Earl

 

Share this post


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

I wasn't asserting that I knew the reason, I was stating an opinion that of the reasons I could think of,  benign explanations were in the minority. 

My opinion was tempered by the previous major, and IMHO inexcusable, failure of the engineering management of this component. It is possible that they have turned things around completely, but in my experience it would be somewhat unlikely. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

Cheers,

Earl

 

Sorry. You're just not allowed to even allude to a Kiwi mistake. 

Share this post


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

Sorry. You're just not allowed to even allude to a Kiwi mistake. 

Hmmm. I don't think it was kiwi engineering management, I was actually thinking of some good examples of Italian engineering management before I made the mistake of " not ignoring" you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, barfy said:

Hmmm. I don't think it was kiwi engineering management, I was actually thinking of some good examples of Italian engineering management before I made the mistake of " not ignoring" you.

Pretty silly to accuse the italians, the CoR/D decided to exclude the other competitors to participate until failure and then asked for help. It's a collective mistake of the CoR/D.

But first mistake was to make this key component a supplied one.

Share this post


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

I'm sure there are at least as many possible reasons as there are people who put their mind to making them up.

Well, if no explanation is given we try to guess it.

Share this post


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

I wasn't asserting that I knew the reason, I was stating an opinion that of the reasons I could think of,  benign explanations were in the minority. 

My opinion was tempered by the previous major, and IMHO inexcusable, failure of the engineering management of this component. It is possible that they have turned things around completely, but in my experience it would be somewhat unlikely. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

Cheers,

Earl

 

Um, I tend to agree with @Earl Boebert wrt a failure of engineering management. 

Given how hard it turns out for one engineering group, now with more interteam collaboration, to produce arms, imho having them as a supplied part:

1) screws up everyone's  timetable but at least nobody starts foiling their AC75 before the others have their arms (that we know of, is there a rule saying you cannot use surrogate foil and foil arm assemblies once you are allowed to splash hull 1?)

2) might be thought "safer" because think of more poorly funded challengers fabricating their own, even designing their own...

3) may result in more challengers making it to Prada Cup because they (eventually) have adequately working foil arm assemblies

They knew the foil arm assembly would be complex and difficult and I think the supplied part decision was intended as risk mitigation.

Now what I wonder is what when you put your foils on those arms and swing them around...hope the supplied foil cant system does not hold any surprises.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

A couple of sets of tooling at least and a load of jigs.

The errors were in original spec and construction the new spec is by the look of the break is old and very well proven on thin rudders/foils and looks like alotofinput from geo and Vrolijk but is very heavy in labour and materials and therefore time nobody at fault in late delivery of foils after testing completed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I recall was the were shipping them at end of March?

 

Presumably teams looked at them but without the real arms to attach to their foils can only do so much.

This old article below has 2 last paragraphs that are ripe for speculation about those "vibrations and oscillations" they want to minimize because they will be "felt throughout the boat"

https://emirates-team-new-zealand.americascup.com/en/news/349_A-look-inside-the-AC75-foil-cant-system.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So, while some want to focus on the arm and blame the Italians, what about the FCS ?

Yeah, let's find something else to throw stones at... Oh sorry... 'question'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Pretty silly to accuse the italians, the CoR/D decided to exclude the other competitors to participate until failure and then asked for help. It's a collective mistake of the CoR/D.

But first mistake was to make this key component a supplied one.

Typical negative spin from you...

LR got the job, how they went about it, collaboratively - or not, was probably up to them, it seems like they had (misplaced) confidence in their own resources ....

 

1 hour ago, NeedAClew said:

Last I recall was the were shipping them at end of March?

 

0/2

Tinfoil Cat's not pitching too well today...... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

LR got the job, how they went about it, collaboratively - or not, was probably up to them, it seems like they had (misplaced) confidence in their own resources ....

 

How silly you are spite nav, it was a mutual consent, but you are already sending stones to those you were "protecting" before.

As for the FCS, how can you say everything is fine since it has not been tested on a boat yet ?

Share this post


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

How silly you are spite nav, it was a mutual consent, but you are already sending stones to those you were "protecting" before.

As for the FCS, how can you say everything is fine since it has not been tested on a boat yet ?

You misunderstand (whether accidentally or purposely) the term "mutual consent" mutual consent  is the agreement between two parties. All it means is two parties mutually agreed to the processes they initiated.

It does not mean both teams design and build the arms, it means they mutually agreed to who would build the arms, which was LR.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

As for the FCS, how can you say everything is fine since it has not been tested on a boat yet ?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I learnt this basic logic when I was a kid... What's taking you so long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I learnt this basic logic when I was a kid... What's taking you so long?

Where did I say "evidence of absence" ? Speaking of basic reading and logic you can go back to school....

Share this post


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

You misunderstand (whether accidentally or purposely) the term "mutual consent" mutual consent  is the agreement between two parties. All it means is two parties mutually agreed to the processes they initiated.

It does not mean both teams design and build the arms, it means they mutually agreed to who would build the arms, which was LR.

Good try but another miss. It would was mutually agreed they would supply these components and that the CoR would build it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

But first mistake was to make this key component a supplied one.

You throw shit like this around, don't back it up, then feel aggrieved when taken to task for it. You're a weird fucker. 

Share this post


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

You throw shit like this around, don't back it up, then feel aggrieved when taken to task for it. You're a weird fucker. 

Do you say that of Gladwell too when he says the same thing ? idiot.

Share this post


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

Where did I say "evidence of absence" ? Speaking of basic reading and logic you can go back to school....

Gawd you are a thick fucker at times aren't you...

Share this post


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

Do you say that of Gladwell too when he says the same thing ?

I don't give a fuck what Gladwell says. The decision to make the arms supplied was sound. It took the collective wisdom of all the teams to get it right. Can you imagine the shit fight it would have been if each team had to design and engineer the arms themselves, not to mention the cost? Your arguments are spurious, and shit attempts to denigrate the rule, ETNZ and the CoRd. Now go fuck off.

Share this post


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

Good try but another miss. It would was mutually agreed they would supply these components and that the CoR would build it.

 

And thats what happened. Are you saying LR build them but ETNZ supply them? Whats the difference? Surely they have to be built before they can be supplied? You can't supply something that does not exist.

Share this post


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

I don't give a fuck what Gladwell says. The decision to make the arms supplied was sound. It took the collective wisdom of all the teams to get it right. Can you imagine the shit fight it would have been if each team had to design and engineer the arms themselves, not to mention the cost? Your arguments are spurious, and shit attempts to denigrate the rule, ETNZ and the CoRd. Now go fuck off.

Your personnal attacks show your weakness and  character.

The AC is not about one design and even less about supplied components and how can you insult teams like AM or Ineos pretending that they could not have made it ?

An AC where the defender is controlling the key components and the time the competitors will be able to splash their boats is nonsense and you know it. If you skin is too thin to accept it read another thread.

Share this post


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

And thats what happened. Are you saying LR build them but ETNZ supply them? Whats the difference? Surely they have to be built before they can be supplied?

No, I said the defender accepted by MC they would be supplied.

Share this post


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

how can you insult teams like AM or Ineos pretending that they could not have made it ?

I'm not insulting them. I bet they're happy they haven't had to spend the money and resources required to develop them. Neither have come out saying they would have rather done it themselves. And what about SS who don't have a design team? Like I said, your arguments are spurious, and just shit slinging.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No, I said the defender accepted agreed by MC they would be supplied.

There were 2 parties involved in the negotiations - ETNZ and LR. These 2 parties mutually agreed that LR would "supply" meaning build and deliver the arms. Thats what happened. LR designed and built the arms. The first arms failed the structural test. When that happened all teams collaboratively worked to rectify the issue. Thats all there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Pretty silly to accuse the italians, the CoR/D decided to exclude the other competitors to participate until failure and then asked for help. It's a collective mistake of the CoR/D.

But first mistake was to make this key component a supplied one.

Well, what a good shit fling I've been missing whilst busy today.

I meant, what I said. The Italians have made a great lil surrogate by the look of it, a nice 45 that etnz used heaps, and I'm sure that they worked diligently to fix the thorny problem of the arms that did not make 2x working load.

No problems, just solutions.

Share this post


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

There were 2 parties involved in the negotiations - ETNZ and LR. These 2 parties mutually agreed that LR would "supply" meaning build and deliver the arms. Thats what happened. LR designed and built the arms. The first arms failed the structural test. When that happened all teams collaboratively worked to rectify the issue. Thats all there is to it.

Agreed on that.

Share this post


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

I'm not insulting them. I bet they're happy they haven't had to spend the money and resources required to develop them. Neither have come out saying they would have rather done it themselves. And what about SS who don't have a design team? Like I said, your arguments are spurious, and just shit slinging.

Ah ah ah, speaking of spurious arguments.

Share this post


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

Well, what a good shit fling I've been missing whilst busy today.

I meant, what I said. The Italians have made a great lil surrogate by the look of it, a nice 45 that etnz used heaps, and I'm sure that they worked diligently to fix the thorny problem of the arms that did not make 2x working load.

No problems, just solutions.

Now, yes.

Share this post


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

Ah ah ah, speaking of spurious arguments.

Stop being a dick. We all know the situation of SS. They don't expect to win it. No one expects them to win it. They're trying to be there to gain experience and momentum for a future challenge. ETNZ has put a frame work together to allow them to do that, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Your words tell more about you.

OK, given that your retorts are now basically "I know you are but what am I" - I'll attempt to illuminate your brain in the hope it will engender more fruitful posts from you in the future...

The phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' means that just because you can't see anything, doesn't mean there's nothing there. Whilst you didn't use those exact words (obviously!) - your implication was clear for all to see. When you said...

  • "So, while some want to focus on the arm and blame the Italians, what about the FCS ?"
  • "As for the FCS, how can you say everything is fine since it has not been tested on a boat yet?"

You were implying that there is something wrong with FCS and you must be right because no-one can point to any evidence to the contrary. You see, just because there isn't any evidence that it does work on a boat, that doesn't mean that is evidence that it doesn't work. But you are asking us to prove your negative in order to defeat your argument. Which simply can't be done.

So here, my dear dimwitted fellow is where the proffered above phrase comes into place... to help you understand I'll paraphrase it to match your own burp...

Absence of a boat successfully working the FCS is not evidence that FCS does not work.

You might actually find the wikipedia article on this aphorism useful - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence - given that so much of what you post here occupies the 'proving a negative' space. It articulates what makes posts from you and A4E so confoundingly dumb, and essentially impossible to argue with, thus entirely valueless in the eyes of anyone other than the most base troll.

Do better. We all have higher expectations for this forum and you are letting us down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to compare tc and that other guy as trolls. Tc, you seem to debate with a bit of a bug in yur bonnet of late. Is it just about monos?

And, be fair:

Oh yes I like them. I mean, they think well don't they? I mean, be fair - Pascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about " it will be interesting to see what the 'supplied part' designers and the teams do to make the whole foil arm thing WORK, especially if there are discernable differences in things like vibration, cavitation...etc. etc."  SHEESH. Saying there are issues or considerations does not mean they can't be addressed successfully. Especially if the teams mention it! 

Stating an issue is not like "ill wishing the King" which got you executed for treason. But that was a few centuries ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Pretty silly to accuse the italians, the CoR/D decided to exclude the other competitors to participate until failure and then asked for help. It's a collective mistake of the CoR/D.

But first mistake was to make this key component a supplied one.

I don’t agree with that logic. 

 

Let’s assume for a moment that Lina Rossa has hired some of the best engineers available. They’re probably in the top few percent and possibly even better than some of the people who post here regularly.

 

It would seem that they had made a mistake. Given that they are quite good at what they do, other people who are similar in ability, working for other teams are similarly capable of making the same mistake.

 

If your stated goals include maximising the number of (competitive) teams by reducing barriers to entry, then supplying critical and complex parts is a good idea. Possibly not the pinnacle of sporting pursuit, but one of the compromises that you make, and others agree to, in order to make the event happen. 

 

By not supplying the arms the event ran the risk of having one (obviously) or more entrants making the same error, therefore affecting the event in a much greater way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm not insulting them. I bet they're happy they haven't had to spend the money and resources required to develop them. Neither have come out saying they would have rather done it themselves. And what about SS who don't have a design team? Like I said, your arguments are spurious, and just shit slinging.

If you were following along, AM already said they had designed their own foil arms and hydraulic mechanisms in order to get the Mule in the water.  SS does have a design team, how do you think they are going to built boat 2?

Share this post


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

AM already said they had designed their own foil arms and hydraulic mechanisms in order to get the Mule in the water.

Big difference in the foil/arms for the Mule and those of the 75. The Mule is half the size. 

27 minutes ago, Herfy said:

SS does have a design team, how do you think they are going to built boat 2?

They're not building a second boat for this campaign. They do have a designer to tinker with the package from ETNZ, but they do not have the design resources to do an AC75 from scratch.

Share this post


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

Big difference in the foil/arms for the Mule and those of the 75. The Mule is half the size. 

And not racing anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rh3000 said:

You were implying that there is something wrong

Back to school rh, absence of evidence works both ways, that it works or that it does not work, which is the case when you question. Questioning does not imply that it does not work or that it works, for exemple I don't question your understanding because we have the demo it does not work. :D

Share this post


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

Stop being a dick. We all know the situation of SS. They don't expect to win it. No one expects them to win it. They're trying to be there to gain experience and momentum for a future challenge. ETNZ has put a frame work together to allow them to do that, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

What ? What would have you said if OR had prevented ETNZ to splash their boat for up to 6 months because they were willing to supply equipment to a TJ team on paper ?

Share this post


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

Once ETNZ saw what clusterfuck the Italians created they took up the manners and consulted other Teams & Persico.

You’re right. They’re a great custodian of the cup and they’re doing a fantastic job. 

Share this post


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

What would have you said if OR had prevented ETNZ to splash their boat for up to 6 months because they were willing to supply equipment to a TJ team on paper ?

You can say with absolute certainty that Ineos and AM would have developed their arms without mishaps? You can't, so the debate is pointless, as is tossing around hypotheticals, because of fucking hindsite. The decision to supply the arms was made ages ago. No one complained then, and no one is complaining now - except you, because you're desperate to sling shit at ETNZ. Why is that? I struggle to understand your motivations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you knew something about applying and curing individual layers of carbon you'd realise the time it takes to produce 10 sets of arms. I'll give you a hint, a set of foils from the Bermuda boats took three months to build. There are probably less carbon layers in these arms, as there seems to be a fairly hefty core, but they will still take time to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hairyharford said:
20 hours ago, mad said:

A couple of sets of tooling at least and a load of jigs.

The errors were in original spec and construction the new spec is by the look of the break is old and very well proven on thin rudders/foils and looks like alotofinput from geo and Vrolijk but is very heavy in labour and materials and therefore time nobody at fault in late delivery of foils after testing completed 

Not putting anybody at fault with regards to late delivery, its a shit load of work, hence my comments about more than one set of tooling and a load of jigs to try and speed things up a little.

Share this post


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

You can say with absolute certainty that Ineos and AM would have developed their arms without mishaps? You can't, so the debate is pointless, as is tossing around hypotheticals, because of fucking hindsite. The decision to supply the arms was made ages ago. No one complained then, and no one is complaining now - except you, because you're desperate to sling shit at ETNZ. Why is that? I struggle to understand your motivations?

First, learn to read, I said "up to" why do you assume there is a chance they could not be on time when Ineos was in advance for the rest ?

They did not complain beacuse they thought the CoR/D would be on time and anyway, they have no say with the protocol.

I was the first to complain about OR one design part, supplied elements are even worse. Contrarily to some hypocrits here I say the same thing. If you think I have something about the kiwis it's you paranoïa and I can't do anyting about it.

 

Share this post


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

If you knew something about applying and curing individual layers of carbon you'd realise the time it takes to produce 10 sets of arms.

Most of us here know that but it also means they are also restricted regarding the production capacity.

But at the end of the story the defender who was probably up to 6 to 8 months late vs Ineos may splash their boat at the same time. If OR had done the samething you would be screaming.

 

Share this post


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

why do you assume there is a chance they could not be on time when Ineos was in advance for the rest ?

Did you see the test rig Persico had? You suppose Ben has one of those lying around? Probably not eh? That's not to say composite specialists don't exist in the UK. If everyone made their own arms there would be five teams all duplicating the same effort. It made sense for one team to do it and supply everyone. It's really not hard to see the logic here, but yeah, you don't seem to want to buy into this......

The mast is not supplied, yet specs are laid out. Most if not all teams have opted for Southern to do the work. 

Share this post


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

It would seem that they had made a mistake. Given that they are quite good at what they do, other people who are similar in ability, working for other teams are similarly capable of making the same mistake.

Absolutely right. Mistakes are an integral part of any human enterprise. The purpose of engineering management is to detect and correct mistakes before they turn catastrophic. That's what all the bureaucratic folderal of specs, reviews, simulations, analyses and so forth are about. And that is where the first arms development team failed, big time. In today's technological environment there are few if any excuses for taking a critical component all the way through fabrication and then, and only then, discovering it is not fit for purpose.

The consequence of the management failure is that they spent most, if not all, of their contingency schedule (slack) for nothing. Now, or soon, any schedule slip of the canting subsystem has the potential to ripple right through and push back the end point of the project. It's not a comfortable situation to be in. The worst case scenario is that somebody says "we're going to go, ready or not." If the answer is "not," things can get ugly.

Cheers,

Earl

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You’re right. They’re a great custodian of the cup and they’re doing a fantastic job. 

As always.

1504996256023.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I actually agree a lot what T-C is saying particularly what he said in an earlier Post that only when the Foil Arms started breaking apart all of the sudden the other Teams were consulted. Had they done this earlier before these breakages occured we would be sailing this year.

CoR/D wanted to go alone with the Foil Arm Design and put their trust in LR. Once ETNZ saw what clusterfuck the Italians created they took up the manners and consulted other Teams & Persico.

It's nice to Know that TC likes it when I blame the Italian prolly Clowns! It's just the Kiwi snarks we don't want dare suggesting it wasn't ETNZ's fault!

I Love us!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Did you see the test rig Persico had? You suppose Ben has one of those lying around? Probably not eh? That's not to say composite specialists don't exist in the UK. If everyone made their own arms there would be five teams all duplicating the same effort. It made sense for one team to do it and supply everyone. It's really not hard to see the logic here, but yeah, you don't seem to want to buy into this......

The mast is not supplied, yet specs are laid out. Most if not all teams have opted for Southern to do the work. 

For sure Persico is well equipped, they surely are not the only ones in the world though, Airbus & co must also be well equipped.

Anyway, the problem did not come from a production aspect but a design one, so it's not really relevant.

As far as now, if teams did not receive the arms it is logically because the defender decided to deliver all of it at the same time. There is no perfect system, deliver to the first ready or all at the same time, but for sure the last solution penalizes those who are early and helps those who are late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

There is no perfect system, deliver to the first ready or all at the same time, but for sure the last solution penalizes those who are early and helps those who are late.

I get what you're saying. For me, the biggest issue with AC36 is the tight timeline. I think they should have given themselves another year. It's easy to be an expert in hindsite, but I said at the announcement of the Prot, that it looked too tight to me.

We're now in the situation where shortly after boat one goes in the water, those building a second boat will need to start the build on it. This leaves little time to validate boat one performance data, update simulators, evaluate changes (through the simulator), and commence the build on boat two. This is not ideal.

ETNZ seems to have gone quiet on their plans for a surrogate - to use while AC75 One is being shipped for ACWS events. I wonder whether we'll see one now because of the compressed timeline? It would be still useful for testing foils, sails, and sailing technique. However, if boat one data matches simulation data, they may just stick too software and save some cash. It could leave them short in on water time though.

Share this post


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

I get what you're saying. For me, the biggest issue with AC36 is the tight timeline. I think they should have given themselves another year. It's easy to be an expert in hindsite, but I said at the announcement of the Prot, that it looked too tight to me.

We're now in the situation where shortly after boat one goes in the water, those building a second boat will need to start the build on it. This leaves little time to validate boat one performance data, update simulators, evaluate changes (through the simulator), and commence the build on boat two. This is not ideal.

ETNZ seems to have gone quiet on their plans for a surrogate - to use while AC75 One is being shipped for ACWS events. I wonder whether we'll see one now because of the compressed timeline? It would be still useful for testing foils, sails, and sailing technique. However, if boat one data matches simulation data, they may just stick too software and save some cash. It could leave them short in on water time though.

"ETNZ seems to have gone quiet on their plans for a surrogate"

Be careful when you say ETNZ have gone quiet, old dg might start thinking ETNZ won't be in the Americas Cup lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

old dg might start thinking ETNZ won't be in the Americas Cup lol

Do we care? Mr Virtual sailing idiot can go fuck himself. He has no credibility here, or anywhere else for that matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think they should have given themselves another year.

 

For the sake of the event another year would be good, for the competition keeping the agenda is better. But that is just my opinion, we know we all have opinions, we know what it's worth, nothing.

On a more pragmatic approach they probably decided to deliver all arms at the same time, specify updates to the FCS in november if they can, decide which ACWS take place, plan when they design and launch the second boat after a short experience only.

It will be tight, very tight but if they postpone the agenda another time AM and Ineos may not be amused any more. They will have to balance the advantages of delays vs the consequence of some competitors actions.

Share this post


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

if they postpone the agenda another time AM and Ineos may not be amused any more.

They can't fiddle with it any more. The Challengers would rightfully be pissed. For better or worse ETNZ is locked in. The only way it would get changed is if everybody wanted that, which seems unlikely, but you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

For sure Persico is well equipped, they surely are not the only ones in the world though, Airbus & co must also be well equipped.

Anyway, the problem did not come from a production aspect but a design one, so it's not really relevant.

As far as now, if teams did not receive the arms it is logically because the defender decided to deliver all of it at the same time. There is no perfect system, deliver to the first ready or all at the same time, but for sure the last solution penalizes those who are early and helps those who are late.

:lol:

And how did they discover the 'problem' again, I forgot?

 

If they 'thought' like you, there would be no hassle at all. Never tested, so no design/construction problem!

Chances are that the original breaking point which was way above the then design load was sufficient anyway - all good really, send 'em out!

And because you can think of a company in an unrelated industry who might have some test apparatus ...... omg, too much nonsense - just admit you haven't got a clue and are simply trolling everything ETNZ as usual, easy.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

:lol:

And how did they discover the 'problem' again, I forgot?

 

If they 'thought' like you, there would be no hassle at all. Never tested, so no design/construction problem!

Chances are that the original breaking point which was way above the then design load was sufficient anyway - all good really, send 'em out!

And because you can think of a company in an unrelated industry who might have some test apparatus ...... omg, too much nonsense - just admit you haven't got a clue and are simply trolling everything ETNZ as usual, easy.

So you assert that only one place in the world can test, that all competitors would test at the same time and that without testing they couldn't try it. Before calling someone a troll you should not make a clown of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dg_sailingfan said:

Yes, the Timelines put in the Protocol were too tight. That being said ETNZ probably couldn't afford to postpone the AC until March 2022 because Auckland will likely host another Stopover for "TOR" in March that year. And next year there are the Tokyo Olympics.

Auck hosted AC 30th in February/March 2000 which was very ill-advised cuz in that same time the Sydney Olympics were hosted. Since then the AC has been hosted in Off Olympic Years.

So those base sites...looks like they're finished just like they said they would be.

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

So those base sites...looks like they're finished just like they said they would be.

You don't really need the bases until the boats are done? Where the fuck are the arms?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non ti preoccupare!

Arriveranno ogni volta.

(thanks to Google translate: don't worry! they will arrive sometime.)

Share this post


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

You don't really need the bases until the boats are done? Where the fuck are the arms?

People kept on complaining how dangerous these foiling beasts are - turns out they are actually quite 'armless...

giphy.gif

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites