Tornado-Cat

Boats and foils comparison

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, WetHog said:

Whats the word on boat selection come time for racing?  Is it the same as previous cycles where you must declare which boat you plan to race, it gets measured and thats the boat you have to use throughout.  Or is it something different?  Hoping for something different, like having both boats measured and being able to alternate depending on conditions, but thats probably not the case.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

I understand that they select their configuration some time beforehand (2 weeks/10 days?). That includes foils but not sails.  The likely result is designing and selecting an all-rounder.

Share this post


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

Wonder what it would cost to buy and operate..

At 9.4m it’s 2.5 times smaller that the AC75  so if your AC campaign costs moonbeams of which 60% is shore based costs it will set you back shitloads.

PB must be on the electric puha or a least pitching to the next generation Macgregor 26 market.

When the boat is above the air/water interface it is above the causes of discomfort at sea; the movement from the waves, the rolling and pitching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-yachtie said:

I understand that they select their configuration some time beforehand (2 weeks/10 days?). That includes foils but not sails.  The likely result is designing and selecting an all-rounder.

I figured as much.  To bad they won't let the teams switch between boats race to race.  It would make things very interesting.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

I figured as much.  To bad they won't let the teams switch between boats race to race.  It would make things very interesting.

WetHog  :ph34r:

that's pretty much what happened in the last 2 cups (well not the boats physically but everything else on them)

boats oracle and ETNZ had to get new measuring certs before each race

I believe this is to reduce the money factor in the last few stages of the cup. everyone has run out of time so the only way to improve the boats is unloading dump trucks of cash onto it.

also will reduce the ability for someone to sneak on something that's not allowed and reduce costs of the measuring committee as they won't be running around like blue ass flys

probably why LR want a smaller wind band so they can focus design to a smaller specific range then have an 'all-round range boat' which etnz seem to do well with

will be interesting if they are allowed 2 sets of foils to choose from. this cup dould be decided on aa weather prediction 10days out :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillipe Briand naval architects presented a similar to AC75 design for 2 men racing:  

 

 

no bulb

how much testing did he do

 

Share this post


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

Nice design.. Wonder what it would cost to buy and operate..

Wonder if it will actually sail?  That is an obvious Photoshop creation from the drawings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice visual summary. 
 

What’s the round thing on the bottom of INEOS’s bulb?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Nice visual summary. 
 

What’s the round thing on the bottom of INEOS’s bulb?

 

That is an interesting comparison, still big differences. It will be interesting to see how they change within the next months and what they chose in april in Cagliari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways these foil designs are converging... ETNZ still appears to be the most different...

Share this post


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

In many ways these foil designs are converging... ETNZ still appears to be the most different...

In saying that are you seeing changes in any foils compared to at launch?

Share this post


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

In saying that are you seeing changes in any foils compared to at launch?

You would be squandering a massive opportunity by prematurely showcasing any performance enhancing gains made by improvements at such a early part of the game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see that all teams except ETNZ have significant dihedral in their foil design, giving a bit more span and better aspect ratio but less favorable force vectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, neuronz said:

Interesting to see that all teams except ETNZ have significant dihedral in their foil design, giving a bit more span and better aspect ratio but less favorable force vectors.

It's all about angles.

Share this post


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

Interesting to see that all teams except ETNZ have significant dihedral in their foil design, giving a bit more span and better aspect ratio but less favorable force vectors.

I think you mean anhedral bro...The ETNZ splash downs that I have seen have all been on their flat foil. So i am expecting two anhedral foils for Sardinia. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think you mean anhedral bro...The ETNZ splash downs that I have seen have all been on their flat foil. So i am expecting two anhedral foils for Sardinia. 

Don't hold your breath. There must be clear reasons why etnz have gone such a different design corner. More likely expect the other teams to lose the bulb when burling shows off their stuff on the unstable flat foils in Italy. Even tho they will be sandbagging the fuck out of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Don't hold your breath. There must be clear reasons why etnz have gone such a different design corner. More likely expect the other teams to lose the bulb when burling shows off their stuff on the unstable flat foils in Italy. Even tho they will be sandbagging the fuck out of it.

Yes but I think it is safe to assume that at least they will have a matching pair of foil designs for the regatta?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With only 6 foils total across 2 boats for the whole campaign I'm not expecting to see a 2nd pair from teams at least until the 2nd boats & maybe not even then unless they fucked up in a big way with 1st set.

 

Thoughts on the legality of changing anhedral angle?

Quote

JC75 v1.7

5.10 For components listed in Rule 5.1 that have a “Change allowance” mass percentage:

(c) The portion of mass of a component that matches another version of that component is determined by aligning the unmodified portion of the original and modified components and determining the mass of all regions where the material substance remains unmodified and in the same place in both versions of the component.

Doesn't seem to require the unmodified material to remain in the same 3D location, allows for alignment of unmodified area for comparison.

I think that would allow angle changes with minimal mass change via a little bit of filler around the joint if its been designed with that intent.

Share this post


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

With only 6 foils total across 2 boats for the whole campaign I'm not expecting to see a 2nd pair from teams at least until the 2nd boats & maybe not even then unless they fucked up in a big way with 1st set.

 

Thoughts on the legality of changing anhedral angle?

Doesn't seem to require the unmodified material to remain in the same 3D location, allows for alignment of unmodified area for comparison.

I think that would allow angle changes with minimal mass change via a little bit of filler around the joint if its been designed with that intent.

But would the same foil work with and without an angle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost a race that's all about foils. Certainly interesting on Dihedral with the foils. Interesting video on Dihedral here

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

With only 6 foils total across 2 boats for the whole campaign I'm not expecting to see a 2nd pair from teams at least until the 2nd boats & maybe not even then unless they fucked up in a big way with 1st set.

 

Thoughts on the legality of changing anhedral angle?

Doesn't seem to require the unmodified material to remain in the same 3D location, allows for alignment of unmodified area for comparison.

I think that would allow angle changes with minimal mass change via a little bit of filler around the joint if its been designed with that intent.

Are you thinking something like below?

i.e. depending on whether you are allowed to make the comparison on any arbitrarily small volume (A to A, and B to B), or whether you have to make the comparison on a global volume (C to C), you can either have the change being the purple/blue, or the orange/green volumes and associate masses.

Do they define 'component'? 

I suspect the C to C comparison is the intent, but maybe there's a loophole you have identified.

image.thumb.png.15b7fdad1acf43e68d3ce65e33256643.png

edit: duplicate image deleted

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not exactly on the point - but It is strange to see no one team use foiling chase boat - any thoughts ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... so 3 have built bulbs and one has incorporated the weight into the full foil (probably making it a bigger area and a larger foil)

Wouldn't you want all of the foil in the water to be lifting in the boat?

Yes there is a drag cost to this, but isn't it better than a bulb that will have drag but provide no lift?

Any thoughts?

 

Share this post


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

not exactly on the point - but It is strange to see no one team use foiling chase boat - any thoughts ?

Why would you want to?

Share this post


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

Are you thinking something like below?

i.e. depending on whether you are allowed to make the comparison on any arbitrarily small volume (A to A, and B to B), or whether you have to make the comparison on a global volume (C to C), you can either have the change being the purple/blue, or the orange/green volumes and associate masses.

Do they define 'component'? 

I suspect the C to C comparison is the intent, but maybe there's a loophole you have identified.

image.thumb.png.15b7fdad1acf43e68d3ce65e33256643.png

edit: duplicate image deleted

 

Exactly that yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Why would you want to?

If a sailor on the boat fell overboard and was lucky enough to miss getting quartered by the foils

Image result for razor pendulum

then you might still come to grief when the foiling chase boat hit you with its hydrofoils.

If those missed you still have to hope the 4 x 400 HP 4 bladed cleaver propellers don't turn what is left into chum.

Oh sorry, I'm behind the times, 4 x 450HP 5 bladed SS cleaver props at 8,500 RPMs are what the cool kids are running these days...

Image result for 4 x 400 HP 4 blade cleaver propellers

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why would you want to?

Much more faster and smooth ride, than conventional chase boat.
Same time will need 50% less fuel, which is not small number, counting there are more than one chase boat follwoing 110 % each AC75 + one spy boat.

Share this post


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

Are you thinking something like below?

i.e. depending on whether you are allowed to make the comparison on any arbitrarily small volume (A to A, and B to B), or whether you have to make the comparison on a global volume (C to C), you can either have the change being the purple/blue, or the orange/green volumes and associate masses.

Do they define 'component'? 

I suspect the C to C comparison is the intent, but maybe there's a loophole you have identified.

 

edit: duplicate image deleted

 

image.png.05a353922ab15113b10ccae278eca0b4.png

Interestingly hoom's idea looks viable. Now interesting to think about whether it is worth taking advantage of..  In the example of playing with anhedral, the small purple/blue area of modification is the region of highest stress, and so any modification to this angle would either be engineered in with an adjustable junction (I think none are evident in pictures so far), or a modification would have to be done to scarf reinforcements from farther out toward the tip and in the bulb to properly re-build the corner area, at a cost to the benefit this method accrues. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, zlobko said:

Much more faster and smooth ride, than conventional chase boat.
Same time will need 50% less fuel, which is not small number, counting there are more than one chase boat follwoing 110 % each AC75 + one spy boat.

Then why aren’t ALL boats foiling?

Share this post


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

Are you thinking something like below?

i.e. depending on whether you are allowed to make the comparison on any arbitrarily small volume (A to A, and B to B), or whether you have to make the comparison on a global volume (C to C), you can either have the change being the purple/blue, or the orange/green volumes and associate masses.

Do they define 'component'? 

I suspect the C to C comparison is the intent, but maybe there's a loophole you have identified.

image.thumb.png.15b7fdad1acf43e68d3ce65e33256643.png

I think the foils are connected with a lot more than a butt join + fillet. A foil wing is the entire wing, tip to tip, including the bulb but excluding the arm, flaps and foil systems. Changing from flat to anhedral is going to change a lot more mass than just the fillet.

Until the methodology for measuring the 20% of mass is known, and some realistic estimates for foil changes are available, it's fairly pointless to speculate.

Share this post


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

Then why aren’t ALL boats foiling?

Weight and cost mostly I imagine, not many people can afford carbon fibre honeycomb just to go fishing.

Freight is simply too heavy and for passengers it only makes sense if the distance and conditions are such that it results in more money.

 

Share this post


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

not exactly on the point - but It is strange to see no one team use foiling chase boat - any thoughts ?

If the chase boats had foils it would be to reduce the power required to keep up with the foiling monos but then they they would not have enough power to perform their tugboat duties.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Until the methodology for measuring the 20% of mass is known, and some realistic estimates for foil changes are available, it's fairly pointless to speculate.

5.10 For components listed in Rule 5.1 that have a “Change allowance” mass percentage:
(a) When such a component is first declared according to Rule 5.5, the Competitor must declare to the
Measurement Committee:
(i) a component mass;
(ii) an IGES file of an exterior component shape; and
(iii) construction drawings showing the internal structure of the component.
(b) At all times when that component is installed on an AC75 Class Yacht with that yacht afloat:
(i) at least 80% of the mass of the component must match the original component; and

(ii) a common portion of at least 80% of the mass of the original component must remain un-
modified and must match all declared versions of the component.

(c) The portion of mass of a component that matches another version of that component is determined
by aligning the unmodified portion of the original and modified components and determining the
mass of all regions where the material substance remains unmodified and in the same place in both
versions of the component.
(d) Material that has been replaced with identical or equivalent material only classifies as an unmodified
region where replacement was carried out as a repair permitted by Rule 5.12.

(e) When checking the shape of such a component against a declared IGES file, the Measurement Com-
mittee may make an allowance for unintended distortion of a component during manufacture.

(f) Competitors may declare a hypothetical “original component” which must comply with the relevant
rules for that component type, but is not required to be identical to the component when it is first
installed and afloat. In this case, the “original component” comprises those regions of the actual
component as-launched that match the hypothetical component, combined with the regions in the
hypothetical component that do not match the as-launched component and are presumed to have
been removed/modified to achieve the as-launched component. The component as first launched
must have corresponding declarations which must satisfy the permitted changes with respect to the
hypothetical “original component”.
(g) If the component when it is first installed and afloat does not comply with the relevant rules for that
component type, the Competitor must declare a hypothetical component that does comply with
those rules, in accordance with Rule 5.10 (f).

 

Clause c is the kicker

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Weight and cost mostly I imagine, not many people can afford carbon fibre honeycomb just to go fishing.

Freight is simply too heavy and for passengers it only makes sense if the distance and conditions are such that it results in more money.

 

Attn: @zlobko

Share this post


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

If the chase boats had foils it would be to reduce the power required to keep up with the foiling monos but then they they would not have enough power to perform their tugboat duties.

A Mercury 400R running at 3,000 RPM uses 29.9 l/hr and at 5,000 RPM uses 69.8 l/hr. A full–foiling chase boat might theoretically keep the same engines and just throttle back to reduce fuel consumption (or shut down one engine and raise the leg) in the order of 120 l/hr.

I'm not going to guess how to get a standard outboard to operate on a full foiling boat. I expect they'd need an inboard with a drive that can be raised and lowered, or a jet.

Foiling might make it easier to operate a computer at speed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the foils are connected with a lot more than a butt join + fillet. A foil wing is the entire wing, tip to tip, including the bulb but excluding the arm, flaps and foil systems. Changing from flat to anhedral is going to change a lot more mass than just the fillet.

Certainly not a butt-join but at least some of the IACCs were setup with a joint socket setup designed to allow easy wing/angle changes & I'm thinking of something like that.

It'd have to be designed-in certainly & maybe those setups did involve significant mass-change (as measured by the rule) making it not as small a change as I was thinking it could be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

5.10 For components listed in Rule 5.1 that have a “Change allowance” mass percentage:
(a) When such a component is first declared according to Rule 5.5, the Competitor must declare to the
Measurement Committee:
(i) a component mass;
(ii) an IGES file of an exterior component shape; and
(iii) construction drawings showing the internal structure of the component.
(b) At all times when that component is installed on an AC75 Class Yacht with that yacht afloat:
(i) at least 80% of the mass of the component must match the original component; and

(ii) a common portion of at least 80% of the mass of the original component must remain un-
modified and must match all declared versions of the component.

(c) The portion of mass of a component that matches another version of that component is determined
by aligning the unmodified portion of the original and modified components and determining the
mass of all regions where the material substance remains unmodified and in the same place in both
versions of the component.
(d) Material that has been replaced with identical or equivalent material only classifies as an unmodified
region where replacement was carried out as a repair permitted by Rule 5.12.

(e) When checking the shape of such a component against a declared IGES file, the Measurement Com-
mittee may make an allowance for unintended distortion of a component during manufacture.

(f) Competitors may declare a hypothetical “original component” which must comply with the relevant
rules for that component type, but is not required to be identical to the component when it is first
installed and afloat. In this case, the “original component” comprises those regions of the actual
component as-launched that match the hypothetical component, combined with the regions in the
hypothetical component that do not match the as-launched component and are presumed to have
been removed/modified to achieve the as-launched component. The component as first launched
must have corresponding declarations which must satisfy the permitted changes with respect to the
hypothetical “original component”.
(g) If the component when it is first installed and afloat does not comply with the relevant rules for that
component type, the Competitor must declare a hypothetical component that does comply with
those rules, in accordance with Rule 5.10 (f).

 

Clause c is the kicker

Nice. Iges don't lie. So changes in space count.

But it still doesn't discredit the big bulb theory. Except for pushing a big bulb around.

Share this post


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

A Mercury 400R running at 3,000 RPM uses 29.9 l/hr and at 5,000 RPM uses 69.8 l/hr. A full–foiling chase boat might theoretically keep the same engines and just throttle back to reduce fuel consumption (or shut down one engine and raise the leg) in the order of 120 l/hr.

I'm not going to guess how to get a standard outboard to operate on a full foiling boat. I expect they'd need an inboard with a drive that can be raised and lowered, or a jet.

Foiling might make it easier to operate a computer at speed.

The Auckland Waiheke ferry "Manu Wai" was a hydro foil and it ran from 1964 to 1973. It was retired because of operational problems.

1350 hp, inboard, and carried 75 passengers at a speed of 30 to 35 knots.

https://discover.stqry.com/v/4-ferries-of-waiheke/s/6724de97-285c-446c-87cc-a76480be9b53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quite noisy esp in the engine room

bitch to handle at low speeds

a real thrill at speed esp if you were on the bridge (  access to the upper deck )

( one of my relos drove it )

 

 

Share this post


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

So changes in space count.

Dammit yes I failed to read to the end *le fail*

Quote

and in the same place in both versions of the component.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sydney" hydrofoil? Another great Aussie icon, right up there with the pav!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

"Sydney" hydrofoil? Another great Aussie icon, right up there with the pav!

Thieving bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I saw this thing ^^^ come into Waiwera one day. We were doing the hot pools thing.

Share this post


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

Pretty sure I saw this thing ^^^ come into Waiwera one day. We were doing the hot pools thing.

With a draft like that it must of been a whopper spring tide or a tsunami.

Waiwera hot pools has been abandoned for some time now.

BC2CA170-E13F-4038-A8B0-ED4DBC7DD7CF.jpeg.e60ffe1d270d471e12c6f62bac2401d0.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

Waiwera hot pools has been abandoned for some time now.

 

Enjoyed a few soaks there back in the day. It might not have been Waiwera where I saw it, but it definitely wasn't Waiheke because we were never over that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 10:00 PM, uflux said:

Yes but I think it is safe to assume that at least they will have a matching pair of foil designs for the regatta?!?

Mmmm, based on what? It's just play racing after all, testing different goods whilst lining up against the competition may be informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the photo presents it correctly we have a pretty deep bow and a small flat surface in the middle of the hull that could help get the boat airborne. If the hull had been designed to scales it is also pretty narrow if we consider the FCS protuding.

Basically a much flatter hull, much more simple and stable than the rounded one. It also looks a bit like new foiling kite boards.

This begins to be an interesting hull.

Capture0.PNG

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This begins to be an interesting hull.

Too many hard chines, and a large wetted area with those slabs underneath. I don't think B2 is going to look anything like this. She's a fat stocky monster to house over sized foils and a fat stumpy mast. As a test bed compliant with the regs she's brilliant. If she confuses the others as to where ETNZ might go with their designs - even better.

Share this post


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

Too many hard chines, and a large wetted area with those slabs underneath. I don't think B2 is going to look anything like this. She's a fat stocky monster to house over sized foils and a fat stumpy mast. As a test bed compliant with the regs she's brilliant. If she confuses the others as to where ETNZ might go with their designs - even better.

I don't know if that is the way they go but I am sure it's a way they test. I like the hard chines, I like the small wetted surface in the middle, I like the simplicity of the hull. B2 will not have the "bulge".

Have a look at some new foiling kite hulls.

yysw266416.jpg

Share this post


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

If the photo presents it correctly we have a pretty deep bow and a small flat surface in the middle of the hull that could help get the boat airborne. If the hull had been designed to scales it is also pretty narrow if we consider the FCS protuding.

Basically a much flatter hull, much more simple and stable than the rounded one. It also looks a bit like new foiling kite boards.

This begins to be an interesting hull.

Capture0.PNG

Who knew deadrise would be resurrected in racing hulls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the hull is really just a container for technological trickery and the all will be the same or similar width length weight with the same rigs how important is the hull shape really

They all have the sailing and manoeuvring characteristics of a floating turd when not in the air.

Share this post


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

how important is the hull shape really

 

Gaining speed to get foiling faster, touch water more smoothly at 40 kts, losing less speed when hitting water, being able to foil lower, better aero, rigidity of the platform, using the side of the boat as a sail enhancement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't know if that is the way they go but I am sure it's a way they test. I like the hard chines, I like the small wetted surface in the middle, I like the simplicity of the hull. B2 will not have the "bulge".

Have a look at some new foiling kite hulls.

yysw266416.jpg

And you know why they run those board designs? Because they are canted to windward heavily on all points of sail. Something that amusingly you can’t really do effectively when dangling a windward foil of the side of your 70ftr

Share this post


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

And you know why they run those board designs? Because they are canted to windward heavily on all points of sail. Something that amusingly you can’t really do effectively when dangling a windward foil of the side of your 70ftr

Well, that is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cats were dogs when off their foils the AC75's will be a lot worse.

Pre starts in anything under 15-20 knots will be a larf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

The cats were dogs when off their foils the AC75's will be a lot worse.

Pre starts in anything under 15-20 knots will be a larf.

The teams aren't stupid. They will all go deep in light winds and have a timed run to the line. Keep their noses clean. Foiling to the line in the final 20 secs. 

Unless you think the old flappy sails dial-ups were any more interesting...snore

Screen Shot 2020-01-23 at 10.43.28 AM.png

Share this post


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

They will all go deep in light winds and have a timed run to the line. Keep their noses clean. Foiling to the line in the final 20 secs. 

Crikey that will be a exciting spectacle.

Share this post


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

The teams aren't stupid. They will all go deep in light winds and have a timed run to the line. Keep their noses clean. Foiling to the line in the final 20 secs. 

Unless you think the old flappy sails dial-ups were any more interesting...snore

Screen Shot 2020-01-23 at 10.43.28 AM.png

Go deep, get foiling. Then some interesting tactics. There were some very interesting starts in 8 kt in bda, and from all accounts these boats will be as adept in light air. Expect manoeuvres to be even more important in a windward start box.

Share this post


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

from all accounts these boats will be as adept in light air

Got any evidence.

Share this post


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

Crikey that will be a exciting spectacle.

As opposed to crawling over the line at 10 knots???

I think I'm ok with that...:rolleyes:

Screen Shot 2020-01-23 at 11.07.55 AM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be a millennial thing.

Pre starts are were the opportunity to showcase tactics skills and seamanship.

Going deep and not engaging staying clean cause your foiler ain't foiling wow sounds as boring as Bermuda.

 

Share this post


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

Well, that is correct.

So why bring it up?

 

the kite class is unregulated so they go for longer masts and add more can’t angle and still keep the wing tips submerged 

you can’t make the foil arms longer on the ac boats so the being it is stifled before it has begun by nature of the beam dictated in the rules 

Share this post


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

Got any evidence.

Multiple guesstimates on here of 30kt in 8 on etnz first gen boat.

Almost consensus (give or take .75), of the same 8 kt lower limit as AC35.

Opinions expressed by GA, GD, the Italian Guys, that these boats will be more maneuverable than the cats.

Share this post


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

Must be a millennial thing.

Pre starts are were the opportunity to showcase tactics skills and seamanship.

Going deep and not engaging staying clean cause your foiler ain't foiling wow sounds as boring as Bermuda.

 

Has nobody told you that the America’s Cup is won by the fastest boat around the course...It’s not ballroom dancing ?!? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait to see two lame ducks capsize in a dial up!

Hopefully they will experiment a bit in Cagliari.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Can't wait to see two lame ducks capsize in a dial up!

Hopefully they will experiment a bit in Cagliari.

 

They won’t dial-up. They will keep moving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, uflux said:

They won’t dial-up. They will keep moving

People commit suicide too, so why not.  :unsure:

And BTW, it's the last thing I would do.  :)

 

Share this post


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

They won’t dial-up. They will keep moving

Depends, doesn't it? If team A reckon they can get team B to capsize pre-start then they'll do whatever they can. Interesting that TNZ's design can be thought of as the most 'dangerous' in this regard - having less (or no) weight in the foils and not looking like a barge.

Share this post


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

Depends, doesn't it? If team A reckon they can get team B to capsize pre-start then they'll do whatever they can. Interesting that TNZ's design can be thought of as the most 'dangerous' in this regard - having less (or no) weight in the foils and not looking like a barge.

They don’t have less weight in the foils. The AC75 gets its stability through being dynamic. Nobody is going to want to be dead in the water.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, uflux said:

They won’t dial-up. They will keep moving

Bet'ya that BenHit and Spitbull will luff their ennemy until fall in the prestart.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, uflux said:

They don’t have less weight in the foils. The AC75 gets its stability through being dynamic. Nobody is going to want to be dead in the water.  

I thought they could have both foils down and that they would be quite stable that way.

We might be in for some surprises.

Question, will "the zone" take that into account, 2 foils down I mean? Can't remember.

 

Share this post


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

I thought they could have both foils down and that they would be quite stable that way.

Some of the foils have a conspicuous bulb on them. Containing, I suspect, lead. TNZ do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RantyDave said:

Some of the foils have a conspicuous bulb on them. Containing, I suspect, lead. TNZ do not.

Might I suggest you avail yourself of the class rule mate :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rh3000 said:

Might I suggest you avail yourself of the class rule mate :-)

So what is in them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RantyDave said:

Some of the foils have a conspicuous bulb on them. Containing, I suspect, lead. TN

Sorry, back to school for you.

 

Share this post


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

Sorry, back to school for you.

Same question, oh teacher of Naval Architecture.

Share this post


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

Some of the foils have a conspicuous bulb on them. Containing, I suspect, lead. TNZ do not.

Sigh... all the teams are using the max allowed weight in their foils. Please do some reading of this tread....we are well past this point now. Not going to spend my afternoon explaining it to you :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

I thought they could have both foils down and that they would be quite stable that way.

 

Waiting to see Burling trying it in the prestart mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, uflux said:

Sigh... all the teams are using the max allowed weight in their foils. Please do some reading of this tread....we are well past this point now. Not going to spend my afternoon explaining it to you :mellow:

Please do some reading of the question, I'm not going to spend all afternoon explaining it to you. Why, exactly, do you think those bulbs don't contain lead?

Edit: Rule 6.3 specifically allows lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RantyDave said:

Same question, oh teacher of Naval Architecture.

As an excuse for your ignorance you could argue that the Ed's Dog has eaten your school books, but do try the search function and see what you can learn. We are all way to full of ourselves to make it easy for you. But if your girlfriend has ballast in her foils, a picture will help your cause...

 

Share this post


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

Multiple guesstimates on here of 30kt in 8 on etnz first gen boat.

Almost consensus (give or take .75), of the same 8 kt lower limit as AC35.

Opinions expressed by GA, GD, the Italian Guys, that these boats will be more maneuverable than the cats.

Guesstimates

Almost consensus

Opinions

Wheres the pics or better still videos.

Share this post


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

Waiting to see Burling trying it in the prestart mate.

Of course you will have to wait until the end again to see what pistol Pete brings to the table. Do you remember the shock in the commentators voices as the spitbull was well schooled in BDA? "Left him in a deep, deep hole".

You can guess all you want, but you will just have to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites