Jump to content


OK LARRY, THIS IS MY FINAL OFFER ON THE AC72


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 13 June 2011 - 08:46 PM

Trying to be reasonable and realistic (assuming that has any relevance in AC34):

- the Cup boat is still called AC72, so there's no need to amend the Prot yet again

- LOA therefore stays at 22m , but width is reduced from 14m to 12m

- the wing is of course the previous 'small' one, 30m high - perhaps less blunt planform

- proportionately long hulls slice through chop and provide a good safety margin against pitchpoling

We've already discussed cost, logistical and risk advantages. But this way, practically all design work performed to date can be reused: doesn't it sound reasonable?

Your choice either way - but please, please do not repeat the Prot fiasco where your guys dithered for months before yielding to the inevitable. Pissing potential serious teams off and losing the CoR in the process.

#2 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 08:50 PM

Trying to be reasonable and realistic (assuming that has any relevance in AC34):

- the Cup boat is still called AC72, so there's no need to amend the Prot yet again

- LOA therefore stays at 22m , but width is reduced from 14m to 12m

- the wing is of course the previous 'small' one, 30m high - perhaps less blunt planform

- proportionately long hulls slice through chop and provide a good safety margin against pitchpoling

We've already discussed cost, logistical and risk advantages. But this way, practically all design work performed to date can be reused: doesn't it sound reasonable?

Your choice either way - but please, please do not repeat the Prot fiasco where your guys dithered for months before yielding to the inevitable. Pissing potential serious teams off and losing the CoR in the process.


XLot, this really seams like a manufactured crisis, to me. If they find the wing to be too much, then can then make it shorter. It is up to sailors to keep from going over the edge and cartwheeling, no need to make the boats narrower to protect them. Let's just enjoy this thing.

#3 blunted

blunted

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Boats with wings are cool, just plain cool

Posted 13 June 2011 - 09:42 PM

Trying to be reasonable and realistic (assuming that has any relevance in AC34):

- the Cup boat is still called AC72, so there's no need to amend the Prot yet again

- LOA therefore stays at 22m , but width is reduced from 14m to 12m

- the wing is of course the previous 'small' one, 30m high - perhaps less blunt planform

- proportionately long hulls slice through chop and provide a good safety margin against pitchpoling

We've already discussed cost, logistical and risk advantages. But this way, practically all design work performed to date can be reused: doesn't it sound reasonable?

Your choice either way - but please, please do not repeat the Prot fiasco where your guys dithered for months before yielding to the inevitable. Pissing potential serious teams off and losing the CoR in the process.


Xlot, stop being a poof and get over it. Of course everything would have to be re-designed if you changed any major parameters. so any savings on cost would be mitigated by undoing months and months of design work which would have to be re-done, at cost to all teams whom are actually working at it.

#4 F18 VB

F18 VB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 13 June 2011 - 10:14 PM

DZ did it with a square platform, an even higher mast, short rudders, and some really skinny hulls... ORMA 60's go around the world with a square platform.

#5 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 10:27 PM

DZ did it with a square platform, an even higher mast, short rudders, and some really skinny hulls... ORMA 60's go around the world with a square platform.


A tri is not a cat. The central hull allows to have the mast much more on the back (in general 50% for a cat, around 60 to70 % for some tri) and the volume of the hull in the front helps in case of pitchpoling.

D35 are between, contructed like a tri and behaving like a cat + flotability in the front.

#6 rule69

rule69

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:39 PM

- the wing is of course the previous 'small' one, 30m high - perhaps less blunt planform


I think you're just unhappy because you wanted to see wings with fancy rule bending high lift devices. :)

#7 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:48 PM

Xlot, stop being a poof and get over it. Of course everything would have to be re-designed if you changed any major parameters. so any savings on cost would be mitigated by undoing months and months of design work which would have to be re-done, at cost to all teams whom are actually working at it.



Coutts capsizes America's Cup cat on SF Bay


Right - where were we? Oh yes, I take it you're not totally in favor :D

While your hands-on expertise is universally admired, you may want to check with the actual designers: I daresay they work with parametric tools, and for the platform you'll find they could incorporate the (marginally varied) base data in just one revision cycle.

Now, the wing: wasn't the 'small' wing the prime design case until it got dumped? So, it's not "months and months", just a case of fishing those req'mts back again and transmitting them to G**** - not a biggie.

#8 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:49 PM


- the wing is of course the previous 'small' one, 30m high - perhaps less blunt planform


I think you're just unhappy because you wanted to see wings with fancy rule bending high lift devices. :)


So what :P

#9 blunted

blunted

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Boats with wings are cool, just plain cool

Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:56 PM


Xlot, stop being a poof and get over it. Of course everything would have to be re-designed if you changed any major parameters. so any savings on cost would be mitigated by undoing months and months of design work which would have to be re-done, at cost to all teams whom are actually working at it.



Coutts capsizes America's Cup cat on SF Bay


Right - where were we? Oh yes, I take it you're not totally in favor :D

While your hands-on expertise is universally admired, you may want to check with the actual designers: I daresay they work with parametric tools, and for the platform you'll find they could incorporate the (marginally varied) parameyers in just one revision cycle.

Now, the wing: wasn't the 'small' wing the prime design case until it got dumped? So, it's not "months and months", just a case of fishing those req'mts back again and transmitting them to G**** - not a biggie.


No I would argue the big wing was always the prime target, it's really schedule dependent, when is the boat racing in what conditions. The small wing is lovely until someone passes you even once with a bigger wing, then it's not. Not that any of it matters, the short wing never really got a serious chance in any design offices as it was voted off the stage almost before any serious work began.

If you did go small wing, things do change, every single little thing except maybe your electronics would change. You go with the big wing and you are optimizing around controlling the thing. Go short and all of a sudden you have this anemic thing that needs to be optimized around wringing power out of it all the time.

So no, I don't buy it, if you change rig height all other parameters float away from their currently optimized positions for a hundred different reasons.

Besides, the greatest sin of a smaller rig would be less advertising space for sponsors and that is the cardinal sin.

#10 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 14 June 2011 - 12:16 AM

You go with the big wing and you are optimizing around controlling the thing.


True, no doubt about it.

Go short and all of a sudden you have this anemic thing that needs to be optimized around wringing power out of it all the time.


I thought C-catters enjoyed that / don't forget width would be reduced too / if true under SF conditions, out of curiosity could you ask Pete M. why on earth he foresaw it in the first place?

#11 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 14 June 2011 - 12:35 AM

So a boat capsizes on SF Bay in 25knots due to a nosedive. Big Fkn deal.
RC is just learning the ropes on how to sail these things. JS hasn't put it in since NZ, and he is out in the same conditions. I'm sure he will put it in again, but I'd expect half as much with how hard they will need to push to beat the other teams.

Most of us got over the fear of capsizing when we were juniors playing around in sabots and Manly Juniors.

The 72's are going to be awesome. And the more time spent crashing the 45's the better they will be at handling them.

#12 blunted

blunted

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Boats with wings are cool, just plain cool

Posted 14 June 2011 - 01:35 AM


You go with the big wing and you are optimizing around controlling the thing.


True, no doubt about it.

Go short and all of a sudden you have this anemic thing that needs to be optimized around wringing power out of it all the time.


I thought C-catters enjoyed that / don't forget width would be reduced too / if true under SF conditions, out of curiosity could you ask Pete M. why on earth he foresaw it in the first place?


Of course I cherish wringing power out of a limited amount of sail area, but that's not what this cup is about is it, or there wouldn't be soft sails would there.

I think you need to take the 45 with a grain of salt, it's a great hull shape but it doesn't have the foils it could have, which could go a long way towards making the boat more controllable in mad conditions.

And I have asked Pete, let's just say it was not entirely his idea, there might have been some input from other parties, which is no secret.

#13 rule69

rule69

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 02:36 AM



- the wing is of course the previous 'small' one, 30m high - perhaps less blunt planform


I think you're just unhappy because you wanted to see wings with fancy rule bending high lift devices. :)


So what :P


You started it! :angry::P

From the sidelines I think it will be as amusing to watch the teams come up with light, manageable, low drag, large planform wings as it would be to see them develop high lift small wings. I think the designers and sailors will be up to the task of making sailable boats and sailing them. The big rigs will help keep things interesting when the wind machine doesn't deliver. I have no doubt teams will manage to crash the 72's but they'd probably do that on any powered up cat. From the start this AC was not intended for the faint of heart. Morituri te salutant! :)

#14 JWR

JWR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 02:50 AM

I have a feeling Larry will leave this one.

#15 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:06 AM

I have a feeling Larry will leave this one.


Not going to bet against you - but then I'm sure we'll ever get to see just OR's, AR's and TNZ's 72s: too much from CT downwards.

#16 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:14 AM


I have a feeling Larry will leave this one.


Not going to bet against you - but then I'm sure we'll ever get to see just OR's, AR's and TNZ's 72s: too much from CT downwards.

Mitch is one of the best, if not the best cat sailor in tough conditions. JS just will just not be at the same level...

#17 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:28 AM

Mitch is one of the best, if not the best cat sailor in tough conditions. JS just will just not be at the same level...


While not disagreeing with you in regards to Mitch Booth's multihull abilities, I think it is a bit presumptuous to think that JS (or Gashby, Landy, Bundock, Cam Lewis, Randy Smyth, half the French population, etc) aren't capable of training up to a level to match or better his.
Dean Barker and Terry Hutchison are already showing they are more than a match for the old school multihullers in the X40's, and you only have to look at Grant Dalton and team who did the successful lap on Club Med to see that new skills can be learnt.
Put the best sailors in the world in any boat, and they will figure it out.

I'll have $50 on it that RC will be fighting with (and beating) the best of them in a couple of weeks - windy or otherwise.

#18 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:41 AM

Mitch is one of the best, if not the best cat sailor in tough conditions. JS just will just not be at the same level...


It's not about Mitch, or any other helmsman - it's about the guys who put up the money and are now seeing how easily it could be wiped out ..

#19 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:50 AM


Mitch is one of the best, if not the best cat sailor in tough conditions. JS just will just not be at the same level...


It's not about Mitch, or any other helmsman - it's about the guys who put up the money and are now seeing how easily it could be wiped out ..


LOL :D

#20 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,466 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:53 AM


Mitch is one of the best, if not the best cat sailor in tough conditions. JS just will just not be at the same level...


It's not about Mitch, or any other helmsman - it's about the guys who put up the money and are now seeing how easily it could be wiped out ..

What do you think the cost is to repair the wing ?

#21 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:58 AM

What do you think the cost is to repair the wing ?


You mean a 72 wing?

#22 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,466 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 04:03 AM


What do you think the cost is to repair the wing ?


You mean a 72 wing?


The 45 - the damage that just happened.

#23 CarbonComposite

CarbonComposite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Location:SFO

Posted 14 June 2011 - 05:07 AM

What do you think the cost is to repair the wing ?


Are you asking us, or John Pierpont Morgan?

#24 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,466 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 05:21 AM


What do you think the cost is to repair the wing ?


Are you asking us, or John Pierpont Morgan?


Xlot raised the question -

#25 CarbonComposite

CarbonComposite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Location:SFO

Posted 14 June 2011 - 05:29 AM



What do you think the cost is to repair the wing ?


Are you asking us, or John Pierpont Morgan?


Xlot raised the question -


Agreed, not picking on you at all. Just noting that this AC will cost the principal competitors much less than the last one. This is a question of quatloos, not cash.

#26 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,260 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 14 June 2011 - 06:14 AM

If they find the wing to be too much, then can then make it shorter.


IIRC there's minimum dimensions and area specified in the class rules and there is not a lot of scope for making it smaller.

Let's just enjoy this thing.


Oh I am enjoying it but your idea of fun is not necessarily the same as mine.

#27 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 03:15 PM


If they find the wing to be too much, then can then make it shorter.


IIRC there's minimum dimensions and area specified in the class rules and there is not a lot of scope for making it smaller.

Let's just enjoy this thing.


Oh I am enjoying it but your idea of fun is not necessarily the same as mine.


My point is that, if they decide they need to make a change, all the teams can agree to a change in rules. I don't see that being very likely or necessary. Just stating that they have shown a good ability to make changes on the fly that basically benefit all, when necessary.

#28 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 04:52 PM

I'll have $50 on it that RC will be fighting with (and beating) the best of them in a couple of weeks - windy or otherwise.



Quite so.

And I hope nobody gets hurt in the process.

#29 sail7seas

sail7seas

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Hallandale, Florida
  • Interests:F16 Catamaran racing, Mountain Biking, Salsa y Bachata,

Posted 14 June 2011 - 05:59 PM

I predict they will incorporate spoilers at the tip of wing to de-power (stall at will), or more twist.

#30 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 15 June 2011 - 04:29 AM

AC72 Roughly 17% taller than a scaled up AC45 if I'm doing the math right. Maybe a few more pitch poles are in order to gain more wisdom.
http://www.cupinfo.com/en/pete-melvin-AC72-rule-wingsails-11008.php




I'm no expert but it appears the AC45 may be seeing its limitations and or a learning curve is in process for even a seasoned professional sailor new to Catamaran sailing in heavy winds and large chop. Most likely the AC 72 designers will make the appropriate adjustments in Hull shape ( more ocean going type bow Volume) than the AC 45's. Possible a compromise between going faster and staying right side up. Other anti pitch pole appendages may be necessary as well ( T foil rudders like the C cats or curved boards to keep the bow up ). Lower aspect ratio wings or removable tips for windier conditions (take away wing area and lower the vertical ce all at once). By making the boats larger in scale the chop will be less of a factor.


:) Yes, even removable tips were considered at the Rule draft phase (I suggested them being secured with explosive bolts ..). Sadly, what survived is the very strict, monster rig.


Had forgotten that nice reference, thanks. Sets the record straight on the perverse sequence of decisions leading to today's mess ..

#31 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 15 June 2011 - 04:33 AM

I predict they will incorporate spoilers at the tip of wing to de-power (stall at will), or more twist.


Likely - you, Basiliscus and myself had already discussed it - not surprisingly, in the TNZ capsize thread.

#32 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 15 June 2011 - 04:59 AM

I think GG and Koukel aked me why the wing was more dangerous than a sail. If we look at the last pitchpole we have to recognize it was windy, my guess is between 25 and 30 knots (any specific info? maybe the sailor could be useful for once).

A soft sail would have allowed:

- to reef easily
- to depower the sail with maximum twist
- to depower the sail by flattening it. The wing had a lot of camber, it was fatal at the dangerous angle
- to open the main at the maximum during the operation in order to stall the main (not possible here because of the backstays of the wing)

#33 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:29 PM

First hint of doubt?

And speaking of the AC72, Russell Coutts said his experiencesthis week in SF had a dramatic affect on the design of the 72. Again thequestion of safety vs. speed is at the forefront for the design team. "It'sreally windy. I mean, we knew that, we've all sailed here before, but when youget out in it, you realize just how windy it is." Anything youchange to improve the prestart maneuverability of the boat, he said, likeincreasing the volume of the bows, is going to slow the boat down. Anything,like a winged rudder to perhaps prevent a capsize is going to tremendously slowyou down during all the drive time you aren't capsizing. Coutts reallygives Spithill credit as the better sailor in this boat for not having capsizedit here. "He did capsize in New Zealand though, you know."


Think hard, Russell, it'll come to ya :D

#34 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,982 posts

Posted 15 June 2011 - 11:37 PM

First hint of doubt?


And speaking of the AC72, Russell Coutts said his experiencesthis week in SF had a dramatic affect on the design of the 72. Again thequestion of safety vs. speed is at the forefront for the design team. "It'sreally windy. I mean, we knew that, we've all sailed here before, but when youget out in it, you realize just how windy it is." Anything youchange to improve the prestart maneuverability of the boat, he said, likeincreasing the volume of the bows, is going to slow the boat down. Anything,like a winged rudder to perhaps prevent a capsize is going to tremendously slowyou down during all the drive time you aren't capsizing. Coutts reallygives Spithill credit as the better sailor in this boat for not having capsizedit here. "He did capsize in New Zealand though, you know."


Think hard, Russell, it'll come to ya :D



They all headed back to the drawing boards just as RC headed into the bay . Too big of a splash or he would have gotten higher scores from the judges :)

#35 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 16 June 2011 - 07:51 PM

I was fortunate enough to have some time with RC after the press conference yesterday and ask some questions, make some suggestions following an interview with a friend of mine
.....
He mentioned that more flotation forward was something to think about. I commented on the AC72 curved boards for lift which was effectively lengthening the boat- he agreed but stated that was limited at slow speeds (where he needed it). I brought up T foil rudders and didn't quite make the point that it reduced vertical velocity and tended to keep stern (rudders) down. His concern was loss of top speed at the expense of drag to improve user friendliness (my word). A local multihuller friend who crewed on PlayStation reminded me of Fossetts response when they did a mid ocean headstand. more bows forward :-)

I think the consensus is that the AC45s are faster than they thought (on the bay- which seems small when you watch them shred it up and explore outside the gate too) and changes to AC72 will be considered it seems. So take a look at the AC 45 on the bay, if you were to have a chance for AC72 2.0 - what would it be? Sensitivity to the fact existing design teams are in place should be considered too.

What about the wing? Any opportunities?

Or should the AC 72 rule stand "as is" and let Darwin rule? I want to be prepared in case I get more opportunities to speak with the boss, team, designers..and Stan who may have been on PlayStation when Fossett was enlightened. A


Yawn .. I suggest you read my response to blunted: of course the design troops are going to squeal the 'small' wing needs a total redesign, but it should actually make their work more interesting. And I'm positive the three-four sailing crews will solidly support him now.

Oh, also repeal the silly 1.85% chord extension limit: Juan K's already got it circumvented, anyway, and it's a hindrance for spoilers.

#36 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 June 2011 - 08:11 PM

Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth? The boat is fine - the sailors are fine - maybe RC a bit humbled by what he's created...

The syndicates are plenty and have the cash.

It's not like AC boats haven't broken, sank or self-destructed before.

#37 EaglesPDX

EaglesPDX

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,616 posts
  • Interests:BOC Challenge 90-91, 94-95, Around Alone 98, Whitbread 93-94, 97-98, America's Cup 2000.

Posted 17 June 2011 - 12:32 AM

Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth? The boat is fine - the sailors are fine - maybe RC a bit humbled by what he's created...

The syndicates are plenty and have the cash.

It's not like AC boats haven't broken, sank or self-destructed before.


The wailing and gnashing is BECAUSE it is going so well and the wailers and gnashers had hoped otherwise.

#38 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 17 June 2011 - 05:00 PM

Looking forward to a technical paper by Martin Fischer on (among other things) bow volume, announced for next Monday by Catamaran Racing.

What needs to be considered is that it's not just: more reserve buoyancy = more pitching but more resistance to pitchpoling, but also that by the time you do make use of that reserve buoyancy and unless crew weight placement can compensate, the rudder will be out of the water. That's why the current trend is to increase volume down below (great for pitch dampening) and have a pseudo-wave piercing shape up, but then obviously entry is not too fine and wetted area goes up .. compromises, compromises.

On a marginally related subject, it appears a Nacra F20C split a daggerboard due to hydro pressure: curved boards in series production were going to be a bitch ..

#39 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 21 June 2011 - 01:00 PM

Here's the Martin Fischer piece: really good, idiotic a guy like him is left playing with A-cats in New Caledonia instead of being a key member on any Cup team. Ditto for Steve Clark, of course.

Back on topic, look forward now to FV interviewing RC on the 28th, when he's in Cagliari for the RC44 affair [BTW, ML has been airbrushed from the teams list ..]

#40 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 03:04 PM

Here's the Martin Fischer piece: really good, idiotic a guy like him is left playing with A-cats in New Caledonia instead of being a key member on any Cup team. Ditto for Steve Clark, of course.

Back on topic, look forward now to FV interviewing RC on the 28th, when he's in Cagliari for the RC44 affair [BTW, ML has been airbrushed from the teams list ..]


Does Oracle have a new RC44? :D

#41 Basiliscus

Basiliscus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  • Location:Des Moines, WA, USA

Posted 21 June 2011 - 03:26 PM

I predict they will incorporate spoilers at the tip of wing to de-power (stall at will), or more twist.


I doubt it - half girth restriction.

#42 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 21 June 2011 - 03:33 PM


I predict they will incorporate spoilers at the tip of wing to de-power (stall at will), or more twist.


I doubt it - half girth restriction.


:) That can be circumvented: I came up with two loopholes thinking half an hour about it, Juan K's sure to find better ones - it's just a matter of adding a bit of complication. So, why not scrap the silly 1.85% thing altogether since nobody's looking at extracting maximum lift anyway?

#43 rule69

rule69

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 08:11 PM



I predict they will incorporate spoilers at the tip of wing to de-power (stall at will), or more twist.


I doubt it - half girth restriction.


:) That can be circumvented: I came up with two loopholes thinking half an hour about it, Juan K's sure to find better ones - it's just a matter of adding a bit of complication. So, why not scrap the silly 1.85% thing altogether since nobody's looking at extracting maximum lift anyway?


Sure the imagination can run wild on this stuff. I suppose one could design panels that move out and translate forward along the surface tripping the flow and reducing the area with minimal impact on girth. That might help maintain control in very marginal conditions -- the lift wouldn't turn on unexpectedly and fully stalled there would be less drag too. And one might ponder fancy ducting systems, clever hinging systems on some elements and so on... With all of these the benefit is control, eg safe downspeed turns in high winds, but the costs look very high. Paying for these kinds of things only makes sense if you posit that the wings will be uncontrollable without them. I'm not convinced that is the case.

#44 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,028 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 08:22 PM




I predict they will incorporate spoilers at the tip of wing to de-power (stall at will), or more twist.


I doubt it - half girth restriction.


:) That can be circumvented: I came up with two loopholes thinking half an hour about it, Juan K's sure to find better ones - it's just a matter of adding a bit of complication. So, why not scrap the silly 1.85% thing altogether since nobody's looking at extracting maximum lift anyway?


Sure the imagination can run wild on this stuff. I suppose one could design panels that move out and translate forward along the surface tripping the flow and reducing the area with minimal impact on girth. That might help maintain control in very marginal conditions -- the lift wouldn't turn on unexpectedly and fully stalled there would be less drag too. And one might ponder fancy ducting systems, clever hinging systems on some elements and so on... With all of these the benefit is control, eg safe downspeed turns in high winds, but the costs look very high. Paying for these kinds of things only makes sense if you posit that the wings will be uncontrollable without them. I'm not convinced that is the case.

Posted Image or Posted Image??


....but I don't think they're necessary either mind you.

#45 rule69

rule69

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:34 PM

Posted Image or Posted Image??


....but I don't think they're necessary either mind you.


Half-girth restriction?

Also neither addresses the exact problem for winged sailboats. In the airplane case drag is not a problem and may be a benefit I can't see a case for the boats where that will ever be true. The car wing is called a spoiler but solves a different kind of problem.

#46 Stingray

Stingray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,999 posts
  • Location:PNW

Posted 21 June 2011 - 10:42 PM

Looking at that car (what's a 3B? wow) made me wonder:

Does anything in the DR preclude the kind of aft-beam aerodynamics we saw on CZ and DZ come race day?

#47 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:05 PM

Does anything in the DR preclude the kind of aft-beam aerodynamics fairing we saw on CZ and DZ come race day?


No

#48 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 22 June 2011 - 01:04 AM

Looking at that car (what's a 3B? wow) made me wonder:

Does anything in the DR preclude the kind of aft-beam aerodynamics we saw on CZ and DZ come race day?



Your 3B is a stylized EB, for Ettore Bugatti. The car is the Bugatti Veyron, with a quad-turbocharged twin V-8 block producing 1001 hp for a top speed of 253 mph!

#49 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 22 June 2011 - 03:02 PM

(JS interview)

What we want is if you have a capsize in a race, the chase boats are allowed to come and pick you up and you can keep racing, like a pit crew. That's something for the commentators/TV to focus on. We want to make these wings bullet proof enough so we can capsize them - just the top needs to be bullet proof as that's the part that sits in the water."


Feasibility of keeping on racing aside (how do you patch up the holes of those who've fallen through the wing, reminds me of the old joke about Snow-White's hymen), might actually make sense. The wingtip float would have to extend sideways, so the wing's well clear of the water.

Keep in mind for when they re-write the Rule.

#50 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 22 June 2011 - 10:58 PM

From Sail-World

In terms of rig height to overall length, the SL33 has only slightly more wick than the AC45 with a hull length to mast height ratio of 1:1.59, compared to 1.56 for the AC45.

To put the step up to the next America’s Cup in context, the hull length to rig height ratio for the AC72 is a massive 1:1.82 – a tad under the 1.90 for USA-17, the 120ft trimaran beast used in the 2010 America’s Cup. There are other ways of working out a horsepower ratio for inshore racing multihulls, but that ratio is a simple illustration.


Worth pondering .. of course, the AC72 is proportionately wider than both AC45 and the very recent SL33 (5.4m): odd, isn't it?

#51 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 27 June 2011 - 03:40 PM

Posted Image

Don't mind me: found this nice aerial picture of BPV and felt like parking it somewhere ..

#52 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 31 July 2011 - 05:22 PM

Posted Image

Remember the WSL70 concept? Still cannot figure out the centerboard ŕ la Stiletto, but notice any similarity with the picture above?

In fact, I'm wondering if we won't be seeing similar cross structures, but with the center part mutating from a vestigial hull to a full blown one - except it's got to stay 15cm above the water plane. Point is the cross structure may extend a whopping 4m in front of the hulls, and reserve buoyancy there could be the difference between a headstand and a pitchpole.

In my reading of the Rule there's nothing against it, and platform weight should be generous. Might be tricky respecting shipping volumes, but a solution could be found.

#53 roca

roca

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 01 August 2011 - 01:18 PM

In my reading of the Rule there's nothing against it, and platform weight should be generous. Might be tricky respecting shipping volumes, but a solution could be found.


Inflatable central hull? :lol:

#54 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,028 posts

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:37 PM


In my reading of the Rule there's nothing against it, and platform weight should be generous. Might be tricky respecting shipping volumes, but a solution could be found.


Inflatable central hull? :lol:


Smart guy, when can you start?

#55 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 01 August 2011 - 05:05 PM


Inflatable central hull? :lol:


Smart guy, when can you start?


Well, not that off-the-wall: 6.4 and 7.2 stipulate that the cross structure must not move, except for normal deflections caused by sailing loads.

I can see Juan K salivating at the prospect of driving the Measurement Committee crazy with a catamaran-that's-not-quite-a-trimaran :D

#56 Mal106

Mal106

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:South Jersey
  • Interests:Sailing, flying, sports cars and grand kids...

Posted 04 August 2011 - 12:40 PM

Interesting discussion but my suspicion is that the capsize these boats are experiencing is not the typical case of overpowering the top of the wing beyond what the righting moment can handle. That happened earlier in the sequence and could have been handled with a turn off the wind. The problem in the AC 45 and the E 40, most light cats, is that the earlier overpower or an uncontrollable gust or maneuver has caused the bow(s) to submerge and the rudders to become ineffective. The wing stalls and the only wind force left is basic form drag; so a spoiler wouldn't help. It might if it was a complete panel to reduce form drag but that wouldn't really be a spoiler. This is a point where we learn too much from an airplane wing.

At the point the rudders become ineffective, I suspect inertia of the wing moving forward as the hulls stop becomes the major upsetting force and the capsize is really a pitch pole. It only resembles a capsize when the hulls float again and regain some longitudinal stability in the water. The pitch pole turns to the side and then and only then resembles a capsize. Imminent catamaran "capsizes" are most always controlled by turning off the wind unlike monos turning into the wind. The capsize is avoided by stalling the sail and in effect moving the boat back under the rig. You could think of it as centrifugal force pushing the rig back over the boat. The proportion of the weight aloft in a cat is huge in comparison to a mono. If there were a bigger word than huge, it should be used.

Rather than a spoiler maybe a pin that would allow the top portion of the wing to rotate totally and freely downwind. This would not only reduce the form drag to a minimum instantly, it would take a big bite out of the inertia of that portion of the wing by its motion forward. It could easily be reset with a line and the pin replaced.

This mod likely won't be made because it would add weight and complexity aloft for something unlikely to happen and that could have been controlled before it happened. The only two times the pitch pole is inevitable is a sudden powerful gust or a maneuvering situation involving another boat where a preventative maneuver is impractical. If the steady wind was strong enough to make just form drag pitch pole the boat; they would not be racing.

I suspect those guys will learn the boats, unlearn some monohull habits and pitch pole only when extreme circumstances make it inevitable. I'm glad they dumped the short wing, it was stupid in the extreme.

#57 Mal106

Mal106

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:South Jersey
  • Interests:Sailing, flying, sports cars and grand kids...

Posted 04 August 2011 - 03:11 PM

The other monomamaran habit that's hard to break is blowing the sheet in an attempt to de power. If the wing isn't free to streamline, which it isn't, the move is counterproductive. As the boat slows with the bows buried, the wind is rapidly moving aft so the unsheeting just re attaches flow and re powers the wing adding to the capsize moment. I've seen the E 40's do it but haven't looked close enough to see if RC and Co did it in the Bay.

I too wonder why all the C class rock stars aren't employed by one team or another at six figures plus.

#58 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:44 PM

^^ Well thought out explanation,worth pondering (but in the spoiler hypothesis, they would be limited to the top portion of the wing and blipped before things got out of hand, the boat slowed down and apparent moved aft).

Where I disagree with you, though, is in pitchpoling being progressively limited to exceptional circumstances: they'll be always pushing to the very limit, and the wider AC72 will give much less warning.

#59 Mal106

Mal106

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:South Jersey
  • Interests:Sailing, flying, sports cars and grand kids...

Posted 06 August 2011 - 12:34 PM

I suppose if the spoiler were deployed before the bow(s) buried, they would prevent it but it may be that the bows starting down is the first sign of trouble, the apparent aft limiting spoiler effectiveness, and inertia continuing the maneuver regardless of wind pressure. In my beach cat experience, there is nothing but sizzle until the bow went under and I find myself riding the trap around the mast.

I'm sure they will be pushing the limit but a pitch pole or even just a slowing due to the bows going under is a game ender; certainly for that race and maybe more depending on the format of the day. I just think they will be able to sense it better and the threat of dire consequences will keep them out of it.

As to the 72's, my math skills aren't what they used to be but normally scaling things up in size slows things down in real time. My suspicions are therefore the opposite of yours but admittedly only a WAG. I do know, however, that a beach cat pitch pole is a bunch faster than an E40 or the AC45. I'm reasonably sure the trend would continue to the AC72.

#60 sail7seas

sail7seas

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Hallandale, Florida
  • Interests:F16 Catamaran racing, Mountain Biking, Salsa y Bachata,

Posted 06 August 2011 - 05:00 PM

I have sailed in only in three regattas where the winds were well over 25, and at times in the 30s, and
one long distance race where NOAA logged 40.
The only way I could have have stayed upright was by sailing slower in control, and having fun watching
the competition out of control going full on with spectacular pitchpoles. (& congrats Couts)

C.O.R.K. 75 a storm hit and we were sailing from A to B in wild over 25 conditions and the Tornado's were clocked by a
Canadian Destroyer on Lake Ontario doing 28 knots on the reach. We watched a T next to us somehow do three
cartwheels about the mast after the pichpole, one...two... three...
We sailed a Knot slower in control with the jib in tight stalling the botoom of the sail.

A 90's Round the Island race (100 miles in Florida), on a H20, when the storm hit NOAA logged

the race in the 40s, and downwind we sailed in control upright with the Jib in as tight as possible
and main traveler 3-6 inches out and main sheet just in.
Have you ever seen a plane fly backwards?

In a H20 Nationals with the crew from race above on H20 downwind in formation next to mine, I saw the
puff coming and hailed my crew to presheet the Jib in, and watched the old crew's H20 pitchpole.
I did ask him why he didn't presheet...

My experience has shown if you want to stay upright downwind or reaching in 25-40 you must sail in control,
and find a speed (controled stall) that will give a margin of safety for the puffs, or sail at the max and
depower / stall BEFORE the puff. Stalling or luffing the rig after the megagust never worked for me.
Numerically, if I have stalled the bottom lee side of the main my swag is 30%-50% less lift.
I can only imagine from my experience how benefical/faster it would be to stall the top of the rig
in lieu of bottom described above.


#61 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 06 August 2011 - 05:10 PM

As to the 72's, my math skills aren't what they used to be but normally scaling things up in size slows things down in real time.


Agree, but here it's rather a matter of boats being proportionately wider: from the canonical 2:1 L/B ratio to the 72's 22:14. More power that can push bows down more quickly, that has been the ORMA lesson.

#62 Mal106

Mal106

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:South Jersey
  • Interests:Sailing, flying, sports cars and grand kids...

Posted 06 August 2011 - 10:12 PM

Likely correct, but forward buoyancy, lift due to speed forward of the GC, vertical displacement of the center of the forward component of "sail" pressure additionally play an important part. Magnitudes are above my pay grade. Length to beam at those small differences might even be a minor effect by comparison. I should have qualified, "all else equal".

#63 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 12 August 2011 - 10:21 AM

To whom it may concern: dropped my tag line, for two reasons.

One is that a real insider at Cascais told me: "Not a chance. Now, souped-up 45s .."

The other is tied to OR nixing ETNZ's website plea - as an obvious retaliation, ETNZ would never accept something purely for the greater good of the event.

#64 mp1970

mp1970

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 858 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 10:29 AM

Hope it's kosher to paste some comments from the LinkedIn AC group - if not, let me know ASAP and I'll delete this post:


Do you have the agreement of the people involved? If not; take them down and get it.

my 2cts

edit: ;)

#65 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 07 September 2011 - 10:43 AM

^^ Makes sense, thanks

#66 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 07 September 2011 - 12:25 PM

Permission granted :)

Discussion: The America’s Cup is missing the boat.
I interviewed Pete Melvin months ago for a couple of design articles, one of which was in Seahorse (think we all read Lynn's piece, was very good). I also spoke with Ben Hall about box rules. The multihull box rules generally produce similar first generation designs. After sea trials, testing, racing, considering what works for the other guys and going back to the drawing boards, those experienced with box rules find that the second generation boats are very similar. They are not quite one-design, but they are very close. Just look at the A Class Cats and the F 18's. 

Among the many problems with this America's Cup format is that it is rushed. (Right - remember the part where Pete candidly admitted he'd been given neither the time nor the resources to study the 72's wing logistics, so that was left to the collective effort of teams' designers?). The ACEA did not provide prospective teams with an adequate program or format to present to sponsors so we're witnessing an austerity America's Cup. That is, if the sports world is paying attention to this third rate show. The move to use the AC45's longer and introduce the AC72's later may keep some of the teams alive longer and distract us while the gang of thieves colludes to steal San Francisco's prime Embarcadero lands. Given this present format, it's doubtful that second generation AC72's will be built and tested before 2013.

The America's Cup finals should be postponed until 2014 or 2015 so that an America's Cup Event Authority can develop an attractive program for host cities and for team sponsors. Teams that strike the heartstrings of 1 billion plus on the planet are much more likely to draw the interest of sponsors than those backed by ill-begotten funding, secretive deals or from small countries. Why don't the Australians, Canadians and Brits pick up the pieces of their efforts and collaborate on a Commonwealth team? It sure would attract attention. Furthermore, let's stimulate the US economy by having a multi-team, multi-venue, multi-event defender selection series in which Oracle Racing will have to compete for the chance to defend the America's Cup rather than go directly to the Finals. 

Oracle was clearly not the best team on the water in 2007. The team beat Alinghi with technology in 2010. ETNZ has already drawn our attention to the likelihood of Oracle and Artemis outvoting them on every issue and at every turn throughout the AC34. 

Wake up. Oracle will go to any length to defend the America's Cup in San Francisco. The bonus is control of a lot of the city's prime waterfront land for the rest of our life times. The Host City Agreement, which is available online spells it out, albeit buried in legalese.

Why don't we all take a time out, re-evaluate, re-format and use our collective resources to stimulate the global economy through sports and culture? Doing so with transparency will generate greater profits and leave a lasting legacy rather than a wake of scandal and shame. 
Posted by Lynn Fitzpatrick
©2011, LinkedIn Corporation.


If delaying the AC72 race serves the Oracle teams other commercial endeavors than the sky scrapper Wingsail is the right way to go. Of the AC72 boats that actually get built many will be damaged in trials, if any of these trials occur with winds any where near 30 knots . What will unintentionally take place is what is general refereed to as "destruction testing" 

This grotesque spectacle is bound to lead to delays amidst cries for changes related to the Oracle's Wingsail box rule. 

Not that any one seems to care, but I think It would be a mistake to assume that the potential for serious injury in a capsized AC72 and a capsized AC45 is the same. 
Posted by Richard Sauter
©2011, LinkedIn Corporation.


I agree. The supposed "Best Sailors" are sailing a cat with training wheels right now and they are doing a good job at demonstrating how dangerous it is. If not, they are doing a good job at being reckless. 

If catamarans are the chosen boat, then why don't we be more reasonable and top out at 50-55 feet? Re-evaluate it now before someone gets maimed or killed. The law suit may result in greater damages than the existing teams' sunk costs in designing and building an AC72. By the way, not all of the design and engineering fees would be sunk costs. Much of the work is transferable. 
Posted by Lynn Fitzpatrick
©2011, LinkedIn Corporation.



#67 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 19 September 2011 - 01:55 PM



Xlot, when I analyzed some of the capsize I remembered the conversation we had. Most of the lateral capsizes come with a wing opened at 45 degrees, the flaps inversed at 45 degrees, the jib eased or sheeted, wind at 90-100 degrees.
I was sure it was the shroud, However it looks like, when Or was close to tilt during the first speed trial, it looks like, they succeeded at the last second to open wide.
Was it a wrong observation or did Or succeed to patent a different shroud system ? Not sure you have the answer but some may have here.


OR most certainly could not alter the shroud arrangement, and since the top ones go to the masthead they do form an impenetrable barrier, particularly limiting second flap twist.

Inversed flaps: even assuming the twist quadrant on the 'delta' allows that, it could only apply to the two top flaps, never to the bottom one - just consider how the self-tacking system works with an angle limiter, there's no way you can force a reverse angle.

When on the first Sunday Chris posted his picture of an ET 'moment' with flaps reversed, I thought this was due to cable friction as Basiliscus had mentioned in the past. But then watching videos from the same day it became apparent that, as the wing is released abruptly, lead element and flap scissor wildly back and forth. I think this is what you observed, and I still don't know what to make of it.


XL

Watching the test event in AKL I saw ETNZ do this around a leeward mark, they were actually manging to luff the wing in the downwash of the jib, there it was flapping back and forth (Pardon the pun).

Yes the friction is bad in the 45 control system, but despite that I saw a lot of inverted wings this last week in the blow when things were popped off.

Long before these wings are hitting shrouds, they are getting stung up in the runners. The runner rarely is taken off the winch, so when you go for the big ease, it's the runner hanging up the wing, look at the angle and you see much of the flap is behind the runner, so when it loads up the flap bends over the runner and inverts the wing.

So if you want to save more boats from pitching it in (And for the life of me I cannot understand why you'd want to do that) start by getting rid of the runners first before you get worked up about the shrouds.


Again don't mind me, just squirreling this nugget away.

But since we are at it :D ... forget for one moment nobody - apart from the 'Bel Air duo' and ETNZ - has got the money for a 72, and consider instead that from now until Aug 2012 it'll be all light air venues for the WS (with the possible exception of the Jan-Feb one). This means a 72 designer will have no further field info just when evidence proves there are several unexpected behaviors in fresh wind? I mean whoddathunk the jib luffing the lead element, C-cats don't carry headsails.

And - don't know why North's my preferred whipping boy - but I somehow doubt they thought about that in the shared design, which is due out in ten days ..

#68 furling

furling

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 02:49 PM

To my eye its not the bows that are going under as the AC45 bows have heaps of volume but more so the stern that is lifting then pushing the bow under, or just going over the bows. more volume wont fix this, to avoid the pitch pole is not possible with the bows up so high and rudders out of the water but for the ac72 why not remove the centreboards and put rudders also at the bow, eg 4 curved rudders, this way you can still bear away and turn super fast. Or not?

#69 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 19 September 2011 - 02:53 PM

.. Or not?


Regardless of merit, forbidden by the Rule

#70 sail7seas

sail7seas

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Hallandale, Florida
  • Interests:F16 Catamaran racing, Mountain Biking, Salsa y Bachata,

Posted 19 September 2011 - 03:34 PM


.. Or not?


Regardless of merit, forbidden by the Rule


Or stall the sailplane out, which has been discussed ad nausium,
keep your head out of boat, call the puffs, trim or steer accordingly,
which the top 3 boats where "quouted" doing according vs the "B" fleet.

#71 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,028 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 07:00 PM

This seems to be the active AC72 thread at the moment so I'll put this here.

It seems someone has been asking questions about the largely redundant requirement in the rule to be able to break down and reassemble the AC72s and get them into little tight restrictive boxes.


A public interpretation has been made and a measurement methodology issued, (that's what I've attached below).

The obvious answer to the question "How will you determine whether a team can break down and reassemble the boat in the required time", would have been to say "We will sit and watch them do it!"

However they did not say that - and I'm guessing that's because the measures realize that some teams won't even have the shipping boxes originally called for, as they have no intention of moving the boats around in that way, now that they are not required for the ACWS.


Obviously if this part of the rule could be sidestepped (or was dropped) the design possibilities would be a lot more open - thus the interpretation request presumably??


Measurement Committee
Measurement Methodology No.1

AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1: Rule 5.12
Rule Reference

AC72 Class Rule 5.12 states;

An AC72 Yacht shall be capable of being assembled and disassembled by a Competitor as follows:

A)/within 24 hours, wings shall be disassembled and packed in shipping boxes of the following outside dimensions:

(i) one box of 20.000 m x 5.000 m x 2.500 m;

(ii) additional boxes that will collectively fit within 5.000 m x 1.500 m x 19.000 m no one of which shall be larger than 5.000 m x 1.500 m x 9.500 m;

B/ within the same 24 hours, hulls and cross structure shall be disassembled and packed in shipping boxes of the following outside dimensions:

(i) two of 22.500 m x 2.500 m x 2.000 m;
(ii) two of 14.500 m x 1.500 m x 1.250 m;
C/ within 48 hours, from packed in the foregoing shipping boxes to assembled and ready to sail.

Competitors shall satisfy the Measurement Committee that they are capable of meeting these
requirements. If the Measurement Committee has doubt as to the ability of a Competitor to comply
with the time constraints of this rule, they may require the Competitor to demonstrate compliance by
disassembling and reassembling the AC72 Yacht.



Measurement Methodology:

Competitors shall submit to the Measurement Committee a detailed schedule for the assembly and
disassembly of each AC 72 yacht. This schedule shall include the tasks to be completed, the projected time
required to complete each task and the number of personnel assigned to each task. The Measurement
Committee may request additional information in support of the proposed schedule.
Competitors shall submit to the Measurement Committee drawings or models in an agreed electronic format
that describe all of the required components packed within boxes of the required dimensions.

This measurement methodology is issued in accordance with Rule 24.1of the AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1:

22nd February, 2011.
Nick Nicholson
Chairman
for the Measurement Committee



#72 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 20 September 2011 - 08:53 AM

^^
Glad you keep monitoring the bulletin board. As you say, given the new circumstances, the 'virtual' methodology makes sense.

Now:

I know you are a big fan of 360 rotation on the wings. But, just think that it is still possible to capsize. In the absence of shrouds and headstay, you can say good bye to an already heavier and costlier wing. Shrouds and headstay are just plain more efficient from a structural standpoint to a cantilevered beam. It is not even a contest. The bigger the load (knock down) the more evident that will become.


Not an easy one, afraid I'll have to punt with "I'm not a designer, but ..". But in fact, that Aussie guy who posted his conceptual design (the one with three cross-beams) had a self-standing wing on a slewing bearing, and claimed no weight penalty. And carbon gets cheaper by the day.
About dynamic loads dunno, but a cantilever beam should be more elastic than the isostatic alternative.
All very qualitative, I know ..

#73 blunted

blunted

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Boats with wings are cool, just plain cool

Posted 20 September 2011 - 06:57 PM

^^
Glad you keep monitoring the bulletin board. As you say, given the new circumstances, the 'virtual' methodology makes sense.

Now:


I know you are a big fan of 360 rotation on the wings. But, just think that it is still possible to capsize. In the absence of shrouds and headstay, you can say good bye to an already heavier and costlier wing. Shrouds and headstay are just plain more efficient from a structural standpoint to a cantilevered beam. It is not even a contest. The bigger the load (knock down) the more evident that will become.


Not an easy one, afraid I'll have to punt with "I'm not a designer, but ..". But in fact, that Aussie guy who posted his conceptual design (the one with three cross-beams) had a self-standing wing on a slewing bearing, and claimed no weight penalty. And carbon gets cheaper by the day.
About dynamic loads dunno, but a cantilever beam should be more elastic than the isostatic alternative.
All very qualitative, I know ..


That's nice, but what kind of headstay tension does he get?

#74 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 20 September 2011 - 07:55 PM

^^

Have to agree, with headsails runners (rather than backstays for the reasons you laid out) are inevitable.

#75 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:38 PM


Maybe this piece belongs here. Looks like it's new: (itals mine)

--

</h6><h6>Larry Ellison Doesn't Want a Bigger Boat

An America's Cup race involving smaller boats would likely produce more teams—and perhaps more drama.When sailing's premier race returns to the U.S. next year, it will feature 72-foot catamarans. But Larry Ellison, the co-founder and CEO of Oracle Corp. and founder of Oracle Racing, which won the last Cup in 2010, said in a recent interview that the competition could benefit from a switch to the 45-foot catamarans currently used in the America's Cup World Series. "I think it's a really good idea to get the cost of fielding a team way down so you can have a lot more countries [and athletes] participating," Ellison said. "If they're 45 feet long, we can ship them around in standard-sized containers, assemble them on site."

Ellison said he would like to have a field of 24 teams competing for the Cup, so the sport can show off more athletes, faster boats and technology that brings television viewers closer to the action. He sees the America's Cup as an extreme sport—one that will, of course, include a few crashes. "When you push the boats to the limits sometimes they just leap into the air, flip over. It's pretty wild," he said. "We're trying to leave some of the traditions of sailing behind and race on boats that are the fastest in the world."

Xlot will love this!



#76 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:44 PM



Maybe this piece belongs here. Looks like it's new: (itals mine)

--

</h6><h6>Larry Ellison Doesn't Want a Bigger Boat

An America's Cup race involving smaller boats would likely produce more teams—and perhaps more drama.When sailing's premier race returns to the U.S. next year, it will feature 72-foot catamarans. But Larry Ellison, the co-founder and CEO of Oracle Corp. and founder of Oracle Racing, which won the last Cup in 2010, said in a recent interview that the competition could benefit from a switch to the 45-foot catamarans currently used in the America's Cup World Series. "I think it's a really good idea to get the cost of fielding a team way down so you can have a lot more countries [and athletes] participating," Ellison said. "If they're 45 feet long, we can ship them around in standard-sized containers, assemble them on site."

Ellison said he would like to have a field of 24 teams competing for the Cup, so the sport can show off more athletes, faster boats and technology that brings television viewers closer to the action. He sees the America's Cup as an extreme sport—one that will, of course, include a few crashes. "When you push the boats to the limits sometimes they just leap into the air, flip over. It's pretty wild," he said. "We're trying to leave some of the traditions of sailing behind and race on boats that are the fastest in the world."

Xlot will love this!


Why do I get the feeling there is some context left out in this story?

#77 seis

seis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:47 PM

+1

#78 ro!

ro!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,194 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:21 PM



Maybe this piece belongs here. Looks like it's new: (itals mine)

--

</h6><h6>Larry Ellison Doesn't Want a Bigger Boat

An America's Cup race involving smaller boats would likely produce more teams—and perhaps more drama.When sailing's premier race returns to the U.S. next year, it will feature 72-foot catamarans. But Larry Ellison, the co-founder and CEO of Oracle Corp. and founder of Oracle Racing, which won the last Cup in 2010, said in a recent interview that the competition could benefit from a switch to the 45-foot catamarans currently used in the America's Cup World Series. "I think it's a really good idea to get the cost of fielding a team way down so you can have a lot more countries [and athletes] participating," Ellison said. "If they're 45 feet long, we can ship them around in standard-sized containers, assemble them on site."

Ellison said he would like to have a field of 24 teams competing for the Cup, so the sport can show off more athletes, faster boats and technology that brings television viewers closer to the action. He sees the America's Cup as an extreme sport—one that will, of course, include a few crashes. "When you push the boats to the limits sometimes they just leap into the air, flip over. It's pretty wild," he said. "We're trying to leave some of the traditions of sailing behind and race on boats that are the fastest in the world."

Xlot will love this!


It makes you wonder why he didn't get the cost way down when he had the chance after 33..the bloke couldn't buy a clue after getting blown by russ ...

Where are all the guys who said they would be the first to point the finger if lazza tried to do an eb?....

#79 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,777 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:27 PM

^. :) Made your day!

#80 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,141 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:40 PM

Hmmmm . . . .



Taking it to the logical conclusion, AC45s will keep racing as a 'sideshow' right up to SF 2013, providing the number of races ACEA committed to in the HCA - but only OR, AR and ETNZ will build 72s !!



Actually, taken to its logical conclusion, they would scrap the 72 concept and race the AC in the AC45's. I don't think they will take it to that logical conclusion (Loss of face by LE and RC will be the thing that stops this logical solution), but do remember that the ac45 is very carefully just over the deed minimum size. It would just take a small bit of protocol modification and a little 'ac45 rule' writing. Would provide exciting racing at a MUCH lower cost, better return for sponsors, with many more teams playing and developing for the future - as I say the logical conclusion.



#81 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:51 PM

Hmmmm . . . .




Taking it to the logical conclusion, AC45s will keep racing as a 'sideshow' right up to SF 2013, providing the number of races ACEA committed to in the HCA - but only OR, AR and ETNZ will build 72s !!



Actually, taken to its logical conclusion, they would scrap the 72 concept and race the AC in the AC45's. I don't think they will take it to that logical conclusion (Loss of face by LE and RC will be the thing that stops this logical solution), but do remember that the ac45 is very carefully just over the deed minimum size. It would just take a small bit of protocol modification and a little 'ac45 rule' writing. Would provide exciting racing at a MUCH lower cost, better return for sponsors, with many more teams playing and developing for the future - as I say the logical conclusion.


Sorry, that post is past its expiration date.

#82 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:59 PM




Maybe this piece belongs here. Looks like it's new: (itals mine)

--

</h6><h6>Larry Ellison Doesn't Want a Bigger Boat

An America's Cup race involving smaller boats would likely produce more teams—and perhaps more drama.When sailing's premier race returns to the U.S. next year, it will feature 72-foot catamarans. But Larry Ellison, the co-founder and CEO of Oracle Corp. and founder of Oracle Racing, which won the last Cup in 2010, said in a recent interview that the competition could benefit from a switch to the 45-foot catamarans currently used in the America's Cup World Series. "I think it's a really good idea to get the cost of fielding a team way down so you can have a lot more countries [and athletes] participating," Ellison said. "If they're 45 feet long, we can ship them around in standard-sized containers, assemble them on site."

Ellison said he would like to have a field of 24 teams competing for the Cup, so the sport can show off more athletes, faster boats and technology that brings television viewers closer to the action. He sees the America's Cup as an extreme sport—one that will, of course, include a few crashes. "When you push the boats to the limits sometimes they just leap into the air, flip over. It's pretty wild," he said. "We're trying to leave some of the traditions of sailing behind and race on boats that are the fastest in the world."

Xlot will love this!


It makes you wonder why he didn't get the cost way down when he had the chance after 33..the bloke couldn't buy a clue after getting blown by russ ...

Where are all the guys who said they would be the first to point the finger if lazza tried to do an eb?....


Remember Worth said that ACEA had a problem with the deed?
Remember Coutts said that he saw the AC as the cream on the top of the WS?








#83 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:24 AM

Sobering thought: how many people (your humble servant included) could have become billionaires, since they are demonstrably smarter than the sixth richest man in the world - if only they hadn't wasted their time posting on SA instead .. :(

#84 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:17 PM

Sobering thought: how many people (your humble servant included) could have become billionaires, since they are demonstrably smarter than the sixth richest man in the world - if only they hadn't wasted their time posting on SA instead .. :(

Sweet, but sometimes even the smartest can have a bad day and make a bad decision - or many of them. Or is not smart in all areas. Not everyone is a Da Vinci.

#85 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,982 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:48 PM




Maybe this piece belongs here. Looks like it's new: (itals mine)

--

</h6><h6>Larry Ellison Doesn't Want a Bigger Boat

An America's Cup race involving smaller boats would likely produce more teams—and perhaps more drama.When sailing's premier race returns to the U.S. next year, it will feature 72-foot catamarans. But Larry Ellison, the co-founder and CEO of Oracle Corp. and founder of Oracle Racing, which won the last Cup in 2010, said in a recent interview that the competition could benefit from a switch to the 45-foot catamarans currently used in the America's Cup World Series. "I think it's a really good idea to get the cost of fielding a team way down so you can have a lot more countries [and athletes] participating," Ellison said. "If they're 45 feet long, we can ship them around in standard-sized containers, assemble them on site."

Ellison said he would like to have a field of 24 teams competing for the Cup, so the sport can show off more athletes, faster boats and technology that brings television viewers closer to the action. He sees the America's Cup as an extreme sport—one that will, of course, include a few crashes. "When you push the boats to the limits sometimes they just leap into the air, flip over. It's pretty wild," he said. "We're trying to leave some of the traditions of sailing behind and race on boats that are the fastest in the world."

Xlot will love this!


It makes you wonder why he didn't get the cost way down when he had the chance after 33..the bloke couldn't buy a clue after getting blown by russ ...

Where are all the guys who said they would be the first to point the finger if lazza tried to do an eb?....


He could have started by omitting the need of a hard wing that requires 35,000 man hours to build, an unknown number of hours to repair and almost no trickle down value to 99% of the worlds sailing community.

#86 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,141 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:05 PM


Sobering thought: how many people (your humble servant included) could have become billionaires, since they are demonstrably smarter than the sixth richest man in the world - if only they hadn't wasted their time posting on SA instead .. :(

Sweet, but sometimes even the smartest can have a bad day and make a bad decision - or many of them. Or is not smart in all areas. Not everyone is a Da Vinci.


honest question . . . would you trade your life for LE's?
I would not. I have done so many excellent things (from very interesting corporate work to pro-bono 'good works' to sailing RTW with my wife twice).
It's hard for a guy in his position to have real freedom. He has too many strings attached and too many minders. Even if he tried to just chuck it all and take 10 years off sailing to polar regions - he would end up with a superyacht with 50 crew and minders ashore 'looking after' him.

Sweet, but sometimes even the smartest can have a bad day and make a bad decision - or many of them. Or is not smart in all areas. Not everyone is a Da Vinci.



Very very true. But this one has been staring us in the face for more than a year ago. PH & I agreed about 14 months ago that RC was pretty obviously taking LE for a ride. RC is obviously very good at appealing to rich guy's egos, and I am sure he told LE that he could fix LE's place in the history books as the 'saviour of the AC' (or even all of sailing) if he just forked over a mere half a billion. Unfortunately RC while a brilliant campaign and design manager was completely out of touch with the sponsor world and not a good business general manager (and why should he be with no education or experience at it).

#87 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:20 PM

^
Honest answer: No, my life is great as it is, don't need anything different.

To add to my earlier remark: EB is also a good business man, but we all know what bad decisions (against better advice!) he made. Being a genius in one area at one or more times does not mean that you are a genius everytime everywhere.

#88 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,141 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:23 PM

^
Honest answer: No, my life is great as it is, don't need anything different.

To add to my earlier remark: EB is also a good business man, but we all know what bad decisions (against better advice!) he made. Being a genius in one area at one or more times does not mean that you are a genius everytime everywhere.


Completely agree . . . also re RC.

#89 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:24 PM


^
Honest answer: No, my life is great as it is, don't need anything different.

To add to my earlier remark: EB is also a good business man, but we all know what bad decisions (against better advice!) he made. Being a genius in one area at one or more times does not mean that you are a genius everytime everywhere.


Completely agree . . . also re RC.

And LE.

#90 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:11 PM

Very very true. But this one has been staring us in the face for more than a year ago. PH & I agreed about 14 months ago that RC was pretty obviously taking LE for a ride. RC is obviously very good at appealing to rich guy's egos, and I am sure he told LE that he could fix LE's place in the history books as the 'saviour of the AC' (or even all of sailing) if he just forked over a mere half a billion. Unfortunately RC while a brilliant campaign and design manager was completely out of touch with the sponsor world and not a good business general manager (and why should he be with no education or experience at it).

Recent news from SF tends to suggest a management breakdown within ACEA.
Ellison's interview seems to suggest that AC34 has lost direction.
LE's still following RC.

He sees no icebergs.
All is well with the world.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users