Jump to content


What the hell were the pie warmers?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,875 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:14 PM

Will someone, somewhere please ask Dalts or Pete Melvin, hell anyone, exactly what were the pie warmers supposed to be doing aerodynamically?

#2 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,308 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:16 PM

Cup Holders  :o  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:



#3 PonderousPelican

PonderousPelican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 09:17 PM

Will someone, somewhere please ask Dalts or Pete Melvin, hell anyone, exactly what were the pie warmers supposed to be doing aerodynamically?

 

They re-did the front.  I'd wager they added area, reducing stability.  The pie warmers added area aft to compensate.  You see this all the time when they convert an aircraft to floats.  The floats are big in front making the thing yaw happy.  So they add chines or auxiliary vertical surfaces to the tail.  Don't know if the pie warmers were to improve stability in pitch, yaw or both.



#4 Redsled

Redsled

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 498 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:19 PM

Dalts answered this in an interview, discussed here in a prior thread.  I don't recall the details, but Ponderous is basically right - they were part of an aero package that included the modifications to the front, which their CFD models told them would be more aerodynamic overall.  Don't recall the details beyond that though.  Dalts said it worked, and was particularly impressed how accurate the models were.



#5 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,622 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:44 PM

These guys know:

World%27s%20Biggest%20Spolier.jpg

 

Riced_Out_Ride_119.jpg

 

ricerocket.jpg



#6 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:07 PM


Dalts answered this in an interview, discussed here in a prior thread.  I don't recall the details, but Ponderous is basically right - they were part of an aero package that included the modifications to the front, which their CFD models told them would be more aerodynamic overall.  Don't recall the details beyond that though.  Dalts said it worked, and was particularly impressed how accurate the models were.

be said they added just a little bit of lift. Presumably to balance the additional lift up front.

#7 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts
  • Interests:Getting guys to put their white sticky stuff all over my face.

Posted 04 October 2013 - 08:26 PM

 Tilling attachments for the soybean crop.



#8 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,443 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 08:38 PM

Will someone, somewhere please ask Dalts or Pete Melvin, hell anyone, exactly what were the pie warmers supposed to be doing aerodynamically?

 

Discussion during one of the races surrounded the theory that the pie warmers enhanced the effectriveness of the wing by maintaining the attachment of the wind flow, or something along those lines.



#9 PonderousPelican

PonderousPelican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:03 PM

Will someone, somewhere please ask Dalts or Pete Melvin, hell anyone, exactly what were the pie warmers supposed to be doing aerodynamically?

 

Discussion during one of the races surrounded the theory that the pie warmers enhanced the effectriveness of the wing by maintaining the attachment of the wind flow, or something along those lines.

 

Discussion during another race concerned flying elephants.



#10 Peragrin

Peragrin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 09:27 PM

okay while I loved the racing, the discussions during the race by the presenters was at best ludicrous.  other than exact race conditions I took everything they said with a grain of salt and a shot of rum.



#11 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,443 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 10:16 PM

 

Will someone, somewhere please ask Dalts or Pete Melvin, hell anyone, exactly what were the pie warmers supposed to be doing aerodynamically?

 

Discussion during one of the races surrounded the theory that the pie warmers enhanced the effectriveness of the wing by maintaining the attachment of the wind flow, or something along those lines.

 

Discussion during another race concerned flying elephants.

 

Not saying I agreed with the statements or that they were based on input from ET, but these guys were certainly closer to the teams and people in the know than most so I tended to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Not sure I understand the benefit of the "lift theory", but it's all history at this point. 



#12 WetHog

WetHog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,414 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD USA

Posted 05 October 2013 - 03:21 AM

of7v9t.jpg

 

WetHog  :ph34r:



#13 burbanite

burbanite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 05 October 2013 - 03:42 AM

Not sure I understand the benefit of the "lift theory", but it's all history at this point. 

 

I didn't get that part either, I thought it was to reattach the air across the beam as it was coming of the lower edge of the wing when at it's max angle. Did that help create lift? If that was the case why was lift needed at that point?



#14 SIR CLEAN

SIR CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:Integrity.

Posted 05 October 2013 - 04:34 AM

the designers said they were shelters for Dean and Ray to hide in when they lost and the kiwi's pelted them with beer cans.

 

here....    Deanchokesagain@ETNZ.com

 

But Dalt's refuted that and said they were roll cages for Dean and Ray.



#15 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 05 October 2013 - 05:37 AM

Worth pointing out, that whilst the pie-warmers look a lot like spoilers, the intent is rather different.  The important bits that are there to do the work are the uprights, whilst the cross piece is there to provide an end plate to suppress vortices, reducing drag and improving the effective length of the verticals. Having the entire thing form a box probably helps mechanically as well. 



#16 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,443 posts

Posted 05 October 2013 - 05:48 AM

of7v9t.jpg

 

WetHog  :ph34r:

That must be the lift component in the equation. Lots of mexican food instead of wheatbix.

 

Kim dot fatcom could be a strategic advantage given enough beans.



#17 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,049 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 12:30 AM

Will someone, somewhere please ask Dalts or Pete Melvin, hell anyone, exactly what were the pie warmers supposed to be doing aerodynamically?

 

They re-did the front.  I'd wager they added area, reducing stability.  The pie warmers added area aft to compensate.  You see this all the time when they convert an aircraft to floats.  The floats are big in front making the thing yaw happy.  So they add chines or auxiliary vertical surfaces to the tail.  Don't know if the pie warmers were to improve stability in pitch, yaw or both.

 

   "Reduced stability"? Would another way of putting that be compensating for the increased windage way out there on the nose, 30 feet from of the center of gravity?

 

 My guess is that in 60 knots of relative wind it's a significant turning moment, felt by the driver as lee helm. 



#18 PonderousPelican

PonderousPelican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 01:04 AM

 

Will someone, somewhere please ask Dalts or Pete Melvin, hell anyone, exactly what were the pie warmers supposed to be doing aerodynamically?

 

They re-did the front.  I'd wager they added area, reducing stability.  The pie warmers added area aft to compensate.  You see this all the time when they convert an aircraft to floats.  The floats are big in front making the thing yaw happy.  So they add chines or auxiliary vertical surfaces to the tail.  Don't know if the pie warmers were to improve stability in pitch, yaw or both.

 

   "Reduced stability"? Would another way of putting that be compensating for the increased windage way out there on the nose, 30 feet from of the center of gravity?

 

 My guess is that in 60 knots of relative wind it's a significant turning moment, felt by the driver as lee helm. 

 

That's not a bad way to think about it.  A weather vane is stable.  If you add a bunch or area to the pointy end of a weather vane it stops being stable and will point any-which-way.  Adding more to the back end increases the stability. 



#19 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,308 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 06 October 2013 - 11:17 PM

They thought it was going to be Cold in SF

 

they are Crying Towel Warmers  :)



#20 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VRGNR1O5mtA?t=13m

 

Melvin talking about the pie warmers.



#21 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts
  • Interests:Getting guys to put their white sticky stuff all over my face.

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:59 PM

Missed it the first time I listened but interesting that he said the near roll over by ETNZ was caused by bad crew work.



#22 burbanite

burbanite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 06:55 PM

Missed it the first time I listened but interesting that he said the near roll over by ETNZ was caused by bad crew work.

 

Yep, wasn't it DB who said it at the post race media circle jerk?



#23 L124C

L124C

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 27 October 2013 - 10:59 PM

Melvin pretty much sums it up. The entire interview is interesting BTW.

 

Though... I had to laugh at how mystical and ominous the pie warmers appeared to me when the Kiwis were on top, and how silly they looked in races 18 and 19. Might as well as had pies in them! Based on nothing of course, simply the relative position of the teams.

 

Similarly, I recall the speculation that the pedestal behind the helm on Oracle was a design flaw, as Kostecki (sp?) had to keep his head down all the time. Turned out that with the right afterguard combination, it gave Spithill eyes in the back of his head fore and aft. In fairness to Kostecki, they did have a much faster boat. However, I think this shot (and the onboard chatter) shows the crew change was important as well. Funny how different things often look in retrospect.

Attached File  GMR_AC34SepD10_9656-780x519.jpg   122.47K   19 downloads

http://youtu.be/VRGNR1O5mtA?t=13m

 

Melvin talking about the pie warmers.

 



#24 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:49 AM

^
Aft pedestal worked like a charm - at least with OR in front.

Otherwise, most were crying foul that the Olympian Slingsby was looking backwards - at nothing at all.

#25 SIR CLEAN

SIR CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:Integrity.

Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:02 AM

The pie warmers were just a stupid distraction that took ETNZ's eye of the foiling control design issues they had.

Money and time was spent on the wrong things.

Pie warmers, Hull form/stability, jib shape and size, self tacking jib, wing control, and many other design gizmos were used on ETNZ but they failed to master true foil control.

In other words... they wasted time and money on the wrong things. They also failed to close the regatta out when they had the speed advantage and a 2 race buffer before race one!.

eTNZ had more races with a speed advantage than OR but through poor crew work, tactics, starting, and bad skipper calls they choked with loses to Oracle in those first nine races.

Those first three loses were where it was lost.

#26 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:42 AM

The pie warmers were just a stupid distraction that took ETNZ's eye of the foiling control design issues they had.

Money and time was spent on the wrong things.

Pie warmers, Hull form/stability, jib shape and size, self tacking jib, wing control, and many other design gizmos were used on ETNZ but they failed to master true foil control.

In other words... they wasted time and money on the wrong things. They also failed to close the regatta out when they had the speed advantage and a 2 race buffer before race one!.

eTNZ had more races with a speed advantage than OR but through poor crew work, tactics, starting, and bad skipper calls they choked with loses to Oracle in those first nine races.

Those first three loses were where it was lost.

 

 

I think this is just BS. I don't think ETNZ had any foiling stability problems at all. I am sure that they could have improved it but they did not have any problems with stability. OR arrived to the AC not being knowing how to sail there boat in an efficient way. They looked like kids compared to ETNZ. They learned how to flybe a week or two before the event. They did not know how to tack until after 5-6 races. If you listed to what spithill sais he sais that OR did very little changes to there boat. They learned how to sail there boat. The magic for them was that they were able to optimize the wing, the jibe and the foils like one unit in the end. They arrived to the AC sailing there boat very inefficient.

 

I actually think that the OR boat were always faster then ETNZ but OR were not able to extract it. ETNZ on the other end came fully prepared, teaching the other teams how to sail. In the end they lost due to boat speed.



#27 coaster1

coaster1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Location:left coast

Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:45 PM

The pie warmers were just a stupid distraction that took ETNZ's eye of the foiling control design issues they had.

Money and time was spent on the wrong things.

Pie warmers, Hull form/stability, jib shape and size, self tacking jib, wing control, and many other design gizmos were used on ETNZ but they failed to master true foil control.

In other words... they wasted time and money on the wrong things. They also failed to close the regatta out when they had the speed advantage and a 2 race buffer before race one!.

eTNZ had more races with a speed advantage than OR but through poor crew work, tactics, starting, and bad skipper calls they choked with loses to Oracle in those first nine races.

Those first three loses were where it was lost.

 

 

I think this is just BS. I don't think ETNZ had any foiling stability problems at all. I am sure that they could have improved it but they did not have any problems with stability. OR arrived to the AC not being knowing how to sail there boat in an efficient way. They looked like kids compared to ETNZ. They learned how to flybe a week or two before the event. They did not know how to tack until after 5-6 races. If you listed to what spithill sais he sais that OR did very little changes to there boat. They learned how to sail there boat. The magic for them was that they were able to optimize the wing, the jibe and the foils like one unit in the end. They arrived to the AC sailing there boat very inefficient.

 

I actually think that the OR boat were always faster then ETNZ but OR were not able to extract it. ETNZ on the other end came fully prepared, teaching the other teams how to sail. In the end they lost due to boat speed.

 

Didn't they lose their wing trimmer of 3 years just 5 days prior to the event ?

 

Apart from that they climbed a pretty steep learning curve in a short period of time, and ET also improved during the finals, OR just improved more.



#28 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:20 PM

 

The pie warmers were just a stupid distraction that took ETNZ's eye of the foiling control design issues they had.

Money and time was spent on the wrong things.

Pie warmers, Hull form/stability, jib shape and size, self tacking jib, wing control, and many other design gizmos were used on ETNZ but they failed to master true foil control.

In other words... they wasted time and money on the wrong things. They also failed to close the regatta out when they had the speed advantage and a 2 race buffer before race one!.

eTNZ had more races with a speed advantage than OR but through poor crew work, tactics, starting, and bad skipper calls they choked with loses to Oracle in those first nine races.

Those first three loses were where it was lost.

 

 

I think this is just BS. I don't think ETNZ had any foiling stability problems at all. I am sure that they could have improved it but they did not have any problems with stability. OR arrived to the AC not being knowing how to sail there boat in an efficient way. They looked like kids compared to ETNZ. They learned how to flybe a week or two before the event. They did not know how to tack until after 5-6 races. If you listed to what spithill sais he sais that OR did very little changes to there boat. They learned how to sail there boat. The magic for them was that they were able to optimize the wing, the jibe and the foils like one unit in the end. They arrived to the AC sailing there boat very inefficient.

 

I actually think that the OR boat were always faster then ETNZ but OR were not able to extract it. ETNZ on the other end came fully prepared, teaching the other teams how to sail. In the end they lost due to boat speed.

 

Didn't they lose their wing trimmer of 3 years just 5 days prior to the event ?

 

Apart from that they climbed a pretty steep learning curve in a short period of time, and ET also improved during the finals, OR just improved more.

 

Fully agree with you. The loss of the wing trimmer must have been a huge issue. The angle of ORs learning curve was very impressive.

 

It would have been interesting to know how it would have ended if OR did not capsize , AR did not capsize, OR did not have there AC45 story.

 

One interesting thing in Cleans interview with Spithill is that he sais that if the capsize would not happen they might not have been at the same place as they had to regroup and reorganize.

 

He sad the same thing with regards to the wing in AC33. If they would not have had the mast damage/failure they might not have tried the wing as they were sort of happy with sail and did not think that the wing would make that big difference. Then they tried the wing and they were blown away by its performance.



#29 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,443 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:46 PM

 

 

The pie warmers were just a stupid distraction that took ETNZ's eye of the foiling control design issues they had.

Money and time was spent on the wrong things.

Pie warmers, Hull form/stability, jib shape and size, self tacking jib, wing control, and many other design gizmos were used on ETNZ but they failed to master true foil control.

In other words... they wasted time and money on the wrong things. They also failed to close the regatta out when they had the speed advantage and a 2 race buffer before race one!.

eTNZ had more races with a speed advantage than OR but through poor crew work, tactics, starting, and bad skipper calls they choked with loses to Oracle in those first nine races.

Those first three loses were where it was lost.

 

 

I think this is just BS. I don't think ETNZ had any foiling stability problems at all. I am sure that they could have improved it but they did not have any problems with stability. OR arrived to the AC not being knowing how to sail there boat in an efficient way. They looked like kids compared to ETNZ. They learned how to flybe a week or two before the event. They did not know how to tack until after 5-6 races. If you listed to what spithill sais he sais that OR did very little changes to there boat. They learned how to sail there boat. The magic for them was that they were able to optimize the wing, the jibe and the foils like one unit in the end. They arrived to the AC sailing there boat very inefficient.

 

I actually think that the OR boat were always faster then ETNZ but OR were not able to extract it. ETNZ on the other end came fully prepared, teaching the other teams how to sail. In the end they lost due to boat speed.

 

Didn't they lose their wing trimmer of 3 years just 5 days prior to the event ?

 

Apart from that they climbed a pretty steep learning curve in a short period of time, and ET also improved during the finals, OR just improved more.

 

Fully agree with you. The loss of the wing trimmer must have been a huge issue. The angle of ORs learning curve was very impressive.

 

It would have been interesting to know how it would have ended if OR did not capsize , AR did not capsize, OR did not have there AC45 story.

 

One interesting thing in Cleans interview with Spithill is that he sais that if the capsize would not happen they might not have been at the same place as they had to regroup and reorganize.

 

He sad the same thing with regards to the wing in AC33. If they would not have had the mast damage/failure they might not have tried the wing as they were sort of happy with sail and did not think that the wing would make that big difference. Then they tried the wing and they were blown away by its performance.

 

Their is most likely a fair amount of accuracy to these statements. I mentioned they would probably be a stronger team for it at the time of the capsize, and of course all the experts here jumped on it as a claim of something all the teams should do be stronger. The point being is that OR had the shore team and attitude to deal with it and overcome adversity.

 

OR also had both a bench strength and age advantage in their sailing team that ET did not. Advantage Facebookers :)



#30 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:03 PM

OR also had both a bench strength and age advantage in their sailing team that ET did not. Advantage Facebookers :)

 

Are you talking grinders or brains now?



#31 SIR CLEAN

SIR CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:Integrity.

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:40 AM


 


 


The pie warmers were just a stupid distraction that took ETNZ's eye of the foiling control design issues they had.
Money and time was spent on the wrong things.
Pie warmers, Hull form/stability, jib shape and size, self tacking jib, wing control, and many other design gizmos were used on ETNZ but they failed to master true foil control.
In other words... they wasted time and money on the wrong things. They also failed to close the regatta out when they had the speed advantage and a 2 race buffer before race one!.
eTNZ had more races with a speed advantage than OR but through poor crew work, tactics, starting, and bad skipper calls they choked with loses to Oracle in those first nine races.
Those first three loses were where it was lost.

 
 
I think this is just BS. I don't think ETNZ had any foiling stability problems at all. I am sure that they could have improved it but they did not have any problems with stability. OR arrived to the AC not being knowing how to sail there boat in an efficient way. They looked like kids compared to ETNZ. They learned how to flybe a week or two before the event. They did not know how to tack until after 5-6 races. If you listed to what spithill sais he sais that OR did very little changes to there boat. They learned how to sail there boat. The magic for them was that they were able to optimize the wing, the jibe and the foils like one unit in the end. They arrived to the AC sailing there boat very inefficient.
 
I actually think that the OR boat were always faster then ETNZ but OR were not able to extract it. ETNZ on the other end came fully prepared, teaching the other teams how to sail. In the end they lost due to boat speed.
 
Didn't they lose their wing trimmer of 3 years just 5 days prior to the event ?
 
Apart from that they climbed a pretty steep learning curve in a short period of time, and ET also improved during the finals, OR just improved more.
 
Fully agree with you. The loss of the wing trimmer must have been a huge issue. The angle of ORs learning curve was very impressive.
 
It would have been interesting to know how it would have ended if OR did not capsize , AR did not capsize, OR did not have there AC45 story.
 
One interesting thing in Cleans interview with Spithill is that he sais that if the capsize would not happen they might not have been at the same place as they had to regroup and reorganize.
 
He sad the same thing with regards to the wing in AC33. If they would not have had the mast damage/failure they might not have tried the wing as they were sort of happy with sail and did not think that the wing would make that big difference. Then they tried the wing and they were blown away by its performance.
 
Their is most likely a fair amount of accuracy to these statements. I mentioned they would probably be a stronger team for it at the time of the capsize, and of course all the experts here jumped on it as a claim of something all the teams should do be stronger. The point being is that OR had the shore team and attitude to deal with it and overcome adversity.
 
OR also had both a bench strength and age advantage in their sailing team that ET did not. Advantage Facebookers :)
agree 100%.

vij, I did'nt say they had stability issues but spent a lot of time on hull form / stability design ( fuller bows) design rather than foil control for upwind speed development.

OR perfected the trim of their foils for each wind strength and also had a assymetrical system as compared to ETNZ's symmetrical system. Which suited the longer port tacks of the course upwind.

#32 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,443 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:51 AM

OR also had both a bench strength and age advantage in their sailing team that ET did not. Advantage Facebookers :)

 

Are you talking grinders or brains now?

 

OR never changed grinders and strengthened the afterguard.during the event - you tell me  :) 



#33 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:55 AM

agree 100%.

vij, I did'nt say they had stability issues but spent a lot of time on hull form / stability design ( fuller bows) design rather than foil control for upwind speed development.

OR perfected the trim of their foils for each wind strength and also had a assymetrical system as compared to ETNZ's symmetrical system. Which suited the longer port tacks of the course upwind.

 

 

May be I missed something but I think that Spithill said in the Clean interview that they did not use asymmetrical foils. They only used asymmetrical ballast. Both the foils and the wing were symmetrical or did I get it wrong.



#34 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 29 October 2013 - 09:33 AM

That is definitely what he said. Only difference was the sail stored to stbd.

#35 SIR CLEAN

SIR CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:Integrity.

Posted 30 October 2013 - 05:51 AM


agree 100%.
vij, I did'nt say they had stability issues but spent a lot of time on hull form / stability design ( fuller bows) design rather than foil control for upwind speed development.
OR perfected the trim of their foils for each wind strength and also had a assymetrical system as compared to ETNZ's symmetrical system. Which suited the longer port tacks of the course upwind.

 
 
May be I missed something but I think that Spithill said in the Clean interview that they did not use asymmetrical foils. They only used asymmetrical ballast. Both the foils and the wing were symmetrical or did I get it wrong.
I Am sure they used assymetrical foils and rudders. This allowed to foil for speed on longer port tacks upwind (into and above waves)and longer starboard gybes downwind. I am sure it was confirmed by coutts too?

#36 JimmyS

JimmyS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Location:....'pending'
  • Interests:$ailing Fa$t Boat$

Posted 30 October 2013 - 06:31 AM

agree 100%.

vij, I did'nt say they had stability issues but spent a lot of time on hull form / stability design ( fuller bows) design rather than foil control for upwind speed development.

OR perfected the trim of their foils for each wind strength and also had a assymetrical system as compared to ETNZ's symmetrical system. Which suited the longer port tacks of the course upwind.

 

 

May be I missed something but I think that Spithill said in the Clean interview that they did not use asymmetrical foils. They only used asymmetrical ballast. Both the foils and the wing were symmetrical or did I get it wrong.

 

 

 

     it's funny--people will take ANYTHING in if you say it with a straight face

 

                gotta love SA :lol:



#37 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 30 October 2013 - 08:34 AM

 


agree 100%.
vij, I did'nt say they had stability issues but spent a lot of time on hull form / stability design ( fuller bows) design rather than foil control for upwind speed development.
OR perfected the trim of their foils for each wind strength and also had a assymetrical system as compared to ETNZ's symmetrical system. Which suited the longer port tacks of the course upwind.

 
 
May be I missed something but I think that Spithill said in the Clean interview that they did not use asymmetrical foils. They only used asymmetrical ballast. Both the foils and the wing were symmetrical or did I get it wrong.
I Am sure they used assymetrical foils and rudders. This allowed to foil for speed on longer port tacks upwind (into and above waves)and longer starboard gybes downwind. I am sure it was confirmed by coutts too?

 

So you say that Spithill is a bullshiter? Do I understand you correct?

 

How do we know that ETNZ did not use asymmetrical foils and rudders? Did Coutts confirm that to you too or do you just think that ETNZ are just to f****ng stupid to think out side of the box and introduce new things. Everyone were trying asymmetrical foils in the build up to the AC to find there fastest setup.



#38 SIR CLEAN

SIR CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:Integrity.

Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:58 AM



 




agree 100%.
vij, I did'nt say they had stability issues but spent a lot of time on hull form / stability design ( fuller bows) design rather than foil control for upwind speed development.
OR perfected the trim of their foils for each wind strength and also had a assymetrical system as compared to ETNZ's symmetrical system. Which suited the longer port tacks of the course upwind.

 

 
May be I missed something but I think that Spithill said in the Clean interview that they did not use asymmetrical foils. They only used asymmetrical ballast. Both the foils and the wing were symmetrical or did I get it wrong.
I Am sure they used assymetrical foils and rudders. This allowed to foil for speed on longer port tacks upwind (into and above waves)and longer starboard gybes downwind. I am sure it was confirmed by coutts too?
 
So you say that Spithill is a bullshiter? Do I understand you correct?
 
How do we know that ETNZ did not use asymmetrical foils and rudders? Did Coutts confirm that to you too or do you just think that ETNZ are just to f****ng stupid to think out side of the box and introduce new things. Everyone were trying asymmetrical foils in the build up to the AC to find there fastest setup.
No Vij you never understand correctly! Thats you problem. I said spithill said it and also Coutts said it on a NZ interview on the web.

They both said they ran assymetrical set ups to make the most of the differing tacks/gybes and the conditions and length of time they spent on each tack/gybe as referenced to the course.

I am sure they both said foils and I think hulls were mentioned too. But don,t quote me on that until I find the interview.

ETNZ's foils are not worth considering as they were not the reason the lost.

Do you understand now or is your Google translater confused too!

#39 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 30 October 2013 - 10:09 AM





 






agree 100%.
vij, I did'nt say they had stability issues but spent a lot of time on hull form / stability design ( fuller bows) design rather than foil control for upwind speed development.
OR perfected the trim of their foils for each wind strength and also had a assymetrical system as compared to ETNZ's symmetrical system. Which suited the longer port tacks of the course upwind.

 

 
May be I missed something but I think that Spithill said in the Clean interview that they did not use asymmetrical foils. They only used asymmetrical ballast. Both the foils and the wing were symmetrical or did I get it wrong.
I Am sure they used assymetrical foils and rudders. This allowed to foil for speed on longer port tacks upwind (into and above waves)and longer starboard gybes downwind. I am sure it was confirmed by coutts too?
 
So you say that Spithill is a bullshiter? Do I understand you correct?
 
How do we know that ETNZ did not use asymmetrical foils and rudders? Did Coutts confirm that to you too or do you just think that ETNZ are just to f****ng stupid to think out side of the box and introduce new things. Everyone were trying asymmetrical foils in the build up to the AC to find there fastest setup.
No Vij you never understand correctly! Thats you problem. I said spithill said it and also Coutts said it on a NZ interview on the web.

They both said they ran assymetrical set ups to make the most of the differing tacks/gybes and the conditions and length of time they spent on each tack/gybe as referenced to the course.

I am sure they both said foils and I think hulls were mentioned too. But don,t quote me on that until I find the interview.

ETNZ's foils are not worth considering as they were not the reason the lost.

Do you understand now or is your Google translater confused too!
Good luck finding that interview. Jimmy was very clear in his one with Clean that the only asymmetry was weight placement. That's not to say they didn't consider or perhaps even test an asymmetric setup they just didnt race with it. Why would Jimmy lie about this after the event.

#40 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 30 October 2013 - 10:59 AM

 

 



 




agree 100%.
vij, I did'nt say they had stability issues but spent a lot of time on hull form / stability design ( fuller bows) design rather than foil control for upwind speed development.
OR perfected the trim of their foils for each wind strength and also had a assymetrical system as compared to ETNZ's symmetrical system. Which suited the longer port tacks of the course upwind.

 

 
May be I missed something but I think that Spithill said in the Clean interview that they did not use asymmetrical foils. They only used asymmetrical ballast. Both the foils and the wing were symmetrical or did I get it wrong.
I Am sure they used assymetrical foils and rudders. This allowed to foil for speed on longer port tacks upwind (into and above waves)and longer starboard gybes downwind. I am sure it was confirmed by coutts too?
 
So you say that Spithill is a bullshiter? Do I understand you correct?
 
How do we know that ETNZ did not use asymmetrical foils and rudders? Did Coutts confirm that to you too or do you just think that ETNZ are just to f****ng stupid to think out side of the box and introduce new things. Everyone were trying asymmetrical foils in the build up to the AC to find there fastest setup.
No Vij you never understand correctly! Thats you problem. I said spithill said it and also Coutts said it on a NZ interview on the web.

They both said they ran assymetrical set ups to make the most of the differing tacks/gybes and the conditions and length of time they spent on each tack/gybe as referenced to the course.

I am sure they both said foils and I think hulls were mentioned too. But don,t quote me on that until I find the interview.

ETNZ's foils are not worth considering as they were not the reason the lost.

Do you understand now or is your Google translater confused too!

 

Well I guess that I might be a bit stupid to listen to and believing in what Spithill said to MR Clean. Should I ignore the other things that he sais in the MR Clean interview too or is the rest of the interview correct?

 

Maybe it is only my that does not 100% understand the language from OZ land and I was lost in translation. What is the address for Google translator to translate OZ to English?

 

Maybe I misunderstood the language as I am not from the south. As you are a neighbour to Australia you for sure must understands OZ better then I do so please translate for me.



#41 SIR CLEAN

SIR CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:Integrity.

Posted 04 November 2013 - 06:48 AM

WFT Vij!...it English! Pure and simple.

jimmy, Barker, Coutts and Dalton don,t just talk to Clean.

Google all their interviews and you will see they talk many things to differing media outlets!

I do not read Cleans interviews but choose other world media sources including NZ sources to get the NZ spin/bullshit on reality.

Couuts and co have done some awesome interviews with RNZ (radio NZ national). Just Google Radio NZ interviews with Russell Coutts. There are many to choose from.

Then there are many other media sources.

#42 coaster1

coaster1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Location:left coast

Posted 04 November 2013 - 03:35 PM

Maybe you can provide a direct link to an RC or JS interview where they claimed they used asym foils and rudders.

 

I never heard it in all the interviews I listened to, and in fact heard the opposite.



#43 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,749 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 04:18 PM

Matt Sheahan put asym foils in a list of improvements he thought had been made but never attributed that to anyone. Later, it was denied directly, in quotes by several sources.

A really good description of the changes is from RC in the second half of a podcast interview with JS and RC, posted at Sail Racing Magazine.

#44 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 04 November 2013 - 06:31 PM

You could imagine that an asymmetric foil setup would further complicate jibing. One blown jibe erases a lot of potential gain.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users