Jump to content


AC 35, AC72mk2, 2017, SF.


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#1 Alpina

Alpina

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,103 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 10:58 AM

The AC72's will be around for another go, news from the RC44 week in Portugal.



#2 brian weslake

brian weslake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 02:10 PM

The AC72's will be around for another go, news from the RC44 week in Portugal.

 

If Artemis was the CoR I would tend to agree, but with Hamilton Island as CoR I'm not so sure. If I was a new team that didn't already have an AC72, I'm not sure that I would want to go up against Oracle who has two of the best AC72s already in the shed. Agreeing to use AC72s gives the established teams such as Oracle a big head start, whereas specifying a new class will make everyone start from a blank sheet.

 

I suspect the Oatleys will opt for a foiling cat that is a little bit smaller, maybe 65ft, but insist on some limitations to reduce cost and also compensate for Oracle's inherent advantage.



#3 zillafreak

zillafreak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Location:Newport Beach

Posted 06 October 2013 - 02:37 PM

The AC72's will be around for another go, news from the RC44 week in Portugal.

Awesome news if true!



#4 zillafreak

zillafreak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Location:Newport Beach

Posted 06 October 2013 - 02:43 PM

The AC72's will be around for another go, news from the RC44 week in Portugal.

 

If Artemis was the CoR I would tend to agree, but with Hamilton Island as CoR I'm not so sure. If I was a new team that didn't already have an AC72, I'm not sure that I would want to go up against Oracle who has two of the best AC72s already in the shed. Agreeing to use AC72s gives the established teams such as Oracle a big head start, whereas specifying a new class will make everyone start from a blank sheet.

 

I suspect the Oatleys will opt for a foiling cat that is a little bit smaller, maybe 65ft, but insist on some limitations to reduce cost and also compensate for Oracle's inherent advantage.

I think it may be cheaper to say with 72's since so much design work has been done by multiple syndicates on this platform already, and a "generic' version is also available. Going to a new platform means higher development costs for everyone. How much cheaper would it be for TNZ for instance to stay with the same class vs a clean slate?

 

Costs do have to come down, so that's where it will get interesting. I'm guessing wing costs/complexity are being looked at closely.



#5 WetHog

WetHog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,499 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD USA

Posted 06 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

It also needs to be remembered that GGYC/OR didn't just choose HIYC the day they won and will need to negotiate what boat will be used.  OR/GGYC did their research and chose a COR that has the same "vision" as OR/GGYC.  That vision includes the boats used.

 

WetHog  :ph34r:



#6 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 06 October 2013 - 03:19 PM

Yeah, the design and development costs of a totally new platform will be much higher than an AC72 mk 2.  If you were a challenger you might prefer a new boat as it would disadvantage the defender more than you.  Staying with the 72 foot platform makes some sense, if the rule is tweaked enough to sort a lot of the issues out. Already a few threads have done this solidly. 

 

If it is to be AC72 mark 2, it does become interesting, as clearly the range of things to change is much more limited.  I have already written that I would be very interested in the idea of dropping all the soft sails, and dropping three off the crew.  Do that, limit teams to one boat on the water at any one time, and have Oracle/Core make available a set of major parts that can be used if a team wants (beams, mast/wing components) and you could slice a massive amount out of the cost of mounting a credible team. 



#7 strider470

strider470

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Milan - Italy / Bruxelles - Belgium
  • Interests:Sailing photography

Posted 06 October 2013 - 03:30 PM

It also needs to be remembered that GGYC/OR didn't just choose HIYC the day they won and will need to negotiate what boat will be used.  OR/GGYC did their research and chose a COR that has the same "vision" as OR/GGYC.  That vision includes the boats used.
 
WetHog  :ph34r:


+1

it wouldn't make sense the contrary.

Also they say that a consultation with the other possible challengers will take place. If this turns to be true it will be a wise move that will greatly raise my opinion of LE and RC.

#8 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,719 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 03:57 PM

The consultation might be about just the details surrounding the already agreed platform, the AC72.

If there is to be a new-rule AC72 beams and spars economy of scale, AC45-like with how Core and the other companies were involved, then HIYC might even press to get some of that action done locally in Oz.

RC is in Cascais racing on an Italian boat, TT and IP too, maybe some Gazprom (and so therefore St Petersburg YC connected) interested types too. And so even if nothing is actually in writing yet then if the wind is already blowing this direction among this crowd then it's another pretty good early signal, on top of the several other recent pointers - including, I would argue, from the Oatleys who were so clearly impressed with what AC34 ultimately achieved. Bob and Sandy only addressed the possibility of a smaller boat in response to a question on the point, didn't volunteer it during their opening statements.

GD has exclaimed pretty emphatically on several occasions, including at least once since after the Match ended, that the AC72's have no future; but it's very hard to find anybody agreeing with him on that point lately. And even GD may come around on the idea now if he's able to hold his design talent and software expertise together; the public and govt support appears to have caught him by surprise since after he most recently made those comments.

But I think LE's comments during the final presser were the most telling, the biggest pointer to the future. In response to a Q he said they need to figure out Both. Keep 'this' for the spectacle ~and~ do it with a lower-bar entry cost.

#9 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 05:26 PM

Link?

#10 coaster1

coaster1

    Anarchist

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

Posted 06 October 2013 - 06:23 PM

In terms of cost savings this would make a lot of sense. A knowledge base of AC72 designs already exists, a standard platform that can be modified is already available for purchase, and 4 teams already have boats and have come down the learning curve. The design also didn't prove to be as risky as initially thought, just set the wind limits at 25 knots max.

 

If TNZ wants to stay in the game this could be a key cost savings measure in seeking govt funding, although Dalton would have to eat 2+ years of criticism. This would also allow Artemis to pick up where they left off.



#11 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 06 October 2013 - 07:51 PM

Happy with 72's like to see soft sails and open foil controls though 



#12 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 06 October 2013 - 07:53 PM

Shipping one if their boats directly to Australia could give ETNZ one hell of a seed fund.

#13 southseasbill

southseasbill

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 08:33 PM

You could reduce costs by getting rid of the crew. Go fully remote control.



#14 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,719 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 08:40 PM


Shipping one if their boats directly to Australia could give ETNZ one hell of a seed fund.

It might be a good Protocol idea to encourage current AC72 owners to sell their existing boats and (maybe) designs to new entrants, by not allowing current owners to sail them any more. Current owners already having expertise means such a move might even the playing field for newcomers, 'spread the wealth' of the existing fleet.

#15 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 06 October 2013 - 08:52 PM


Shipping one if their boats directly to Australia could give ETNZ one hell of a seed fund.

It might be a good Protocol idea to encourage current AC72 owners to sell their existing boats and (maybe) designs to new entrants, by not allowing current owners to sail them any more. Current owners already having expertise means such a move might even the playing field for newcomers, 'spread the wealth' of the existing fleet.

That is one of the things I've mentioned elsewhere.  Limit teams to owning a max of two boats at any time between now and the start of the next AC with ownership being recorded from when the lamination of the hulls starts.  If they can't find a buyer for a boat they can give it to the ACEA who can sell/destroy/lease out as they see fit.  That would put two boats ( 1 each Oracle and ETNZ) on the market the day it was announced, assuming one went to Hamilton Island one would still be available for another new team.  This way if you wanted to you could have a 6 boat world series on AC72s in 2014. 



#16 Glenn

Glenn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,087 posts
  • Location:Auckland, nz

Posted 06 October 2013 - 09:01 PM

2017...4 YEARS..WTF?

Lets hope 3 years...and if the keep the AC45's circuit that they set this as a development class with box rule

#17 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,719 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 09:12 PM



Shipping one if their boats directly to Australia could give ETNZ one hell of a seed fund.

It might be a good Protocol idea to encourage current AC72 owners to sell their existing boats and (maybe) designs to new entrants, by not allowing current owners to sail them any more. Current owners already having expertise means such a move might even the playing field for newcomers, 'spread the wealth' of the existing fleet.
That is one of the things I've mentioned elsewhere.  Limit teams to owning a max of two boats at any time between now and the start of the next AC with ownership being recorded from when the lamination of the hulls starts.  If they can't find a buyer for a boat they can give it to the ACEA who can sell/destroy/lease out as they see fit.  That would put two boats ( 1 each Oracle and ETNZ) on the market the day it was announced, assuming one went to Hamilton Island one would still be available for another new team.  This way if you wanted to you could have a 6 boat world series on AC72s in 2014. 
Like it.

Let some foiling 45's play too if they want, as a prelude to the Faster Facks. :)

#18 SeaMike

SeaMike

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 06 October 2013 - 10:39 PM

Whilst Oatley is mega rich he's a long way off of EB, TT & PB in terms of net worth (6x less that the poor man of that trio, PB) so it'll be interesting to see how budget conscious the new formula is. http://www.forbes.co.../robert-oatley/

 

Hopefully at age 85, he will still be around for a 2017 regatta.



#19 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 724 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:50 AM

Yeah, the design and development costs of a totally new platform will be much higher than an AC72 mk 2.  If you were a challenger you might prefer a new boat as it would disadvantage the defender more than you.  Staying with the 72 foot platform makes some sense, if the rule is tweaked enough to sort a lot of the issues out. Already a few threads have done this solidly. 
 
If it is to be AC72 mark 2, it does become interesting, as clearly the range of things to change is much more limited.  I have already written that I would be very interested in the idea of dropping all the soft sails, and dropping three off the crew.  Do that, limit teams to one boat on the water at any one time, and have Oracle/Core make available a set of major parts that can be used if a team wants (beams, mast/wing components) and you could slice a massive amount out of the cost of mounting a credible team. 


Why? If the rigs are cut down then all the loads are going to change. They have to cut down the rigs to make the boats safer and to be able to increase the wind limits. Plus if they are going to reduce the restrictions on foil controls then that's all going to change as well.

Then there's the issue that they are already having problems with cavitation, so they need to slow the boats down somewhat. Smaller rigs and better foil control are going to increase speeds because they'll be sailing in 25 knots plus.

The simplest and cheapest way to slow down the boats is to make them smaller. This would be a long term solution. I hope they do it.

#20 ipexnet

ipexnet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Location:perth, AU

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:16 AM

The action would have been much better in non-foiling 60-65' cats. They need to 1D the foil package and allow the team build the controls and rig. Serioulsy the whole foiling thing doesn't work for match racing. One team will end up with the faster package. Come on, seeing Oracle have a 4 kt advantage to weather, just stupid racing. The same thing will happen with any foiling design boat. Look at moth races. The winner is usually 1/2 a leg infront of the other guys - and they are racing what are in effect 1D boats. OK yes, the action has gotten better in recent years, but principle is solid - foiling will not work for good racing. Makes for great (spectacular) viewing for a few minutes (before boredom sets in).



#21 coaster1

coaster1

    Anarchist

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

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:25 AM

Foiling was one of the most intriguing and controversial aspects of the event.

 

Forget any 1D thoughts - leave it to a design and technology race as it's always been.That's what made this event great, why fix what's not broken ?



#22 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 07 October 2013 - 02:01 AM

My comments were predicated on two things.  - This thread assumed that we will stick with 72 foot cats.  If we take that as a given, arguing they need smaller boats is a waste of time.  We have already argued about that.  It isn't our decision, and if the gossip is that we are staying with 72's, why go there?

 

Secondly, this is the AC.  Same issue. It is very unlikely that either defender or challenger will agree on any one design components.  If we stay within the bounds of what is likely, or reasonably possible, we can have a useful discussion.  There will someone coming along soon demanding monohulls - despite this being clearly not an option on the table.

 

The idea about a set of "reference" components that can be purchased is something that can be done outside of the actual protocol.  Since the DoG requires "construction" in the country of origin, and the last rule defined this as having hulls built in the country of origin as meeting that definition, it is reasonable to stick with that.  As we now see, actual hull design has suddenly become one of the less important aspects of the design anyway.  But having some of the other critical parts available (only if you want to use them, and you can modify them if you want) to any team, would make things much more accessible for newer teams.  So, beams, wing components, foils, rudders.  Given winches, and hydraulics are already off the shelf items, you get a parts bin approach to a new boat become possible. 

 

It becomes a lot more like any other development class - you can do whatever you like, but anything you don't have the resources, or interest in building, you can buy.  There was a time when F1 racing was like that.  All teams built their own chassis.  They nearly all bought in engines (except for Ferrari) and gearboxes.  Things were more affordable back then, and a smaller team with a good driver could stick it to a bigger team. 

 

Kill off the soft sails and the loads drop and costs drop further, plus you can drop 2 or 3 crew.  Yet the final result is likely every bit as exciting as AC33, and conducive to a much more competitive LVC. It may be that the winner of the LVC is a big money team, and they go at it with OTUSA, but that is no different to AC's of the past. Many teams may be able to come aboard with a feasible multi-cup campaign this way. 



#23 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 724 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:59 AM

Well if they stick with 72s they are going to have to find some way of slowing them down to avoid cavitation problems They could remove the reaching legs and run windward/leewards. They could reduce the beam. They could go to soft sails.

What they can't do is have an improved version of the current boats with better foil controls and faster speeds. The current boats are reportedly having to repair cavitation damage on their foils after every days sailing. Plus there is the danger of wipeouts at high speed.

So the rumour doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's wait and see what the negotiations about the next boat decide.

#24 kadyca

kadyca

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,067 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:45 AM

Never gonna happen. The 72s are done.

 

55 ft. foiling, hardwinged cats with passive ride height control allowed will be plenty fast and exciting at much lower cost and a much more logical step up from the 45s which will now also foil and will still be one design for the ACWS to keep interest going until 2017.



#25 Scarecrow

Scarecrow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,615 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus

Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:49 AM

The action would have been much better in non-foiling 60-65' cats.

That is delusional, we all witnessed how slow tacks and gybes were when both hulls were in the water.  Non foiling would mean the boats would ignore current etc and just bounce from one border to the other looking to minimize changes of direction.



#26 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 05:11 AM

The action would have been much better in non-foiling 60-65' cats. They need to 1D the foil package and allow the team build the controls and rig. Serioulsy the whole foiling thing doesn't work for match racing. One team will end up with the faster package. Come on, seeing Oracle have a 4 kt advantage to weather, just stupid racing. The same thing will happen with any foiling design boat. Look at moth races. The winner is usually 1/2 a leg infront of the other guys - and they are racing what are in effect 1D boats. OK yes, the action has gotten better in recent years, but principle is solid - foiling will not work for good racing. Makes for great (spectacular) viewing for a few minutes (before boredom sets in).

 

Hogwash!  Non-foiling cats get punished so severely for maneuvers they simply do everything possible to avoid them.  The only reason that we saw much maneuvering in the finals is that the boats were getting REALLY good a minimizing slowdown during tacks/jybes with foiling and "roll-tacks", made possible by the foils. 



#27 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,643 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:58 AM

The AC72's will be around for another go, news from the RC44 week in Portugal.

 

It's hard to reconcile an early decision to that effect with what was said at the Oatleys' press conference.



#28 jonas a

jonas a

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 07 October 2013 - 08:25 AM

The action would have been much better in non-foiling 60-65' cats. They need to 1D the foil package and allow the team build the controls and rig. Serioulsy the whole foiling thing doesn't work for match racing. One team will end up with the faster package. Come on, seeing Oracle have a 4 kt advantage to weather, just stupid racing. The same thing will happen with any foiling design boat. Look at moth races. The winner is usually 1/2 a leg infront of the other guys - and they are racing what are in effect 1D boats. OK yes, the action has gotten better in recent years, but principle is solid - foiling will not work for good racing. Makes for great (spectacular) viewing for a few minutes (before boredom sets in).

 

Hogwash!  Non-foiling cats get punished so severely for maneuvers they simply do everything possible to avoid them.  The only reason that we saw much maneuvering in the finals is that the boats were getting REALLY good a minimizing slowdown during tacks/jybes with foiling and "roll-tacks", made possible by the foils. 

It was actually quite surprising how much worse the 45's tacked compared to the 72's. Speed without maneuvrability is just useless for the excitement of the race



#29 minimumfuss

minimumfuss

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Location:farthest place inland in nz
  • Interests:kiwis winning, sports

Posted 07 October 2013 - 09:49 AM

Wasn't the biggest cost the team? And sheer logistics? Needing 40 people just to launch each day was ridiculous. Even oracle couldn't launch 2 boats every day easily.

The actual boat hardware cost in the region of 10m?

Needing rescue divers, multiple chase boats etc cost a lot too.

The wing sails were way too big and overpowered, was to be 2 rigs but got too hard, and stuck with the big size.

Soft sails are harder on the boat with bigger strain and loads due to rig tension required. And each modern racing sail has a pretty shit lifespan. Hence Dogzillas wing, Soft sails were almost physically impossible on monster cats. So dammed if you do and damned if you don't. Only solution is smaller boats.

Does it matter if the boats do 41 knots or 35?

2 wrecked boats and 1 death is a high price to pay for a bit of spectator excitement.

I don't really care, racing a giant foiling optimist would still be fun to watch with everyone going hard at it. Please let there be more than 2 decent teams next time round.



#30 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

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

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:02 AM

My comments were predicated on two things.  - This thread assumed that we will stick with 72 foot cats.  If we take that as a given, arguing they need smaller boats is a waste of time.  We have already argued about that.  It isn't our decision, and if the gossip is that we are staying with 72's, why go there?
 
Secondly, this is the AC.  Same issue. It is very unlikely that either defender or challenger will agree on any one design components.  If we stay within the bounds of what is likely, or reasonably possible, we can have a useful discussion.  There will someone coming along soon demanding monohulls - despite this being clearly not an option on the table.
 
The idea about a set of "reference" components that can be purchased is something that can be done outside of the actual protocol.  Since the DoG requires "construction" in the country of origin, and the last rule defined this as having hulls built in the country of origin as meeting that definition, it is reasonable to stick with that.  As we now see, actual hull design has suddenly become one of the less important aspects of the design anyway.  But having some of the other critical parts available (only if you want to use them, and you can modify them if you want) to any team, would make things much more accessible for newer teams.  So, beams, wing components, foils, rudders.  Given winches, and hydraulics are already off the shelf items, you get a parts bin approach to a new boat become possible. 
 
It becomes a lot more like any other development class - you can do whatever you like, but anything you don't have the resources, or interest in building, you can buy.  There was a time when F1 racing was like that.  All teams built their own chassis.  They nearly all bought in engines (except for Ferrari) and gearboxes.  Things were more affordable back then, and a smaller team with a good driver could stick it to a bigger team. 
 
Kill off the soft sails and the loads drop and costs drop further, plus you can drop 2 or 3 crew.  Yet the final result is likely every bit as exciting as AC33, and conducive to a much more competitive LVC. It may be that the winner of the LVC is a big money team, and they go at it with OTUSA, but that is no different to AC's of the past. Many teams may be able to come aboard with a feasible multi-cup campaign this way. 

 
+1
 
Makes good sense to me. Reading some of Coutts' comments it seems he's thinking along similar lines.

#31 twomasts

twomasts

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:31 AM

Just watched the Extreme 40's racing in Nice. Amazing how slow they looked compared to what we have just seen in San Francisco.



#32 Steve Clark

Steve Clark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,178 posts
  • Location:Where the water is thin.
  • Interests:Human folly.

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:26 PM

I think you keep the 72' long hull but narrow the beam by 3 meters.

Then you reduce the wing area, maybe 30%.

This keeps the boats "flying a hull" at low wind speeds, along with jibs and gennakers as necessary.

It reduces the loads, and makes the boats less likely pitch pole. Both of which are good for safety and cost control.

I think you need to allow "active" foil control to allow open development of these systems.

Also the ISAF Rule 52 needs to be seriously rethought in his regard.

Devices which interact with wind and wave and convert that energy into direct movement of other parts of the vessel should always be permitted.

( ie wands, gybing daggerboards, rotating masts, camber induced sails etc.)

SHC 



#33 bobber

bobber

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:45 PM

I think you need to allow "active" foil control to allow open development of these systems.

 

It seems to me that an active foil control system would improve safety and level the playing field for better match racing.



#34 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,839 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:58 PM

Just for the record

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 pitchpolingWe'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.



#35 burbanite

burbanite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:26 PM

You could reduce costs by getting rid of the crew. Go fully remote control.

 

I know a guy, and so do the rest of you...



#36 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 07 October 2013 - 05:05 PM

Well if they stick with 72s they are going to have to find some way of slowing them down to avoid cavitation problems They could remove the reaching legs and run windward/leewards. They could reduce the beam. They could go to soft sails.

What they can't do is have an improved version of the current boats with better foil controls and faster speeds. The current boats are reportedly having to repair cavitation damage on their foils after every days sailing. Plus there is the danger of wipeouts at high speed.

So the rumour doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's wait and see what the negotiations about the next boat decide.

Spithill has said two things about cavitation: that its currently acting as a velocity governor - but not a danger. But more importantly - they expect to conquer the existing cavitation limits.

He has often spoke of 55 knots.

#37 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 05:44 PM

I think you keep the 72' long hull but narrow the beam by 3 meters.

Then you reduce the wing area, maybe 30%.

This keeps the boats "flying a hull" at low wind speeds, along with jibs and gennakers as necessary.

It reduces the loads, and makes the boats less likely pitch pole. Both of which are good for safety and cost control.

I think you need to allow "active" foil control to allow open development of these systems.

Also the ISAF Rule 52 needs to be seriously rethought in his regard.

Devices which interact with wind and wave and convert that energy into direct movement of other parts of the vessel should always be permitted.

( ie wands, gybing daggerboards, rotating masts, camber induced sails etc.)

SHC 

 

 

Steve, with your background, what are your thoughts on whether headsails should be retained when balancing performance and the effort to bring costs down?  Few would be better suited to giving their opinion on that then you.

 

Thanks



#38 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:10 AM

Spithill has said two things about cavitation: that its currently acting as a velocity governor - but not a danger. But more importantly - they expect to conquer the existing cavitation limits.

He has often spoke of 55 knots.

 

Yup. As has been pointed out here, cavitation is not a hard limit, or something that is not understood.  What is an issue is building a foil that is happy in both cavitating and non-cavitating modes and remains fast.  That might be an area for a breakthrough. 

 

The damage that cavitation can create is quite something when you consider that it is just water doing the work.  But it also isn't something that can't be handled. 



#39 burbanite

burbanite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:19 AM

The damage that cavitation can create is quite something when you consider that it is just water doing the work.  But it also isn't something that can't be handled. 

 

Imploding air bubbles do the damage and cavitation can be quite useful if controlled.



#40 bwd

bwd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:40 AM

cavitation problems

were coming from not being able to adjust the rudder T foil AOA if I'm not mistaken.

They could probably set the OR boat up for 55 knots and hit it,

maybe they have, but that likely wouldn't be good for a W-L race, 

especially if the wind backed off a few knots and the rudders/rearfoils couldn't be adjusted.



#41 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:40 AM

The damage that cavitation can create is quite something when you consider that it is just water doing the work.  But it also isn't something that can't be handled. 

 

Imploding air bubbles do the damage and cavitation can be quite useful if controlled.

 

Not so much air bubbles, as bubbles of near vacuum. In the end it is the water that imparts the force as the bubble collapses. You get a slam in a very small focussed area.



#42 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 724 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:59 AM

Well if they stick with 72s they are going to have to find some way of slowing them down to avoid cavitation problems They could remove the reaching legs and run windward/leewards. They could reduce the beam. They could go to soft sails.

What they can't do is have an improved version of the current boats with better foil controls and faster speeds. The current boats are reportedly having to repair cavitation damage on their foils after every days sailing. Plus there is the danger of wipeouts at high speed.

So the rumour doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's wait and see what the negotiations about the next boat decide.

Spithill has said two things about cavitation: that its currently acting as a velocity governor - but not a danger. But more importantly - they expect to conquer the existing cavitation limits.

He has often spoke of 55 knots.

 

 

That would be more convincing if it came from the design team instead of the sailing team. There's no evidence that progress has been made as far as dealing with cavitation.

 

More generally, the real breakthrough in technology from AC34 is the design of the foils from ETNZ which allows the boat to fly with 3 foils in the water and hence retain most of its righting moment. There's no evidence of anything substantial besides this. The rest of the boats seem to be technology that has been around for a long time.

 

So expecting the AC teams to solve long standing problems in hydrodynamics is probably too optimistic. There's no evidence that it's likely to happen.



#43 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:17 AM

 

Well if they stick with 72s they are going to have to find some way of slowing them down to avoid cavitation problems They could remove the reaching legs and run windward/leewards. They could reduce the beam. They could go to soft sails.

What they can't do is have an improved version of the current boats with better foil controls and faster speeds. The current boats are reportedly having to repair cavitation damage on their foils after every days sailing. Plus there is the danger of wipeouts at high speed.

So the rumour doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's wait and see what the negotiations about the next boat decide.

Spithill has said two things about cavitation: that its currently acting as a velocity governor - but not a danger. But more importantly - they expect to conquer the existing cavitation limits.

He has often spoke of 55 knots.

 

 

That would be more convincing if it came from the design team instead of the sailing team. There's no evidence that progress has been made as far as dealing with cavitation.

 

More generally, the real breakthrough in technology from AC34 is the design of the foils from ETNZ which allows the boat to fly with 3 foils in the water and hence retain most of its righting moment. There's no evidence of anything substantial besides this. The rest of the boats seem to be technology that has been around for a long time.

 

So expecting the AC teams to solve long standing problems in hydrodynamics is probably too optimistic. There's no evidence that it's likely to happen.

 

I would be willing to bet that the next three years of AC development will involve the single the biggest civilian investment of money and computing power to solve the cavitation issue ever. 

 

Of course, propeller development involves little foils going far faster than 55knts, and certainly deal with cavitation.  Further, the military has certainly dealt with it.  

 

I do not see cavitation representing a hard limit to speed at levels people are currently discussing.  My guess is Jimmy is much more likely right than those claiming cavitation will keep the boats from safely foiling at over 50knts.



#44 vanaheim

vanaheim

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Location:Auckland, New Zealand
  • Interests:Sailing, boat building

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:09 AM

If designing a boat for AC35, it needs to be done inconjunction with the racecourse design.   AC72 foiler at 55 knots will complete the current course in 25 to 30 minutes.  Even our club sprint races are longer then that.

 

So what should the course look like for the AC72?

 

Personally dont like the reach at the start and finish. 

 

If the course location (inside the harbour) is the same (to give that "arena" feel) then one might as well run foiling 45 or 55 foot cats.

 

If you want to retain the bigger AC72's and have 55 knot speeds, then a bigger course (set true to the wind) is required.  Probably in an offshore location to get the course length in with either a sea or land breeze.



#45 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:13 AM

I think it may be cheaper to say with 72's since so much design work has been done by multiple syndicates on this platform already, and a "generic' version is also available. Going to a new platform means higher development costs for everyone. How much cheaper would it be for TNZ for instance to stay with the same class vs a clean slate?

 

Costs do have to come down, so that's where it will get interesting. I'm guessing wing costs/complexity are being looked at closely.

 

The fact that several challenging syndicates already own 72's may keep costs down for those syndicates if they keep the boat... but those syndicates have no role in the selection of the boat for AC 35.  

 

What does HIYC want?  What would be to their advantage?  



#46 nroose

nroose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,520 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:50 AM

The races were already shorter than 25 minutes... I think that is great. Perhaps if the boats get faster, they can have more races... It's great for the spectators to be able to see the whole race. I guess more legs would be OK, but then perhaps it gets boring. I think the current course is just great for the spectators. I am interested to see if they can both reduce costs and increase speeds!

#47 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 October 2013 - 06:07 AM

The obvious answer is to do an additional loop.  The downside is that the longer any individual race goes for, the greater the risk that one boat gains a dominant lead and it all gets very dull.  If they could get the turnaround time for a race down it would be great, so that we could reasonably get three races into a session. 

 

I don't have any real problem with the course layout - whilst the last leg is more of a victory sprint, moving the finishing line back to cut the leg out makes no difference to the race result and removes the spectacle of the inshore finish for the physical spectators.  It costs nothing to keep the leg, and makes the race more spectator friendly. 

 

The start clearly needs some work.  It didn't take long for the skippers to work out how to take advantage of the port entry timing.  It may that longer than 2 minutes pre-start would help even things out, or some other tweak.  The reach to the top mark makes for good TV as it is obvious how critical winning the start is, and we have seen more tactical battles fought around that mark than anywhere else. Having the boats right on top of one another so soon after the start helps here.

 

To add, one option might be to start at the finishing end, and have two complete loops.  This has the advantage of evening out the uphill and downhill legs, and maybe making for more opportunity for duelling.  If the boats are going to be as fast as we think, the races would stay at about the same time overall.



#48 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 06:09 AM

If designing a boat for AC35, it needs to be done inconjunction with the racecourse design.   AC72 foiler at 55 knots will complete the current course in 25 to 30 minutes.  Even our club sprint races are longer then that.
 
So what should the course look like for the AC72?
 
Personally dont like the reach at the start and finish. 
 
If the course location (inside the harbour) is the same (to give that "arena" feel) then one might as well run foiling 45 or 55 foot cats.
 
If you want to retain the bigger AC72's and have 55 knot speeds, then a bigger course (set true to the wind) is required.  Probably in an offshore location to get the course length in with either a sea or land breeze.


OR won the Cup.

The vision of LE and RC (& 90% of the spectators) is that in-shore racing is awesome. That is not going to change, nor does it need to if the boats go 5-10knts faster. The reach starts & finish are here to stay, too. All they would need to make the race a little longer is to move the start down toward the leeward mark & round upwind rather than downwinderd, so ther are 2 upwind legs & two downwind legs ( & the two reach legs).

#49 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,839 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:21 PM


Well if they stick with 72s they are going to have to find some way of slowing them down to avoid cavitation problems They could remove the reaching legs and run windward/leewards. They could reduce the beam. They could go to soft sails.

What they can't do is have an improved version of the current boats with better foil controls and faster speeds. The current boats are reportedly having to repair cavitation damage on their foils after every days sailing. Plus there is the danger of wipeouts at high speed.

So the rumour doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's wait and see what the negotiations about the next boat decide.

Spithill has said two things about cavitation: that its currently acting as a velocity governor - but not a danger. But more importantly - they expect to conquer the existing cavitation limits.

He has often spoke of 55 knots.
 
 
That would be more convincing if it came from the design team instead of the sailing team. There's no evidence that progress has been made as far as dealing with cavitation.
 
More generally, the real breakthrough in technology from AC34 is the design of the foils from ETNZ which allows the boat to fly with 3 foils in the water and hence retain most of its righting moment. There's no evidence of anything substantial besides this. The rest of the boats seem to be technology that has been around for a long time.
 
So expecting the AC teams to solve long standing problems in hydrodynamics is probably too optimistic. There's no evidence that it's likely to happen.

Nothing new, the myth of a "cavitation wall" was discussed a few months ago on boatdesign (I relayed it in some thread here), meaningful post by Tom Speer as usual, likely trend adoption of supercritical sections and swept-back foils.

Agree with fireball's conclusion - and certainly it would clash with an attempt (if any?) at reducing cost

#50 Donjoman

Donjoman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Location:Hong kong

Posted 08 October 2013 - 01:49 PM

AC72 mk2 - awesome news!

 

Agreed drop the boring reaching legs, although they did add some excitement to the start... two AC72's foiling UPWIND at the start should provide more than adequate excitement!



#51 foster

foster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:24 PM

2017...4 YEARS..WTF?

Lets hope 3 years...and if the keep the AC45's circuit that they set this as a development class with box rule


The issue of the Olympics in 2016 comes into play with the race date

#52 yar

yar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:sailing - rigging - deliveries - bay and ocean racing/cruising - navigation - astronomy

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:59 PM

....from my post on the "thoughts by Russell Coutts" thread ...

 

 

From what I gather so far because of the conflict with the 2016 Olympics, it seems the next "summer of sailing" could be in 2017.

 

However, regarding the potential scheduling for AC35 (if held in the continental US I assume)  and as an avid eclipse chaser myself ... I wrote this email to contact@americascup.com a couple of days ago;

To whom it may concern

 

Just a note if you don't already know;

There is a total solar eclipse occurring across the entire continental United States on August 21, 2017

(in case of a similar San Francisco based AC35 challenger series and AC35 event being contemplated for another "Summer of Sailing" in 2017)

 

Just so you know, Mother Nature has some plans of her own

If interested, check out this great new website for info (and of course Be There yourself!)

http://www.eclipse20...se2017_main.htm

There will be a huge interest in the eclipse which requires traveling to the "path of totality" ...

 

which unfortunately is quite distant from a potential challenger series (or defender series) on San Francisco Bay, San Diego or Newport, RI

I'd suggest (and a rather selfish suggestion on my part I admit) ... nevertheless, I'd suggest scheduling a "break" for all AC related sailing events from about August 19th to August 23rd if held in summer of 2017 (because I'll be on the eclipse path for a few days of travel ... perhaps to Idaho and then back to the "Summer of Sailing" in SF, SD or RI?)

 

Just a suggestion though ... please proceed with your regularly scheduled broadcast of AC35 ... but hopefully ending on or before Labor Day 2017

 

(On second thought, it might be cool to hold AC35 entirely in the "path of totality" off the Oregon Coast, Glendo reservoir in Wyoming, Kansas City, Nashville or off the coast of the Carolinas ... just kidding)



#53 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:06 PM

....from my post on the "thoughts by Russell Coutts" thread ...

 

 

From what I gather so far because of the conflict with the 2016 Olympics, it seems the next "summer of sailing" could be in 2017.

 

However, regarding the potential scheduling for AC35 (if held in the continental US I assume)  and as an avid eclipse chaser myself ... I wrote this email to contact@americascup.com a couple of days ago;

To whom it may concern

 

Just a note if you don't already know;

There is a total solar eclipse occurring across the entire continental United States on August 21, 2017

(in case of a similar San Francisco based AC35 challenger series and AC35 event being contemplated for another "Summer of Sailing" in 2017)

 

Just so you know, Mother Nature has some plans of her own

If interested, check out this great new website for info (and of course Be There yourself!)

http://www.eclipse20...se2017_main.htm

There will be a huge interest in the eclipse which requires traveling to the "path of totality" ...

 

which unfortunately is quite distant from a potential challenger series (or defender series) on San Francisco Bay, San Diego or Newport, RI

I'd suggest (and a rather selfish suggestion on my part I admit) ... nevertheless, I'd suggest scheduling a "break" for all AC related sailing events from about August 19th to August 23rd if held in summer of 2017 (because I'll be on the eclipse path for a few days of travel ... perhaps to Idaho and then back to the "Summer of Sailing" in SF, SD or RI?)

 

Just a suggestion though ... please proceed with your regularly scheduled broadcast of AC35 ... but hopefully ending on or before Labor Day 2017

 

(On second thought, it might be cool to hold AC35 entirely in the "path of totality" off the Oregon Coast, Glendo reservoir in Wyoming, Kansas City, Nashville or off the coast of the Carolinas ... just kidding)

 

Just a guess, but I do not think the organizers will be interested in accommodating the 0.00001% of the population that are eclipse chasers.  There are likely others that have similar ratios of the population that have other interests that would conflict with the AC, as well, and it might not be possible for the organizers to avoid all scheduling conflicts.  But hey, maybe I'm wrong, and RC will accommodate  . . . . .  hey, my son will be "graduating" 8th grade and I can ask for them to hold off racing on June 18, 2017 so I can make his graduation without missing any action on The Bay.  You think???



#54 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:16 PM

Eclipse would be really cool.  Only done two myself, and they were local (if you count within 1000 miles as local).

 

My standard advice about a solar eclipse.  If you ever have the chance to see one, drop everything and do so.  There are very few times in your life when you will experience something totally wild and outside any normal experience.  A total solar eclipse is one of these times.  Nothing can prepare you for the reality of what it is like to actually be there. Most people may get to see one in their life.  And they will always remember it. 



#55 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,672 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:18 PM

I'm thrilled these boats will continue.  

 

My question...  could a hybrid wing be possible to avoid the need to step the thing every day.

 

I'm not a wing guy, but it seems to me that instead of heat shrink film, there is the possibility of sheathing the thing with a membrane on tracks.

 

Not as efficient, not as light, not as elegant, but it might make the thing sufficiently transparent to the wind that it could be left on a mooring or more likely, on the hard with guy wires to the top.  Yes, the skeleton would have more windage than a bare mast, but perhaps little enough to be left stepped.  This would avoid all the people required for the stepping process.  If this is in the rule, then everyone is handicapped, and benefitted the same.

 

Just a thought for those that want our cake and eat it too:   Wings with some cost reduction...  since I believe those that say the wing cost is not in the capital... where it is conceivably even cheaper than fast wearing 3DL, but rather in avoiding the handling crew that is needed only for an hour every day the boat sails, but has to sit around for the rest of the day anyway... and get paid.

 

thoughts?



#56 yar

yar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:sailing - rigging - deliveries - bay and ocean racing/cruising - navigation - astronomy

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:33 PM

GG

 

I hope you are right ... but I beg to differ. There will be absolutely  massive media coverage of the 2017 total solar eclipse. It's kinda roughly similar to the situation we faced just "3 short years" ago when promoting and publicizing the AC34 from a soapbox to the ignorant non-sailors of the world. This eclipse will be available to watch in no less 5 state capitals! (an almost impossible likelihood in and of itself) One of the main reasons that total solar eclipses get publicized so much is so that every single person down to 3 year-olds are able to avail themselves of the always freely available "eclipse filter" sunglasses and don't blind themselves. Every single mom (and especially ignorant folks who don't watch TV or read the newspaper, etc) in our country will likely be worried that their child will have severe eye damage because of not being warned or not getting the message clearly enough (do not look at the sun ... which is akin to telling a child not to watch that car accident over there)

 

Besides being a truly "once-in-a-lifetime" experience, a total solar eclipse of this magnitude will be part of the Facebook and young generation "catch it on your newest smartphone app during the live event experience" that we have also just begun to see for AC34. I'm also sure many technology companies will have special solar video/digital camera filters, telescopes, pinhole camera viewers, tablet apps, eclipse sponsoring parties, media events, etc. all across the country. (Hence my last joke about moving the AC35 venue to a watery eclipse totality path location like Oregons Columbia River Gorge to take advantage of the huge crowds of spectators likely to be watching on August 21, 2017.)

 

You are right saying that is crazy. I'm sure GGYC and HIYC are only considering SF Bay with San Diego as an alternative site but possibly Newport. I'm just saying the eclipse will undoubtedly draw many hundreds of thousands of summer travelers to the path of totality for that one single two-minute experience of blackness at midday. There could even be a million or so eclipse chasers if the weather cooperates ... (and no wind limits!) Again, just sayin'



#57 CrushDigital

CrushDigital

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,810 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:36 PM

I'm thrilled these boats will continue.  
 
My question...  could a hybrid wing be possible to avoid the need to step the thing every day.
 
I'm not a wing guy, but it seems to me that instead of heat shrink film, there is the possibility of sheathing the thing with a membrane on tracks.
 
Not as efficient, not as light, not as elegant, but it might make the thing sufficiently transparent to the wind that it could be left on a mooring or more likely, on the hard with guy wires to the top.  Yes, the skeleton would have more windage than a bare mast, but perhaps little enough to be left stepped.  This would avoid all the people required for the stepping process.  If this is in the rule, then everyone is handicapped, and benefitted the same.
 
Just a thought for those that want our cake and eat it too:   Wings with some cost reduction...  since I believe those that say the wing cost is not in the capital... where it is conceivably even cheaper than fast wearing 3DL, but rather in avoiding the handling crew that is needed only for an hour every day the boat sails, but has to sit around for the rest of the day anyway... and get paid.
 
thoughts?

I got the sense that the teams were all that unduly bothered by stepping and unstepping the wing once they got their procdures figured out. I can't recall any incidents after TNZ's wild day with their new wing early on in Auckland.

One way or the other, the teams are going to want to pull their boats from the water each day to work on them and that's going to mean pulling the rig unless they go back to straight soft sails, which isn't going to happen.

#58 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:54 PM

I'm thrilled these boats will continue.  

 

My question...  could a hybrid wing be possible to avoid the need to step the thing every day.

 

I'm not a wing guy, but it seems to me that instead of heat shrink film, there is the possibility of sheathing the thing with a membrane on tracks.

 

Not as efficient, not as light, not as elegant, but it might make the thing sufficiently transparent to the wind that it could be left on a mooring or more likely, on the hard with guy wires to the top.  Yes, the skeleton would have more windage than a bare mast, but perhaps little enough to be left stepped.  This would avoid all the people required for the stepping process.  If this is in the rule, then everyone is handicapped, and benefitted the same.

 

Just a thought for those that want our cake and eat it too:   Wings with some cost reduction...  since I believe those that say the wing cost is not in the capital... where it is conceivably even cheaper than fast wearing 3DL, but rather in avoiding the handling crew that is needed only for an hour every day the boat sails, but has to sit around for the rest of the day anyway... and get paid.

 

thoughts?

 

I can't help but wonder just how much the wing really adds to the shore crew costs.  First of all, how much would these teams be leaving their boats in the water if it were not for the wing, anyway?  My guess is very little, as they are always making some kind of adjustments.  Second, how much of that crew there to help drop the wing would not be there if it were not for the wing?  Again, it seems as though many of them would be there no matter.  Finally, I'm not convinced it takes any where near the number of people being claimed by Dalton to drop the wing.  All the videos I saw where they were bringing the boat in . . . there never looked like there was anything like 30-40 people dedicated to the boat/wing.  More like a total of about 15-20 people, and that could and did include the sailing crew on most occasions.  At any rate, you have to have, say, 10-20 people help out for a couple hours on launch days.  I don't know that this should be discussed as such a massive cost hurdle to clear.  The big costs are related to the full-time employees, and maybe the crane itself is more expensive than they would otherwise need.  How much?

 

Not saying the wing isn't a pain and costly to deal with relative to boat logistics / shore crew.  Just that I'm not sure it is the deal breaker that some want to claim.



#59 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,672 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:55 PM

I'm thrilled these boats will continue.  
 
My question...  could a hybrid wing be possible to avoid the need to step the thing every day.
 
I'm not a wing guy, but it seems to me that instead of heat shrink film, there is the possibility of sheathing the thing with a membrane on tracks.
 
Not as efficient, not as light, not as elegant, but it might make the thing sufficiently transparent to the wind that it could be left on a mooring or more likely, on the hard with guy wires to the top.  Yes, the skeleton would have more windage than a bare mast, but perhaps little enough to be left stepped.  This would avoid all the people required for the stepping process.  If this is in the rule, then everyone is handicapped, and benefitted the same.
 
Just a thought for those that want our cake and eat it too:   Wings with some cost reduction...  since I believe those that say the wing cost is not in the capital... where it is conceivably even cheaper than fast wearing 3DL, but rather in avoiding the handling crew that is needed only for an hour every day the boat sails, but has to sit around for the rest of the day anyway... and get paid.
 
thoughts?

I got the sense that the teams were all that unduly bothered by stepping and unstepping the wing once they got their procdures figured out. I can't recall any incidents after TNZ's wild day with their new wing early on in Auckland.

One way or the other, the teams are going to want to pull their boats from the water each day to work on them and that's going to mean pulling the rig unless they go back to straight soft sails, which isn't going to happen.

I agree that they got good at it, but many said it took 35 folk to do it so that is a lot of people.

 

I also agree that they would likely still pull the boats every day.   In Auckland, it seems they did that with the ACC5s in the LVS races.   But they left the mast stepped, and worked on the boat on the hard.   Granted, it isn't as simple as a mooring, but probably much cheaper than 35 guys on standby.



#60 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:00 PM

GG

 

I hope you are right ... but I beg to differ. There will be absolutely  massive media coverage of the 2017 total solar eclipse. It's kinda roughly similar to the situation we faced just "3 short years" ago when promoting and publicizing the AC34 from a soapbox to the ignorant non-sailors of the world. This eclipse will be available to watch in no less 5 state capitals! (an almost impossible likelihood in and of itself) One of the main reasons that total solar eclipses get publicized so much is so that every single person down to 3 year-olds are able to avail themselves of the always freely available "eclipse filter" sunglasses and don't blind themselves. Every single mom (and especially ignorant folks who don't watch TV or read the newspaper, etc) in our country will likely be worried that their child will have severe eye damage because of not being warned or not getting the message clearly enough (do not look at the sun ... which is akin to telling a child not to watch that car accident over there)

 

Besides being a truly "once-in-a-lifetime" experience, a total solar eclipse of this magnitude will be part of the Facebook and young generation "catch it on your newest smartphone app during the live event experience" that we have also just begun to see for AC34. I'm also sure many technology companies will have special solar video/digital camera filters, telescopes, pinhole camera viewers, tablet apps, eclipse sponsoring parties, media events, etc. all across the country. (Hence my last joke about moving the AC35 venue to a watery eclipse totality path location like Oregons Columbia River Gorge to take advantage of the huge crowds of spectators likely to be watching on August 21, 2017.)

 

You are right saying that is crazy. I'm sure GGYC and HIYC are only considering SF Bay with San Diego as an alternative site but possibly Newport. I'm just saying the eclipse will undoubtedly draw many hundreds of thousands of summer travelers to the path of totality for that one single two-minute experience of blackness at midday. There could even be a million or so eclipse chasers if the weather cooperates ... (and no wind limits!) Again, just sayin'

 

While you are on the subject, I'm in Central Oregon, so you are saying the Gorge is a good place to be for the eclipse?  Sounds good. 

 

By the way, Hood River would be a fun place for the AC.  You think SFO is a good stable wind machine with a perfect course. . .  nothing like the Gorge.  Design the boats for 40knts (wind/current) limits and watch the drama . . .  Is the Columbia big enough to qualify as an arm of the sea?



#61 CrushDigital

CrushDigital

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,810 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:01 PM



I'm thrilled these boats will continue.  
 
My question...  could a hybrid wing be possible to avoid the need to step the thing every day.
 
I'm not a wing guy, but it seems to me that instead of heat shrink film, there is the possibility of sheathing the thing with a membrane on tracks.
 
Not as efficient, not as light, not as elegant, but it might make the thing sufficiently transparent to the wind that it could be left on a mooring or more likely, on the hard with guy wires to the top.  Yes, the skeleton would have more windage than a bare mast, but perhaps little enough to be left stepped.  This would avoid all the people required for the stepping process.  If this is in the rule, then everyone is handicapped, and benefitted the same.
 
Just a thought for those that want our cake and eat it too:   Wings with some cost reduction...  since I believe those that say the wing cost is not in the capital... where it is conceivably even cheaper than fast wearing 3DL, but rather in avoiding the handling crew that is needed only for an hour every day the boat sails, but has to sit around for the rest of the day anyway... and get paid.
 
thoughts?

I got the sense that the teams were all that unduly bothered by stepping and unstepping the wing once they got their procdures figured out. I can't recall any incidents after TNZ's wild day with their new wing early on in Auckland.

One way or the other, the teams are going to want to pull their boats from the water each day to work on them and that's going to mean pulling the rig unless they go back to straight soft sails, which isn't going to happen.


I agree that they got good at it, but many said it took 35 folk to do it so that is a lot of people.
 
I also agree that they would likely still pull the boats every day.   In Auckland, it seems they did that with the ACC5s in the LVS races.   But they left the mast stepped, and worked on the boat on the hard.   Granted, it isn't as simple as a mooring, but probably much cheaper than 35 guys on standby.


They absolutely did it with the ACC boats. All of the team bases in Valencia were specifically set-up for it with some having multiple travelelifts.

It's really only an added cost if you don't already have those guys there. Between the sailing team, boat builders and scads of other support staff, there are almost certainly already the people onsite to launch the boat. In the same way that an F1 pit crew isn't an incremental cost, aside from the crane operator, I'd have to see some hard data before I bought into the idea that launching and retrieving the boats actually required the teams to bring on more people.

Edit: After writing this I see GG pretty well covered all of the same points.

#62 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:05 PM

 

I'm thrilled these boats will continue.  
 
My question...  could a hybrid wing be possible to avoid the need to step the thing every day.
 
I'm not a wing guy, but it seems to me that instead of heat shrink film, there is the possibility of sheathing the thing with a membrane on tracks.
 
Not as efficient, not as light, not as elegant, but it might make the thing sufficiently transparent to the wind that it could be left on a mooring or more likely, on the hard with guy wires to the top.  Yes, the skeleton would have more windage than a bare mast, but perhaps little enough to be left stepped.  This would avoid all the people required for the stepping process.  If this is in the rule, then everyone is handicapped, and benefitted the same.
 
Just a thought for those that want our cake and eat it too:   Wings with some cost reduction...  since I believe those that say the wing cost is not in the capital... where it is conceivably even cheaper than fast wearing 3DL, but rather in avoiding the handling crew that is needed only for an hour every day the boat sails, but has to sit around for the rest of the day anyway... and get paid.
 
thoughts?

I got the sense that the teams were all that unduly bothered by stepping and unstepping the wing once they got their procdures figured out. I can't recall any incidents after TNZ's wild day with their new wing early on in Auckland.

One way or the other, the teams are going to want to pull their boats from the water each day to work on them and that's going to mean pulling the rig unless they go back to straight soft sails, which isn't going to happen.

I agree that they got good at it, but many said it took 35 folk to do it so that is a lot of people.

 

I also agree that they would likely still pull the boats every day.   In Auckland, it seems they did that with the ACC5s in the LVS races.   But they left the mast stepped, and worked on the boat on the hard.   Granted, it isn't as simple as a mooring, but probably much cheaper than 35 guys on standby.

 

Like I said above, I would take the claims of 30-40 shore crew dedicated to wing/launch with a HUGE grain of salt.  Kinda like a fisherman talking about how big the fish was he just caught.  Claims are probably closer to double the actual size.  See if you can go back to videos of launches and count the number of people.  I typically get to around 15-20 when I did that.



#63 RMac

RMac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:57 PM

These are interesting points.  IF they stay in multihulls (seems likely) I'd be willing to bet that they'd be pulling the mast everytime they haul as well, so when you get down to it, how many more people are required to handle a wing than would be necessary to do the "base" tasks of haul boat, remove mast, store both indoors?



#64 CrushDigital

CrushDigital

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,810 posts
  • Location:New York, NY

Posted 08 October 2013 - 05:17 PM

These are interesting points.  IF they stay in multihulls (seems likely) I'd be willing to bet that they'd be pulling the mast everytime they haul as well, so when you get down to it, how many more people are required to handle a wing than would be necessary to do the "base" tasks of haul boat, remove mast, store both indoors?

Certainly it requires a few extra bodies to man the various tag lines. The only issue cost wise is whether these are people you wouldn't be paying for otherwise, and that's something, given the size of these times, I find hard to believe.

#65 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 05:40 PM

Kill off the soft sails and the loads drop and costs drop further, plus you can drop 2 or 3 crew.  Yet the final result is likely every bit as exciting as AC33, and conducive to a much more competitive LVC. It may be that the winner of the LVC is a big money team, and they go at it with OTUSA, but that is no different to AC's of the past. Many teams may be able to come aboard with a feasible multi-cup campaign this way. 

 

While I agree with most of what you say, I am pretty sure this bit  isn't true.  Changing the head sail was the cheapest way to change SA to suit conditions.  Without this ability, these would be quite slow boats in light or medium air, or unable to sail in heavier winds.  The original alternative was to have a removable top-wing, but that appears to be more expensive.

 

The cost of the wing is largely the cost of maintenance and handling of the wing.  Getting rid of the jibs won't really change that. 



#66 Basiliscus

Basiliscus

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 October 2013 - 05:47 PM

2017...4 YEARS..WTF?

Lets hope 3 years...and if the keep the AC45's circuit that they set this as a development class with box rule

 

Realistically, the AC has to happen in an odd numbered year (if held in the northern hemisphere).  The reason is on the even numbered years, you either have a Summer Olympics or a Soccer World Cup, and the international TV sports coverage is basically spoken for.  

 

2015 is too soon, given that new teams need time to come up to speed and there will most likely be some significant changes to the Design Rule.  2019 is just too far away to maintain any kind of momentum from the 34th Match, so I think 2017 has a pretty high probability.

 

As for replacing the AC45s with a box rule, I don't think it makes sense to have one development class for the ACWS and a different development class for the AC.  The original concept was for the AC72s to be used for the ACWS after the first year. That didn't pan out because the teams wanted to more time to develop their AC72s and the AC45 was a lot cheaper to campaign.  I think the one-design ACWS has proven to be a success, and it's been a good way for prospective teams to get some exposure and experience.  As long as winged catamarans are used for the AC, the AC45 is relevant as a training platform.  

 

Since foiling has become the big crowd-pleaser, and two teams have successfully developed foiling AC45s, I think it would be feasible to upgrade the whole AC45 fleet with a one-design foiling package.  If you wanted to maintain a distinction between the RBYAC and the ACWS, you could have the Red Bull teams use straight boards and the AC teams use L boards.  That way the youth sailors could concentrate on learning to sail with a wing, and the AC teams would have the added skill set of foiling.  That would also provide a ready-made foil development platform for new teams and they'd be able to get double-duty from their AC45 investment.



#67 yar

yar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:sailing - rigging - deliveries - bay and ocean racing/cruising - navigation - astronomy

Posted 08 October 2013 - 06:17 PM

GG

 

I hope you are right ... but I beg to differ. There will be absolutely  massive media coverage of the 2017 total solar eclipse. It's kinda roughly similar to the situation we faced just "3 short years" ago when promoting and publicizing the AC34 from a soapbox to the ignorant non-sailors of the world. This eclipse will be available to watch in no less 5 state capitals! (an almost impossible likelihood in and of itself) One of the main reasons that total solar eclipses get publicized so much is so that every single person down to 3 year-olds are able to avail themselves of the always freely available "eclipse filter" sunglasses and don't blind themselves. Every single mom (and especially ignorant folks who don't watch TV or read the newspaper, etc) in our country will likely be worried that their child will have severe eye damage because of not being warned or not getting the message clearly enough (do not look at the sun ... which is akin to telling a child not to watch that car accident over there)

 

Besides being a truly "once-in-a-lifetime" experience, a total solar eclipse of this magnitude will be part of the Facebook and young generation "catch it on your newest smartphone app during the live event experience" that we have also just begun to see for AC34. I'm also sure many technology companies will have special solar video/digital camera filters, telescopes, pinhole camera viewers, tablet apps, eclipse sponsoring parties, media events, etc. all across the country. (Hence my last joke about moving the AC35 venue to a watery eclipse totality path location like Oregons Columbia River Gorge to take advantage of the huge crowds of spectators likely to be watching on August 21, 2017.)

 

You are right saying that is crazy. I'm sure GGYC and HIYC are only considering SF Bay with San Diego as an alternative site but possibly Newport. I'm just saying the eclipse will undoubtedly draw many hundreds of thousands of summer travelers to the path of totality for that one single two-minute experience of blackness at midday. There could even be a million or so eclipse chasers if the weather cooperates ... (and no wind limits!) Again, just sayin'

 

While you are on the subject, I'm in Central Oregon, so you are saying the Gorge is a good place to be for the eclipse?  Sounds good. 

 

By the way, Hood River would be a fun place for the AC.  You think SFO is a good stable wind machine with a perfect course. . .  nothing like the Gorge.  Design the boats for 40knts (wind/current) limits and watch the drama . . .  Is the Columbia big enough to qualify as an arm of the sea?

In any case, (especially if you've never experienced a full-on total solar eclipse) I'm saying you are lucky in central oregon. In fact, I was just searching the interactive Google Maps which they've created for this purpose and Unity Reservoir (southern end) is in the center of the path of totality.

 

Sorry to go OT. For all here (especially central US based) you owe it to yourself to travel for this opportunity. If you loved watching these AC72s (weather permitting) in person, I highly doubt you will be disappointed watching a total eclipse of the sun (weather permitting) in person. It is something to behold.

 

I have not received a response from the americascup website. IMHO, this eclipse is a far bigger event than most media have yet to realize. Is anyone here from GGYC that has contact with Tom Ehman who can make sure they are fully aware of the 2017 eclipse? I should think it would be important enough for them to at least research the possible scheduling issues with TV and youtube coverage for the afternoon of Monday August 21, 2017.

 

Enough said ... feel free to PM me if you wish



#68 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 06:44 PM

 

GG

 

I hope you are right ... but I beg to differ. There will be absolutely  massive media coverage of the 2017 total solar eclipse. It's kinda roughly similar to the situation we faced just "3 short years" ago when promoting and publicizing the AC34 from a soapbox to the ignorant non-sailors of the world. This eclipse will be available to watch in no less 5 state capitals! (an almost impossible likelihood in and of itself) One of the main reasons that total solar eclipses get publicized so much is so that every single person down to 3 year-olds are able to avail themselves of the always freely available "eclipse filter" sunglasses and don't blind themselves. Every single mom (and especially ignorant folks who don't watch TV or read the newspaper, etc) in our country will likely be worried that their child will have severe eye damage because of not being warned or not getting the message clearly enough (do not look at the sun ... which is akin to telling a child not to watch that car accident over there)

 

Besides being a truly "once-in-a-lifetime" experience, a total solar eclipse of this magnitude will be part of the Facebook and young generation "catch it on your newest smartphone app during the live event experience" that we have also just begun to see for AC34. I'm also sure many technology companies will have special solar video/digital camera filters, telescopes, pinhole camera viewers, tablet apps, eclipse sponsoring parties, media events, etc. all across the country. (Hence my last joke about moving the AC35 venue to a watery eclipse totality path location like Oregons Columbia River Gorge to take advantage of the huge crowds of spectators likely to be watching on August 21, 2017.)

 

You are right saying that is crazy. I'm sure GGYC and HIYC are only considering SF Bay with San Diego as an alternative site but possibly Newport. I'm just saying the eclipse will undoubtedly draw many hundreds of thousands of summer travelers to the path of totality for that one single two-minute experience of blackness at midday. There could even be a million or so eclipse chasers if the weather cooperates ... (and no wind limits!) Again, just sayin'

 

While you are on the subject, I'm in Central Oregon, so you are saying the Gorge is a good place to be for the eclipse?  Sounds good. 

 

By the way, Hood River would be a fun place for the AC.  You think SFO is a good stable wind machine with a perfect course. . .  nothing like the Gorge.  Design the boats for 40knts (wind/current) limits and watch the drama . . .  Is the Columbia big enough to qualify as an arm of the sea?

In any case, (especially if you've never experienced a full-on total solar eclipse) I'm saying you are lucky in central oregon. In fact, I was just searching the interactive Google Maps which they've created for this purpose and Unity Reservoir (southern end) is in the center of the path of totality.

 

Sorry to go OT. For all here (especially central US based) you owe it to yourself to travel for this opportunity. If you loved watching these AC72s (weather permitting) in person, I highly doubt you will be disappointed watching a total eclipse of the sun (weather permitting) in person. It is something to behold.

 

I have not received a response from the americascup website. IMHO, this eclipse is a far bigger event than most media have yet to realize. Is anyone here from GGYC that has contact with Tom Ehman who can make sure they are fully aware of the 2017 eclipse? I should think it would be important enough for them to at least research the possible scheduling issues with TV and youtube coverage for the afternoon of Monday August 21, 2017.

 

Enough said ... feel free to PM me if you wish

 

Cool, here in Bend, just 15 miles from the best path (Redmond is in it).



#69 DaveRen

DaveRen

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 08 October 2013 - 07:49 PM

So what should the course look like for the AC72?

 

Personally dont like the reach at the start and finish. 

 

Why does everybody hate the reaching legs. Of course, the last leg was just a photo op for the spectators on the pier - oh, the horror!!!

 

Did anybody watch the starts of the last three races?

 

Race 17 - Spithill drove ETNZ into irons and almost out under the Golden Gate, then sped off to a 16 second lead at the first mark.

 

Race 18 - Barker got below OTUSA on the first reach and nearly luffed Spithill up onto the beach at Crissy Field.

 

Race 19 - The OTUSA splashdown was at least entertaining if not dramatic.

 

And don't forget that infamous Race 13 that was abandoned due to the time limit. OTUSA was getting it's a$$ handed to them because they sailed way too low on leg 2. BUT, that race started with Spithill luffing ETNZ well upwind of Mark 1. It looked like they were headed for the Presidio. Hell, it took ETNZ 3 minutes to clear Mark 1. Hmm, that start was critical when they thought ETNZ was less than 4 minutes from the finish line when the race was abandoned. That start and reaching leg saved the AC for OTUSA.

 

I don't know about you, but those reaches don't seem so bad after all.

 

Oh and for those that didn't like the foiling. Take a look at the Race 13 replay. 13-20 knots flying a hull with Code 0's, zzzzzz......

 

Bottom line, the LVC sucked because only one team could sail the boat. The AC sucked until OTUSA figured out how to race their boat.



#70 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 07:56 PM

So what should the course look like for the AC72?

 

Personally dont like the reach at the start and finish. 

 

Why does everybody hate the reaching legs. Of course, the last leg was just a photo op for the spectators on the pier - oh, the horror!!!

 

Did anybody watch the starts of the last three races?

 

Race 17 - Spithill drove ETNZ into irons and almost out under the Golden Gate, then sped off to a 16 second lead at the first mark.

 

Race 18 - Barker got below OTUSA on the first reach and nearly luffed Spithill up onto the beach at Crissy Field.

 

Race 19 - The OTUSA splashdown was at least entertaining if not dramatic.

 

And don't forget that infamous Race 13 that was abandoned due to the time limit. OTUSA was getting it's a$$ handed to them because they sailed way too low on leg 2. BUT, that race started with Spithill luffing ETNZ well upwind of Mark 1. It looked like they were headed for the Presidio. Hell, it took ETNZ 3 minutes to clear Mark 1. Hmm, that start was critical when they thought ETNZ was less than 4 minutes from the finish line when the race was abandoned. That start and reaching leg saved the AC for OTUSA.

 

I don't know about you, but those reaches don't seem so bad after all.

 

Oh and for those that didn't like the foiling. Take a look at the Race 13 replay. 13-20 knots flying a hull with Code 0's, zzzzzz......

 

Bottom line, the LVC sucked because only one team could sail the boat. The AC sucked until OTUSA figured out how to race their boat.

 

"Everyone" does not hate the reaching legs, I would say quite the contrary.  But those that do not like them seem to spout off about it every chance they get.

 

I love them (well, the finish is not something I LOVE, but it is something that I totally understand for what it is, and I see it as taking NOTHING away). 



#71 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:01 PM

^
Thx. First mark by far the "clenchiest" of any rounding. And watching the finish with beer in hand and no binoculars required - okay, keep that too.

#72 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:13 PM

^
Thx. First mark by far the "clenchiest" of any rounding. And watching the finish with beer in hand and no binoculars required - okay, keep that too.

 

I keep wondering how the dynamics would be if they had Leg 2 upwind.  What would the mark rounding be like, and the difference in strategy be, if they went from the Leg 1 reach to a Leg 2 upwind.  I like the idea of adding a 2nd upwind beat, as it really did give us the most action and tactics.

 

Someone else mentioned that having different marks for the last mark rounding leading to the reach would make that final reaching leg more interesting.  I was wondering how that would work.  I guess you would have to have two mark options, with one being further upwind, but further across the course from the finish.  So, you would have one mark closer to the finish, but with the penultimate leg being longer and the final leg shorter and the mark further downwind, and the other option involving a shorter penultimate leg and longer final leg.  You would then have to make the call which would be advantageous, and may result in more drama on that final leg.  I don't know, may be just adding some gimmickry and luck.



#73 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,719 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 10:33 PM



2017...4 YEARS..WTF?

Lets hope 3 years...and if the keep the AC45's circuit that they set this as a development class with box rule

 
Realistically, the AC has to happen in an odd numbered year (if held in the northern hemisphere).  The reason is on the even numbered years, you either have a Summer Olympics or a Soccer World Cup, and the international TV sports coverage is basically spoken for.  
 
2015 is too soon, given that new teams need time to come up to speed and there will most likely be some significant changes to the Design Rule.  2019 is just too far away to maintain any kind of momentum from the 34th Match, so I think 2017 has a pretty high probability.
 
As for replacing the AC45s with a box rule, I don't think it makes sense to have one development class for the ACWS and a different development class for the AC.  The original concept was for the AC72s to be used for the ACWS after the first year. That didn't pan out because the teams wanted to more time to develop their AC72s and the AC45 was a lot cheaper to campaign.  I think the one-design ACWS has proven to be a success, and it's been a good way for prospective teams to get some exposure and experience.  As long as winged catamarans are used for the AC, the AC45 is relevant as a training platform.  
 
Since foiling has become the big crowd-pleaser, and two teams have successfully developed foiling AC45s, I think it would be feasible to upgrade the whole AC45 fleet with a one-design foiling package.  If you wanted to maintain a distinction between the RBYAC and the ACWS, you could have the Red Bull teams use straight boards and the AC teams use L boards.  That way the youth sailors could concentrate on learning to sail with a wing, and the AC teams would have the added skill set of foiling.  That would also provide a ready-made foil development platform for new teams and they'd be able to get double-duty from their AC45 investment.
All sounds reasonable, although a little permissable latitude for the L boards might add some fun.

Different topic but will ask you here anyway: Any ideas about:

- Why the OR designers chose to not build a wing with LET

- If the amount of wing rake in the later races, with the ribs no longer parallel to the airflow, was an unanticipated and suboptimal rig configuration?

#74 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,839 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 08 October 2013 - 10:56 PM

Realistically, the AC has to happen in an odd numbered year (if held in the northern hemisphere).  The reason is on the even numbered years, you either have a Summer Olympics or a Soccer World Cup, and the international TV sports coverage is basically spoken for.  


Hmm .. the 2016 Rio Olympics are scheduled Aug 5-21, so in fact there would be a conflict with the kind of AC34 dates in SF

Edit: assuming there'll be more than two challengers, that is ..

#75 burbanite

burbanite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 11:15 PM

 And watching the finish with beer in hand and no binoculars required - okay, keep that too.

 

Seconded.



#76 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 October 2013 - 11:42 PM

Kill off the soft sails and the loads drop and costs drop further, plus you can drop 2 or 3 crew.  Yet the final result is likely every bit as exciting as AC33, and conducive to a much more competitive LVC. It may be that the winner of the LVC is a big money team, and they go at it with OTUSA, but that is no different to AC's of the past. Many teams may be able to come aboard with a feasible multi-cup campaign this way. 

 

While I agree with most of what you say, I am pretty sure this bit  isn't true.  Changing the head sail was the cheapest way to change SA to suit conditions.  Without this ability, these would be quite slow boats in light or medium air, or unable to sail in heavier winds.  The original alternative was to have a removable top-wing, but that appears to be more expensive.

 

The cost of the wing is largely the cost of maintenance and handling of the wing.  Getting rid of the jibs won't really change that. 

 

My thoughts were predicated in the desire to have foiling races - which suggests that the old idea of sailing in 3 knots is gone.  We saw the AC72s in light air mode, and it was boring. Unless they have the power to foil they are slow anyway. (OK, we have a world where 20 knots is slow.) So, just bite the bullet, and put in place a minimum wind speed that will ensure a foiling race.  (That bit was sort of implicit in my suggestion, but really should have been spelt out.)

 

One thing I disliked about the jibs was the times when the boats went out with different jib sizes, each taking a different punt on the weather developing.  This almost guarantees poor racing, as one boat will have a clear advantage over the other - and the race may well be decided before the boats leave the dock. 

 

The cost savings are in losing the suite of sails, and the massive replacement programme for them.  Some people have suggested that a headsail is good for less than 100 tacks at peak performance.  At say $50,000 each, this is going to add up over a campaign pretty quickly.  If you lose all the soft sails the rig and platform loads will drop, and you will be able to lose both the trimmer and those grinders needed to power the trim.  Whilst it isn't anything like the cost of the wing, a few million to a team struggling to make the series is going to be welcome.  Especially as, if in the new format, the soft sails are much less important.  

 

We might note that the C Class cats work fine without soft sails. However we did see some some brutal reductions in sail area involving an angle grinder in the ICCCC. So it isn't all easy.



#77 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,719 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 11:48 PM

If 'foiling tacks' are in the future frontier then headsails are critical.

#78 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,082 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 11:55 PM

 

Kill off the soft sails and the loads drop and costs drop further, plus you can drop 2 or 3 crew.  Yet the final result is likely every bit as exciting as AC33, and conducive to a much more competitive LVC. It may be that the winner of the LVC is a big money team, and they go at it with OTUSA, but that is no different to AC's of the past. Many teams may be able to come aboard with a feasible multi-cup campaign this way. 

 

While I agree with most of what you say, I am pretty sure this bit  isn't true.  Changing the head sail was the cheapest way to change SA to suit conditions.  Without this ability, these would be quite slow boats in light or medium air, or unable to sail in heavier winds.  The original alternative was to have a removable top-wing, but that appears to be more expensive.

 

The cost of the wing is largely the cost of maintenance and handling of the wing.  Getting rid of the jibs won't really change that. 

 

My thoughts were predicated in the desire to have foiling races - which suggests that the old idea of sailing in 3 knots is gone.  We saw the AC72s in light air mode, and it was boring. Unless they have the power to foil they are slow anyway. (OK, we have a world where 20 knots is slow.) So, just bite the bullet, and put in place a minimum wind speed that will ensure a foiling race.  (That bit was sort of implicit in my suggestion, but really should have been spelt out.)

 

One thing I disliked about the jibs was the times when the boats went out with different jib sizes, each taking a different punt on the weather developing.  This almost guarantees poor racing, as one boat will have a clear advantage over the other - and the race may well be decided before the boats leave the dock. 

 

The cost savings are in losing the suite of sails, and the massive replacement programme for them.  Some people have suggested that a headsail is good for less than 100 tacks at peak performance.  At say $50,000 each, this is going to add up over a campaign pretty quickly.  If you lose all the soft sails the rig and platform loads will drop, and you will be able to lose both the trimmer and those grinders needed to power the trim.  Whilst it isn't anything like the cost of the wing, a few million to a team struggling to make the series is going to be welcome.  Especially as, if in the new format, the soft sails are much less important.  

 

We might note that the C Class cats work fine without soft sails. However we did some some brutal reductions in sail area involving an angle grinder in the ICCCC. So it isn't all easy.

 

A team that needs to sweat making it to the starting line based on whether or not they can afford jibs is a team that is going to get their ass kicked, and result in lousy racing when they do show up.



#79 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:17 AM

A team that needs to sweat making it to the starting line based on whether or not they can afford jibs is a team that is going to get their ass kicked, and result in lousy racing when they do show up.

 

If the goal is to get more teams in, and to have a good LVC, even minor teams should be encouraged.  Teams that have a multi-cup plan and need to get their feet wet, knowing they will be knocked out, but get a lot of experience (and make the home sponsors happy anyway) will be helped.  A credible team should be able to be built for well under $50m.  If you are spending a couple of million on headsails and the guys to drive them over the entire programme, this is something worth saving.  Plus the drop in difficulty in tuning and managing the boat will help.  The lower loads everywhere may provide a kick on effect as well. 

 

My main dislike of the soft sails plus wing is that you have a hybrid system that has all the disadvantages of soft sails, which makes it hard to get all the advantages that a pure wing can bring.  The jibs are little more than a leading edge slot, something that the C Class guys have already got working properly on a solid wing.



#80 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,738 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:25 AM

 

 

Kill off the soft sails and the loads drop and costs drop further, plus you can drop 2 or 3 crew.  Yet the final result is likely every bit as exciting as AC33, and conducive to a much more competitive LVC. It may be that the winner of the LVC is a big money team, and they go at it with OTUSA, but that is no different to AC's of the past. Many teams may be able to come aboard with a feasible multi-cup campaign this way. 

 

While I agree with most of what you say, I am pretty sure this bit  isn't true.  Changing the head sail was the cheapest way to change SA to suit conditions.  Without this ability, these would be quite slow boats in light or medium air, or unable to sail in heavier winds.  The original alternative was to have a removable top-wing, but that appears to be more expensive.

 

The cost of the wing is largely the cost of maintenance and handling of the wing.  Getting rid of the jibs won't really change that. 

 

My thoughts were predicated in the desire to have foiling races - which suggests that the old idea of sailing in 3 knots is gone.  We saw the AC72s in light air mode, and it was boring. Unless they have the power to foil they are slow anyway. (OK, we have a world where 20 knots is slow.) So, just bite the bullet, and put in place a minimum wind speed that will ensure a foiling race.  (That bit was sort of implicit in my suggestion, but really should have been spelt out.)

 

One thing I disliked about the jibs was the times when the boats went out with different jib sizes, each taking a different punt on the weather developing.  This almost guarantees poor racing, as one boat will have a clear advantage over the other - and the race may well be decided before the boats leave the dock. 

 

The cost savings are in losing the suite of sails, and the massive replacement programme for them.  Some people have suggested that a headsail is good for less than 100 tacks at peak performance.  At say $50,000 each, this is going to add up over a campaign pretty quickly.  If you lose all the soft sails the rig and platform loads will drop, and you will be able to lose both the trimmer and those grinders needed to power the trim.  Whilst it isn't anything like the cost of the wing, a few million to a team struggling to make the series is going to be welcome.  Especially as, if in the new format, the soft sails are much less important.  

 

We might note that the C Class cats work fine without soft sails. However we did some some brutal reductions in sail area involving an angle grinder in the ICCCC. So it isn't all easy.

 

A team that needs to sweat making it to the starting line based on whether or not they can afford jibs is a team that is going to get their ass kicked, and result in lousy racing when they do show up.

 

It is not just the cost of buying cloth (or whatever the top material will be by 2017).  But the computer modeling and design of the boat (structure, controls, crew placement, etc.) for various head sail options, THEN fabrication/upkeep/replacement of the actual headsails, THEN having the additional crew dedicated to the head sails.  Simpler would very likely be much less expensive. 

 

Personally, if the headsails are not very important for performance, and significant savings can be made, then I think it is worth talking about.  If they really do help significantly with performance, then I believe they should not be sacrificed.

 

Seems the LAC guys, and obviously the AC72 designers, would have a very good ability to determine if dropping them would be a good idea.  My guess is the new protocol will consider this option, and what we end up seeing will tell us if it is a good idea or not.



#81 Basiliscus

Basiliscus

    Anarchist

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

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:56 AM

Different topic but will ask you here anyway: Any ideas about:

- Why the OR designers chose to not build a wing with LET

- If the amount of wing rake in the later races, with the ribs no longer parallel to the airflow, was an unanticipated and suboptimal rig configuration?

 

The ironic thing is the wing on 17 could probably have benefited more from main element twist than the wing on Aotearoa.   The round leading edge on Aotearoa was very tolerant of off-design angles of attack and, if laminar flow was possible (big IF), could only support a short run of laminar flow.  So it didn't really need to be twisted.  The section on 17 was designed to benefit twice as much from laminar flow, if laminar flow was possible (big IF), but have a negligible drag penalty over a turbulent design if the flow was fully turbulent.  Twist would have helped to keep the ME inside its drag bucket if laminar flow was possible (big IF).  I never understood why they thought they needed to twist their ME, unless it was because they couldn't get enough flap twist relative to the ME from their control system.  The wing that really needed ME twist was Artemis' wing 1.  If laminar flow was possible (big IF), it would have benefited twice as much as the wing on 17, but over half the angle of attack range.  So it needed to twist to stay inside a narrow groove.

 

OTUSA built a twisting ME AC45 wing to experiment with the concept.  It was never as fast as the stock wing, and it may have been because it wasn't as stiff.  A twisting wing is never going to be as stiff as a non-twisting wing for the same weight because the spar has to be smaller so as to fit inside the outer, twisting shell.  Based on the AC45 experience, it was decided to go for a minimum weight, stiff, non-twisting ME instead.  Wing 3 was intended to be a different design, but after the capsize, the resources and schedule for new wing tooling were applied to the platform and foils.

 

Whether the ribs were parallel to the airstream or not wasn't all that important. The most critical parts of the wing were covered with hard shell, so the rib orientation didn't matter there.  On the lee side, the wing was surprisingly smooth.  That's because the chordwise tension in the film wanted to make it go in a straight line between leading and trailing edges of the cell, flattening out the curvature of the designed section, but the pressure loads wanted to make it pillow outward.  The two effects just about cancelled each other, and the net result was a slight pillowing.  On the windward side, there was a lot of depression of the film, but the pressure gradients there were favorable and stabilized the boundary layer, so there was no danger of separation from the angled ribs, and the velocity was low so any drag increase was minimal.



#82 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

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

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:58 AM

2017...4 YEARS..WTF?

Lets hope 3 years...and if the keep the AC45's circuit that they set this as a development class with box rule

 

Realistically, the AC has to happen in an odd numbered year (if held in the northern hemisphere).  The reason is on the even numbered years, you either have a Summer Olympics or a Soccer World Cup, and the international TV sports coverage is basically spoken for.  

 

2015 is too soon, given that new teams need time to come up to speed and there will most likely be some significant changes to the Design Rule.  2019 is just too far away to maintain any kind of momentum from the 34th Match, so I think 2017 has a pretty high probability.

 

As for replacing the AC45s with a box rule, I don't think it makes sense to have one development class for the ACWS and a different development class for the AC.  The original concept was for the AC72s to be used for the ACWS after the first year. That didn't pan out because the teams wanted to more time to develop their AC72s and the AC45 was a lot cheaper to campaign.  I think the one-design ACWS has proven to be a success, and it's been a good way for prospective teams to get some exposure and experience.  As long as winged catamarans are used for the AC, the AC45 is relevant as a training platform.  

 

Since foiling has become the big crowd-pleaser, and two teams have successfully developed foiling AC45s, I think it would be feasible to upgrade the whole AC45 fleet with a one-design foiling package.  If you wanted to maintain a distinction between the RBYAC and the ACWS, you could have the Red Bull teams use straight boards and the AC teams use L boards.  That way the youth sailors could concentrate on learning to sail with a wing, and the AC teams would have the added skill set of foiling.  That would also provide a ready-made foil development platform for new teams and they'd be able to get double-duty from their AC45 investment.

 

Agree that 2017 appears to be the logical year  for AC35.

 

There has been much dissuasion about containing cost. Basiliscus' thinking supports that approach. Small upgrades to the basic one-design 45s but keep these boats for a global circuit, and a reasonable entry point for new countries and teams entering the AC game. Also good for another Red Bull series. If its possible to add a one-design foiling package to supercharge the 45a, do that too. Preferably have boats readily modified to either mode.

 

I want to see continuation of the AC72s, with more control of foils and rudders, also perhaps a few more limited-run off-the-shelf parts. I expect to see some advances on AC72 launch and handling techniques. If teams shared the same pier area it would be possible to develop a mobile crane mounted on something like a big Travelift and complete with its own dedicated core launch crew for servicing several teams. 

 

Building on lessons learned this summer is the way to go.



#83 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,719 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:00 AM




Different topic but will ask you here anyway: Any ideas about:

- Why the OR designers chose to not build a wing with LET

- If the amount of wing rake in the later races, with the ribs no longer parallel to the airflow, was an unanticipated and suboptimal rig configuration?

 
The ironic thing is the wing on 17 could probably have benefited more from main element twist than the wing on Aotearoa.   The round leading edge on Aotearoa was very tolerant of off-design angles of attack and, if laminar flow was possible (big IF), could only support a short run of laminar flow.  So it didn't really need to be twisted.  The section on 17 was designed to benefit twice as much from laminar flow, if laminar flow was possible (big IF), but have a drag penalty over a turbulent design if the flow was fully turbulent.  Twist would have helped to keep the ME inside its drag bucket if laminar flow was possible (big IF).  I never understood why they thought they needed to twist their ME, unless it was because they couldn't get enough flap twist relative to the ME from their control system.  The wing that really needed ME twist was Artemis' wing 1.  If laminar flow was possible (big IF), it would have benefited twice as much as the wing on 17, but over half the angle of attack range.  So it needed to twist to stay inside a narrow groove.
 
OTUSA built a twisting ME AC45 wing to experiment with the concept.  It was never as fast as the stock wing, and it may have been because it wasn't as stiff.  A twisting wing is never going to be as stiff as a non-twisting wing for the same weight because the spar has to be smaller so as to fit inside the outer, twisting shell.  Based on the AC45 experience, it was decided to go for a minimum weight, stiff, non-twisting ME instead.  Wing 3 was intended to be a different design, but after the capsize, the resources and schedule for new wing tooling were applied to the platform and foils.
 
Whether the ribs were parallel to the airstream or not wasn't all that important. The most critical parts of the wing were covered with hard shell, so the rib orientation didn't matter there.  On the lee side, the wing was surprisingly smooth.  That's because the chordwise tension in the film wanted to make it go in a straight line between leading and trailing edges of the cell, but the pressure loads wanted to make it pillow outward.  The two effects just about cancelled each other, and the net result was a slight pillowing.  On the windward side, there was a lot of depression of the film, but the pressure gradients there were favorable and stabilized the boundary layer, so there was no danger of separation from the angled ribs, and the velocity was low so any drag increase was minimal.
Dynamite, thank you

#84 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,082 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:29 AM

 

 

 

Kill off the soft sails and the loads drop and costs drop further, plus you can drop 2 or 3 crew.  Yet the final result is likely every bit as exciting as AC33, and conducive to a much more competitive LVC. It may be that the winner of the LVC is a big money team, and they go at it with OTUSA, but that is no different to AC's of the past. Many teams may be able to come aboard with a feasible multi-cup campaign this way. 

 

While I agree with most of what you say, I am pretty sure this bit  isn't true.  Changing the head sail was the cheapest way to change SA to suit conditions.  Without this ability, these would be quite slow boats in light or medium air, or unable to sail in heavier winds.  The original alternative was to have a removable top-wing, but that appears to be more expensive.

 

The cost of the wing is largely the cost of maintenance and handling of the wing.  Getting rid of the jibs won't really change that. 

 

My thoughts were predicated in the desire to have foiling races - which suggests that the old idea of sailing in 3 knots is gone.  We saw the AC72s in light air mode, and it was boring. Unless they have the power to foil they are slow anyway. (OK, we have a world where 20 knots is slow.) So, just bite the bullet, and put in place a minimum wind speed that will ensure a foiling race.  (That bit was sort of implicit in my suggestion, but really should have been spelt out.)

 

One thing I disliked about the jibs was the times when the boats went out with different jib sizes, each taking a different punt on the weather developing.  This almost guarantees poor racing, as one boat will have a clear advantage over the other - and the race may well be decided before the boats leave the dock. 

 

The cost savings are in losing the suite of sails, and the massive replacement programme for them.  Some people have suggested that a headsail is good for less than 100 tacks at peak performance.  At say $50,000 each, this is going to add up over a campaign pretty quickly.  If you lose all the soft sails the rig and platform loads will drop, and you will be able to lose both the trimmer and those grinders needed to power the trim.  Whilst it isn't anything like the cost of the wing, a few million to a team struggling to make the series is going to be welcome.  Especially as, if in the new format, the soft sails are much less important.  

 

We might note that the C Class cats work fine without soft sails. However we did some some brutal reductions in sail area involving an angle grinder in the ICCCC. So it isn't all easy.

 

A team that needs to sweat making it to the starting line based on whether or not they can afford jibs is a team that is going to get their ass kicked, and result in lousy racing when they do show up.

 

It is not just the cost of buying cloth (or whatever the top material will be by 2017).  But the computer modeling and design of the boat (structure, controls, crew placement, etc.) for various head sail options, THEN fabrication/upkeep/replacement of the actual headsails, THEN having the additional crew dedicated to the head sails.  Simpler would very likely be much less expensive. 

 

Personally, if the headsails are not very important for performance, and significant savings can be made, then I think it is worth talking about.  If they really do help significantly with performance, then I believe they should not be sacrificed.

 

Seems the LAC guys, and obviously the AC72 designers, would have a very good ability to determine if dropping them would be a good idea.  My guess is the new protocol will consider this option, and what we end up seeing will tell us if it is a good idea or not.

 

 

The accountants will tell you dropping jibs and/or other headsails is a bad idea, because you take away those sails you also take away sponsor visibility space.

 

Additionally, people have said there wasn't enough action on the boats - all they could see was guys grinding, but no one has any idea what they are grinding.  Plenty of people have said they want more sails, not less.

 

Personally, I hope the stored energy rule is completely removed, and in its place is a requirement for some form of power assist other than internal combustion engines.  Automatic foil controls, of all sorts.  Powered winches.  Automatic wing control too.  Spending money on alternative energy systems for boats can only help the sport in the long run.  That will have an immediate trickle down effect, and potentially give the developers of those systems (read the team owners) some sort of IP to try and sell.

 

If we keep up with this my kiwi is stronger than your kiwi contest, sooner or later we will end up with a blood doping issue.

 

The America's Cup is at its core about having the most technically advanced boat.  It is not about saving money. Whether it is $50 million or a $100 million,  it costs a metric shit ton of money to race in the America's Cup.  The biggest issue for the teams is in being able to control their own destiny with the media rights in their own country, rather than some centrailized bullshit plan that Worth and Thompson jammed down everyone's throat, which ended up costing Larry a double metric shitton of money.  Let the teams create their own media value as much as possible, and the money issues will sort themselves out.



#85 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 915 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:50 AM

The accountants will tell you dropping jibs and/or other headsails is a bad idea, because you take away those sails you also take away sponsor visibility space.

 

Additionally, people have said there wasn't enough action on the boats - all they could see was guys grinding, but no one has any idea what they are grinding.  Plenty of people have said they want more sails, not less.

 

Personally, I hope the stored energy rule is completely removed, and in its place is a requirement for some form of power assist other than internal combustion engines.  Automatic foil controls, of all sorts.  Powered winches.  Automatic wing control too.  Spending money on alternative energy systems for boats can only help the sport in the long run.  That will have an immediate trickle down effect, and potentially give the developers of those systems (read the team owners) some sort of IP to try and sell.

 

If we keep up with this my kiwi is stronger than your kiwi contest, sooner or later we will end up with a blood doping issue.

 

The America's Cup is at its core about having the most technically advanced boat.  It is not about saving money. Whether it is $50 million or a $100 million,  it costs a metric shit ton of money to race in the America's Cup.  The biggest issue for the teams is in being able to control their own destiny with the media rights in their own country, rather than some centrailized bullshit plan that Worth and Thompson jammed down everyone's throat, which ended up costing Larry a double metric shitton of money.  Let the teams create their own media value as much as possible, and the money issues will sort themselves out.

 

Wow .. that must be a first .. I completely agree with you although maybe for different reasons ..

 

The powered winches would happen to save a lot of money by getting rid of the grinders and we could all concentrate on watching the skilled crew sailing the boat ..

 

Alternative energy systems could include batteries charged by the wind and accumulators should be allowed in the hydraulic system .

 

I never understood why automatic foil controls were not allowed .. it certainly made the teams job harder and more expensive .. I am sure they never reached their peak in development with that crude manual system .



#86 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:57 AM

The question of what the AC is goes around in circles, and it is a moving target as well.  If it is a pissing contest between billionaires with DoG challenges, money is no object.  But LE and company, and many others, do not share that view, and given LE and the GGYC own the cup, it actually is their call. 

 

If you want a good LVC, and many do, money will matter.  There are not enough deep pocketed billionaires, or enthusiastic governments around.  But it is a balancing act. The AC is still going to be the most expensive sailing contest on the planet, and it will be so by quite a margin.  It will probably always dwarf the VOR.  That is good.  But if the boat design rule can be tweaked to allow the merely very rich to play, then it probably should. Currently the AC72 makes the IACC look like bargains.



#87 tls

tls

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:58 AM

My main dislike of the soft sails plus wing is that you have a hybrid system that has all the disadvantages of soft sails, which makes it hard to get all the advantages that a pure wing can bring.  The jibs are little more than a leading edge slot, something that the C Class guys have already got working properly on a solid wing.

 

Look if you want a cheaper boat, make a smaller wing.  Getting rid of the jibs will save you very little money, but will result in much slower boats in several conditions.

 

The reason that C-class boats don't have soft sails is entirely because they are sail area limited.  They cannot increase sail area in light winds or down wind under their box rule.  It is not because that is faster.



#88 Ncik

Ncik

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 03:16 AM

The action would have been much better in non-foiling 60-65' cats. They need to 1D the foil package and allow the team build the controls and rig. Serioulsy the whole foiling thing doesn't work for match racing. One team will end up with the faster package. Come on, seeing Oracle have a 4 kt advantage to weather, just stupid racing. The same thing will happen with any foiling design boat. Look at moth races. The winner is usually 1/2 a leg infront of the other guys - and they are racing what are in effect 1D boats. OK yes, the action has gotten better in recent years, but principle is solid - foiling will not work for good racing. Makes for great (spectacular) viewing for a few minutes (before boredom sets in).

 

sarcasm?



#89 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 09 October 2013 - 03:27 AM


Look if you want a cheaper boat, make a smaller wing.  Getting rid of the jibs will save you very little money, but will result in much slower boats in several conditions.

 

The reason that C-class boats don't have soft sails is entirely because they are sail area limited.  They cannot increase sail area in light winds or down wind under their box rule.  It is not because that is faster.

 

I think the technical part of the question is what the full consequences of the soft sails are.  Just reducing the size of the wing makes at best a very small decrease in cost.  The soft sails have a huge number of knock on effects - much more than their fabrication costs.  We don't know the answer to the balance - I have my ideas, but that is about it.  But sheeting loads are an order of magnitude greater with a soft sail, and the loads on the rig and platform trying to sheet a jib in an apparent wind of less than 20 degrees are going to be evil. Once you are coping with these loads in the design, and when sailing, lots of things get harder and more expensive, and need more people both on and off the boat.

 

In the C-Class cats the leading edge slot is counted as part of the area, so when the slot is stowed the wing is below full area, and only when open does the system reach full area.  Those with a slot obviously prefer it to a jib. The slot area isn't huge, but the principle is there.  A big reason why they like the slot is that the apparent wind generated swings so hard around that a jib is in trouble being useful.  The same argument will become important for an AC72.  If they are touching 50 knots in 20 knots of wind in the next AC, the apparent wind angles and speeds are going to favour solids.

 

Anyway, the silly little jibs on the AC72's just looked stupid. 



#90 brian weslake

brian weslake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 03:39 AM

The accountants will tell you dropping jibs and/or other headsails is a bad idea, because you take away those sails you also take away sponsor visibility space.

 

Additionally, people have said there wasn't enough action on the boats - all they could see was guys grinding, but no one has any idea what they are grinding.  Plenty of people have said they want more sails, not less.

 

Personally, I hope the stored energy rule is completely removed, and in its place is a requirement for some form of power assist other than internal combustion engines.  Automatic foil controls, of all sorts.  Powered winches.  Automatic wing control too.  Spending money on alternative energy systems for boats can only help the sport in the long run.  That will have an immediate trickle down effect, and potentially give the developers of those systems (read the team owners) some sort of IP to try and sell.

 

If we keep up with this my kiwi is stronger than your kiwi contest, sooner or later we will end up with a blood doping issue.

 

The America's Cup is at its core about having the most technically advanced boat.  It is not about saving money. Whether it is $50 million or a $100 million,  it costs a metric shit ton of money to race in the America's Cup.  The biggest issue for the teams is in being able to control their own destiny with the media rights in their own country, rather than some centrailized bullshit plan that Worth and Thompson jammed down everyone's throat, which ended up costing Larry a double metric shitton of money.  Let the teams create their own media value as much as possible, and the money issues will sort themselves out.

 

Wow .. that must be a first .. I completely agree with you although maybe for different reasons ..

 

The powered winches would happen to save a lot of money by getting rid of the grinders and we could all concentrate on watching the skilled crew sailing the boat ..

 

Alternative energy systems could include batteries charged by the wind and accumulators should be allowed in the hydraulic system .

 

I never understood why automatic foil controls were not allowed .. it certainly made the teams job harder and more expensive .. I am sure they never reached their peak in development with that crude manual system .

 

Energy storage and non-human power are two different subjects and should be considered separately. Non human power in the form of gasoline engines or electric motors should not, in my opinion, be part of the sport. Sailing has always been a wind, water and human power sport, to compromise that would make the sport a lot less attractive in many people's eyes.

 

Allowing a little bit more storage of hydraulic power may be beneficial to lessen crew workload slightly and for safety reasons - we have already had one near capsize due to lack of hydraulic pressure in a tack. But certainly not more power storage than is required to complete a tack or gybe safely without additional grinding.



#91 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 915 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:04 AM

 

The accountants will tell you dropping jibs and/or other headsails is a bad idea, because you take away those sails you also take away sponsor visibility space.

 

Additionally, people have said there wasn't enough action on the boats - all they could see was guys grinding, but no one has any idea what they are grinding.  Plenty of people have said they want more sails, not less.

 

Personally, I hope the stored energy rule is completely removed, and in its place is a requirement for some form of power assist other than internal combustion engines.  Automatic foil controls, of all sorts.  Powered winches.  Automatic wing control too.  Spending money on alternative energy systems for boats can only help the sport in the long run.  That will have an immediate trickle down effect, and potentially give the developers of those systems (read the team owners) some sort of IP to try and sell.

 

If we keep up with this my kiwi is stronger than your kiwi contest, sooner or later we will end up with a blood doping issue.

 

The America's Cup is at its core about having the most technically advanced boat.  It is not about saving money. Whether it is $50 million or a $100 million,  it costs a metric shit ton of money to race in the America's Cup.  The biggest issue for the teams is in being able to control their own destiny with the media rights in their own country, rather than some centrailized bullshit plan that Worth and Thompson jammed down everyone's throat, which ended up costing Larry a double metric shitton of money.  Let the teams create their own media value as much as possible, and the money issues will sort themselves out.

 

Wow .. that must be a first .. I completely agree with you although maybe for different reasons ..

 

The powered winches would happen to save a lot of money by getting rid of the grinders and we could all concentrate on watching the skilled crew sailing the boat ..

 

Alternative energy systems could include batteries charged by the wind and accumulators should be allowed in the hydraulic system .

 

I never understood why automatic foil controls were not allowed .. it certainly made the teams job harder and more expensive .. I am sure they never reached their peak in development with that crude manual system .

 

Energy storage and non-human power are two different subjects and should be considered separately. Non human power in the form of gasoline engines or electric motors should not, in my opinion, be part of the sport. Sailing has always been a wind, water and human power sport, to compromise that would make the sport a lot less attractive in many people's eyes.

 

Allowing a little bit more storage of hydraulic power may be beneficial to lessen crew workload slightly and for safety reasons - we have already had one near capsize due to lack of hydraulic pressure in a tack. But certainly not more power storage than is required to complete a tack or gybe safely without additional grinding.

 

The AC is an anomaly in the sport of sailing .. it's not truly a sport .. it was originally conceived as a contest between clubs from different countries to demonstrate who could build the fastest boat .. this was a technology race which happened to use people as a necessary evil ..

 

Electric power and energy storage systems are very much in keeping with the original intent of the AC .. If you want it to be a people contest I suggest the Volvo round the world race would be an appropriate alternative for you .



#92 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

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

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:47 AM

Ironically the VOR does use power - the diesel engines run to keep the batteries charged to power the canting keel, as well as the nav and comm systems. They don't allow winch power however. Human power to drive the keel hydraulics isn't tenable, and the safety requirements include showing that the keel can be slewed to right a capsized boat, a time when human power isn't going to be available. The only AC that used power was AC33.  And that wasn't a good time.  All the J's have powered winches now, but back when the raced for the AC they didn't.

 

Certainly the next VOR will be just about the people, and that is a mixed blessing.  The AC will always be primarily about the boat, but the people are becoming pretty big.  For the AC to be a popular sporting spectacle this will continue as the viewing public tend to like sports where personalities are larger than life.

 

Stored power would change the racing - tacks and gybes could become faster, and the equation of how much power was available at the moment could start to influence tactics in a duel.  It might be a bit like F1 when the KERS system is highly limited, and this use becomes highly tactical.  One could imagine the TV coverage including a little meter showing remaining energy in the store for each boat, and we could all second guess how the tactics would be called.  Not sure I really like the idea, but it has some appeal. 



#93 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:56 AM

Rather see no wing. A complete soft sail package but fully open foil design the boats will be going faster but without the whole drama of launching retrievel etc could keep the boats on a mooring even 



#94 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,839 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:19 AM


........

Dynamite, thank you

Ditto - and kudos for asking, SR

#95 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,839 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:21 AM

One could imagine the TV coverage including a little meter showing remaining energy in the store for each boat, and we could all second guess how the tactics would be called.  Not sure I really like the idea, but it has some appeal. 


I see what you mean - the fascination of sin .. :D

#96 strider470

strider470

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Milan - Italy / Bruxelles - Belgium
  • Interests:Sailing photography

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:25 AM


Rather see no wing. A complete soft sail package but fully open foil design the boats will be going faster but without the whole drama of launching retrievel etc could keep the boats on a mooring even 

It seems that the wing gives an improvement in performance from 5% to 15% compared to soft sails. Could this be compensated or even exceeded by a fully open foils design?

#97 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:56 AM


Rather see no wing. A complete soft sail package but fully open foil design the boats will be going faster but without the whole drama of launching retrievel etc could keep the boats on a mooring even 

It seems that the wing gives an improvement in performance from 5% to 15% compared to soft sails. Could this be compensated or even exceeded by a fully open foils design?

 

 

5 to10% acceleration advantages with a wing at best open foil control should surely make up for this given the development time and it would still look awesome 



#98 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 915 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:59 AM

Rather see no wing. A complete soft sail package but fully open foil design the boats will be going faster but without the whole drama of launching retrievel etc could keep the boats on a mooring even 

 

I think the wings are here to stay but there might be a compromise .. there have been several prototype soft wings about which the AC could develop and of coarse the concept of the wing mast combined with a soft sail .



#99 strider470

strider470

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Milan - Italy / Bruxelles - Belgium
  • Interests:Sailing photography

Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:18 AM

From gazetta dello sport http://ventoevele.ga...-coppa-america/

I rappresentanti del Golden Gate Yacht Club e quelli dell’Hamilton Island Yacht Club, rispettivamente Defender e Challenger of Record della 35° America’s Cup stanno lavorando al Protocollo che regolerà la prossima edizione della Coppa. Il documento sarà pronto solo all’inizio del prossimo anno, ma già trapelano le prime indiscrezioni. Confermato il circuito di regate preparatorie con tappe in giro per il mondo, una sicura in Italia. I catamarani dovrebbero essere ancora gli AC 45 con un equipaggio di 6 persone e non più 5 come nelle precedenti World Series. Anche sugli AC 45 verranno installati i foil che, come sugli AC 72 utilizzati per la Coppa di San Francisco, permetteranno ai multiscafi di “volare”. Per l’America’s Cup si sta studiando un catamarano più piccolo ( e si spera molto più sicuro degli AC 72) che dovrebbe essere lungo al massimo 60 piedi.

Dovrebbe essere confermata, visto il successo dell’ edizione di quest’anno, anche la “ Youth America’s Cup, la “Coppa” dedicata ai velisti tra i 19 e i 24 anni.

#100 strider470

strider470

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Milan - Italy / Bruxelles - Belgium
  • Interests:Sailing photography

Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:25 AM

From gazetta dello sport http://ventoevele.ga...-coppa-america/
I rappresentanti del Golden Gate Yacht Club e quelli dell’Hamilton Island Yacht Club, rispettivamente Defender e Challenger of Record della 35° America’s Cup stanno lavorando al Protocollo che regolerà la prossima edizione della Coppa. Il documento sarà pronto solo all’inizio del prossimo anno, ma già trapelano le prime indiscrezioni. Confermato il circuito di regate preparatorie con tappe in giro per il mondo, una sicura in Italia. I catamarani dovrebbero essere ancora gli AC 45 con un equipaggio di 6 persone e non più 5 come nelle precedenti World Series. Anche sugli AC 45 verranno installati i foil che, come sugli AC 72 utilizzati per la Coppa di San Francisco, permetteranno ai multiscafi di “volare”. Per l’America’s Cup si sta studiando un catamarano più piccolo ( e si spera molto più sicuro degli AC 72) che dovrebbe essere lungo al massimo 60 piedi.
Dovrebbe essere confermata, visto il successo dell’ edizione di quest’anno, anche la “ Youth America’s Cup, la “Coppa” dedicata ai velisti tra i 19 e i 24 anni.


Basically it says that GGYC and HIYC, defender and COR for the AC35 are working at the protocol. It will be ready at the beginning.of 2014 but there are already rumors of the content.
ACWS confirmed around the world, in Italy also. It will be with AC45 modified to foil and with 6 people crew.
For the LVC/AC a 60 ft foiling cat is likely to be chosen.

Confirmed too the youth AC.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users