[writing-moment]

Quote

in the 1st photo under the suter sign is a purple mercedes a-class, 3,838mm long

using that i get a length of the building of about 55mtrs...perhaps not so accurate

You have to compensate for the foreshortening. Even if the two objects are slightly different in distance from the viewer, the implied dimensions can be off significantly. Even at significant viewing distances and even at what looks like a head-on orthographic perspective.

The portable tents are very standard modules of depth and width, depth module is 5m, width proportions depend on the roof system but end panels are usually 5m, too, and the roof systems fit these. These sort of tents are also used in the US, despite the metric module. 98.42' x 131.23' is probably very accurate centerline to centerline. Clear span and overall differing slightly. But depth/width at 2:1 is not particularly true. You can keep adding length in 5m increments. I confirmed this with a tent industry professional last fall (you can guess what in regard to). (Width only goes in certain jumps, about 130' or about 160' clear being the largest, I can't remember)

Mo's CAD drawing is probably spot on in that respect, so having it spit out a 115' length is intriguing (based on the square pads being o/c for each ama).

[Stingray]

Peelman, on Apr 17 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

While it is possible to deduce launch dates etc from the time the giant multihull enters the tent (based on timeframes taken by the BMW Oracle building team to go through the same phase, the BOR90 was built alongside the water in Anacortes - so full and final assembly of the Challenger was possible - which is not believed to be the case with the Swiss response.

Nice fun there by RG, recognizing us all.

But he got it all screwed up again. As we here all know, the timeline he should be going by is actually this one. But delayed by a year of appeals..

 GraphicJoke.jpg (235.51K)
Number of downloads: 74

[eric e]

from the size of the a-class benz i'm getting 3247mm for 1 side of the concrete square? slabs

which is giving me 20.131 mtrs wide cat if the blocks are centered under the hulls

[pjh]

Elf*---, on Apr 17 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

Boardertje, on Apr 17 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

mo fuzz, on Apr 17 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Beam = 75 feet
LWL = 115 feet

In the attached drawings, the trace includes the perimeter nets, trampolines and bowsprit, which extend beyond the edge of the building. All of these items, I suspect, can be added later after it emerges from the tent.

Attached is a PDF version too
cheezus.JPG

Interesting... but where do you put the second mast you require if you go up to 115 feet?

"Two masts" is the new "having" :lol:

I still think the only logical way for a 115' CZ to have two masts is one on each hull, maybe a rigid mast on each hull which would get around the sail making nationality problem.

[Stingray]

Stake in the ground:

I think the building is 44m x 30m

The slab centers are 23m apart, ~76' boat beam.

Now: Can anyone prove me wrong? How's that for a challenge??

[eric e]

eric e, on Apr 18 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

from the size of the a-class benz i'm getting 3247mm for 1 side of the concrete square? slabs

which is giving me 20.131 mtrs wide cat if the blocks are centred under the hulls

another calculation is coming out with slabs 18.33mtrs apart centre to centre

another calculation based on the little purple car closest to the end being a mk3 polo, 3715mm, is giving a 23mtr wide shed to house a 20mtr wide cat

[mr_ryano]

Still not buying this is a final assembly shed. We ought to be looking in Valencia to see if EB has leased out any land near the bases. If this was my project, I'd want to get sailing ASAP, EB has already indicated a match in Valencia, and there are already facilities & boatbuilders there. Could it be possible that the tent we see is actually for the ama construction and they were holding off until the court decision to start????

Can we track down a build orgin date by calling some of the carbon suppliers and finding the BIG order for CH??

Second thought keeping me up. What's the biggest autoclave in CH? I'd estimate the masts to be in the 130-150 foot range. How do you build them in country? Autoclave multiple sctions and graft them, or vacuum bag a monolithic structure? Can you even bag a mast, or is that not enough pressure to build a quality spar?

[edelweis]

eric e, on Apr 18 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

... from that pic it looks like the length is about 16 sections of the outside fence

That's what I counted, too.

But, it puzzles me that those fence elements usually measure 3,50m x 2m (compare pic with shipping containers),
and this would give a huge tent...

Attached File(s)

•  fence1200.jpg (338.8K)
  Number of downloads: 72

[edelweis]

fence element in front of a shipping container:

Attached File(s)

•  container.JPG (137.92K)
  Number of downloads: 42

[heckler]

pjh, on Apr 17 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

I still think the only logical way for a 115' CZ to have two masts is one on each hull, maybe a rigid mast on each hull which would get around the sail making nationality problem.

http://www.parlier.org/hydraplaneur/images...eau/vue2_gt.jpg

5 or 6 years old.

One on each hull (or two masts, for that matter) is contrary to Peelman's "Why reinvent the wheel?" logic.

h

[kali]

Fence element probably 3400 mm -> 3500 mm c/c. Parking space 5000 mm. Still hanging on to 5000 mm module on tent. The last one is the least certain since I can´t find the make..

edelweis, I don´t think that You have the right vanishing point. --EDIT-- having checked it, this really doesn´t matter that much, Your result is in the ballpark.,

[pjh]

heckler, on Apr 17 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

One on each hull (or two masts, for that matter) is contrary to Peelman's "Why reinvent the wheel?" logic.

If it is 115' it must have two masts under the DoG.

[Peelman]

heckler, on Apr 17 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

pjh, on Apr 17 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

I still think the only logical way for a 115' CZ to have two masts is one on each hull, maybe a rigid mast on each hull which would get around the sail making nationality problem.

http://www.parlier.org/hydraplaneur/images...eau/vue2_gt.jpg

5 or 6 years old.

One on each hull (or two masts, for that matter) is contrary to Peelman's "Why reinvent the wheel?" logic.

h

Pls read the post again as you missed it.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php...t&p=2231356

It's about what upgrade makes most sense for EB & his team based on their frame of reference. Especially w/ such a short time frame.

[eric e]

if the fence sections are 3.5mtr wide then the shed is about 9 sections wide at 31.5mtr, 103ft, and the cat is about 8 sections wide at 28mtr, 90ft

seriously big, the big cheese

[Kiwi Spy]

Stingray, on Apr 18 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

Peelman, on Apr 17 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

While it is possible to deduce launch dates etc from the time the giant multihull enters the tent (based on timeframes taken by the BMW Oracle building team to go through the same phase, the BOR90 was built alongside the water in Anacortes - so full and final assembly of the Challenger was possible - which is not believed to be the case with the Swiss response.

Nice fun there by RG, recognizing us all.

But he got it all screwed up again. As we here all know, the timeline he should be going by is actually this one. But delayed by a year of appeals..

GraphicJoke.jpg

The point that is missed in this critical path is that there is a a transport phase, which breaks the assembly phase into two. The problem that Alinghi have is that with this type of boat they have to build the components, assemble, disassemble, transport, reassemble, launch and sea trial. Where for BOR90 it was only build components, assemble, launch and sea trial - a much simpler critical path.

While it is possible to deduce some times from the BOR90 project, because the path is simpler you cannot cross relate.

Further because of the requirement for construction in the country of origin, it may not be possible to do the degree of assembly that would normally be done at the launch site, while staying within the construction requirements of the DoG. That means they may have to do a full and final assembly and then pull apart (normally with a multihull of this size, the parts would be epoxied together - not possible, here).

It is not possible to transport a boat 75 or 90ft wide by road. The normal way with boats this size is to get them to the nearest point on the sea - which in this case is 280km and then barge them to their final destination for the final fit-out and rig installation. It is quite difficult to do this normally, without having to work within a construction confine imposed by the Deed of Gift. The effect is that more time will be required in the assembly phase than less and will probably require a second tent etc.

I would also doubt that you could get permission to fly a boat like this over populated areas, but i don't know how tough the European aviation rules are in this regard.

While it is quite likely that the Alinghi boat will be 115ft LWL - for this length they will have to be a ketch/yawl under the DoG. The problem with the ketch/yawl is the drag imposed from the second rig is sometimes not offset by the power it generates.

Again this is a greenfield area in multihull design, and certainly the last time we saw this with the two Whitbread ketches/yawls it was a significant issue, as the second rig is operating in disturbed air etc, and the solution was to get the two masts as far apart as possible to improve the efficiency of the second (and hence the move to make Steinlager II longer than Fisher and Paykel, by working the fractional rig as opposed to the masthead rig).

But returning to the original point, the critical path that is stated in the diagram is wrong for a boat built within the Alinghi constraints because it has no mention of the transportation phase and the assembly and dis-assembly issue. Although it may be quite correct for the BOR90 type construction.

The final point is that in doing the OTR series, I did speak to a boat builder with good experience in this area, on the issue of assembly and times etc. The comment was that it depended completely on the design, which was the answer I would have expected. And they wouldn't even make a guess on the time required, which again is pretty obvious given the constraints.

What can be deduced from the above is that Alinghi are probably behind schedule (or certainly are on a tight schedule).

There is probably not a lot of slack time in their project plan leading to a Match on February 2010, should they have some form of mishap during the build or sea trial (like a major rig or structural failure). The boatbuilder we spoke to did say that structural engineering, historically with boats of this size and type was an issue, and that typically they were initially under engineered.

And that as it is the first time that someone has done an exercise of this type (inland build of a DoG multihull) no-one can really say what is right or wrong. Yes, Alinghi have a very competent building team, but I would think that even they would admit that there are easier ways of building a boat of this type and getting her to launch and sail.

RG

[Monster Mash]

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/public/style_images/master/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Schnappi, on Apr 15 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

Is it possible we're being set up? For sure the tent is real and aparently some assembly will be going on but the white painted Y is just a lttle to much info in this cloak and dagger exercise. Why not wait till the tent is finished to paint the Y ? surely a couple of chalk marks or similar would accomplish the same without giving away the possible dimensions of CheeseZilla to prying eyes. I don't think those are embedded bolts , looks like rebar or similar to me. Why not wait till the tent is up to fab the level pads? Just a little to much information I think.
Just a thought.
mm

[Hastings]

Kiwi Spy, on Apr 17 2009, 11:02 PM, said:

The point that is missed in this critical path is that there is a a transport phase, which breaks the assembly phase into two. The problem that Alinghi have is that with this type of boat they have to build the components, assemble, disassemble, transport, reassemble, launch and sea trial. Where for BOR90 it was only build components, assemble, launch and sea trial - a much simpler critical path.

RG

This post from Richard is very interesting.

Long ago - soon after the litigation got started - I asked Dalts what he thoght of the situation. He had two responses - which have turned out to be prophetic.

1. The litigation iks going to slow everything down and create big problems for the rest of us.

2. It is a "big ask" to expect Alinghi to build a big multihull in Switzerland without upsetting the DOG rules.,

Yea brother !

[Hastings]

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/public/style_images/master/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Monster Mash, on Apr 17 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Schnappi, on Apr 15 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

Is it possible we're being set up? For sure the tent is real and aparently some assembly will be going on but the white painted Y is just a lttle to much info in this cloak and dagger exercise. Why not wait till the tent is finished to paint the Y ? surely a couple of chalk marks or similar would accomplish the same without giving away the possible dimensions of CheeseZilla to prying eyes. I don't think those are embedded bolts , looks like rebar or similar to me. Why not wait till the tent is up to fab the level pads? Just a little to much information I think.
Just a thought.
mm

Yes, could be a set up. And it is rebar.

But consider this. EB is in big shit. Why?

He is a pariah. He lost in court. UBS look like bigtime crooks. He was badly humiliated in the LV-P (BB was forced to shake hands with GD - see the looks on the faces!!). Now he is running behind schedule with his DOG-Project. Stingray and his spy mates are all over him. Butterworth continues being a buffoon.

So, they are making slip-ups.

Maybe they are laughing their heads off because this is a sausage plant. Not a boat building project.

But my point is this.

There are cracks in the Alinghi facade.

They are beatable !

[MrD]

If you have two masts. Do you need to use them? I mean in the traditional sense? Can you have them right next to each other? Maybe supporting each other? Like a triangle?

[brian weslake]

Monster Mash, on Apr 18 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

Is it possible we're being set up? For sure the tent is real and aparently some assembly will be going on but the white painted Y is just a lttle to much info in this cloak and dagger exercise. Why not wait till the tent is finished to paint the Y ? surely a couple of chalk marks or similar would accomplish the same without giving away the possible dimensions of CheeseZilla to prying eyes. I don't think those are embedded bolts , looks like rebar or similar to me. Why not wait till the tent is up to fab the level pads? Just a little to much information I think.
Just a thought.
mm

except its not white paint, its sections of reinforced concrete. Just like the shot in the DZ II thread, this one looks like the real deal.

[Stingray]

Kiwi Spy, on Apr 17 2009, 11:02 PM, said:

But returning to the original point, the critical path that is stated in the diagram is wrong for a boat built within the Alinghi constraints because it has no mention of the transportation phase and the assembly and dis-assembly issue. Although it may be quite correct for the BOR90 type construction.

Yes, and the diagram was named "GraphicJoke" - was only ribbing when I wrote "But he got it all screwed up.. should have gone by this diagram" and that should have been made clear, with a wink.

Thanks for the informative ideas in the post, Richard, keep it up!

[Stingray]

Monster Mash, on Apr 17 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Is it possible we're being set up? For sure the tent is real and aparently some assembly will be going on but the white painted Y is just a little to much info in this cloak and dagger exercise. Why not wait till the tent is finished to paint the Y ? surely a couple of chalk marks or similar would accomplish the same without giving away the possible dimensions of CheeseZilla to prying eyes. I don't think those are embedded bolts , looks like rebar or similar to me. Why not wait till the tent is up to fab the level pads? Just a little to much information I think.
Just a thought.
mm

Surprising as it seems, this is the real deal!

It is possible that some at Alinghi feel a degree of embarrassment over getting exposed like this. They have done a very good job of secrecy up to now, despite being forced by circumstance to ship big pieces all over the place. So this discovery by us very likely comes as a bit of a shock.

If upper management (or whoever else cares about it) were following here, and I know for a fact that some of the Alinghi boat builders definitely have been following, then they'd know how closely some of us were staring at maps, photos, news, business reports, land use zones, plot maps, even paragliding videos. But until just 48 hours ago, we had ~no~ photograph of this little area newer than September '08. And even that one photo was taken from waaay away, and was not at all focused on the interesting bits! And come to find, the assembly building didn't even exist until this week!

The 17 freaking pages of discussion here, a lot of it painfully stupid and seemingly futile, did in the end accomplish the mission. Several people considered going to Villeneuve. And after the court decision happened, and it did come down the way Jocecito predicted it, and there was sudden action on the Villeneuve front just as Hastings predicted in starting the thread, well time became more critical for Alinghi, and Villeneuve became more critical for us :)

Amazingly, two people visited this week on the same day. I posted shots of the mystery tent the first person targeted, which is what I wanted them to target after getting a brief description of it a couple days earlier; but it quickly became clear from those shots that the 25x80 was just not it. It was all about Bombardier gear. Meanwhile, just 200m north along the same street, Schnappi, with almost unbelievably great timing, came right upon this site and ~ knew instantly ~ what it was. Absofuckinglootly nailed it!

That Y you are going on about is just spectacular, in the larger puzzle. It is the final piece. At the heart of it all. Peelman finding that Seahorse article with the photo of Le Black from straight above, and Mo scaling it onto that Y, is the shit!!!

I'm telling you, without any doubt: THIS IS DEFINITELY IT!

We didn't really answer "Where Is Cheezilla" with any specificity. What we did answer, was much better. Where WILL Cheezilla be?

We also, through such great luck with the timing, can make a pretty fucking educated guess about CZ's proportions, even by just those floor details. I bet it already has a cover hiding them, it was ~perfect~ timing.

Embarrassing, that a big part of the CZ secret got blown up so spectacularly? Yes, probably. Those NDA's are there for a reason.

But embarrassing for what it tells us, about what they are building? Hell no. It's hard to sense the space without standing there as Schnappi did, pacing it off, just shnapping shots at will. But it is clean, and big, and...

This boat is going to be really spectacular!

[The Advocate]

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/public/style_images/master/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Hastings, on Apr 18 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

Monster Mash, on Apr 17 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Schnappi, on Apr 15 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

Is it possible we're being set up? For sure the tent is real and aparently some assembly will be going on but the white painted Y is just a lttle to much info in this cloak and dagger exercise. Why not wait till the tent is finished to paint the Y ? surely a couple of chalk marks or similar would accomplish the same without giving away the possible dimensions of CheeseZilla to prying eyes. I don't think those are embedded bolts , looks like rebar or similar to me. Why not wait till the tent is up to fab the level pads? Just a little to much information I think.
Just a thought.
mm

Yes, could be a set up. And it is rebar.

But consider this. EB is in big shit. Why?

He is a pariah. He lost in court. UBS look like bigtime crooks. He was badly humiliated in the LV-P (BB was forced to shake hands with GD - see the looks on the faces!!). Now he is running behind schedule with his DOG-Project. Stingray and his spy mates are all over him. Butterworth continues being a buffoon.

So, they are making slip-ups.

Maybe they are laughing their heads off because this is a sausage plant. Not a boat building project.

But my point is this.

There are cracks in the Alinghi facade.

They are beatable !

Hastings.

Love you to death man, but sometimes you talk crap. What the fuck does UBS have to do with it? They are just a sponsor. There is no other implied or otherwise conection. Let it go and focus on the important.

[Stingray]

The Advocate, on Apr 18 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

Hastings, on Apr 18 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

But my point is this.

There are cracks in the Alinghi facade.

They are beatable !

Hastings.

Love you to death man, but sometimes you talk crap. What the fuck does UBS have to do with it? They are just a sponsor. There is no other implied or otherwise conection. Let it go and focus on the important.

What is impressive to me is that even without sponsorship, EB is stepping up to the plate, big-time. He is following through in the wake of that court decision. They are going to assemble this monster. He is laying down serious freaking wads of cash. It is truly great stuff, what is going on now. You can argue about everything that has led up to it, but looking forward this is going to be exceedingly cool.

He is not behaving like he is beatable. He is behaving like an Americas Cup Defender. He will be hard to beat.

[The Advocate]

His ego said, "Ernesto, you must build it now, you have fucked yourself in all other DoG avenues, so go build it, they will come.