[golix]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/3695176405_4aa013a2d1.jpg

[HHN92]

golix, on Jul 6 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

I hope this photos work...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/3695179375_1bbcd11748.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3695180795_36c92710bc.jpg

Great on the job work, golix.

Somebody wondered about the rig on the sprit stub...........

Articulating sprit??

Or just not set yet?

[golix]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2630/3695988964_2768af6c1d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2641/3695987326_cf420cd521.jpg

[golix]

FYI, the mast is M2... New one is unpacked but still there.

Came out of the tent this morning..

[Wandering Geo]

Looks like the old mast going back on?

[P_Wop]

Wandering Geo, on Jul 6 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

Looks like the old mast going back on?

That would be a good plan. Change one variable at a time, then test.

[Scarecrow]

k2mav, on Jul 7 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

Blackburn, on Jul 6 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

k2mav, on Jul 7 2009, 12:02 AM, said:

What is the definition of WP for you Simon? To me is all about volume distribution, and last BOR amas were wp technology.
I know my wp bows, what you still don´t get about my points here and in other threads we´ve exchange thoughts regarding wp bows is that I´m always talking about extreme conditions and error margin, so please Simon don´t tell me how wp bows works, you are right about reducing pitch pole movement but once overpowered for x reason or error you will go down like this:

That's a Swedish F18, right? Little relation to what Simon is talking about.
Some more of the photo series is here, with a little less tax perhaps they could buy a bigger boat:
http://www.formula18.se/

I'm saying that Alinghi and BOR 90 new bows are extreme wave piercing bows and that they don´t provide some error margin.
Simon is telling me that the puprpose of wave piercing bows is to reduce pitch poling, I already told him I agree.

There are different kinds of wave piercing bows. Just one good example of the same designer applying different shapes and volume distribution according functionality is Pete Melvin and his A3-A3 A-Class and his Wave Piercing F18: The Infusion.
1st is a tiny extreme raked bow with low profile and no reserve volume, the Infusion has raked wp bow but lots of volume, I will place some pics to describe better my point.

General concensis amoungst thje people I've spoken to is that while wave WP F18's are quicker they are definately more likely to pitch pole down wind. The Capricorn (the boat from which all current F18s have evolved) is much more likely to pitch pole than a Tiger or the Nacra F18 (not the infusion). Since going to extreme WP hulls the A's have been constantly moving the rig aft to make them easier to drive down wind. A WP is effected less by putting the bow in but when you really stuff it is far less likely to recover.

[k2mav]

SimonN, on Jul 6 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Actually, it doesn't matter whether it is an F18 or a DOG multi. WP is the same. The bottom line is that you can push a WP hull harder than a non WP hull. However, go too far and the result is still the same. You cannot overcome the laws of physics. If you stick it hard down the mine, you slow down fast, the power builds up in the rig and you flip. That is how Mitch Booth broke his ribs on a non WP Hobie Tiger.

Maybe k2mav can explain why the WP F18's are so much faster downwind than the older, non WP boats, why can they be pushed harder, and why doesn't that apply to these larger boats. Maybe both BOR and Alinghi have got it wrong.

We are discussing nonsense Simon, WP is faster and reduces pitch pole movements, end of discussion there, you are right and I agree.

These pics will explain better what I'm trying to point, as you said the law of physics cannot be changed but you can help extending margins, just tell me which of these bows can be push harder ?:

Attached File(s)

•  F18WP1.JPG (181.11K)
  Number of downloads: 16
•  F18WP2.JPG (185.25K)
  Number of downloads: 15

[Stingray]

golix, on Jul 6 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

I hope this photos work...

Excellent, post everything you've got - please!

First look at the sprit, it looks beefy!

Which mast did they step, Renn's web cam shot suggests it is M2 - me just rough-guessing by the height it reaches from that angle above the warehouse on the distant shore? Renn, got an older comparison shot for us? edit: already nailed above (thanks)

[FuckYou]

Stingray, on Jul 6 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

golix, on Jul 6 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

I hope this photos work...

Excellent, post everything you've got - please!

First look at the sprit, it looks beefy!

Which mast did they step, Renn's web cam shot suggests it is M2 - me just rough-guessing by the height it reaches from that angle above the warehouse on the distant shore? Renn, got an older comparison shot for us?

It is M2 that went up.

Out of the tent, splashed to the water, mast up, - all in one day. BMWO is way ahead. Alinghi is still fucking around waiting for the weather to clear to launch the helicopter. It is taking them forever. They better turn their motor on full speed to catch up.

[golix]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/3695990044_b92ab0fb2c.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2573/3695990638_d9b8fb0605.jpg

[k2mav]

Scarecrow, on Jul 6 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

k2mav, on Jul 7 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

Blackburn, on Jul 6 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

k2mav, on Jul 7 2009, 12:02 AM, said:

What is the definition of WP for you Simon? To me is all about volume distribution, and last BOR amas were wp technology.
I know my wp bows, what you still don´t get about my points here and in other threads we´ve exchange thoughts regarding wp bows is that I´m always talking about extreme conditions and error margin, so please Simon don´t tell me how wp bows works, you are right about reducing pitch pole movement but once overpowered for x reason or error you will go down like this:

That's a Swedish F18, right? Little relation to what Simon is talking about.
Some more of the photo series is here, with a little less tax perhaps they could buy a bigger boat:
http://www.formula18.se/

I'm saying that Alinghi and BOR 90 new bows are extreme wave piercing bows and that they don´t provide some error margin.
Simon is telling me that the puprpose of wave piercing bows is to reduce pitch poling, I already told him I agree.

There are different kinds of wave piercing bows. Just one good example of the same designer applying different shapes and volume distribution according functionality is Pete Melvin and his A3-A3 A-Class and his Wave Piercing F18: The Infusion.
1st is a tiny extreme raked bow with low profile and no reserve volume, the Infusion has raked wp bow but lots of volume, I will place some pics to describe better my point.

General concensis amoungst thje people I've spoken to is that while wave WP F18's are quicker they are definately more likely to pitch pole down wind. The Capricorn (the boat from which all current F18s have evolved) is much more likely to pitch pole than a Tiger or the Nacra F18 (not the infusion). Since going to extreme WP hulls the A's have been constantly moving the rig aft to make them easier to drive down wind. A WP is effected less by putting the bow in but when you really stuff it is far less likely to recover.

Exactly as you describe, the Infusion has evolved to provide all the benefits Simon points but also has reduced the pitch pole act itself, besides going faster and reducing pitch poling movement.

[Rennmaus]

Stingray, on Jul 7 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

golix, on Jul 6 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

I hope this photos work...

Excellent, post everything you've got - please!

First look at the sprit, it looks beefy!

Which mast did they step, Renn's web cam shot suggests it is M2 - me just rough-guessing by the height it reaches from that angle above the warehouse on the distant shore? Renn, got an older comparison shot for us? edit: already nailed above (thanks)

Nov. 26, 2008
 26.11.08_1227690103414425.jpg (23.83K)
Number of downloads: 1

Jan. 22, 2009
 22.01.09_1232647635159941.jpg (27.78K)
Number of downloads: 1

Feb. 07, 2009
 07.02.09_1233997304155484_070209.jpg (23.34K)
Number of downloads: 3

[Stingray]

Rennmaus, on Jul 6 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

Stingray, on Jul 7 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

golix, on Jul 6 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

I hope this photos work...

Excellent, post everything you've got - please!

First look at the sprit, it looks beefy!

Which mast did they step, Renn's web cam shot suggests it is M2 - me just rough-guessing by the height it reaches from that angle above the warehouse on the distant shore? Renn, got an older comparison shot for us? edit: already nailed above (thanks)

Nov. 26, 2008

Jan. 22, 2009

Feb. 07, 2009
07.02.09...4_070209.jpg

Bingo, thank you. All the parts they have, it's nice to confirm things "three ways from Sunday" just to be sure :)

[Jake]

SimonN, on Jul 6 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

k2mav, on Jul 7 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

I can´t really start to comprehend how BOR and Alinghi are going with these high aggresive wave piercing bows with lacks of reserve volume. A-cats have these bows but they don´t use spins or gennakers, this monster will push hard in gusts and will be really tricky machines in extreme conditions.
Previous Dogzilla amas were wave piercing too, wp is not only raked profile, main feature is bow cross section that is basically a V upside down.

Calm winds location, that´s the only reason I can imagine to go this extreme in both multis.

I think you totally misunderstand how true wave piercing hulls work. First off, the last BOR amas were not designed on wave piercing principals. Secondly, wave piercing hulls allow you to drive a boat harder. It is only at the limit that things become a bit hairy, but that limit is significantly higher. Contrary to what some are saying on here, this will improve the potential for high speeds and make for better sailing in waves.

Wave piercing is not about the rake of the bow. It's about volume distribution in the hull and it does not necessarily mean you can drive the boat harder. The wave piercing hull carries more volume low in the hull than up high so that when the bow is in a wave, it has less resistance to push through it AND having the volume low in the hull means that it can start trying to push back to the surface of the water sooner and with more force. Where the rocker and sail effort is placed on a wave piercing hull has a lot to do with the oscillation frequency of how it reacts with certain wave heights and periods. As Pete Melvin once explained to me, ideally you want it to lightly punch through a wave and ride over the next cutting the oscillation in half over a boat that's trying to hobby horse over every wave.

The rake of the bow has nothing to do with wave piercing or not wave piercing. However, hulls that carry the volume down lower (i.e. are wider in their bottom 1/3rd than the top half of the hull) naturally pinch off into a reverse rake as you bring it to a point...usually designers don't see a point in trying to fill that reverse rake with solid hull (which would create a negative somewhere) and just let the hull shape dictate the bow rake.

Wave piercing hull shapes have shown the ability to be faster in certain conditions but I still contend that the old v-style multihull bottoms have advantages in light air and flat water. While I agree that perhaps that wave piercing shapes can be driven 2 or 5% harder, they make you pay a much bigger penalty when they do point to the bottom since that low volume forms a bit of a rail and shows a lot of desire to get to the bottom of the mine faster once it's pointed that direction.

A little about my background and where my opinions are derived: I have considerable time racing on Nacra 20's (not wave piercing), old Nacra F18's (not wave piercing), Hobie Tiger F18 (not wave piercing), new Nacra infusions (semi-wave piercing), Capricorn F18's (wave piercing and pictured above trying to find the bottom of the mine), Boyer MKIV A-cat (not wave piercing), and Nacra A2 (wave piercing). I really feel like my 10 year old Boyer MKIV is a superior in light air over the newer a-cats.

[DC_US55]

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/public/style_images/master/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />golix, on Jul 6 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

Yup, both amas will be in the water at measurement trim.

But what about those rudders?

I haven't reviewed my ERS lately, but I assume they won't be included in waterline measurements?
(did my homework...they are not included in hull measurements)

[mo fuzz]

HHN92, on Jul 6 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

golix, on Jul 6 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

I hope this photos work...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/3695179375_1bbcd11748.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3695180795_36c92710bc.jpg

Great on the job work, golix.

Somebody wondered about the rig on the sprit stub...........

Articulating sprit??

Or just not set yet?

Wow. Looks like that IS a hard chine on the tops of the amas. I thought that was a shadow in the spy pic.

[Rhino 15]

Jake, on Jul 6 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

SimonN, on Jul 6 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

k2mav, on Jul 7 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

I can´t really start to comprehend how BOR and Alinghi are going with these high aggresive wave piercing bows with lacks of reserve volume. A-cats have these bows but they don´t use spins or gennakers, this monster will push hard in gusts and will be really tricky machines in extreme conditions.
Previous Dogzilla amas were wave piercing too, wp is not only raked profile, main feature is bow cross section that is basically a V upside down.

Calm winds location, that´s the only reason I can imagine to go this extreme in both multis.

I think you totally misunderstand how true wave piercing hulls work. First off, the last BOR amas were not designed on wave piercing principals. Secondly, wave piercing hulls allow you to drive a boat harder. It is only at the limit that things become a bit hairy, but that limit is significantly higher. Contrary to what some are saying on here, this will improve the potential for high speeds and make for better sailing in waves.

Wave piercing is not about the rake of the bow. It's about volume distribution in the hull and it does not necessarily mean you can drive the boat harder. The wave piercing hull carries more volume low in the hull than up high so that when the bow is in a wave, it has less resistance to push through it AND having the volume low in the hull means that it can start trying to push back to the surface of the water sooner and with more force. Where the rocker and sail effort is placed on a wave piercing hull has a lot to do with the oscillation frequency of how it reacts with certain wave heights and periods. As Pete Melvin once explained to me, ideally you want it to lightly punch through a wave and ride over the next cutting the oscillation in half over a boat that's trying to hobby horse over every wave.

The rake of the bow has nothing to do with wave piercing or not wave piercing. However, hulls that carry the volume down lower (i.e. are wider in their bottom 1/3rd than the top half of the hull) naturally pinch off into a reverse rake as you bring it to a point...usually designers don't see a point in trying to fill that reverse rake with solid hull (which would create a negative somewhere) and just let the hull shape dictate the bow rake.

Wave piercing hull shapes have shown the ability to be faster in certain conditions but I still contend that the old v-style multihull bottoms have advantages in light air and flat water. While I agree that perhaps that wave piercing shapes can be driven 2 or 5% harder, they make you pay a much bigger penalty when they do point to the bottom since that low volume forms a bit of a rail and shows a lot of desire to get to the bottom of the mine faster once it's pointed that direction.

A little about my background and where my opinions are derived: I have considerable time racing on Nacra 20's (not wave piercing), old Nacra F18's (not wave piercing), Hobie Tiger F18 (not wave piercing), new Nacra infusions (semi-wave piercing), Capricorn F18's (wave piercing and pictured above trying to find the bottom of the mine), Boyer MKIV A-cat (not wave piercing), and Nacra A2 (wave piercing). I really feel like my 10 year old Boyer MKIV is a superior in light air over the newer a-cats.

+1

I would also argue that wave piercing can be a bad thing in big waves. Of course, the definition of "big waves" may vary between an A-cat and a 90' DoG monster.

[Blackburn]

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/public/style_images/master/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />DC_US55, on Jul 7 2009, 01:07 AM, said:

golix, on Jul 6 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

Yup, both amas will be in the water at measurement trim.
But what about those rudders?
I haven't reviewed my ERS lately, but I assume they won't be included in waterline measurements?
(did my homework...they are not included in hull measurements)

It is unusual to hear favorable comments about a trimaran which has all 3 hulls in the water at rest.

What a day!

[WetHog]

ncs, on Jul 6 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

WetHog, on Jul 6 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

BMWO logo looked that the hull was right side up. I was told I was wrong. I guess I wasn't. :P

Yup, you nailed it. Chalk another one on the board for SAAC collective intel! I wouldn't be surprised if BOR and Alinghi get half their intel from SA.

Now let's get some wingsail pics, okay? With all the disinformation flying around I won't consider belief until I see it.

Hey I have zero original thoughts so when I actually, might, get something right I need to seize the opportunity to celebrate it. In the end though I am sure I am just dreaming that I actually posted something like that. :lol:

WetHog :ph34r:

[Jake]

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/public/style_images/master/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Blackburn, on Jul 7 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

DC_US55, on Jul 7 2009, 01:07 AM, said:

golix, on Jul 6 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

Yup, both amas will be in the water at measurement trim.
But what about those rudders?
I haven't reviewed my ERS lately, but I assume they won't be included in waterline measurements?
(did my homework...they are not included in hull measurements)

It is unusual to hear favorable comments about a trimaran which has all 3 hulls in the water at rest.

What a day!

To avoid the risk of a measurement snafu/technicality/bs, the hulls needed to both be in the water at rest to measure at the correct waterline beam.