Jump to content

Thewas

Members
  • Content Count

    252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

160 F'n Saint

About Thewas

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

395 profile views
  1. Well, if that's the case my assumption on the 6 grinders trick is likely wrong... But I still think that the mindset that can be brought from a competition where 30 seconds after a 250km race is considered a disaster can still be pretty useful. We are, with the AC75, in the F1 "forgiveness" area for mistakes. Meaning zero.
  2. I lost track of it, but few months ago I'm pretty sure I read that MercedesF1 helped INEOS optimizing the hydro power transfer/storage. And they ended up with two grinder less than the other teams. I still think F1 teams have quite some good tool for evaluating fluid dynamics and, on top of everything else, a solid attitude toward marginal gain. Due to the speeds of the AC75s a marginal gain can easily add a knot of boatspeed.
  3. I also heard that, at some point. Actually if, as they claimed, they never went on hydro power shortage that was quite a big thing. Pretty sure hydraulics are going to be the biggest leap forward in the B3 of any team.
  4. After the impressive show of this LR campaign I think everybody would be pretty happy to see his brand linked to Luna Rossa, even Ferrari. And, BTW, is you're supposed to put the best your country can offer into the AC ("competition between nations") well, Ferrari has been, in my opinion, the elephant in the LR room. Or outside the room, in AC36.
  5. Adesso resta il problema di sincronizzare il video con il podcast.
  6. Gabe newell could also give as back VSK. Ok, I'm dreaming...
  7. Not completely sure, but to me sounded like Max was speaking of marginal conditions only.
  8. And I still doubt (may be wrong) you can have any relevant surface effect at liftoff speed (under 20Kn) from a such small surface. What Max Sirena told about the "bounce trick" TR use to lift off in marginal speed sounds more likely. Even in some early videos you had the impression that TR liftoff was less smooth than the one of other boats; more like a "digital" thing ( on/off ) than a progressive one. Talking ultra-low wind range, here. TR bow design may have actually optimized for this, and to funnel air flux in the lower mainsail area. Even with an apparently slightly bigger f
  9. My guess is TR just managed to have a bigger (where it matters) and more powerful mainsail. That gave them enough power to overcome the smaller foils (and adding into the equation the "bow bounce" technique to get up on the foils and the lesser drag); at the end you just need enough time out of the water to allow the foils to get the speed they need to lift the whole thing: may be a couple of seconds?
  10. Interessante: certo che se Sirena dicesse tutto in un'unica intervista "definitiva" per noi sarebbe più pratico. IN ogni intervista aggiunge un paio di pezzi del puzzle, e a noi tocca ricomporlo. Tra l'altro proporrei una crocifissione in sala mensa per chi ha messo la musichetta di sottofondo.
  11. Ma dove la portano? Già venduta ad Ernestino?
  12. not sure in what thread, but one of these never ending forum discussions on the design lead to the conclusion that the more likely reason that drove LR hull that shape was actually the "Post", the underdeck boom. Whether it came from inability to put everything between the two sails or from a clear and more effective design choice we still don't know...
  13. Mi sa che da qualche parte era già stato postato. Super interessante (anche se Mongelli ha questa terribile amnesia selettiva riguardo ai numeri...)
  14. I fixed it for you. (AM sails was painful to watch)
  15. Sarà, ma a me 'sta cosa dei 15-20 nodi continua a puzzare un po'. Considerando che ogni intervista a qualcuno di ETNZ (usciere compreso) salta fuori almeno due volte con 'sto benedetto "LR wind range", a me sembra sempre più un diktat di PR. Senza contare che in R2, con vento oltre i 15 nodi, perdevano contatto anche con aria pulita...
×
×
  • Create New...