Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

The reason to let the last two boats race on Friday is because that’s what they want.. Get the RR Series over with, one way or the other!
 

There’s a good chance the Semi’s won’t even happen, so why even bother racing more than one afternoon? It means nothing, GBR and LR are the only teams left, so both straight to the CSS finale.

Why bother? GD and ACE and TV money? Who cares about that, when TV has been given away to the whole world (but bizarrely not the USA) anyway? There’s nothing to lose, just let the World Feed fill the empty space with replays. It’d beat watching dead ducks floating around, I bet the attention span on that was extremely short :D 

 

I see the Pinot Noir is still kicking in for the spinbot....causing these epic nonsense posts....you’re still hating on the kiwis!!...though I note you have backed off on that thuggish Brit Ben..
and you still can’t stop kissing TE and lazza arse even though they gave this one a miss..

wanker...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MastaVonBlasta said:

I think the difference in workload between 6x full-time grinders on INEOS and 8x grinders on AM & LR is drastic.

On INEOS they're turning handles quite furiously even when not approaching or going through a manoeuvre.

On LR I can clearly see periods of stand-by, barely any turning by the grinder pairs.

 

INEOS went for 6 individual stations to take 95-99% of life from grinders over 25-30min race period. Every now and then inactive flight controller helps out.

Seems to working for the Brits - grinders are gassed out, but they've freed up tactical roles and in all honesty that won them races in the first two rounds of Prada Cup

AM & LR & ENTZ have them at lower workload, even finding that they don't need a beasty boy to turn and let TH grind and do a bit of tactics.

 

The other factor is Max  crew weight

6 grinders can each be heavier (per person) and potentially more power dense than 8 individually lighter weight grinders on a less efficient system that relies on them kneeling for aero reasons 

the Grinders on ineos are not small  by any stretch so allowing them to pack on a few extra KG of power.

it massively relies on them being able to sustain it but if thats been your design goal for over three years of training and adaptation I guess they can 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when some of the teams were saying that they may not even need tacticians on the boat because of the short race course?  Many were saying that tactics can be defined before each race and then they will just go ahead try to keep it up on the foils and follow the plan.  

We have seen that the boats are much more maneuverable than first thought and that the fluky winds are giving a major advantage to the boats that can adapt to the changing conditions.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of discussion about how AM should have let out the main more to prevent the accident (backstays need to be loosen more...).  AM is not designed to let it out any more than it was.  It already was covering the crew area.  If they were able to make the turn the apparent wind drops down, but it was the fact that they lost the rudder that kept them broadside to the wind too long.  Goody said that in an interview.   And as Kenny stated, once they were totally airborne, the wind dictates where the boat goes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

There is a lot of discussion about how AM should have let out the main more to prevent the accident (backstays need to be loosen more...).  AM is not designed to let it out any more than it was.  It already was covering the crew area.  If they were able to make the turn the apparent wind drops down, but it was the fact that they lost the rudder that kept them broadside to the wind too long.  Goody said that in an interview.   And as Kenny stated, once they were totally airborne, the wind dictates where the boat goes.

Well clearly trav and boom limited, but why not be able to dump the leech more?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

There is a lot of discussion about how AM should have let out the main more to prevent the accident (backstays need to be loosen more...).  AM is not designed to let it out any more than it was.  It already was covering the crew area.  If they were able to make the turn the apparent wind drops down, but it was the fact that they lost the rudder that kept them broadside to the wind too long.  Goody said that in an interview.   And as Kenny stated, once they were totally airborne, the wind dictates where the boat goes.

 

/\/\/\/\/\         This !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

There is a lot of discussion about how AM should have let out the main more to prevent the accident (backstays need to be loosen more...).  AM is not designed to let it out any more than it was.  It already was covering the crew area.  If they were able to make the turn the apparent wind drops down, but it was the fact that they lost the rudder that kept them broadside to the wind too long.  Goody said that in an interview.   And as Kenny stated, once they were totally airborne, the wind dictates where the boat goes.

Have you a link to Goody's interview pls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty. The cut away under the bum from the arm back looks organic, correct and faster. The finish is exceptional. The colour, a perfect reflection of the attitude. Beat NZ at its own game by taking their colours. Very American. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Salty Seacock said:

It is pretty. The cut away under the bum from the arm back looks organic, correct and faster. The finish is exceptional. The colour, a perfect reflection of the attitude. Beat NZ at its own game by taking their colours. Very American. 

 

Is it not actually very very very dark blue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

I generally agree with that assessment based on the 2 videos of LR and UK. Two points I'd make though

1) That is in fairly tricky conditions with wind and chop so I would expected in more stable conditions the UK workload to drop. And they aren't quite as much on full chat as you say, quite often one or more drop out. But still much higher. So It looks like Uk have judged what they can use more finely

2) If AM also needed less grinding, why would TH not just leave them to it unless he were needed? Whereas in fact he is often spinning. Odd

This was my original point in my first post, that not have shared pedestals is key. 
If you pedestals are fore/aft I don’t think you could fit them in, hence the Ineos boys all side by side. I don’t think TH should be on the handles but I do think he should be on the boat. Their design doesn’t easily allow this. 
I think Ben/his team saw the advantage of the cyclors in Bermuda, in that they could share out jobs across the crew and by spreading workload you can improve your sailing and found a way to do that with Rita. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MaxHugen said:

Have you a link to Goody's interview pls?

It was his comments in the AM video about the incident.  6 minute mark  He actually says that it took them too long to make the move in the strong of wind.  I guess I added the rudder part myself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Salty Seacock said:

It is pretty. The cut away under the bum from the arm back looks organic, correct and faster. The finish is exceptional. The colour, a perfect reflection of the attitude. Beat NZ at its own game by taking their colours. Very American. 

 

It is quite clearly blue and yes highly polished while the others are some

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how transparent AM has been up to this point.  I hope they can get back in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cornish Viper said:

Yep, I agree, the way Ineos do it they can generate the required power from individuals so when there’s jobs to do they have people to do them. 
Two flight controllers, while one is flying the other can grind, to “top-up” power and the one flying gets a physical rest (I doubt that bit on these boats but you know what I mean). And as you say these aren’t normal mechanical gearboxes, I’m sure they’ve been sorted to work with one guy grinding on it. 

Agree with your point about the individual grinders and pedestals set up for individuals. Brita has the Grinders facing outboard so that they can see at least a bit of what is going on and gives more room aft. TH doesn’t appear to be able to see much apart from his screen and the big bloke in front of him, it’ll be really hard to give clear concise comms when anaerobic. The other missing point is how efficiently the boats systems are in using the accumulators pressure. Patriot makes that horrible noise any time the main is moved, if it is making a horrible noise guess it is not running smoothly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Neverwas said:

I think it was a double hit effectively, that moment popped it out and then hitting the water popped it in and blew the hole as the panel hit the bulkheads.

There is a visible circular crack around the front on the foil hinge point to prove the theory .

 

 

Seems the panel is floating in the wake quite a while before the carbon shards hang out. I don't have an explanation for that..

This is all the footage that was broadcast from that camera unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the number of grinder, but the number of pumps. Ineos has 6 pumps ( one for each pedestal) Everyone else has 4.  So the trade off is 8 men operating 4 pumps or 6 men operating 6 pumps.   It's probably a pretty complex problem having to do with the volumes and pressure required....

One thing I knew but didn't fully understand is that everything on these boats is controlled hydraulically.  Because you are limited by the amount of oil you can pump, you want to minimize the throw of every system possible.  In normal sailing, you don't have to ease things very much, because the apparent wind is always forward of the beam.  And down wind you peel away if over powered.  This circumstance was a worst case scenario that, as designers, you probably regard as very unlikely and dont account for because 99.999% of the time you need to have the minimum travel to make the primary controls as responsive as they can possibly be.

SHC

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Alchemist said:

It was his comments in the AM video about the incident.  6 minute mark  He actually says that it took them too long to make the move in the strong of wind.  I guess I added the rudder part myself.

Thanks. I thought I'd missed something re the rudder when I heard this interview before... very easy to get "facts" mixed up in all the "noise" of the forum with 300-500 posts a day!   :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, barfy said:

Seems the panel is floating in the wake quite a while before the carbon shards hang out. I don't have an explanation for that..

This is all the footage that was broadcast from that camera unfortunately.

I think what you are seeing is not the moment the carbon shards start to hang out but instead it's when they come into view for the camera as the boat rolls onto its side ( see the changing angle of the horizon). The damage was done earlier, hence the panel is already in the wake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

It was his comments in the AM video about the incident.  6 minute mark  He actually says that it took them too long to make the move in the strong of wind.  I guess I added the rudder part myself.

"You're aware of the risks in that maneuver"

"We didn't quite get through the power zone fast enough.........Which is always going to happen when its that windy"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just re-watching day 1 looking for different things. Race 1, the Brit grinders are going fill time, but so we're AM.

I'm wondering whether it is deceptive, and rather than sprinting and resting like LR, those 2 teams are just grinding steadily to build up reserve, knowing they have reserve. So yes they are continually working, they are not working as hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of the pre Regatta videos from a while back when you saw standard montages of training/boat building/design stuff would show the boys working away on the handles in the gym at what then seemed like a slow steady pace, but having read about the Hydraulic gearboxes in the pedestals makes sense if as suggested, a lower cadence, but steady output is optimal for the systems use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cornish Viper said:

Yep, I agree, the way Ineos do it they can generate the required power from individuals so when there’s jobs to do they have people to do them. 
Two flight controllers, while one is flying the other can grind, to “top-up” power and the one flying gets a physical rest (I doubt that bit on these boats but you know what I mean). And as you say these aren’t normal mechanical gearboxes, I’m sure they’ve been sorted to work with one guy grinding on it. 

They do swap grinders around. So can the pedestals be adjusted for the change over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's a few days after the event, I transcribed Terry's Press Conference Interview as verbatim as I could, because there are a lot of nuances in what he says...

TH talking about the backstay:

TH: the port back stay was little fetched up on the mid stripe

Step by step through manouvre:

  - traveller is all the way down at bottom of the track, easy in hindsight to critique it, but in hindsight this is the first sign that something has the potential to go wrong. Because the traveller is all the way down, the backstay is eased, but as soon as mainsheet is eased, it loads into the leward runner. Everything is set on the boat that has a certain amount of stroke to it and a certain amount of length, when things are max eased, and the boat doesn't sail a lot in that configuration, runners and things like that go tight. I haven't looked completely at data to see if leward runner was max eased, but that's not the reason the boat tipped over, it was a combination of a couple of things that lead up to that moment.

 

Next TH talking about communication coming in to the Top Mark:

Coming into the Mark there was a lot of discussion about the right Mark being favoured. Dean says we should tack and bear away, Goodie says it's a hard manoeuvre, Andrew says right gate by 100m, but it's really light. TH says, for those of us who have sailed here, when you see something that someone says is really light, especially on a day like yesterday, we're at the bottom of the course there was 9 knots of wind and at the top of the course there was 23 knots of wind, there is a varying scale of wind speed. Day in and day out when we get on that boat we trust Andrew and Dean with our lives. When one of those guys makes a comment and you hear it in a tone about it being light, you take it seriously.

It is truly one of those games that if you make one mistake and the boat touches down the guy behind it doesn't take him much to get around you, we made the decision to do what we did.

And their internal debrief they will analyse whether it was worth the risk taking vs not. Interestingly enough Luna Rossa followed us around the left-hand mark, so there must have been something to it. 

when you're looking at it and thinking about it there was a nice band of pressure coming down that side of the race course.

 

TH on what appeared to be Coms issues on the boat:

TH - when I rewatch the race I see my comms weren't necessarily coming out on the complete audio, but you can hear Dean saying yep, copy, agreed, so there is a certain evolution that takes place on board, but I only see 50% of the race, but I have complete faith in Andrew, Dean and Goodie, there are times when my opinion is not needed, partly because you are just following the conversation and you can here the logic in it. If I had a strong enough opinion one way or another I would certainly jump in and try to overrule it, but it wasn't required in that situation and when I look back.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, waterboy42 said:

While it's a few days after the event, I transcribed Terry's Press Conference Interview as verbatim as I could, because there are a lot of nuances in what he says...

TH talking about the backstay:

TH: the port back stay was little fetched up on the mid stripe

Step by step through manouvre:

  - traveller is all the way down at bottom of the track, easy in hindsight to critique it, but in hindsight this is the first sign that something has the potential to go wrong. Because the traveller is all the way down, the backstay is eased, but as soon as mainsheet is eased, it loads into the leward runner. Everything is set on the boat that has a certain amount of stroke to it and a certain amount of length, when things are max eased, and the boat doesn't sail a lot in that configuration, runners and things like that go tight. I haven't looked completely at data to see if leward runner was max eased, but that's not the reason the boat tipped over, it was a combination of a couple of things that lead up to that moment.

 

Next TH talking about communication coming in to the Top Mark:

Coming into the Mark there was a lot of discussion about the right Mark being favoured. Dean says we should tack and bear away, Goodie says it's a hard manoeuvre, Andrew says right gate by 100m, but it's really light. TH says, for those of us who have sailed here, when you see something that someone says is really light, especially on a day like yesterday, we're at the bottom of the course there was 9 knots of wind and at the top of the course there was 23 knots of wind, there is a varying scale of wind speed. Day in and day out when we get on that boat we trust Andrew and Dean with our lives. When one of those guys makes a comment and you hear it in a tone about it being light, you take it seriously.

It is truly one of those games that if you make one mistake and the boat touches down the guy behind it doesn't take him much to get around you, we made the decision to do what we did.

And their internal debrief they will analyse whether it was worth the risk taking vs not. Interestingly enough Luna Rossa followed us around the left-hand mark, so there must have been something to it. 

when you're looking at it and thinking about it there was a nice band of pressure coming down that side of the race course.

 

TH on what appeared to be Coms issues on the boat:

TH - when I rewatch the race I see my comms weren't necessarily coming out on the complete audio, but you can hear Dean saying yep, copy, agreed, so there is a certain evolution that takes place on board, but I only see 50% of the race, but I have complete faith in Andrew, Dean and Goodie, there are times when my opinion is not needed, partly because you are just following the conversation and you can here the logic in it. If I had a strong enough opinion one way or another I would certainly jump in and try to overrule it, but it wasn't required in that situation and when I look back.

What I'm not sure about from his comments, is it seems like he's almost saying it was a mistake to have the traveller all the way down the track...

This is counterintuitive to me, but that could be because I'm a Lead Mine sailor, not an apparent wind sailor..., So maybe there is a different dynamic in play that I'm not used to, like you can twist off more by easing less traveller given the hard limit of the backstay, or less projected area for the wind pressure, or maybe I'm interpreting TH's comments incorrectly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, waterboy42 said:

What I'm not sure about from his comments, is it seems like he's almost saying it was a mistake to have the traveller all the way down the track...

This is counterintuitive to me, but that could be because I'm a Lead Mine sailor, not an apparent wind sailor..., So maybe there is a different dynamic in play that I'm not used to, or maybe I'm interpreting TH's comments incorrectly.

IMO It's indicative of being already being too powered up before the bear away. Typical you enter the bear away at speed with the traveller near the centerline (or whatever their upwind trim setting is). As you bear away you ease it down as you go through the power zone, before bringing it back up once you settle down. With it already eased. you don't have any ease left for getting through the power zone. If they had built speed when close-hauled, brought the traveller up, and then bore away, they would have had traveller play to work with.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I watch, listen, read, the more it looks like there were two solutions:

1) Turn faster and harder to go sooner downwind, but they were just getting out of a tack and it was not easy for DB who was leeward.

2) Ease the traveller and the main at the moment of the bear away, but the traveller is limited, and the sail could not open because of the runners.

Do we know when they eased the traveller ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, marlowe said:

There was heart rate of the individual sailors shown as an additonal graphic in the latter stages of Bermuda. I believe they plan to add it here later on.

Yeah it was great to see the extra data on screen in the latter stages, hydraulic pressure levels etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sailer99 said:

IMO It's indicative of being already being too powered up before the bear away. Typical you enter the bear away at speed with the traveller near the centerline (or whatever their upwind trim setting is). As you bear away you ease it down as you go through the power zone, before bringing it back up once you settle down. With it already eased. you don't have any ease left for getting through the power zone. If they had built speed when close-hauled, brought the traveller up, and then bore away, they would have had traveller play to work with.

Yes on a cat, maximum speed before bearing away and brutally ease the traveller and main at the moment of the fast bear away in order to detach the wind flow from the sail. Sometimes good to keep the jib trimmed to go faster and depower it when downwind. The jib is more dangerous than the sail that is controllable

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

The more I watch, listen, read, the more it looks like there were two solutions:

1) Turn faster and harder to go sooner downwind, but they were just getting out of a tack and it was not easy for DB who was leeward.

2) Ease the traveller and the main at the moment of the bear away, but the traveller is limited, and the sail could not open because of the runners.

Do we know when they eased the traveller ?

turn faster and harder when your rudder is right on the limits of grip ... great idea :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It almost sounds like it was released early, like sailer99 suggested, maybe in response to the rapid windspeed increase, which puts TH's comment about the trav being fully down as the first sign something could go wrong, I'm guessing by leaving them with little extra room to depower..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, maxmini said:

I'm going to take a wild guess that you are not a grinder . Pairs are stronger than solo as when you are on your power stroke ( over hand ) your opposing partner is in the weaker position ( underhand ) and you balance the power output.. As for power differences between the grinders those balance out and after you spend time with a partner it can work to your advantage . I could be quicker and take the lead at the beginning of a maneuver  and carry my partner knowing he would finish strong . As for the handles rotating forwards they are for both grinders as " forward " with regards to the handles is just the way you are facing the pedestal. I've had a lot of experience in both situations . 

 

There’s a great piece by Luca Devoti on the last Sailing Illustrated Facebook video 19th Jan (1hr 39mins ) about the grinders on all three. 
He explains exactly my points, well worth a watch. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just re-watching race 4 now. After they round mark 1 in displacement mode AMs main is a lot further out. And no runner in the way. 

 

So that answers that point at least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lickindip said:

turn faster and harder when your rudder is right on the limits of grip ... great idea :blink:

I am speaking of the bear away only, not the combination of tack + gybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Just re-watching race 4 now. After they round mark 1 in displacement mode AMs main is a lot further out. And no runner in the way. 

 

So that answers that point at least

Looking at the capsize video, the main seems almost hard up against DB's back. I would think any further ease (if possible) and it would almost go over his head..!  Mind you, they could have eased it further in desperation after the point of no return, and likewise with the runner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tornado-Cat said:

I am speaking of the bear away only, not the combination of tack + gybe.

me2

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

The more I watch, listen, read, the more it looks like there were two solutions:

1) Turn faster and harder to go sooner downwind, but they were just getting out of a tack and it was not easy for DB who was leeward.

2) Ease the traveller and the main at the moment of the bear away, but the traveller is limited, and the sail could not open because of the runners.

Do we know when they eased the traveller ?

Look at the video from the stern camera.  As they tack the boom swings over and goes full travel right away.  About this same time or very soon afterward the other videos seem to show them sheeting way out on the jib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, P Flados said:

Look at the video from the stern camera.  As they tack the boom swings over and goes full travel right away.  About this same time or very soon afterward the other videos seem to show them sheeting way out on the jib.

Thanks for that. They did it to ease the tack but lacked speed and possibility to open the traveller/sail during the bear away then.

So, if this maneuver is for smaller conditions, they are right to say that the squall was the cause, and Goodison was right to say it was dangerous to do it.

The other questions could be: are the other teams travellers as limited ? do they release more of the runner during the bear away ? how do the bear away in strong wind ?

But the boat is tricky anyway and we may see more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Thanks for that. They did it to ease the tack but lacked speed and possibility to open the traveller/sail during the bear away then.

So, if this maneuver is for smaller conditions, they are right to say that the squall was the cause, and Goodison was right to say it was dangerous to do it.

The other questions could be: are the other teams travellers as limited ? do they release more of the runner during the bear away ? how do the bear away in strong wind ?

But the boat is tricky anyway and we may see more of the same,

LR definitely has more play by not having a boom, I assume ETNZ is the same.

image.thumb.png.70d1acf8ee9c5a5f5ec9212f9f8b0133.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have missed the explanation of why the hole could possibly cause the boat to be so close to sinking. I thought the AC75's were supposed to have copious reserve boyancy via watertight compartments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, southseasbill said:

I must have missed the explanation of why the hole could possibly cause the boat to be so close to sinking. I thought the AC75's were supposed to have copious reserve boyancy via watertight compartments.

here's a movie you should watch:

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, southseasbill said:

I must have missed the explanation of why the hole could possibly cause the boat to be so close to sinking. I thought the AC75's were supposed to have copious reserve boyancy via watertight compartments.

I heard mention that due to the aluminium honeycomb sandwich skin that there is a lot of buoyancy in the skin itself that is only maximised when the deck gets to waterline.

A boat weighing 7.5tons would have to displace 7.5m^3 of water or greater to float, so that is a lot for the skin alone.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, R15 said:

That explains why they were late to gate in, it doesn’t explain why they were so late to the start line. 

Seems like in other answers to other questions over this series, they seemed to indicate that all of their plans were locked in place before the start, so... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patriot repair ahead of schedule according to Live Sail Die?

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WetHog said:

Patriot repair ahead of schedule according to Live Sail Die?

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link?

My most optimistic outlook for AM is that they use the time for more than ‘getting back to where they were’ and emerge in great shape including with upgrades. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Link?

My most optimistic outlook for AM is that they use the time for more than ‘getting back to where they were’ and emerge in great shape including with upgrades. 

No details, just their version of “one hears”  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From sailing world.

Another good photo which captures the spirit of sportsmanship in this Am Cup.

 

LJTESHGEAFGCXDCIP4Q4PG36B4.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

The other factor is Max  crew weight

6 grinders can each be heavier (per person) and potentially more power dense than 8 individually lighter weight grinders on a less efficient system that relies on them kneeling for aero reasons 

the Grinders on ineos are not small  by any stretch so allowing them to pack on a few extra KG of power.

it massively relies on them being able to sustain it but if thats been your design goal for over three years of training and adaptation I guess they can 

Touche.  Giles Scott looks pretty skinny these days makes one wonder if he cut weight so those grinding could maintain more muscle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Barnyb said:

From sailing world.

Another good photo which captures the spirit of sportsmanship in this Am Cup.

 

LJTESHGEAFGCXDCIP4Q4PG36B4.jpg

Good work. Any secrets discovered, I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, WindySurfer said:

Touche.  Giles Scott looks pretty skinny these days makes one wonder if he cut weight so those grinding could maintain more muscle

He lost a lot of weight during the Christmas Cup racing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Just re-watching race 4 now. After they round mark 1 in displacement mode AMs main is a lot further out. And no runner in the way. 

 

So that answers that point at least

Looking back at the Race 4 Top Mark rounding (in displacement mode) shows their maximum mainsheet ease and twist and 2nd pic shows the  substantial deflection angle of the lazy backstay..

Contrast that with the short mark rounding and capsize video, and there is no visual indication they eased the backstay at all. Terry said it was eased, but admitted he hadn't had time to look at the data to make sure.

The tension and deflection on it through the tack bear away stays the same indicating it is fully loaded the whole time.

The more I look at it the more it looks like someone either forgot to dump the backstay, or they had a mechanical release failure.  At 19secs in the video Ken and Nathan both simultaneously declare "they've left the runner on and I think their immediate response is still correct.

I think Terry will have reviewed the data and determined it wasn't released but being the stoic team leader he is, won't want to spotlight blame on one person.

20210120_090028.png

Screenshot_20210120-082153_YouTube.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, waterboy42 said:

Looking back at the Race 4 Top Mark rounding (in displacement mode) shows their maximum mainsheet ease and twist and 2nd pic shows the  substantial deflection angle of the lazy backstay..

Contrast that with the short mark rounding and capsize video, and there is no visual indication they eased the backstay at all. Terry said it was eased, but admitted he hadn't had time to look at the data to make sure.

The tension and deflection on it through the tack bear away stays the same indicating it is fully loaded the whole time.

The more I look at it the more it looks like someone either forgot to dump the backstay, or they had a mechanical release failure.  At 19secs in the video Ken and Nathan both simultaneously declare "they've left the runner on and I think their immediate response is still correct.

I think Terry will have reviewed the data and determined it wasn't released but being the stoic team leader he is, won't want to spotlight blame on one person.

20210120_090028.png

Screenshot_20210120-082153_YouTube.png

On the other hand, AWS. Chalk and cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

On the other hand, AWS. Chalk and cheese.

Yeah AWS gets thrown around a lot as a coverall for different sailing physics. 

I think Ken may have more of a displacement boat sailor mindset, but Nathan, who is one of the world's finest apparent wind sailors, and has done almost nothing but AWS for the last decade or so simultaneously called out exactly the same thing, that it failed to release, and that Luna Rosa wanted to get rid of them altogether.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be looking at the command and organisation in the boat rather than looking for a sailing physics solution. 
The named skipper and tactician is also a grinder, how can that work ?

The radio coms reveal multiple opinions and the decision seems to have been made by the helm who was on the wrong side of the boat, it was a sound tactical decision but missed crucial information like big gust with shift. 
Hard call to place blame after the fact as what’s done is done. 
If you listen to the coms on the other boats firm clear discussion and decisions are made, on patriot it’s just a discombobulated chatter. 2c

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several were having a discussion about the sequence of the capsize in the Prada Cup thread (post 2366 to post 2392 or so).  That thread is probably a better place for the ongoing discussion of what next for racing, so I have jumped over here to continue the look back at the event.

After figuring out the data graphical available (https://ac36.herokuapp.com/stats_app, thanks again sailer99), I went in and extracted speed data and tabulate alongside key details you can see from the stern cam video. 

One note for anyone using the graphical data, the AM TWS data line seems to have completely missed the gust.  The really high speeds shown on this line are all after the crash.

Race Time Speed Event details
  (kn)  
17:54.00 44.7 Goodie turns to get up
17:55.00 45.3  
17:56.00 44.7  
17:57.00 43.2 Goodie grabs boom handle
17:58.00 42.4  
17:59.00 40.7 Goodie lets go of boom
18:00.00 39.5 Port foil starts down
18:01.00 38.4 Port foil hits water
18:02.00 36.0 Boom starts swing to port side
18:03.00 33.2  
18:03.50 31.3 TWA is 0 (head to wind)
18:04.00 29.5 Mid “splash” (lowest height)
18:05.00 27.2 Traveler at stop on port side
18:06.00 26.0  
18:07.00 28.0 Starboard foil starts moving up
18:08.00 30.6 Mast looks have gone from negative heel to zero heel
18:09.00 32.0 Starboard foil full up
18:10.00 34.9 Mast heel starts to go slightly positive
18:11.00 39.4 For the duration of this indicated time, mast heel is going positive quickly
18:12.00 43.1  
18:13.00 45.3  
18:14.00 44.7  
18:15.00 40.8  
18:16.00 36.7  
18:17.00 27.5  
18:18.00 25.4  
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, P Flados said:

Several were having a discussion about the sequence of the capsize in the Prada Cup thread (post 2366 to post 2392 or so).  That thread is probably a better place for the ongoing discussion of what next for racing, so I have jumped over here to continue the look back at the event.

After figuring out the data graphical available (https://ac36.herokuapp.com/stats_app, thanks again sailer99), I went in and extracted speed data and tabulate alongside key details you can see from the stern cam video. 

One note for anyone using the graphical data, the AM TWS data line seems to have completely missed the gust.  The really high speeds shown on this line are all after the crash.

...

You can thank @dorox for the providing graphs, I just get to use them.

I believe the puff hits around 17:37 on that graph. Video timestamp: https://youtu.be/zwwGdeOZKxc?t=9889

18:09 is where Dean starts bearing away from a close-hauled course. Considering they were doing 40+ on a close reach before the take, 32kts is quite down speed for a bearaway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Good work. Any secrets discovered, I wonder?

 

 

Kiwis discover why AM was so overpowered.  They were using 2 mains at the same time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barnyb said:

From sailing world.

Another good photo which captures the spirit of sportsmanship in this Am Cup.

 

LJTESHGEAFGCXDCIP4Q4PG36B4.jpg

Salvage rights..? 

Quick, while they're not looking boys, load it in the RIB.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, waterboy42 said:

Salvage rights..? 

Quick, while they're not looking boys, load it in the RIB.. 

Probably saying hey bro  you know this sail was pretty much kiwi designed and built by Doyle with a Q badge you know bro.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WindySurfer said:

Touche.  Giles Scott looks pretty skinny these days makes one wonder if he cut weight so those grinding could maintain more muscle

Certainly, 
clearly the system they chose works and it’s only going to work if you get enough power out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if the foil cant system was mechanical where grinders had to wind them up and down....at least racing would be closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, thetruth said:

Still don't understand why they didn't tip it the other way, was obvious the boat was flooded

They couldn’t move the foils?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thetruth said:

Still don't understand why they didn't tip it the other way, was obvious the boat was flooded

That hole was close to dead center.  By the time they leveled the boat it was totally flooded.  They would have had to capsize it to starboard after they pumped it out a lot to get that hole above water and that would have made it un-towable and likely would have caused more damage with the rams being "done". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every hydraulic cylinder requires oil and pressure to operate.

The bigger it is and the further it has to travel, the larger the demand.

Luna Rosa, by eliminating back stays, reduces the demand on the grinders and permits more aggressive sheeting and other functions

So there were reasons to ditch the back stays other than just reducing windage and avoiding hang ups like the one on Patriot.   Their tuning is for a rig without back stays, so they may be sailing with them just snug with simple pennants on the end.  Which is why you see the leeward back stay flying in the wind as they round.

Another point, the puff was a port tack lift, which means that the bear away was bigger.  Tactically absolutely the right decision, that would have won a close race.

Who doesn't want to round the weather mark in a heading puff?

SHC

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, WetHog said:

Patriot repair ahead of schedule according to Live Sail Die?

WetHog  :ph34r:

You don't have a relative in Western Australia? 

Spotted tonight when I was out for dinner.. uncanny likeness.. ;)

20210120_233539.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

 

So ahh de Italians a thinka that a the hole isa fromma a large objecta thata was fell throughah de hull anda isa on a de bottom ofa the sea.  I think so too

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NSP said:

 

Did they get air bags below or are those bags outside keeping it above the water?  That was a huge hole.

I knew a guy that did boat rescue and they always used air bags below then pumps when boats were filled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, waterboy42 said:

Looking back at the Race 4 Top Mark rounding (in displacement mode) shows their maximum mainsheet ease and twist and 2nd pic shows the  substantial deflection angle of the lazy backstay..

Contrast that with the short mark rounding and capsize video, and there is no visual indication they eased the backstay at all. Terry said it was eased, but admitted he hadn't had time to look at the data to make sure.

The tension and deflection on it through the tack bear away stays the same indicating it is fully loaded the whole time.

The more I look at it the more it looks like someone either forgot to dump the backstay, or they had a mechanical release failure.  At 19secs in the video Ken and Nathan both simultaneously declare "they've left the runner on and I think their immediate response is still correct.

I think Terry will have reviewed the data and determined it wasn't released but being the stoic team leader he is, won't want to spotlight blame on one person.

20210120_090028.png

Screenshot_20210120-082153_YouTube.png

I still don't believe the runner had anything to do with it. I am surprised Kenny blurted it out and still maintains it in his latest report. He is coming from a monohulk non foiling offshore background, but is president of Big Blue so maybe should know better. Once spinning out high in the air the mainsail wouldn't have helped, but the trimming systems do not allow the main to be dumped and the traveller dropped to leward like a conventional set up. For a start the boom would crush Dean on the wheel in the leeward cockpit.

The problem I believe, possibly caused by Dean being in an awkward position under the main with no room, was that he did not drive the boat downwind quicker enough. Just bearing off into a close reach and then spin out.

Anyone on here who sails high performance dinghies in a big breeze, even a Laser,  knows the feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, winchfodder said:

I still don't believe the runner had anything to do with it. I am surprised Kenny blurted it out and still maintains it in his latest report. He is coming from a monohulk non foiling offshore background, but is president of Big Blue so maybe should know better. Once spinning out high in the air the mainsail wouldn't have helped, but the trimming systems do not allow the main to be dumped and the traveller dropped to leward like a conventional set up. For a start the boom would crush Dean on the wheel in the leeward cockpit.

The problem I believe, possibly caused by Dean being in an awkward position under the main with no room, was that he did not drive the boat downwind quicker enough. Just bearing off into a close reach and then spin out.

Anyone on here who sails high performance dinghies in a big breeze, even a Laser,  knows the feeling.

It's worth noting that AM eased their runner in less wind, earlier in the same race.  There's no doubting that it should have been eased, and that it didn't make Barker's job any easier.

Although, I wonder if Barker controls the runners?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Interesting that the Italians think that UK have more power available than US. Wonder why they say that?

Where were they saying that? Rig power? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NSP said:

 

Burling may have a dull personality, but he is good at getting in these action shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

Where were they saying that? Rig power? 

More power spare would be more accurate.From 17:35 in that video of them earlier

"One of the problems is that their [AM] systems are not as efficient as ineos which are impressive because they only have 6 g"rinders and it seems more power than anyone else"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

More power spare would be more accurate.From 17:35 in that video of them earlier

"One of the problems is that their [AM] systems are not as efficient as ineos which are impressive because they only have 6 g"rinders and it seems more power than anyone else"

Oh those Italians, I thought Max was having a moment of realisation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

More power spare would be more accurate.From 17:35 in that video of them earlier

"One of the problems is that their [AM] systems are not as efficient as ineos which are impressive because they only have 6 g"rinders and it seems more power than anyone else"

I don’t think we’ve seen the final crew arrangement on ETNZ. Given that their approach to hydraulics, and the benefits any efficiency can give the crew, in 2017, I’d be very surprised if ITUK could sail with six grinders and ETNZ haven’t achieved the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ex-yachtie said:

I don’t think we’ve seen the final crew arrangement on ETNZ. Given that their approach to hydraulics, and the benefits any efficiency can give the crew, in 2017, I’d be very surprised if ITUK could sail with six grinders and ETNZ haven’t achieved the same.

Etnz had a much higher requirement for hydro in 2017 ... they just found a better way to produce it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, southseasbill said:

I must have missed the explanation of why the hole could possibly cause the boat to be so close to sinking. I thought the AC75's were supposed to have copious reserve boyancy via watertight compartments.

There was probably an extra 4000+ pounds of human body weight and gear on board. Unlikely there was enough reserve buoyancy to overcome that additional weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, tDot said:

There was probably an extra 4000+ pounds of human body weight and gear on board. Unlikely there was enough reserve buoyancy to overcome that additional weight.

Wouldn't be much of a reserve buoyance rule if putting normal crew and gear on swamped it. Plus most of the bodies were in the water or had got off by that point

Those aren't specified but 11.10 states When floated to equilibrium under the conditions of Rule 11.9, the measurement reference points required by Rule 3.8 shall lie no more than 25.0 mm above or below the flotation waterplane

That clearly was far from met. The reason is probably that the hole went into the reserve buoyancy compartment. So there was none left. There is no rule on separation into multiple chambers that I can see (though the hold was big enough to straddle more than one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Wouldn't be much of a reserve buoyance rule if putting normal crew and gear on swamped it. Plus most of the bodies were in the water or had got off by that point

Those aren't specified but 11.10 states When floated to equilibrium under the conditions of Rule 11.9, the measurement reference points required by Rule 3.8 shall lie no more than 25.0 mm above or below the flotation waterplane

That clearly was far from met. The reason is probably that the hole went into the reserve buoyancy compartment. So there was none left. There is no rule on separation into multiple chambers that I can see (though the hold was big enough to straddle more than one)

Whatever bouancy migjt have been in that forward compartment with air trapped above the hole, was somewhat diminished when they popped the manhole (which they did whilst it was still on its side) to climb in and inspect things. If they hadn't done that, it might have been a lot better. Hindsight though...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rh3000 said:

Whatever bouancy migjt have been in that forward compartment with air trapped above the hole, was somewhat diminished when they popped the manhole (which they did whilst it was still on its side) to climb in and inspect things. If they hadn't done that, it might have been a lot better. Hindsight though...

It may have been slower with the hatch in place, but with the hole, lying on its side, with waves. I don't think much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Wouldn't be much of a reserve buoyance rule if putting normal crew and gear on swamped it. Plus most of the bodies were in the water or had got off by that point

Those aren't specified but 11.10 states When floated to equilibrium under the conditions of Rule 11.9, the measurement reference points required by Rule 3.8 shall lie no more than 25.0 mm above or below the flotation waterplane

That clearly was far from met. The reason is probably that the hole went into the reserve buoyancy compartment. So there was none left. There is no rule on separation into multiple chambers that I can see (though the hold was big enough to straddle more than one)

I wasn't referring to normal crew and gear.  I was referencing the rescue operation when there was 20+ guys crawling all over the boat at different time, pumps, hoses, etc.  

With a hole as large as AM had, I'd expect the hull to be under the waves in under a minute, if there wasn't some reserve buoyancy keeping it up.  

Agreed that the 40m³ reserve buoyancy chamber, or a portion, may have been holed. But there is still a required watertight crash bulkhead in the bow and possibly others that weren't required, elsewhere in the boat.

11.9 references a normal boat without a hole in it, does it not.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, southseasbill said:

I must have missed the explanation of why the hole could possibly cause the boat to be so close to sinking. I thought the AC75's were supposed to have copious reserve boyancy via watertight compartments.

I think TH confirmed what you are saying.  His initially fear was that the boat was going to sink.   He did say that as they were working on he then knew that the buoyancy built into the boat would keep it afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Interesting that the Italians think that UK have more power available than US. Wonder why they say that?

Considering Max's initial dismissive comments about Am and Team Brexit's B2s, they must be getting a bit fed up looking up the sterns of both.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lickindip said:

Etnz had a much higher requirement for hydro in 2017 ... they just found a better way to produce it

Not necessarily "much higher requirement": they just had more power on tap to do what they wanted, and doing them faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites