Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What is clear: big square battery came loose and made big square hole. What is not clear: how compromised/fixable is big square hole and how bad are electronics fried/replaceable.

Carry on

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And we have liftoff!!

I for one was happy to finally see an American team that didn’t just reek of assholes. Terry was a great bloke to have in front of the cameras and the intimate videos behind the scenes I found quite f

Posted Images

Just now, zillafreak said:

What is clear: big square battery came loose and made big square hole. What is not clear: how compromised/fixable is big square hole and how bad are electronics fried/replaceable.

Carry on

 

Buzzzzz, Wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That doesn't quite match the evidence.  Why have a "panel" there?

If it was a panel then it wasn't well designed/secured because it should have withstood those forces. 

The foil and foil arm took the brunt of the downward force and  by the time that part of the hull hit the water much of the energy would have been dissipated.

You sure are full of disbelief.  He said the framework had a guillotine effect on that part of the hull because of the pressure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Just making an observation Priscilla.  If the explanation makes perfect sense to you then fine.

However why isn't there wider damage to the hull if water pressure forces were so great?  They weren't directed at one spot like a fire hose were they?

If there is no other hull damage then the "panel" was a weakness.  Or maybe it was a repair from a previous SNAFU.

Obviously, it is above your pay grade to understand.  Why would he bullshit about it?  They have very clever engineers that have forgotten more about the laminate structure than we will ever understand. 

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

Wish he elaborated on the FCS being fucked. Electrical, mechanical, etc, etc ?

He said it is gone and they will swap it out with the one in Defiant.  If all of the other electronic equipment is destroyed, you can assume the electronics of the FCS is destroyed.  Also, they would not tear it out and replace it if the mechanics worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That's what I'm suggesting.  If the forces were so enormous as Hutchison said then you'd expect other "panels" to have been stressed.

The veracity  of what Hutchison said at the presser has to be taken with a grain of salt.  A bit like thinking that AM will take up the offer of Grant Daltons boat builders crawling all over the boat!

Each reply you make is more idiotic than the one you just made before it.  How often do you see the black helicopters?

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

He said it is gone and they will swap it out with the one in Defiant.  If all of the other electronic equipment is destroyed, you can assume the electronics of the FCS is destroyed.  Also, they would not tear it out and replace it if the mechanics worked.

TH was specifically adamant that the rebuild had to adhere to a clearly defined sequence of processes and there would be no short cuts taken on the road to recovery.

Shines a light on how complex these new fangled flying machines are and No8 wire fixes or jury rigs will not cut the mustard.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, zillafreak said:

What is clear: big square battery came loose and made big square hole. What is not clear: how compromised/fixable is big square hole and how bad are electronics fried/replaceable.

Carry on

 

Watch TH press conference for the correct take.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lat35sowth said:

So my understanding is that some part of the internal framing/stringer punched the hole due to water pressure on outside of hull as it hit side on?

That's not my understanding. As I understand it, the frame remained rigid. When the boat slapped the water, the thin skin collapsed inwards between the frames and gave way, which could explain the square edge (against the cross beam). That's why the boat would have coped with a vertical fall onto the 'keel', but not a fall onto the side.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, to complete all of the work of replacing the electrical systems and the FCS, they will have to cut some huge holes in the deck of the boat.  TH said they will be using the local NZ contractors to build the “flat sections” and their own crew to build the more complex custom shapes.  So it seems obvious that the NZ folks will build the deck patches while AM will do the underside patching.  TH said they plan to set up everything just like it was, but it won’t be as pretty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing 

1 X AC75. American made. Last seen not far from Milford. Please, if you see this boat, please return to owner ASAP. There is unfinished business to attend to. 

Screenshot_20210118-193824_Gallery.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 167149 said:

 

and here i was thinking it was a battery pack for the foils that just went mother in law and departed through that neat square hole

You must have a different mother in law.  Most of them stick around and won't leave.. or atleast mine wont.

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

Great to see Chris Steele man up and tell it like it REALLY was on TV1 tonight. And where is Deano..............sulking at home or daddies?

What did he say?

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

I don’t buy the pressure from landing punching a hole through the skin

The explanation offered by TH doesn’t pass the pub test

 

Imagine you are the Big Bad Wolf, blowing at the pig's house. If you blow hard enough, the relatively thin gib will give way between the framing. You'll get a hole in the gib but the framing will remain intact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is obviously some confusion here about what TH was referring to when he said "guillotine", and I actually searched this thread for the words "shear" and "stress riser" with no results so I thought I'd post. Much as the flying battery was a compelling concept, the guillotine idea explains both the size of the hole (assuming it wasn't cut much more) as well as why the hole is lower than you'd expect it to be if it was caused by excess forces from the FCS supports.

High shear forces can arise where there are stress risers, abrupt changes in the thickness of a part for example, which concentrates stress where change in geometry results in a change of thickness. A similar situation arises in scissors and indeed guillotines, where you concentrate all the force across a narrow space, creating high local shear. In this case, if you imagine a pair of bulkheads and a pair of  stringers surrounding a square area of plain hull, you can, depending on how it is constructed, have this frame be much stiffer than the panel. This may be fine unless the loads get too high, and you get a scissor like effect right at the change in stiffness. I have run a simple simulation in Solidworks' basic simulation package, using solid aluminum as the material. It's about 90cm square and the 50mm frame is fixed. The central panel is 15mm. Picture 1 has a sharp edge, picture 2 has a 40mm fillet and picture 3 has a 100mm fillet. These simulations are hard to interpret because they rescale the colour contours and you have to look carefully at the numbers, but as the transition from panel to frame is made more gradual, the  peak stress drops by almost a factor of 2. So if they were using the word guillotine, I strongly suspect they are thinking about this mechanism. 

Sharp Edge.JPG

40mm fillet.JPG

100mm fillet.JPG

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gungabow said:

Sorry took so long 

Got home late last night and had to work today

Which way up does this go?

Missing Puzzle.jpg

Tape it back in then buff.jpg

Ok.. these pics show a piece that would fit the hole

I was struggling to picture it as the photos yesterday this piece looked triangular

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

See that little white square on the foredeck

That's the air vent for the FCS

Wonder where the batteries are located? 

Wonder what heavy thing experienced G's in deceleration going to Port?

My bet is there is a set of LiPo batteries on the seabed somewhere off Mission Bay

 

Capture.thumb.PNG.7aa549c9b08307cc65fcb504125bdc5e.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zenmasterfred said:

Would be great if they did time lapse photography of the repair to show their grandchildren and we children here some day.  Going to be quite the project.  At least when they cut away the bad part it will be easier to run the new wiring.  

 

 

 

For the Muricans not familiar with British DIY, to raise a smile while we all hold our breath

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gungabow said:

Wonder what heavy thing experienced G's in deceleration going to Port?

My bet is there is a set of LiPo batteries on the seabed somewhere off Mission Bay

Not for the first time in this thread, it wasn't a battery. TH explains it in his pretty clear response to a question from a journalist who specifically asked if a battery had caused the hole. Jump to 9:03 in the video for the question and TH's answer:

https://youtu.be/4-yvEmEqdBc

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tDot said:

You must have a different mother in law.  Most of them stick around and won't leave.. or atleast mine wont.

granted you do have a point there, however, when they do eventually erupt it'll be in a fashion that is quite spectacular (to a spectator) and often they'll fucking return,  this return sequence is the truely scarey part as she aint done with you yet  and is determined to put on a masterclass for your wife on how to behave and reduce any thoughts you had of complacency or security,

 

1 hour ago, tDot said:

You must have a different mother in law.  Most of them stick around and won't leave.. or atleast mine wont.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think something blew out of the hole, not just a perfectly square internal moving compression "guillotine" fracture . The chunk found floating obviously went OUT, not in, as well as all the carbon stringers blown outward

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

TH is clearly not an engineer and his answer to the question is his interpretation of what he has been told.  For some reason everyone seems to have forgotten that there is/was a watertight space, required by the rules, in the bow area which should easily keep the boat afloat.

The "internal structure" that came loose damaged the watertight space as well as making a large hole in the hull. I am sure that all competitors will be reviewing their "internal structures" to make sure that they are secure in all situations.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foiling Optimist said:

There is obviously some confusion here about what TH was referring to when he said "guillotine", and I actually searched this thread for the words "shear" and "stress riser" with no results so I thought I'd post. Much as the flying battery was a compelling concept, the guillotine idea explains both the size of the hole (assuming it wasn't cut much more) as well as why the hole is lower than you'd expect it to be if it was caused by excess forces from the FCS supports.

High shear forces can arise where there are stress risers, abrupt changes in the thickness of a part for example, which concentrates stress where change in geometry results in a change of thickness. A similar situation arises in scissors and indeed guillotines, where you concentrate all the force across a narrow space, creating high local shear. In this case, if you imagine a pair of bulkheads and a pair of  stringers surrounding a square area of plain hull, you can, depending on how it is constructed, have this frame be much stiffer than the panel. This may be fine unless the loads get too high, and you get a scissor like effect right at the change in stiffness. I have run a simple simulation in Solidworks' basic simulation package, using solid aluminum as the material. It's about 90cm square and the 50mm frame is fixed. The central panel is 15mm. Picture 1 has a sharp edge, picture 2 has a 40mm fillet and picture 3 has a 100mm fillet. These simulations are hard to interpret because they rescale the colour contours and you have to look carefully at the numbers, but as the transition from panel to frame is made more gradual, the  peak stress drops by almost a factor of 2. So if they were using the word guillotine, I strongly suspect they are thinking about this mechanism. 

Sharp Edge.JPG

40mm fillet.JPG

100mm fillet.JPG

Nice story but it's bullshit. There's a lipo battery on the sea floor. Why else were divers out there this morning?

 

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

Maybe an opportunity to have Te Rehutai fill Amways spot in the Prada Cup:P

 

3 hours ago, jaysper said:

But then we'd the challenging ourselves in the match, no? ;)

Ah, I've spotted the obvious downside, we'd be guaranteed to lose...

 

 

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

Nice story but it's bullshit. There's a lipo battery on the sea floor. Why else were divers out there this morning?

 

What is the purpose of them lying about it?

As for the divers, could be any number of reasons 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DryAxE said:

Well, ETNZ stated it took them 8000hrs to build the hull. So if you have 50 man and 12 days, each man working 16hrs per day its 9600hrs. 

Ah, the Mythical Man Month. Someone wrote a book about it. Two women cannot have a baby in 4 1/2 months.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tDot said:

While you're at it, please explain how opening the top of a fat head doesn't spill power.  If there's no power up there, whats the point of a fat head main?

It's like when you go down the mine in a skiff: You've spent the whole race with the apparent wind less than 60 degrees off the nose; then you stuff the bow in a wave, the boat slows right down, and suddenly the apparent wind's 60 degrees off the stern. Opening out the top of the main isn't going to help; if anything it'll power it up and make the situation worse.

The situation's a bit different here; it's the loss of control that causes the boat to slow down, but once it starts slowing down, the apparent wind's coming from well behind the beam, and it's going over.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dave S said:

It's like when you go down the mine in a skiff: You've spent the whole race with the apparent wind less than 60 degrees off the nose; then you stuff the bow in a wave, the boat slows right down, and suddenly the apparent wind's 60 degrees off the stern. Opening out the top of the main isn't going to help; if anything it'll power it up and make the situation worse.

The situation's a bit different here; it's the loss of control that causes the boat to slow down, but once it starts slowing down, the apparent wind's coming from well behind the beam, and it's going over.

Yep, similar happened to NZ, an abrupt slow down of the boat, wind beam on, and over they go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the cause of the accident. AM have on 3 (?) occasions ended up pointing at the sky, whereas I don't recall an of the other 3 B2s doing that. NZ capsize forex was a nose in job (more conventional).  Is AM designed in such a way that the leaping salmon is more likely to happen?

Because even in this incident, they had done the bear way (or at least past 90 TWA) so the force from the sail would have been tipping the boat forward, not back, so the squall hitting should have increased that tipping moment.

What that design difference might be, I'm not sure, but the T on the rudder and its controls would be my first point of interest- Is there a condition or set of conditions when that T generates massively too much downforce, in a way that doesn't happen on other boats?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gungabow said:

Sorry took so long 

Got home late last night and had to work today

Which way up does this go?

Missing Puzzle.jpg

Tape it back in then buff.jpg

 

Clearly, that portion of the hull was not designed for slamming. If it had, it would be single skin with ribs, like Cherokee, or adopting thicker, lower modulus foam core to absorb energy - like in offshore powerboats. But then, the weight limit may have prevented it

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

Watch TH press conference for the correct take.

Terry was clear no battery came out. But I ask you to have a think if every thing that you are told is true ? Wile I dont know the true answer , it would not be great PR for the cup if they at dumped a battery in the Gulf. What is more likly is the battery did brake lose and did punch out the hole but remained inside. Ive not  watched anything since the race but it seamed strange at the time that they were not able to lower the starbord foil to help right her. And then they opened the hatch up which makes me think they thought there might be an internal conection problem that was stoping the foil moving. No one in that posishion would chouse to open a sealled hatch when on there side unless they thought it was the best was to solve the problem. 

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

 

Clearly, that portion of the hull was not designed for slamming. If it had, it would be single skin with ribs, like Cherokee, or adopting thicker, lower modulus foam core to absorb energy - like in offshore powerboats. But then, the weight limit may have prevented it

Agreed! There is more footage in the AM Video - they are not hiding much! Good on them.

But man I have watched the crash down over and over again, and it still seems amazing, almost freak-incident level situation that such a touchdown could cause such a catastrophic failure... 

this boat is no tractor! It's as fragile as LE's ego!

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

wow

Great video, hats off for the transparency from the team!

Still below seems to show a tubular framework to support the loads, covered by a relatively thin outside shell. The part that came off seems to have folded over the diagonal brace, which in turn prevented the now detached panel from entering the hull, which explains why it then floated away

 

Screenshot 2021-01-18 101938.png

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

One point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the cause of the accident. AM have on 3 (?) occasions ended up pointing at the sky, whereas I don't recall an of the other 3 B2s doing that. NZ capsize forex was a nose in job (more conventional).  Is AM designed in such a way that the leaping salmon is more likely to happen?

Because even in this incident, they had done the bear way (or at least past 90 TWA) so the force from the sail would have been tipping the boat forward, not back, so the squall hitting should have increased that tipping moment.

What that design difference might be, I'm not sure, but the T on the rudder and its controls would be my first point of interest- Is there a condition or set of conditions when that T generates massively too much downforce, in a way that doesn't happen on other boats?

I think it's a complex set of conditions - boat speed, AoA, boat pivoting when rudder lost, etc. The sky leap seems to occur when the boat speed is relatively high, stabilator loses lift so the stern falls down, resulting in a high AoA of the foils.
NZ and LR have also headed skyward, although the clips I have were in the B1 boats:

Luna Rossa take off

ETNZ

When a boat pivots sharply on rudder loss, they seem to dive, like this one:

Ineos

Link to post
Share on other sites

The area that would worry me is that above the hole, directly in front of the foil arm. It looks like the boat basically folded. The big issue was probably caused by the foil leaving and reentering the water, the sudden unloading and loading sending loads forward that caused the internal structure too fold, popping a bit of hull out. The internal structure above the hole is going to be the big ask.

I also suspect that the eventual hull fix will be a lot bigger. My last trip to NZ:

image.thumb.png.f6f0a3b1a6b5570536bb013353effb9f.pngimage.thumb.png.9dc021177b286331cc23f8462263bcc2.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Foiling Optimist said:

There is obviously some confusion here about what TH was referring to when he said "guillotine", and I actually searched this thread for the words "shear" and "stress riser" with no results so I thought I'd post. Much as the flying battery was a compelling concept, the guillotine idea explains both the size of the hole (assuming it wasn't cut much more) as well as why the hole is lower than you'd expect it to be if it was caused by excess forces from the FCS supports.

High shear forces can arise where there are stress risers, abrupt changes in the thickness of a part for example, which concentrates stress where change in geometry results in a change of thickness. A similar situation arises in scissors and indeed guillotines, where you concentrate all the force across a narrow space, creating high local shear. In this case, if you imagine a pair of bulkheads and a pair of  stringers surrounding a square area of plain hull, you can, depending on how it is constructed, have this frame be much stiffer than the panel. This may be fine unless the loads get too high, and you get a scissor like effect right at the change in stiffness. I have run a simple simulation in Solidworks' basic simulation package, using solid aluminum as the material. It's about 90cm square and the 50mm frame is fixed. The central panel is 15mm. Picture 1 has a sharp edge, picture 2 has a 40mm fillet and picture 3 has a 100mm fillet. These simulations are hard to interpret because they rescale the colour contours and you have to look carefully at the numbers, but as the transition from panel to frame is made more gradual, the  peak stress drops by almost a factor of 2. So if they were using the word guillotine, I strongly suspect they are thinking about this mechanism. 

Sharp Edge.JPG

40mm fillet.JPG

100mm fillet.JPG

Nice take on it and I’d say that’s close to what TH was referring to. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dave S said:

It's like when you go down the mine in a skiff: You've spent the whole race with the apparent wind less than 60 degrees off the nose; then you stuff the bow in a wave, the boat slows right down, and suddenly the apparent wind's 60 degrees off the stern. Opening out the top of the main isn't going to help; if anything it'll power it up and make the situation worse.

The situation's a bit different here; it's the loss of control that causes the boat to slow down, but once it starts slowing down, the apparent wind's coming from well behind the beam, and it's going over.

I crunched the up and down numbers, AWA looks to be around 13-14 degrees both upwind and down so if a boat is set up to fly stable at that AWA then opening it up to even 25 degrees will create massive forces looking to both heel and cartwheel the boat. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This overhead shot shows the effect of the backstay on the mainsail. But given loss of speed and a beam on wind, I'd guess they would have gone over regardless.

image.png.7e04a193b9e137b2897ef437095341bd.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MaxHugen said:

I think it's a complex set of conditions - boat speed, AoA, boat pivoting when rudder lost, etc. The sky leap seems to occur when the boat speed is relatively high, stabilator loses lift so the stern falls down, resulting in a high AoA of the foils.
NZ and LR have also headed skyward, although the clips I have were in the B1 boats:

Luna Rossa take off

ETNZ

When a boat pivots sharply on rudder loss, they seem to dive, like this one:

Ineos

But as you say the others only did it with B1s. Have the others got something to resolve the issue? Or have AM just been 'unlucky'?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to American Magic for getting such an honest vid up so quickly. Initial thought from some of the other teams is a large foil control systems box weighing 60kg (132lbs) may have broken free and punched out through the hull when it slammed down on tis side.

Hoping AM will disclose what caused the hole soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

video from the bow cam....this looks like long after impact, a bit of carbon in the wake already. Seems like the the windward arm settles and stops at the same time the fibres pop. Maybe. 

Pictures are worth a shitload of words.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

But as you say the others only did it with B1s. Have the others got something to resolve the issue? Or have AM just been 'unlucky'?

 

Speculation of course, but... AM were still at quite a high speed, whereas in NZ's dive recently they had already slowed down some before they turned and lost control.  I tend to think AM was unlucky to get hit by a gust when they did, almost instantly accelerating the boat at a difficult point in the maneuver.

Maybe the only way to "resolve" the issue is to avoid it in the first place, with excellent user-friendly control systems, and 100% concentration from flight controller, mainsail trimmer, tactician and helmsman?

Maybe. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that too, but dont have explanation. This occured at the same moment foils slammed the water hard. The second impact was when boat hit the water. Im think most of the damage was done with second impact.

28 minutes ago, Neverwas said:

1477720948_ScreenShot2021-01-18at10_27_59.thumb.png.17504eb6c4f6fbde5ae3bda2e83c7230.pngIs that something popping through the hull? Thats on the way down

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if i drawn it totaly accurate but to me shape of American Magic Patriot has the weakest hull section in case of flat impact like it happened. It has preety flat sides with just slight curvature outward, in case of impact forces can flex this curve from outward to inward and that might cause that long crack that continues from hole towards the bow. ETNZ Te Rehutai might land even flatter since it has concave hull side, but hull is already turned inwards so it would spread forces more evenly, some cracks might still occur. Luna Rossa and Brittania have more curve to handle such impacts.

team-nz-designer-confident-in-tweaks-to-second-americas-cup-boat.jpg

am1sm.jpg.d4d46b066e8f27ad659c7986aac737bc.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DryAxE said:

I noticed that too, but dont have explanation. This occured at the same moment foils slammed the water hard. The second impact was when boat hit the water. Im think most of the damage was done with second impact.

 

I wonder was it a smaller puncture further aft that weakened the structure enough that when it slammed the force travels along a crack and then blew the large section out! the pics of her in the cradle do show a longer crack traveling aft of the hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ... This is one terrible situation for a challenger to be in and not good for the cup. I really hope this team do get the boat back together and manage to to do so in a competitive nature...

Post situation I have two takeaways;

  • Something did come out of the boat, if you watch the video in slow mo its clear something burst through the hull. TH knew this and sidelined the question simply saying both batteries came off the boat.
  • Deano is a a great guy and I for one have felt for him over the year - But where was he in that lastest video!?!

Best of luck to the team, I hope they get back out and are competitive.

Third small point..... INEOS must be rubbing their hands together that this has taken the media press off them......... No way is their sudden performance a surprise, this has been the game plan! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Neverwas said:

I wonder was it a smaller puncture further aft that weakened the structure enough that when it slammed the force travels along a crack and then blew the large section out! the pics of her in the cradle do show a longer crack traveling aft of the hole.

Sorry I take that back the photo I was looking at its just reflections going aft not a crack, I dont think 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Purple Headed Warrior said:

 

Third small point..... INEOS must be rubbing their hands together that this has taken the media press off them......... No way is their sudden performance a surprise, this has been the game plan! 

They admitted they were slow before, doubt they would particularly mind the very positive media attention they would be getting. 

I think they might be more happy about the fact that they have more opportunity to push in the next set of updates having got some great data about where they are. Lets face it there might have only been 3 days but it covered a pretty wide range of conditions!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, enigmatically2 said:

They admitted they were slow before, doubt they would particularly mind the very positive media attention they would be getting. 

Sure, media now for the team is mostly good....But there are a lot of questions regarding them hiding their performance back at Christmas, I think they were training with winter tyres on and knew that when they put the slicks on they would show a % increase which they had bench marked.

But, back to AM...... Again, lets hope these guys come back fighting rather than limping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, DryAxE said:

I noticed that too, but dont have explanation. This occured at the same moment foils slammed the water hard. The second impact was when boat hit the water. Im think most of the damage was done with second impact.

 

This is a bird... believe it or not

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone the expertise to measure the deflection in the foil arm as it hit down? is that a lot further aft than normal? Possible this defection load on the arm popped the skin in front of the foil arm off the structure and then the impact and the water pushed it back against the structure caused the Guillotine effect TH talked about?

 

Screen Shot 2021-01-18 at 12.42.37.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neverwas,

That is the worrying area, right in front of the foil and where there must be significant structure. Something has let go in that area and it won't be a few layers of carbon to replace/fix it. The hole in the hull is just a flesh wound, that is an organ.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jaysper said:

But then we'd the challenging ourselves in the match, no? ;)

You might not get through.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was horrible seeing Hutch by his lonesome at the press conference.  That sucks, and I really feel for the guy.  Sure, I can understand why he was there by himself, as he's the skipper.  He probably made the call to represent the AM team at the conference and to give the team the time to take stock of what needs to be done, and to have a plan in place.

Not seeing Dean in the AM video posted above is concerning.  I hope that the team haven't led him out to pasture.  That would invalidate the whole statement Hutch made: We win as a team, and we lose as a team.

Someone said that Dean is a Jonah.  This is so wrong, on so many levels.  He's been in the unfortunate position of being given dodgy platforms (2003), poor tactics (2007), a platform that wouldn't/couldn't be improved upon to beat Oracle, not to mention that horrible decision to give Oracle a lay day (2013).  I still believe that he's an excellent sailor and can, at some point, win the AC; just not AC36.

If Patriot is successfully repaired and is competitive, I think that she should be renamed to Phoenix.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JeronimoII said:

Did anyone notice that Dean Barker does not appear in the video. Potentially his sacking going to happen?!?

I suspect he is devastated. I hope he can come back because he is world class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked at the aerial footage again. I noticed that the boat landed pretty much going sideways and heeled over. I think that the forces are pushing the foil down quite hard at that moment. The FCS and surrounding structures will be almost certainly not designed to handle down loads especially not type of loads with the whole boat doing the pushing at 30knots. Could this be why there is this much damage ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I'm rooting for AM in the grand scheme of things, but I can't help to think that only having three competitors in the Prada Cup makes each and every race utterly useless.  Not only do AM not have to sail this upcoming weekend, they never had to sail this weekend or even last weekend for that matter.
Just one more competitor would have held everyone to account for each and every race.
As much as I know they are going to get back in the water and be competitive, it would really cheapen the entire thing if AM wins the Prada Cup while missing out on an entire weekend of racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dullers said:

I suspect he is devastated. I hope he can come back because he is world class.

Not in foilers he ain’t. 
 

of course let’s just leave the multiple moth world champ on the main and deano on the helm  

Makes sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was great to see American Magic team willing to show some views of the interior of the bow.

I think I can see outlines of the transverse ring frames and the longitudinal stiffeners

Red - longitudinal; yellow - transverse ring frame; green - centre plane tubular stiffeners

image.png.8517477c19d20c5f47369cde8e78705f.png 

 

image.png.b85dd39dc51a7bd7cbc8138cbbd64e87.png

 

 

Then again the resolution is low, it is dark inside the hull so it's possible I'm just seeing things.

 

Very little has been shown, but I'm getting an impression that the manner in which the hull bow is stiffened/reinforced is different to what Alex Thomson showed on the inside of Hugo Boss when it suffered stiffening structure cracking. And that of course makes sense as his IMOCA60 is expected to slam into massive waves in Southern Ocean...!

image.png

Then again the height from which the bow of Patriot slammed into water yesterday may just resemble a slam of ocean-going monohull..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites