Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.1k
  • 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

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.

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?

 

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"

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 

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.

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

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.

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)

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
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

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
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.

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
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.

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

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

Agreed, but they also optimised their systems.  In the last race the oil pressure displays showed that they never built as much pressure (suggesting smaller components).  Their drive to free up hands was clear.  They also spoke a lot earlier this year about everyone having to wait until the Christmas Cup before they saw how ETNZ were going to sail TR.  When they did sail there was nothing particularly significant.

 

I reckon they've got something up their sleeves still.  They could be playing cards in those cockpits and no-one would be able to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Agreed, but they also optimised their systems.  In the last race the oil pressure displays showed that they never built as much pressure (suggesting smaller components).  Their drive to free up hands was clear.  They also spoke a lot earlier this year about everyone having to wait until the Christmas Cup before they saw how ETNZ were going to sail TR.  When they did sail there was nothing particularly significant.

 

I reckon they've got something up their sleeves still.  They could be playing cards in those cockpits and no-one would be able to see.

how can you prove that their hydro system was better optimised ? they could have had massive losses in the system

agree that their oil pressure was lower ... but your 'suggestion' of smaller components is back to front ... F=PxA ... if you reduce the pressure you need to increase the area ... larger area ... larger components, more volume of oil needed to more the same distance

the other teams pre-pumped up 1 hydro system for the board up/down and didn't require a recharge during the races ... id say that was pretty optimal. if etnz had this parallel system they could of had tuke 100% on triming as the peddlers would have all dedicated to trimming hydro

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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.

Like I mentioned, Nathan blurts out that the backstay wasn't released also, then continues commenting on it afterwards and he has plenty of AWS experience. Ken is President of the company that has supplied every AC Challenger and Defender for the last 30yrs with their sails, the last 10yrs or so of which have been Apparent Wind Foilers , so I think we should give him a little credit for knowing how they work... Note that they are not saying it wasn't released enough... but that it wasn't released at all.

I challenge anyone to watch that rounding and find a point where you can see that it is eased on the rounding. Many high performance dinghys don't have a backstay (maybe that's why the AWS sailors forget about them..)

The Italian guys that comment on the Cup sailing queried if there was a hydro method for releasing and that maybe it didn't release because they were down on power. This would seem very dangerous if you can't twist off or depower because you're out of hydro.

Not saying it is the one and only factor, but I believe it substantially reduced their chance of a successful rounding..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2021 at 2:36 PM, enigmatically2 said:

Would be fascinating to know the total power usage on each boat, and the work rate/pulse  of the grinders on each boat to compare to see what spare capacity they have. Plainly we won't get that. Best we can do is watch video and see how much each grinder seems to be working, But I don't think we have the video to do even that

Mozzy sails talk about it on U tube. I think it is their discussion about AM and comparing grinders. They even provided a figure.

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

Like I mentioned, Nathan blurts out that the backstay wasn't released also, then continues commenting on it afterwards and he has plenty of AWS experience. Ken is President of the company that has supplied every AC Challenger and Defender for the last 30yrs with their sails, the last 10yrs or so of which have been Apparent Wind Foilers , so I think we should give him a little credit for knowing how they work... Note that they are not saying it wasn't released enough... but that it wasn't released at all.

I challenge anyone to watch that rounding and find a point where you can see that it is eased on the rounding. Many high performance dinghys don't have a backstay (maybe that's why the AWS sailors forget about them..)

The Italian guys that comment on the Cup sailing queried if there was a hydro method for releasing and that maybe it didn't release because they were down on power. This would seem very dangerous if you can't twist off or depower because you're out of hydro.

Not saying it is the one and only factor, but I believe it substantially reduced their chance of a successful rounding..

@Steve Clark explained this all very well earlier.

Powered by hydro, the controls limit the range of the throw to what is 99.9% needed . Since the apparent wind is always forward of the beam, the main does not go out very  far and the runners are never eased very far.  

They don't design the boat to perform well during a capsize in much the same way that Formula 1 tires are not designed to do well in the gravel.  The designers of Formula one race cars and AC foilers design the vehicles to be as fast as possible on the track and rely on exceptional drivers to keep them on the track.   They come unstuck and its ugly.  The major difference is that Formula 1 has a back up car and has 1-2 weeks before the next race to rebuild.

It is very difficult to tack and then bear away in big pressure. Hence Goody's call for the bear away gybe.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steve Clark said:

Six pumps instead of four pumps.

SHC

But if you have two grinders on each of the four pumps, they can be larger than the six pumps with just one person for power.  if you can't get more oil out of 8 men than other can get out of 6 men, then you have scaled the pumps correctly.

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

@Steve Clark explained this all very well earlier.

Powered by hydro, the controls limit the range of the throw to what is 99.9% needed . Since the apparent wind is always forward of the beam, the main does not go out very  far and the runners are never eased very far.  

They don't design the boat to perform well during a capsize in much the same way that Formula 1 tires are not designed to do well in the gravel.  The designers of Formula one race cars and AC foilers design the vehicles to be as fast as possible on the track and rely on exceptional drivers to keep them on the track.   They come unstuck and its ugly.  The major difference is that Formula 1 has a back up car and has 1-2 weeks before the next race to rebuild.

It is very difficult to tack and then bear away in big pressure. Hence Goody's call for the bear away gybe.

Agree with your and Steve's comment, I guess the point is around "the runner not being eased very far" to the runner not being eased at all.

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

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.

Yes.. that little gem from him was just after INEOS launched.

 

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

Slow news day and click baity headline 

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

But if you have two grinders on each of the four pumps, they can be larger than the six pumps with just one person for power.  if you can't get more oil out of 8 men than other can get out of 6 men, then you have scaled the pumps correctly.

Question is do you need to get more oil than 6 can provide? And if your 6 are bigger fitter and better than their 8 and using a more efficient set up then it’s a one way discussion

there was an Instagram story that showed one of INEOS on a 20min grind test he averaged over 400w and the last 30 seconds was up at 475w. That suggests a significantly higher number could be produced in a burst in light wind to build pressure to pump the rig quickly 

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

Question is do you need to get more oil than 6 can provide? And if your 6 are bigger fitter and better than their 8 and using a more efficient set up then it’s a one way discussion

there was an Instagram story that showed one of INEOS on a 20min grind test he averaged over 400w and the last 30 seconds was up at 475w. That suggests a significantly higher number could be produced in a burst in light wind to build pressure to pump the rig quickly 

That does not make sense.  If you can find 6 bigger, stronger grinders, then get 8 of them.  Grinders do not grow bigger and stronger in the UK then any place else in the world.  If you only need 6 to produce enough oil, then all of the teams will only use 6.  Grinders and winches have been around for a long time, it is not a new technology.   If UK has decided that they can get along with only 6 grinders, then that’s fine, but I doubt that they have discovered some amazing new technology that none of the other teams can’t figure out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

So, reading some above posts it seems that AM has two possibilities: allow a longer ease of the runners or avoid tack + bear away in strong winds. Let's hope to see that soon.

I don't know about the other teams.

I'm still not convinced that either the backstay or the rudder losing control were the sole reasons for the capsize. Both just before and after the bearaway they looked to have control of the boat, despite the heel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sea Breeze 74 said:

Yep, a slow news day

 

biden.jpg

Am not that big a fan of how ‘military’ the ceremony pageantry was but overall it was a very decently-done inauguration and several spoke (and some sang) beautifully. Go USA! 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MaxHugen said:

I'm still not convinced that either the backstay or the rudder losing control were the sole reasons for the capsize. Both just before and after the bearaway they looked to have control of the boat, despite the heel.

Yes, but the heel was caused by more power than RM, so either they did not ease the sail enough or they did not bear away fast enough.

However, when the see the nice circle of the wake I don't think they could have made a shorter turn, they only remains 1) opening the sail or 2) having a short straight line after the tack to gain speed and bear away quickly, IMO.

It will be interesting to see how they proceed next time, and I don't think we will be alone to watch !

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Yes, but the heel was caused by more power than RM, so either they did not ease the sail enough or they did not bear away fast enough.

However, when the see the nice circle of the wake I don't think they could have made a shorter turn, they only remains 1) opening the sail or 2) having a short straight line after the tack to gain speed and bear away quickly, IMO.

It will be interesting to see how they proceed next time, and I don't think we will be alone to watch !

Yep, considering that they still had control well after rounding the mark, picking up a bit more speed before the bearaway might have made all the difference. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. :D

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

Any guesses about what’s going on in this photo? 

I don't know... but it doesn't look like the "Battery Gate" hole location...?!

One of the laminators does look like Jesse Pinkman, so I'm guessing they are glassing in the payload on the newly purposed fast drug runner.
Apparently the Trump Cartel needs a new income stream to feed Ivanka's Prada habit and The Donald being refused Legal Aid..

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

Any guesses about what’s going on in this photo? 

Making a mold for the replacement of the delaminated section forward of the foil mounts

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

That does not make sense.  If you can find 6 bigger, stronger grinders, then get 8 of them.  Grinders do not grow bigger and stronger in the UK then any place else in the world.  If you only need 6 to produce enough oil, then all of the teams will only use 6.  Grinders and winches have been around for a long time, it is not a new technology.   If UK has decided that they can get along with only 6 grinders, then that’s fine, but I doubt that they have discovered some amazing new technology that none of the other teams can’t figure out.

I'd linked to another article about this a couple of days ago.

https://www.seahorsemagazine.com/161-content/november-2020/967-life-at-80-rpm

 

INEOS actually does have new grinder tech.

I know from personal experience that I can grind far more efficiently, by myself, in my preferred direction, at my preferred RPM. When big power is needed, then 2up.  But since they are moving oil. I could easily see 6 grinder stations operating at max efficiency out performing 4 grinder stations being driven by 8.

Also, if you watch AM, their grinders seem notchy.  I dont know how else to describe it.  Lots of start/stop sequences and lots of exertion required to get the handles moving again. The stops aren't long enough to be breaks.

 

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

image.png.3939fa555937e451294210a8dbe420a5.png

Looks like rolling dough for cookies. Either that or repairing the hull. Hard to tell.

Looks like there is a whole other team of laminators on the other side of the mirror or is that a pigment of my imagination?  Kind of inside outy.

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

Ouch, painful. Hammer and rusty chisel vs high-tech carbon composite... There weren't enough holes on the boat?

Well, at least I can say now that tools I use are on same level as ones used by Americas Cup teams.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

That does not make sense.  If you can find 6 bigger, stronger grinders, then get 8 of them.  Grinders do not grow bigger and stronger in the UK then any place else in the world.  If you only need 6 to produce enough oil, then all of the teams will only use 6.  Grinders and winches have been around for a long time, it is not a new technology.   If UK has decided that they can get along with only 6 grinders, then that’s fine, but I doubt that they have discovered some amazing new technology that none of the other teams can’t figure out.

There's some other footage featuring manifolds and hydraulics 

 

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

I'd linked to another article about this a couple of days ago.

https://www.seahorsemagazine.com/161-content/november-2020/967-life-at-80-rpm

 

INEOS actually does have new grinder tech.

I know from personal experience that I can grind far more efficiently, by myself, in my preferred direction, at my preferred RPM. When big power is needed, then 2up.  But since they are moving oil. I could easily see 6 grinder stations operating at max efficiency out performing 4 grinder stations being driven by 8.

Also, if you watch AM, their grinders seem notchy.  I dont know how else to describe it.  Lots of start/stop sequences and lots of exertion required to get the handles moving again. The stops aren't long enough to be breaks.

 

Honda have been refining their DCT since 2009

 

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

Honda have been refining their DCT since 2009

 

I'm pretty sure it's not a dual clutch.  It sounds like the Harken is similar to a traditional motorcycle clutch,  actuated by electronics instead of a cable. 

The Dual in the one version of the Harken relates to the 2nd (Overdrive) gear.  Not a dual clutch.

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

That does not make sense.  If you can find 6 bigger, stronger grinders, then get 8 of them.  Grinders do not grow bigger and stronger in the UK then any place else in the world.  If you only need 6 to produce enough oil, then all of the teams will only use 6.  Grinders and winches have been around for a long time, it is not a new technology.   If UK has decided that they can get along with only 6 grinders, then that’s fine, but I doubt that they have discovered some amazing new technology that none of the other teams can’t figure out.

It makes sense when there is a Max weight limit for the crew. 

but ok INEOS Have it all wrong, struggling for hydro through all the races and have inefficient grinding pedestals and positions.. 

Does that suit you? 

I wonder if Luca Devoti had it wrong too? An article on farevela discussing their set up. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Indio said:

They're all rubbing the butts against the wall!! WTF do you think they're doing??

They're consolidators , they get the air out and make sure the resin is all the way into the cloth.  that looks like theyre making a mould to be to takeaway and make a bigger piece 

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

They're consolidators , they get the air out and make sure the resin is all the way into the cloth.  that looks like theyre making a mould to be to takeaway and make a bigger piece 

Yes I buy that, I would even go further and say that it is just a choppy splash. The colour looks that way, the strands of glass on the laminators gloves, the guy wearing the mask to help against styrene etc.

Certainly not carbon fibre.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Delaminated?

Isn't that a bit of an understatement?

I think its one of those irregular verbs

My boat underwent a non-linear unintended reformation event

Your boat suffered some delamination

His boat got a bloody big hole

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night I rewatched the light airs race between AM and UK from the stern cameras. You do learn more about the boats from those views. One thing that I found interesting was that it was easier to pick up mistakes that the British crew made. The reason was because of the good aspects of the UK crew that everyone has talked about. They are so clear about what they are intending that when there is a mistake or it doesn't work you can tell. With the AM crew there is more of an aimless discussion so when they then do something you aren't really sure whether it was what they agreed or not. The Brits are far more concise and clear. Great to see.

One thing I found surprising on the UK boat was how little they seemed to adjust this magical new outhaul/inhaul. When they were tryin to get back up on the foils I was expecting them to power up the main but it stayed fairly flat all the way through. When foiling I would have expected it to be that flat, whereas from what I have seen of the NZ boat their main is always deeper, which seems to be right for getting up on the foils, but not getting max VMG when on there.

 

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

^ Painting out the graffiti? Didn't it say, "Make America Great Again", or some such madman ramblings.

Make America Float Again

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Any guesses about what’s going on in this photo? 

Dunno but it looks like Pete Burling's got himself in there helping again

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Last night I rewatched the light airs race between AM and UK from the stern cameras. You do learn more about the boats from those views. One thing that I found interesting was that it was easier to pick up mistakes that the British crew made. The reason was because of the good aspects of the UK crew that everyone has talked about. They are so clear about what they are intending that when there is a mistake or it doesn't work you can tell. With the AM crew there is more of an aimless discussion so when they then do something you aren't really sure whether it was what they agreed or not. The Brits are far more concise and clear. Great to see.

One thing I found surprising on the UK boat was how little they seemed to adjust this magical new outhaul/inhaul. When they were tryin to get back up on the foils I was expecting them to power up the main but it stayed fairly flat all the way through. When foiling I would have expected it to be that flat, whereas from what I have seen of the NZ boat their main is always deeper, which seems to be right for getting up on the foils, but not getting max VMG when on there.

 

Agreed the side by side aft camera views are best to see the difference in crewing, trimming and flight control. I bet rival teams are heavily into studying the opposition techniques. 

You can see how and when the helm changes, with the audio "my wheel" occasionally. How quickly the boat is turned, the timing and the speed of the FCS up and down, the jib tack and set, the traveller movement, the twin skins of the main adjustment and of course the difference in the trim of the foot of the main with and without booms - and how messy (AM) and effective the foot of the sail is in sealing to the deck. 

 

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

 

You can see how and when the helm changes, with the audio "my wheel" occasionally. 

 

That was one of the areas  that GB are so clearly much better IMO. Every time they tack there is a clear pattern of "my trim", "my wheel" etc. Really crisp, concise and precise. AM wasn't anywhere near as clear

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, waterboy42 said:

Like I mentioned, Nathan blurts out that the backstay wasn't released also, then continues commenting on it afterwards and he has plenty of AWS experience. Ken is President of the company that has supplied every AC Challenger and Defender for the last 30yrs with their sails, the last 10yrs or so of which have been Apparent Wind Foilers , so I think we should give him a little credit for knowing how they work... Note that they are not saying it wasn't released enough... but that it wasn't released at all.

I challenge anyone to watch that rounding and find a point where you can see that it is eased on the rounding. Many high performance dinghys don't have a backstay (maybe that's why the AWS sailors forget about them..)

The Italian guys that comment on the Cup sailing queried if there was a hydro method for releasing and that maybe it didn't release because they were down on power. This would seem very dangerous if you can't twist off or depower because you're out of hydro.

Not saying it is the one and only factor, but I believe it substantially reduced their chance of a successful rounding..

The problem with that theory is that hydraulics work the opposite way. It doesn’t require hydraulic pressure to ease the runners. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

That does not make sense.  If you can find 6 bigger, stronger grinders, then get 8 of them.  Grinders do not grow bigger and stronger in the UK then any place else in the world.  If you only need 6 to produce enough oil, then all of the teams will only use 6.  Grinders and winches have been around for a long time, it is not a new technology.   If UK has decided that they can get along with only 6 grinders, then that’s fine, but I doubt that they have discovered some amazing new technology that none of the other teams can’t figure out.

It could be a matter of how you train your grinders. Do you train them for short bursts on intensity or train them for continues grinding? 1500m race vers 400m race sort of thing.

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

It makes sense when there is a Max weight limit for the crew. 

but ok INEOS Have it all wrong, struggling for hydro through all the races and have inefficient grinding pedestals and positions.. 

Does that suit you? 

I wonder if Luca Devoti had it wrong too? An article on farevela discussing their set up. 

Do you have the link?

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

That was one of the areas  that GB are so clearly much better IMO. Every time they tack there is a clear pattern of "my trim", "my wheel" etc. Really crisp, concise and precise. AM wasn't anywhere near as clear

They are into doing "drills". Stays in the brain and the muscles. Drills take out you having to think about it. Which means you can use the ram to be thinking about other stuff.

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

Those AM boys should slow down a bit or the Italians will protest them for working too hard!!B)

So they had the circular rough service multi-pin connectors and then completely defeated any sealing properties by running additional cables through rubber grommets.  And the electronics aren't potted.  No wonder the dunking killed the FCS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites