Jump to content

AC36 CLASS RULE


barfy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 834
  • Created
  • Last Reply
25 minutes ago, Xlot said:

Who are they?

 

Probably SARDIANS .. :D 

Don’t know either but I posted one of their videos a month or two back. It was in Italian and you posted a short synopsis in response.

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

but @mfluder  , @Indio and other fanboy retards will say that this is perfectly fine hey

If it turns the boat from a finicky lemon thats hard to get up on foils into something that performs well then its probably a good change no? :huh:

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

Don’t know either but I posted one of their videos a month or two back. It was in Italian and you posted a short synopsis in response.

Ouch ... dotage approaching fast :(  Now that you mention it I vaguely recall, it wasn’t anything as interesting as this. FWIW, the two guys are from Quantum Sails Italy.

The date of the alleged amendment is also relevant: if it was after June 29, unanimous consent was required - the boat’s stability must be really critical ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They also comment that feedback systems will be allowed from the foils and flaps. Perhaps to detect when ventilation conditions are forming and avoid it?

I think allowing downforce will significantly change the foil design, perhaps to something more asymmetric? How much extra strength will be required in the hull and rig, and hence extra weight? Maybe the rig is the failsafe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hoom said:

If it turns the boat from a finicky lemon thats hard to get up on foils into something that performs well then its probably a good change no? :huh:

yeah well scaling down the ac62 was a good change but didn't dtop them from talking shit

only difference is that it's a team they like that's making the changes

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, inebriated said:

but @mfluder  , @Indio and other fanboy retards will say that this is perfectly fine hey

wahoo

 

Depends why the rules are being changed. If the change is for a good reason, thats fine. If its just for some selfish reason because they have to scramble to change direction because the challengers have come up with something better (like it has in the past) than I would certainly have a problem with that. So far, that hasn't happened.

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

yeah well scaling down the ac62 was a good change but didn't dtop them from talking shit

only difference is that it's a team they like that's making the changes

You conveniently fail to mention the little clause stating that the rule couldn't be changed without unanimous consent - the basis on which they entered

But spin it your way......if you are lucky no one will notice.

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

Depends why the rules are being changed. If the change is for a good reason, thats fine. If its just for some selfish reason because they have to scramble to change direction because the challengers have come up with something better (like it has in the past) than I would certainly have a problem with that. So far, that hasn't happened.

yeah, i agree with you

the sclae down changed nothing but the scale of the boats though

not changing any control system ruling or anything

clear to see that whatever auto flight that luna rossa supposedly invented worked very well on an ac50

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

the sclae down changed nothing but the scale of the boats though

not changing any control system ruling or anything

It was a year after the rule was initially released, completely changed from a box hull form & cross-structure to completely one-design shape for wing, cross-structure & hulls.

LR had been well advanced on their design program (from recollection nearly ready to start building?) & reasonably objected to the complete trashing of that effort/$$$ being imposed on them even while they were CoR.

It was a late very significant change pushed through against the objection of two of the strongest teams.

 

This change is close to rule release & a fairly minor tweak (small change to rule wording, could have been a big deal if teams were well down the design program), not seen any sign of teams objecting to it.

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

yeah, i agree with you

the sclae down changed nothing but the scale of the boats though

not changing any control system ruling or anything

clear to see that whatever auto flight that luna rossa supposedly invented worked very well on an ac50

These are Americas Cup boats, not day cruisers. If you scale it down, loads change, therefor appendages change, therefor control systems change. 

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

This change is close to rule release & a fairly minor tweak (small change to rule wording, could have been a big deal if teams were well down the design program), not seen any sign of teams objecting to it.

Agree, although image-wise it's a bit of a black eye for the technical guys. And again, IF the amendment was signed off after June 29, all teams have got to concur

Odd nobody else’s talking about this 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Why odd?

There seems to have been consultation right through, even when decisions were solely at the discretion of the COR/D. There was a bit of 'We haven't been included' from IBAR early on, but it has been (publicly) harmony and brotherhood ever since - regardless one shocking iniquity after another being pointed out here :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

from https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2018/07/19/looking-future-will/

Shirley Robertson, at the TP52 Worlds in her role as host for the CNN Mainsail Show, asked America’s Cup winning skipper Jimmy Spithill about the new boat for the next America’s Cup:

“This one will be another level. It’s extreme, it’s expensive, from first take, and what we are seeing, it’s unstable, and it’s going to very, very physical. Will it work? That’s the question. The America’s Cup has always been at the leading edge of boats. Look at what’s happened over the last decade. The AC72 kind of reminds me of this boat in that it is very, very powerful and never been done before. The speeds we could have… it’ll be a beast of a boat. It’s out there.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be realistic - this is a radical, huge boat using foiling technology in a new way, married to a (relatively) new rig that has also never been tried on this scale. In terms of being outside the norm, ETNZ have gone even further than the AC72s, and the quasi 'soft' sail further complicates things from a predictability standpoint. So it makes total sense that the design rule will evolve as unforeseen issues arise - especially with regards to flight stability, which directly translates to safety. Nobody wants to see a repeat of AC34 where a sailor lost his life. 

So I'm totally fine with whatever changes they feel they need to make, just like I was totally fine with the changes to the rudder stabilizers after the Artemis accident. It's just common sense.

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

The speeds we could have it’ll be a beast of a boat. It’s out there.

Sounds quicker than an AC50...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Change could have been due to the complexity of the foilcontrol system monitoring down force,and what it would do if it detects it.

With the enormous rm these boats will generate as discussed in the Qa's,

It will probably be counter productive to use down force in straight line due to extra drag. Very useful in manoeuvres and getting up and onto one foil

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

Is there any chance that we'll see a smaller proof of concept anytime soon?

It should come first from the brits, this summer, perhaps within a few weeks, but not sure they want to publicize any result.

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

Is there any chance that we'll see a smaller proof of concept anytime soon?

Last month in the 'what would it look like' thread

Nobody posted pics in the water yet though which is a shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Well, we know it's a question of drag, so surely not when the ww foil is in the water :)

Not necessarily. Having the windward foil generating downforce changes the equation, it may well allow an increase in power that is usefully greater than the increase in drag. Or not… wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RobG said:

Not necessarily. Having the windward foil generating downforce changes the equation, it may well allow an increase in power that is usefully greater than the increase in drag. Or not… wait and see.

Perhaps but these boats are more limited by excess of drag more than lack of energy, and it will be terribly dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 2:48 PM, Tornado-Cat said:

It should come first from the brits, this summer, perhaps within a few weeks, but not sure they want to publicize any result.

Wouldn't it be funny if the computer simulations were wrong and the concept doesn't work?  After all, smart people make mistakes...

https://www.wired.com/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

… [using the windward foil for downforce to increase speed] will be terribly dangerous.

I don't disagree with that, but the extreme high performance end of sailing is already pretty dangerous—newbies aren't welcome on a Volvo going Cape Town to Sydney or Auckland to Itaji. Speeds are getting higher and margins thinner.

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

I don't disagree with that, but the extreme high performance end of sailing is already pretty dangerous—newbies aren't welcome on a Volvo going Cape Town to Sydney or Auckland to Itaji. Speeds are getting higher and margins thinner.

We have a boat that may capsize in 6 kts of wind in archimedian mode because it has no keel, to windward while foiling because of the ballasted foil, and pitchpoling when the ww foil gets out of water. Not sure a good computer can manage all that, w'll have fun :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

We have a boat that may capsize in 6 kts of wind in archimedian mode because it has no keel, to windward while foiling because of the ballasted foil, and pitchpoling when the ww foil gets out of water. Not sure a good computer can manage all that, w'll have fun :)

Maybe in the hands of an amateur (which I guess you'd know all about)?

Seriously your scaremongering about the boat is eerily familiar to your scaremongering about ETNZ in the lead up to Bermuda... doesn't it get tiresome being so negative and wrong all the time, or is it worth it in order to take a crack at a team you don't like?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

We have a boat that may capsize in 6 kts of wind in archimedian mode because it has no keel, to windward while foiling because of the ballasted foil, and pitchpoling when the ww foil gets out of water. Not sure a good computer can manage all that, w'll have fun :)

We have a boat that just may out perform the AC50. Thats what you're really afraid of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

Maybe in the hands of an amateur (which I guess you'd know all about)?

Seriously your scaremongering about the boat is eerily familiar to your scaremongering about ETNZ in the lead up to Bermuda... doesn't it get tiresome being so negative and wrong all the time, or is it worth it in order to take a crack at a team you don't like?

Ah ah, I don't speak of the team here, I speak of the boat, and I hope it will be great.

If you remembrer my predictions about flexy OR 1 I was, sadly, spot on.

Your rebuttal is so baseless that I don't think you even sail. This is discussion is about a boat, not supposed to be a fan diatribe. Any more serious arguments ? or ad hominem ?

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

Your rebuttal is so baseless that I don't think you even sail. This is discussion is about a boat, not supposed to be a fan diatribe. Any more serious arguments ? or ad hominem ?

In archimedian mode the foils are low CoG heavy mass - so the assertion that there is no keel is baseless - unless you are suggesting the transition period happens at 6knots and the risk of capsize happens during this transition?

Pitch-polling a mono in general is highly unlikely... I could explain why, but you already know, because I do believe you do sail

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

In archimedian mode the foils are low CoG heavy mass - so the assertion that there is no keel is baseless - unless you are suggesting the transition period happens at 6knots and the risk of capsize happens during this transition?

Pitch-polling a mono in general is highly unlikely... I could explain why, but you already know, because I do believe you do sail

Foils are not a heavy mass when down, but ballasted and up.

And yes, monohulls also happen to pitch pole

 

maxresdefault.jpg

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

Foils are not a heavy mass when down, but ballasted and up.

And yes, monohulls also happen to pitch pole

 

maxresdefault.jpg

I stand by my first statement - These foils are heavily ballasted, their mass doesn't change (of course), but when down they provide a significant CoG under the boat like a keel...

I stand by my second statement too - "Pitch-polling a mono in general is highly unlikely" - certainly less likely than an AC50 or similar cat going down a mine..

We haven't got onto self-righting yet either...

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

Pretty sure these things are going to crash from time to time but comparing the dynamics with a spinnaker driven non-foiling mono - come on!

If an AC75 has a ventilation drop at 50kn downwind it may not fully pitch pole, but it will come to a very sudden stop. 

A spinnaker is only relevant in that it's necessary for large non–foilers to reach speeds where pitch poles occur. Non–foiling Moths certainly don't need them any more than the foilers do (in order to pitchpole), and most skiffs (12 to 18 footers) will pitchpole more easily in strong conditions when gybing without a spinnaker than with one, the mainsail alone is more than sufficient to stuff the bow in. A spinnaker actually helps to keep the bow up.

But the AC75s will not sail in conditions where Moth–like ventilation of the main foil is likely to occur. It might occur for other reasons though.

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

Pretty sure these things are going to crash from time to time but comparing the dynamics with a spinnaker driven non-foiling mono - come on!

Can you find a photo of an actual mono going at 40 kts stopping in a fraction of a second ? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 3:23 PM, rh2600 said:

Sounds awesome! Tiddlywinks is the next door down ;-)

Looking at the UK test boat and seeing how far the foils stick out past the side of the hull when deployed down, and then imagining how far they will stick out past the hull when in the "up" position, it appears clear none of the JC75's will be within 10 feet of each other when racing.  What is awesome about that? 

At least with the foiling multi-hulls teams could go for a hook in a pre-start to get a penalty or get aggressive at turning marks.  It appears, based on the UK test boat, any of that type of stuff will be impossible in a JC75.  More of that aspect of match racing was why I wanted to see the AC back in mono-hulls.  So long as the JC75 is apart of the AC that aspect of AC racing could be lost forever.  The exact opposite of awesome, IMO.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

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

Looking at the UK test boat and seeing how far the foils stick out past the side of the hull when deployed down, and then imagining how far they will stick out past the hull when in the "up" position, it appears clear none of the JC75's will be within 10 feet of each other when racing.  What is awesome about that? 

At least with the foiling multi-hulls teams could go for a hook in a pre-start to get a penalty or get aggressive at turning marks.  It appears, based on the UK test boat, any of that type of stuff will be impossible in a JC75.  More of that aspect of match racing was why I wanted to see the AC back in mono-hulls.  So long as the JC75 is apart of the AC that aspect of AC racing could be lost forever.  The exact opposite of awesome, IMO.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Except nothing on that boat is in proportion to the AC75.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

Except nothing on that boat is in proportion to the AC75.

True but close enough, right? :lol:

Close enough to demonstrate in real life what the cartoons have shown since the JC75 was first introduced.  That two JC75's match racing won't be able to get within feet of each other making close quarters match racing tactics impossible.   

Do you disagree?

WetHog  :ph34r:

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

True but close enough, right? :lol:

Close enough to demonstrate in real life what the cartoons have shown since the JC75 was first introduced.  That two JC75's match racing won't be able to get within feet of each other making close quarters match racing tactics impossible.   

Do you disagree?

WetHog  :ph34r:

I agree that on some points they will not be able to get as physically close as the hulls on AC50s and previous monos... but the pressure created from coming in to close quarters (no matter what the physical distance may be in some cases) is what makes things interesting - dial downs, luffing etc - this has all be explained how it will happen in this AC (the diamond). It has never had anything to do with contact. In fact, if we could remove all contact from the sport, but keep the pressure games at a max then we'd have the best of both worlds. This new approach might even increase the chance of pressure moments, because they can happen earlier without the risk of contact.

Not sure what 'cartoons' you are referring to, I've only seen the 3d model animations from a couple of the teams...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rh2600 said:

I agree that on some points they will not be able to get as physically close as the hulls on AC50s and previous monos... but the pressure created from coming in to close quarters (no matter what the physical distance may be in some cases) is what makes things interesting - dial downs, luffing etc - this has all be explained how it will happen in this AC (the diamond). It has never had anything to do with contact. In fact, if we could remove all contact from the sport, but keep the pressure games at a max then we'd have the best of both worlds. This new approach might even increase the chance of pressure moments, because they can happen earlier without the risk of contact.

Not sure what 'cartoons' you are referring to, I've only seen the 3d model animations from a couple of the teams...

Cartoons is reference to the animations released of the JC75 in action.  And cartoons are animations.  

Contact is not what I want to see, but a boat luffing another boat that is 10+ feet away isn’t what I want to see either.  Also, a dial up between 2 boats in the pre-start that are 10+ feet part is not desirable either.  

What is desirable is the on board shots at the aft end of one boat with an after guard yelling at a bowman on the opposing boat that is a couple feet away.  Or Ainsle chirping at Deano and friends spitting distance away after a successful hook in San Francisco.  Match racing tactics average sailors can relate to.

WetHog  :ph34r:

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

Cartoons is reference to the animations released of the JC75 in action.  And cartoons are animations.  

Contact is not what I want to see, but a boat luffing another boat that is 10+ feet away isn’t what I want to see either.  Also, a dial up between 2 boats in the pre-start that are 10+ feet part is not desirable either.  

What is desirable is the on board shots at the aft end of one boat with an after guard yelling at a bowman on the opposing boat that is a couple feet away.  Or Ainsle chirping at Deano and friends spitting distance away after a successful hook in San Francisco.  Match racing tactics average sailors can relate to.

WetHog  :ph34r:

How is Jimmy properly supposed to see Pete waving from 20 feet away!

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

Cartoons is reference to the animations released of the JC75 in action.  And cartoons are animations.  

Contact is not what I want to see, but a boat luffing another boat that is 10+ feet away isn’t what I want to see either.  Also, a dial up between 2 boats in the pre-start that are 10+ feet part is not desirable either.  

What is desirable is the on board shots at the aft end of one boat with an after guard yelling at a bowman on the opposing boat that is a couple feet away.  Or Ainsle chirping at Deano and friends spitting distance away after a successful hook in San Francisco.  Match racing tactics average sailors can relate to.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Where does 10+ feet come from?

Cartoons are animations, but not all animations are cartoons...

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

 Match racing tactics average sailors can relate to.

WetHog  :ph34r:

:lol:

Back to the 12s for you then.

In case you missed it last time, it's the entirely 'non-average' speed that's the issue here, with or without the filleting knives.

The jogging speed start tactics you describe are just a fraction of the overall picture that needs to be considered.

No one, crew, umpires or commentators knew what was what when these boats approached each other at 70kt closing speeds. Throw in a mark and it was even more chaotic and random. Sorry but there's nothing 'average club-racer' about those situations - there was a subtle clue in fact - they raced under completely different rules! :o

If you are suggesting that penalties should only be decided based on the paint scrapped off.......well as I say, the only way that can be safe and sustainable is if you max out at 12kts.

So the solution, as in AC35, are 'virtual topsides' that you can rub up against, without the carnage - hopefully. Wake up and smell the coffee......

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Where does 10+ feet come from?

Cartoons are animations, but not all animations are cartoons...

2d2afc.jpg

Again, not great at judging distances from a picture but from the edge of the port side of the hull to the tip of the outboard foil end looks more than 5 ft so I went with 10.  And I just tried to get dimensions from the Class rule but reading that crap makes my eyes gloss over so I'll stick with my guess of a 10 foot buffer until someone can show its less than that.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nav said:

:lol:

Back to the 12s for you then.

In case you missed it last time, it's the entirely 'non-average' speed that's the issue here, with or without the filleting knives.

The jogging speed start tactics you describe are just a fraction of the overall picture that needs to be considered.

No one, crew, umpires or commentators knew what was what when these boats approached each other at 70kt closing speeds. Throw in a mark and it was even more chaotic and random. Sorry but there's nothing 'average club-racer' about those situations - there was a subtle clue in fact - they raced under completely different rules! :o

If you are suggesting that penalties should only be decided based on the paint scrapped off.......well as I say, the only way that can be safe and sustainable is if you max out at 12kts.

So the solution, as in AC35, are 'virtual topsides' that you can rub up against, without the carnage - hopefully. Wake up and smell the coffee......

I understand why you only quoted one sentence from my post because you clearly didn't read it in its entirety.

And I assume the different rules you refer to that was sailed under is in reference to the AC72/AC50's.  What does that have to do with the JC75?  The mono-hull boat GD claimed would get the AC back to what average sailors can relate to?

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little over 11 years ago this race took place.  The excitement I felt watching the pre start of this race as it happened is what I've missed most since the AC went foiling.

 

The memory of this pre start had me hoping ETNZ would win AC35 so they would finally take the Cup back to mono-hulls.  Heck, the entire finals of AC32 was exciting, especially the end of Race 7.  GD not keeping his word has been a bitter disappointment.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mfluder said:

 

On 3/11/2018 at 12:15 AM, RobG said:

 that's awesome.

Looks like under ten kt, only one white cap, beam reach...+20 two weeks into the program.single sided main.

Must be Photoshop

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hoom said:

Well its a start.

Question remains how much effort it was to get up there & what angles they can  hold it at.

Not sure how much effort it took to get up there, but it certainly looked as if it didn't require too much effort to stay there. And it foiled straight outta the box! the AC72 can't say that! 

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

And it foiled straight outta the box! the AC72 can't say that! 

We have no idea how much button pushing/auto-pilot was going on there.

And from recollection it was only about 2wks post launch till we saw the Flying Tractor foiling, these guys are 1mth in.

 

Anyone seen/heard anything about teams objecting to the righting moment rule change?

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

Was there really a doubt the concept would work?  Ok maybe in light winds there are some doubts.  Anyway, the crew associated with ETNZ are not dummies.  Neither are the crew with LR.  They wouldn't have put out a boat that they weren't confident would work.

Its cool to see the concept in practice, but then I can't help but notice that port foil above the water as the boat flies by.  Forget JC75, that thing is more like a GR75.  Grim Reaper 75.

168g2ur.jpg

Confirms my concerns.  There will have to be a mandatory buffer between boats when racing at all times.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You were the chief one whining about the concept lately - now it's all "I told you so!" Seriously? :lol:

Oh and are they really going to have a virtual diamond around each boat? - welcome to three months ago Wetness. I think I even explained all that again yesterday - because you'd missed it the first 6 times it came up. Zzzzzzzz

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

^ You were the chief one whining about the concept lately - now it's all "I told you so!" Seriously? :lol:

Oh and are they really going to have a virtual diamond around each boat? - welcome to three months ago Wetness. I think I even explained all that again yesterday - because you'd missed it the first 6 times it came up. Zzzzzzzz

I"ve been whining about the perceived necessity that the boats will have to have artificial halo's around them because of the danger posed by the lifting foils when said foils are out of the water.  Seeing the Brit's baby boat in action it confirmed my concerns.  Whats the problem with that?  Its the same type of incessant whining you Kiwi fans did throughout AC35 OR and friends changing the boat rule after it was announced (which it sounds like ETNZ/LR might do the exact same thing).  Accept my reason for whining has validity.  

Look, the Brit's baby boat is cool looking and it looks pretty darn fast.  It also looks just like an AC50 in action.  The point I have been trying to make since the GR75 concept came out is if speed and foiling is necessary why not keep the AC50 concept?  Its a better platform for foiling, its a better platform for match racing (no razor sharp foils hanging out past the platform above the water) and more teams would of joined AC36 as a result.  It appears to me the only reason the GR75 was created was to appease the COR who gave a bunch of money and tech to ETNZ to help win the Cup.  The GR75 will have similar performance to an AC50, will not be a better match racing platform than an AC50 (because of the razor sharp foils hanging out past the platform above the water), will cost a lot more money to design and build than an AC50 and as a result will attract less Challengers to AC36.  And no Kiwi fan boys, you included Nav, have been able to prove otherwise.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

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

I"ve been whining about the perceived necessity that the boats will have to have artificial halo's around them because of the danger posed by the lifting foils when said foils are out of the water.  Seeing the Brit's baby boat in action it confirmed my concerns.  Whats the problem with that?  Its the same type of incessant whining you Kiwi fans did throughout AC35 OR and friends changing the boat rule after it was announced (which it sounds like ETNZ/LR might do the exact same thing).  Accept my reason for whining has validity.  

Look, the Brit's baby boat is cool looking and it looks pretty darn fast.  It also looks just like an AC50 in action.  The point I have been trying to make since the GR75 concept came out is if speed and foiling is necessary why not keep the AC50 concept?  Its a better platform for foiling, its a better platform for match racing (no razor sharp foils hanging out past the platform above the water) and more teams would of joined AC36 as a result.  It appears to me the only reason the GR75 was created was to appease the COR who gave a bunch of money and tech to ETNZ to help win the Cup.  The GR75 will have similar performance to an AC50, will not be a better match racing platform than an AC50 (because of the razor sharp foils hanging out past the platform above the water), will cost a lot more money to design and build than an AC50 and as a result will attract less Challengers to AC36.  And no Kiwi fan boys, you included Nav, have been able to prove otherwise.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

If you were GD, why would you keep the AC50? That would simply nullify all the years of design and money you just put into winning the the Cup. Why contest the Cup if you're not going to do what you want with it? 

Whos to say its not going to be as exciting as the AC50 for match racing? I remember when a lot of people were saying the AC50's, or multihulls in general weren't going to be conducive to match racing, and they clearly were. So who's to say the AC75 won't prove to be the same?

As for "Razor sharp foil" The AC50's had razor sharp foils also and had potential to do serious harm if someone was struck after falling overboard. Whether above or below the water, foils inherently are dangerous. You just have to be able to mitigate that danger as much as possible, hence the "Diamonds". 

As for being expensive, in reality in the Americas Cup, it doesn't matter what kind of boat is used. Teams will spend WHATEVER they feel is necessary to win the thing so that makes every boat, every campaign expensive no matter what, the AC50 was no different.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mfluder said:

If you were GD, why would you keep the AC50? That would simply nullify all the years of design and money you just put into winning the the Cup. Why contest the Cup if you're not going to do what you want with it? 

Whos to say its not going to be as exciting as the AC50 for match racing? I remember when a lot of people were saying the AC50's, or multihulls in general weren't going to be conducive to match racing, and they clearly were. So who's to say the AC75 won't prove to be the same?

As for "Razor sharp foil" The AC50's had razor sharp foils also and had potential to do serious harm if someone was struck after falling overboard. Whether above or below the water, foils inherently are dangerous. You just have to be able to mitigate that danger as much as possible, hence the "Diamonds". 

As for being expensive, in reality in the Americas Cup, it doesn't matter what kind of boat is used. Teams will spend WHATEVER they feel is necessary to win the thing so that makes every boat, every campaign expensive no matter what, the AC50 was no different.

 

I didn't say the AC50 were exciting for match racing, just said they are better suited for match racing than the GR75 appears to be.  There is a difference.  A boat design exciting for match racing won't need a safety halo around turning marks (like the AC50's needed and the GR75's will need) or safety halo's around the boats themselves (like the GR75 will need).  

In regards to the comparison of the razor sharp foils on an AC50 and the GR75, there is a huge difference between needing to fall over board to get sliced up by a razor sharp foil and being at risk to be sliced up by a razor sharp falling overboard AND going about your job on the deck of the boat.

Finally expense, yes teams with money will spend no matter what but that isn't the issue I am referring to.  The issue is simply getting teams to Challenge in the first place.  If the AC50 was retained for the this cycle there would of been at least one team (Artemis) from the previous cycle who would of continued and valuable AC35 built AC50's available for new teams to buy to jump start their AC36 campaigns.  Instead we have a brand new boat concept and all teams must start from scratch in regards to their boat program.  As a result GD has embraced the Russell Coutts idea of offering a design package to buy to attract more Challengers. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

WH I think it's a bit early to come to conclusions as to match racing. FWIW Team Frackers surrogate looks pretty nimble.

As to whether there would have been more teams in the AC50s, there's little doubt that would have been so. Nevertheless I think the 75s will be good for shits and giggles and I am looking forward to it. It's just a bummer that there are no teams in which I can emotionally invest.

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

WH I think it's a bit early to come to conclusions as to match racing. FWIW Team Frackers surrogate looks pretty nimble.

As to whether there would have been more teams in the AC50s, there's little doubt that would have been so. Nevertheless I think the 75s will be good for shits and giggles and I am looking forward to it. It's just a bummer that there are no teams in which I can emotionally invest.

I agree its to early to say with absolute confidence but watching the TF surrogate, and watching both AC34 and AC35 in foiling multi-hulls, whatever match racing the GR75's will produce will more likely than not fall noticeably short of what took place during the AC32 Cup match.  If I am wrong I will have no problems saying so on this site.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As something of a naysayer I have to admit to being gobsmacked by the performance of the test toy (saw the gybing one as well), setting aside halos & matching racing suitability arguments for now, the full sized version will be awe inspiring.

But, DW you are so right, the teams themselves leave me quite cool.

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

I agree its to early to say with absolute confidence but watching the TF surrogate, and watching both AC34 and AC35 in foiling multi-hulls, whatever match racing the GR75's will produce will more likely than not fall noticeably short of what took place during the AC32 Cup match.  If I am wrong I will have no problems saying so on this site.

WetHog  :ph34r:

With the speeds these things are going to go you can't expect them to be inches and feet apart. It's going to be a completely different look - as the cats were. Will it be exciting? Well after watching the mini Frack boat go, I think it's going to be an amazing spectacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Horn Rock said:

One thing I will say, since seeing mini Frack, is that AC75 foil design/concept makes all those Imocca 60 reach foilers look really stupid and totally obsolete.

I totally agree.

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

I didn't say the AC50 were exciting for match racing, just said they are better suited for match racing than the GR75 appears to be.  There is a difference.  A boat design exciting for match racing won't need a safety halo around turning marks (like the AC50's needed and the GR75's will need) or safety halo's around the boats themselves (like the GR75 will need).  

In regards to the comparison of the razor sharp foils on an AC50 and the GR75, there is a huge difference between needing to fall over board to get sliced up by a razor sharp foil and being at risk to be sliced up by a razor sharp falling overboard AND going about your job on the deck of the boat.

Finally expense, yes teams with money will spend no matter what but that isn't the issue I am referring to.  The issue is simply getting teams to Challenge in the first place.  If the AC50 was retained for the this cycle there would of been at least one team (Artemis) from the previous cycle who would of continued and valuable AC35 built AC50's available for new teams to buy to jump start their AC36 campaigns.  Instead we have a brand new boat concept and all teams must start from scratch in regards to their boat program.  As a result GD has embraced the Russell Coutts idea of offering a design package to buy to attract more Challengers. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Again, you have no idea how suited the AC75's are to match racing. They could absolutely be suitable. Are they suitable for bumper cars or demolition derby? Probably not, but Match racing is hardly bumper cars or demolition derby.

Again, danger is danger whether its below or above deck. Mitigating those factors is the key.

As for teams. There is no reason other than they didn't want to, that Artemis can use to explain their choice to not enter. They didn't get their way, they didn't like the boat, so they took their ball and went home...screw them. The Cup doesn't need them, or any other teams who can't uphold a spirit of competitiveness over selfishness. Winning the AC always meant the Defender/ CoR could decide the rules and boats for future Cups. That should not, and has not changed.

Actually ETNZ were the first to offer a design package to LR in AC34.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 1:56 AM, Horn Rock said:

One thing I will say, since seeing mini Frack, is that AC75 foil design/concept makes all those Imocca 60 reach foilers look really stupid and totally obsolete.

I was not aware that IMOCAs are designed for round the cans match racing. Please explain where I could see them doing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 12:56 AM, Horn Rock said:

One thing I will say, since seeing mini Frack, is that AC75 foil design/concept makes all those Imocca 60 reach foilers look really stupid and totally obsolete.

Try taking one offshore for a few thousand miles...................fark, there are some morons in AC anarchy.:wacko: 

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

Try taking one offshore for a few thousand miles...................fark, there are some morons in AC anarchy.:wacko: 

Thats a pretty blinkered view, if the concept works and is faster it will almost certainly be tried offshore.

It won't be an actual AC75 of course, just like the new foiling generation offshore multihulls aren't actual AC50s or AC72s, but the technology has moved there none the less, why would this be any different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since animeproblem mentioned gybing, here's the vid: https://instagram.com/p/BlqMETahnDM/ courtesy of swedishswimmingteam in the Team UK thread.

Pretty grainy video so difficult to make out what's going on, but there seems to be pretty major ventilation of the rudder during the gybe and it drops of foils. The boat stays pretty flat and it  gets back on foils fairly quickly, so foiling gybes can't be far off.

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

Thats a pretty blinkered view, if the concept works and is faster it will almost certainly be tried offshore.

It won't be an actual AC75 of course, just like the new foiling generation offshore multihulls aren't actual AC50s or AC72s, but the technology has moved there none the less, why would this be any different?

Apart from having foils and a mast in common, an offshore version will be vastly different. It’s a dumb arse comparison. 

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

Try taking one offshore for a few thousand miles...................fark, there are some morons in AC anarchy.:wacko: 

Alright asswipe lets take this one point at a time. That dumb thing above aint foiling. The stupid thing poking out of the side might be providing some assist, it might also be providing a heap of drag. If we define foiling as the hull out of the water, then it's not foiling. Point two, the AC75 is designed to work in a blow, and the conditions in the above flick could easily be seen in the Gulf - I know, having done the pound from Horn Rock to Arkles bay into the teeth of a southerly literally over a hundred times. I have no doubt that a foiling AC75 is going to be doing it better than that Imocca - especially upwind where the Imocca will be in full displacement mode, whereas the AC75 will be foilng. The righting moment provided by the ballasted, windward t-foil will have it riding higher and flatter than the canted keel, whilst the drag difference will be light years apart. In short, it will absolutely smoke the Imocca because of the vast superiority of the concept. So you can take your moron jibe and shove it elbow deep you know where.....

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

I was not aware that IMOCAs are designed for round the cans match racing. Please explain where I could see them doing this.

The Imocas have been selected for the VOR. The VOR has inshore "around the cans" racing in between the offshore legs?

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

Alright asswipe lets take this one point at a time. That dumb thing above aint foiling. The stupid thing poking out of the side might be providing some assist, it might also be providing a heap of drag. If we define foiling as the hull out of the water, then it's not foiling. Point two, the AC75 is designed to work in a blow, and the conditions in the above flick could easily be seen in the Gulf - I know, having done the pound from Horn Rock to Arkles bay into the teeth of a southerly literally over a hundred times. I have no doubt that a foiling AC75 is going to be doing it better than that Imocca - especially upwind where the Imocca will be in full displacement mode, whereas the AC75 will be foilng. The righting moment provided by the ballasted, windward t-foil will have it riding higher and flatter than the canted keel, whilst the drag difference will be light years apart. In short, it will absolutely smoke the Imocca because of the vast superiority of the concept. So you can take your moron jibe and shove it elbow deep you know where.....

The Class is limited by the strict class rules, it could have morphed into all sorts if it wasn’t this.   For sure somebody might try one as a custom offshore. But it won’t look like anything close the AC 75. 

Comparing it to the Imoca is ridiculous. 

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

The Imocas have been selected for the VOR. The VOR has inshore "around the cans" racing in between the offshore legs?

Well, I thought you were talking about IMOCAs. The VOR has not used IMOCAs yet, so you still haven't provided an example of them racing round the cans.

Anyway, let's assume you were actually talking about the VO65s.

The VOR in-ports are comparable to NASCAR on road tracks. A spectacle, where gear is used that is not really suitable for the task (will probably be the same with the IMOCAs), that leads to funny situations for the spectators' enjoyment. This is pretty obvious in the VOR, as the in-ports don't even score for the main event, unless there's a tie. Corporate entertainment to allow guests on board during a race-like situation, that's what they are for.

Your error is understandable when looking superficially at the VOR. However, your comparison does not work, it's still horses for courses.

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

 

  ^ Taking lessons in moderation from Angela, Rennie?   :D

 

:wub: not really, rahther in the VOR threads. A lot more civil over there.
Except for some trolls, most of us gave thoughts to the issue at hand before posting, so there's no reason to be mean if you think, these thoughts are going into the wrong direction. Next time, they may be right, and the error is with oneself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 1:56 AM, Horn Rock said:

One thing I will say, since seeing mini Frack, is that AC75 foil design/concept makes all those Imocca 60 reach foilers look really stupid and totally obsolete.

What a stupid comparison, and what is an "Imocca" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that foils or purports to foil will be compared to anything else that foils. Is that so fucking hard to wrap your mind around? Discussions concerning Moths, Cats, Kite boards, foiling monos etc  are all within this realm of conversation. So yeah, I am comparing Imoca's with AC75's - they're both big yachts with abnormal appendages, and comparing the performance of their foil concepts is perfectly valid. 

I think there's a bunch in here that really wanted this rule to fail. Bitched off that the Kiwis have come up with another break-through concept that's going to be fucking amazing, and potentially a huge influence on sailing in a mass of genres.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 7:13 AM, JMOD said:

imocca is an overpized coffee at the apple store

 

That requires a special adaptor to drink from and has no way to refill it, but looks absolutely fabulous being made of pure milled aluminium!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 4:14 AM, mfluder said:

Again, you have no idea how suited the AC75's are to match racing. They could absolutely be suitable. Are they suitable for bumper cars or demolition derby? Probably not, but Match racing is hardly bumper cars or demolition derby.

Again, danger is danger whether its below or above deck. Mitigating those factors is the key.

As for teams. There is no reason other than they didn't want to, that Artemis can use to explain their choice to not enter. They didn't get their way, they didn't like the boat, so they took their ball and went home...screw them. The Cup doesn't need them, or any other teams who can't uphold a spirit of competitiveness over selfishness. Winning the AC always meant the Defender/ CoR could decide the rules and boats for future Cups. That should not, and has not changed.

Actually ETNZ were the first to offer a design package to LR in AC34.

Sure we don’t know how the GR75’s will match race but it’s fair to compare them to the AC50’s.  The speeds should be similar so the match racing rules and techniques should be similar as well.  

And get off the demolition derby bullshit already.  There is a difference between close match racing tactics and wanting boats banging into each other.

I do find “The Cup doesn't need them...” comment in regard to the low team numbers amusing.  It’s been used on here before and your fellow ETNZ fans didn’t hesitate to jump on that line of thinking and ridicilule it.    

Finally, yes ETNZ has shared a design package before but they were following OR’s protocol to do it.  A protocol ETNZ took every opportunity to complain about but is now forced to copy based on their similar poor choice of boat design.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites