Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

5.1
5.2
Component limits and modifications
The components in the table below are restricted as detailed in the following rules:
Component Rule
Quantity
Change allowance
Hull surfaces Open 2 As per Protocol
Foil arm stocks Supplied 4 -
Foil arm fairings Open 6 20% mass
Foil wings Open 6 20% mass
Foil flaps Open 20 20% mass

 

5.10
For components listed in Rule 5.1 that have a “Change allowance” mass percentage:
(a)
(b)
5.11
When such a component is first declared according to Rule 5.5, the Competitor must declare to the
Measurement Committee:
(i) a component mass;
(ii) an IGES file of an exterior component shape; and
(iii) construction drawings showing the internal structure of the component.
At all times when that component is installed on an AC75 Class Yacht with that yacht afloat:
(i) at least 80% of the mass of the component must match the original component; and
(ii) a common portion of at least 80% of the mass of the original component must remain un-
modified and must match all declared versions of the component.
(c) The portion of mass of a component that matches another version of that component is determined
by aligning the unmodified portion of the original and modified components and determining the
mass of all regions where the material substance remains unmodified and in the same place in both
versions of the component.
(d) Material that has been replaced with identical or equivalent material only classifies as an unmodified
region where replacement was carried out as a repair permitted by Rule 5.12.

 

in other words

6 = 6

change allowance = 20% maximum from the original

any perceptible change is a change and hence counts towards the 6 max

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 16.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's pissing down outside and yes, we are back to Level 3. To all those moaning and bitching about it and calling the PM childish names, get a grip, we are the luckiest people in the world right

Yes, quite light but I didn't see all the afternoon's sailing, can only comment on later in the day, when Britannia 2 was running a #1 jib and foiling around no problem. They look quite quick at times

They towed out around 11am and the breeze was light and puffy to start with. Foiled down the Channel and headed out to the Bays. The breeze started to build around midday and they got some long runs i

Posted Images

33 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

is it just me or does that far foil have a very narrow arm fairing at the fixing point of the foil.

That Arm -> Foil extension is hella slimmed-down :blink:

TNZ always seem to put the cool foil on starboard where its hardest to get good pics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikenz2 said:

Both new  foils

Awesome photos. Going back to the discussion of the dark stain on the new blended foil, I am leaning toward a compliant compound which they use to seal any hinge gap. I can't find any examples on recent foils of sharp edges. These dark smudge areas suggest to me that it might be a different textured material, and to do the job of staying closed for all flap angles, it would probably have to be something elastomeric. We don't know what kind of flap angles they use (do we?) and if they are quite small angles maybe even something like a very thick hydrophobic tar might be usable. 

In one of the other photos, a similar texture change can be seen on the top surface at the center of the foil wing where the two flaps would interface and clash, if there wasn't something compliant. 

Faint yellow lines bounding the area I am referring two in the inset photo. 

image.thumb.png.8f70535f1faf0fb5d9f8c046f73b6429.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, How many foils has NZ used out of the 6 foils total?

original foils:

277064233_nzfoills2.thumb.jpg.d5a9662c52403eb1222f6a11894ea428.jpg

Latest foils:

image.png.57d25ae999fe558344798732135e14b3.png

And I think there are some other modifications, but they may not be outside the % of changes that are allowed.  It looks like the finial set will be some modifications of the last two or include on of them.  From the last video's, it looks like the starboard foil may be more difficult to control, but that is the direction you need to go to push the limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Remember the pages that were spent discussing how advanced the Original NZ foils were and that they just knew so much more than all of the other teams.....

Is that why the Italians are testing bulbless foils now?

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

Sorry guys, the kiwi's will be using "bulbed" foils.  Remember the pages that were spent discussing how advanced the Original NZ foils were and that they just knew so much more than all of the other teams.....

maybe not

Seems the Kiwi's are out working the Americans now...

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

 

 

5.1
5.2
Component limits and modifications
The components in the table below are restricted as detailed in the following rules:
Component Rule
Quantity
Change allowance
Hull surfaces Open 2 As per Protocol
Foil arm stocks Supplied 4 -
Foil arm fairings Open 6 20% mass
Foil wings Open 6 20% mass
Foil flaps Open 20 20% mass

 

5.10
For components listed in Rule 5.1 that have a “Change allowance” mass percentage:
(a)
(b)
5.11
When such a component is first declared according to Rule 5.5, the Competitor must declare to the
Measurement Committee:
(i) a component mass;
(ii) an IGES file of an exterior component shape; and
(iii) construction drawings showing the internal structure of the component.
At all times when that component is installed on an AC75 Class Yacht with that yacht afloat:
(i) at least 80% of the mass of the component must match the original component; and
(ii) a common portion of at least 80% of the mass of the original component must remain un-
modified and must match all declared versions of the component.
(c) The portion of mass of a component that matches another version of that component is determined
by aligning the unmodified portion of the original and modified components and determining the
mass of all regions where the material substance remains unmodified and in the same place in both
versions of the component.
(d) Material that has been replaced with identical or equivalent material only classifies as an unmodified
region where replacement was carried out as a repair permitted by Rule 5.12.

 

in other words

6 = 6

change allowance = 20% maximum from the original

any perceptible change is a change and hence counts towards the 6 max

 

Thanks, that clarifies things nicely.  

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

Cool, that explains how you read my post then...

hey you probably missed the helpful tips about the front/back of the boat thing too, I can send a diagram if it makes it easier for you? 

Obviously I don't have you on fckg ignore, I answered your post.  I thought you might pick up on that , but maybe I assumed too much..lol

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

172 days till the cup. It is not beyond the realm of reason that ETNZ is locking in their final foils now as they will still have a long list of upgrades to other areas come. It would be more difficult to evaluate other design changes if you are still dicking around with your final foil designs. I think these two options are it. But looking forwards to eating my hat :rolleyes: on this one 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the terrific photos above showed amazing detail on even the nose of the blend-wing, almost corkscrews trailing and outwards toward the attachment. 
 

Foils, unfortunately limited by rules constraints that had been intended to invite budget teams and are therefore no longer a good idea, are where this thing will be won. 6 designs is pretty tight! 
 

We haven’t yakked much about headsails yet. 

 

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

With all the testing on hawk I think ETNZ has had a leg up on the competition it term of foil development. We could be seeing the final two iterations of their foil program on the boat and it will come down to how they feel the foils mode for the potential cup conditions as to which version they use (fingers crossed for the bat wing). 

Potentially the program will turn it’s attention to rig development. I think the final boom integration has another generation to come on B2 

Yes, because none of the other team did any foil testing on their test boats.  They just all assumed that the bulbed foil would be a good idea.  

Funny how after testing on a smaller boat, NZ has now switched over to a "bulbed" foils like all the other teams.  It sure would have been interesting if someone had predicted this back when we saw them launch their first boats.

As for rig development, if they haven't done it is too late.

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

172 days till the cup. It is not beyond the realm of reason that ETNZ is locking in their final foils now as they will still have a long list of upgrades to other areas come. It would be more difficult to evaluate other design changes if you are still dicking around with your final foil designs. I think these two options are it. But looking forwards to eating my hat :rolleyes: on this one 

They are basically locked into one of the two foils that are now on the boat.  Sure they could do some minor changes within the rule, but they are basically there.  The starboard foil (newest one with flatter bulb) is most likely the "stretch" foil they want to use if they can learn to keep it stable, the port foil is the fall back one that is most like the AM foil but only flat instead of anhedral. 

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

Yes, because none of the other team did any foil testing on their test boats.  They just all assumed that the bulbed foil would be a good idea.  

Funny how after testing on a smaller boat, NZ has now switched over to a "bulbed" foils like all the other teams.  It sure would have been interesting if someone had predicted this back when we saw them launch their first boats.

As for rig development, if they haven't done it is too late.

Not sure why you are giving me an attitude?? There is no doubt the ETNZ hawk has given them a testing avenue that that challengers have not had. The ability to take near full size foil shapes out of the simulator and into the real world has been an undeniable advantage.
As for bulbs every design choice is a compromise. The batwing looks to be a blending of the two.

As for rig delevopment we can see the recent changes to the ETNZ mast. Why would they not keep developing that aspect of the design as this being a new rule there is a lot of potential performance gain going forwards. I anticipate a new slicker boom setup yet before the cup. If the challengers want to stop now all power to them :rolleyes:

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

They are basically locked into one of the two foils that are now on the boat.  Sure they could do some minor changes within the rule, but they are basically there.  The starboard foil (newest one with flatter bulb) is most likely the "stretch" foil they want to use if they can learn to keep it stable, the port foil is the fall back one that is most like the AM foil but only flat instead of anhedral. 

Isn’t that just what I said?! :blink:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, uflux said:

Not sure why you are giving me an attitude?? There is no doubt the ETNZ hawk has given them a testing avenue that that challengers have not had. The ability to take near full size foil shapes out of the simulator and into the real world has been an undeniable advantage.
As for bulbs every design choice is a compromise. The batwing looks to be a blending of the two.

As for rig delevopment we can see the recent changes to the ETNZ mast. Why would they not keep developing that aspect of the design as this being a new rule there is a lot of potential performance gain going forwards. I anticipate a new slicker boom setup yet before the cup. If the challengers want to stop now all power to them :rolleyes:

All of the other challenges, especially AM, did a considerable amount of foil, crew and rig testing on their test boat.  AM sailed 90+ days on the Mule (must have spent all that time trolling for flounder).  The Hawk may have a more updated hull, but the Mule is a good enough platform to test and confirm foil designs.  

I am just responding to your assumptions NZ is the only one who ever thinks of something.  

Also, as I pointed out earlier, where is the Mule now?  TH said they were done and putting it up for sail.  If you believe that then I have a few brides to sell you.  What better way to keep away prying eyes than to convince people it is not even being used.  That is another topic altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, weta27 said:

It does pour cold water on this theory that there is some kind of inevitable, linear development pathway towards the ultimate bulbed foil ... when LR's latest foil looks almost exactly like one of ETNZ's two originals?

It just shows that there are a lot of tradeoffs in the design.  Most likely LR began building the "bulb-less" foil before NZ started testing a bulbed foil.  They may have been making sure they do not miss something.  I doubt that LR will ultimately pick the "bulb-less" foil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if ETNZ wanted a perfect miniature then have compromised in atleast 1 dimension.

I'm assuming they did this to stay under the max size while having a slightly larger scaled rig.

my basic calc shouw that if they wanted a perfect ration hull to mast height, the hawk rig would be 2m shorter

image.png.28917aa14033c07e8306d602882cdc21.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

All of the other challenges, especially AM, did a considerable amount of foil, crew and rig testing on their test boat.  AM sailed 90+ days on the Mule (must have spent all that time trolling for flounder).  The Hawk may have a more updated hull, but the Mule is a good enough platform to test and confirm foil designs.  

I am just responding to your assumptions NZ is the only one who ever thinks of something.  

Also, as I pointed out earlier, where is the Mule now?  TH said they were done and putting it up for sail.  If you believe that then I have a few brides to sell you.  What better way to keep away prying eyes than to convince people it is not even being used.  That is another topic altogether.

I was was not assuming anything :D.

the main difference between the mules and hawk is scale. Hydrodynamics do not scale very well particularly in terms of foil shapes. Hawks ability to test foil shapes of a very similar size to an AC yacht is the major difference and advantage.  Which is why the mules were use to test the concept rather than the detail.

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

All of the other challenges, especially AM, did a considerable amount of foil, crew and rig testing on their test boat.  AM sailed 90+ days on the Mule (must have spent all that time trolling for flounder).  The Hawk may have a more updated hull, but the Mule is a good enough platform to test and confirm foil designs.  

I am just responding to your assumptions NZ is the only one who ever thinks of something.  

Also, as I pointed out earlier, where is the Mule now?  TH said they were done and putting it up for sail.  If you believe that then I have a few brides to sell you.  What better way to keep away prying eyes than to convince people it is not even being used.  That is another topic altogether.

Wait, a couple of posts above you said none of the teams did any foil testing on their test boat. Now you’re saying they all did considerable foil testing? Which is it?

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

Wait, a couple of posts above you said none of the teams did any foil testing on their test boat. Now you’re saying they all did considerable foil testing? Which is it?

It was sarcasm.  Should I use a special font for you?  Yes. Because none of the other teams did any foil testing on their test boats...

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

It was sarcasm.  Should I use a special font for you?  Yes. Because none of the other teams did any foil testing on their test boats...

Yes, and American Magic is still using The Mule - Spot the Sarcasm. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get all this vitriol over whether bulbed or bulbless is better, it doesn't matter who does what first, what matters are the teams chosen final foils (which we've not seen yet) and how they use them in the match. We know that different foils are optimal in different conditions, and that the teams have to lock in a choice before each match, but there is still heaps of time before that happens, and weather trends are going to be clearer closer to the event than this far out. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JonRowe said:

I don't get all this vitriol over whether bulbed or bulbless is better, it doesn't matter who does what first, what matters are the teams chosen final foils (which we've not seen yet) and how they use them in the match. We know that different foils are optimal in different conditions, and that the teams have to lock in a choice before each match, but there is still heaps of time before that happens, and weather trends are going to be clearer closer to the event than this far out. 

It all has to do with past discussions when the B1's were all launched.  The Kiwi backers were very arrogant about how advanced their foils designs were and how they were so much more innovative than all of the other teams.  I made a simple comment at the time, that NZ was the outlier and would eventually switch over to the bulb type foils like the other three teams. To me, it was an indicator that not having a test boat put NZ behind in foil development.  Of course, that didn't sit very well with the Kiwi crowd and went on for pages...   Now as they look to be switching to bulbed foils, I am being petty about reminding them.

I agree with you and would never have brought it back up if they would not have been so arrogant about it in the first place.

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

It all has to do with past discussions when the B1's were all launched.  The Kiwi backers were very arrogant about how advanced their foils designs were and how they were so much more innovative than all of the other teams.  I made a simple comment at the time, that NZ was the outlier and would eventually switch over to the bulb type foils like the other three teams. To me, it was an indicator that not having a test boat put NZ behind in foil development.  Of course, that didn't sit very well with the Kiwi crowd and went on for pages...   Now as they look to be switching to bulbed foils, I am being petty about reminding them.

I agree with you and would never have brought it back up if they would not have been so arrogant about it in the first place.

It was, and still is, simply true. ETNZ's first set of foils were, and still are well advanced than those of AM. It is very evident in the contrasting performance of the two boats.

Now, you may say Defiant wasn't designed for Auckland (as you've said in the past) she was designed for Pensacola. Seems like a pretty obvious mistake to make.

What we're clearly seeing now is an evolution of those first foils. Clearly ETNZ have switched focus from stability, to less drag, and more speed, as are most teams. The problem is, the foils still have to weigh the same, so if you reduce the surface area of the foil, that weight has to go somewhere, hence the "bulb".

Its not that ETNZ are switching to a bulbed foil, the Class rule dictates, the foils must maintain a minimum weight.

They haven't switched to anything. They have/ are evolving the first set of foils. Thats how the iterative design process works.

 

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

James Farmer: Whatever the result, is this the last time the America's Cup event is held in NZ?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12365162

That is quite an article, considering the source.

James Farmer Q.C. is a lawyer in Auckland and was a member of the Team New Zealand board from 2004 to 2013.

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

That is quite an article, considering the source.

James Farmer Q.C. is a lawyer in Auckland and was a member of the Team New Zealand board from 2004 to 2013.

Hah Clarkey will be along shortly to bang on about  Saint GD saving the Cup from the deathly grip of Larry & Wussell thereby making the AC more affordable and thus accessible.

Nothing to see here  move along and just spend another few hundred millions of the publics loot enriching the sailing elite.

Farmers article is pretty succinct and to the point.

Simpler cheaper far less complex boats would mean a future for the class.

 

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

Farmers article is pretty succinct and to the point.

(slapping myself on the back) I have been making several of these exact same points.. Usually eliciting Kiwinger poo throws! :)
 

But yes, succinct and to the point, from a guy who is an actual expert. 

 

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

(slapping myself on the back) I have been making several of these exact same points.. Usually eliciting Kiwinger poo throws! :)
 

But yes, succinct and to the point, from a guy who is an actual expert. 

 

Jim Farmer's name should not be new to an obsessive such as you stingers - he's written the odd "op-ed" over the years.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/99572327/former-director-urges-team-nz-to-rule-out-overseas-venue-for-americas-cup

His timing is always interesting, as is his perception of things... it's evident that as time goes by whatever relationship he may have once had with ETNZ only further sours... the fact he thinks it's productive to provide  'advice' from the sidelines might explain why...

We've already been through Betteridge's law of headlines in the last few months on SAAC - "Whatever the result, is this the last time the America's Cup event is held in NZ?"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If New Zealand doesn't want the bother of the AC, well hopefully ETNZ loses.

If they win, GD and the other tall poppies could defect to some other country with enough rich sports enthusiasts. They would be doing their country a favor, right?  The AC37 NZ defense would fail, next cycle the masterless Jacks could go back to feeling small-time. 

Sheesh, I think I see why RC left. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

If New Zealand doesn't want the bother of the AC, well hopefully ETNZ loses.

If they win, GD and the other tall poppies could defect to some other country with enough rich sports enthusiasts. They would be doing their country a favor, right?  The AC37 NZ defense would fail, next cycle the masterless Jacks could go back to feeling small-time. 

Sheesh, I think I see why RC left. 

With the possible exclusion of carnal activities, it's is a statistical truth that 100% of things are not liked by most people. The AC sits on that continuum in NZ as it does anywhere in the world, in fact  it is probably has the highest proportion of population with interest in the AC of any country in the world.

There will always be people who prefer other things, and this will forever play out in society, probably more visibly than other nations given the aforementioned prominence of the cup in our collective hearts and minds :-) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Jim Farmer's name should not be new to an obsessive such as you stingers - he's written the odd "op-ed" over the years.

Yes, I have followed his opinion with interest on occasion. 
 

Here’s his site, where this piece was likely originally posted. 
http://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/legal-commentary/whatever-the-result-is-this-the-last-time-the-americas-cup-event-is-held-in-new-zealand

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

It was, and still is, simply true. ETNZ's first set of foils were, and still are well advanced than those of AM. It is very evident in the contrasting performance of the two boats.

This is all fanboy crap.  Then why do the NZ foils look more like AM's foils than their original foils?

Now, you may say Defiant wasn't designed for Auckland (as you've said in the past) she was designed for Pensacola. Seems like a pretty obvious mistake to make.

It has been noted on numerous occasions that Defiant design was a simple testing platform.  People mentioned that the foils on AM may not be as good in light winds, I pointed out that the majority of the sail training time was intended to be in FL and RI not NZ.  Why set the testing platform boat up for the lighter NZ summer winds when you will be spending all of your time in heavier winds.  Notice how much more time AM has been out in the heavier winter winds in Auckland than has NZ (of course you will deny this, but go back and count the days on the water since AM was ready to sail).

What we're clearly seeing now is an evolution of those first foils. Clearly ETNZ have switched focus from stability, to less drag, and more speed, as are most teams. The problem is, the foils still have to weigh the same, so if you reduce the surface area of the foil, that weight has to go somewhere, hence the "bulb".

That is the whole point of the 'bulbed foils" that you claimed wasn't needed with the original NZ foils.  Now saying that NZ has come to the revelation that they want less drag and more speed.  So why do you think the other teams started with this concept?

Its not that ETNZ are switching to a bulbed foil, the Class rule dictates, the foils must maintain a minimum weight.

But they have!

They haven't switched to anything. They have/ are evolving the first set of foils. Thats how the iterative design process works.

This is just plain ridiculous.

 

I do not know why I bother, but....

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

Yes, I have followed his opinion with interest on occasion. 
 

Here’s his site, where this piece was likely originally posted. 
http://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/legal-commentary/whatever-the-result-is-this-the-last-time-the-americas-cup-event-is-held-in-new-zealand

And here his private team site, that goes 10 years back to the future. (click on Menu-Future :unsure:).

http://www.georgia-racing.co.nz/news

That much respected QC chooses his words very carefully, but seems a bit behind the times and over the hill.

 

Edited by Fiji Bitter
Different site.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Jim Farmer's name should not be new to an obsessive such as you stingers - he's written the odd "op-ed" over the years.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/99572327/former-director-urges-team-nz-to-rule-out-overseas-venue-for-americas-cup

His timing is always interesting, as is his perception of things... it's evident that as time goes by whatever relationship he may have once had with ETNZ only further sours... the fact he thinks it's productive to provide  'advice' from the sidelines might explain why...

We've already been through Betteridge's law of headlines in the last few months on SAAC - "Whatever the result, is this the last time the America's Cup event is held in NZ?"

 

As if they’d do anything in Italy...  I just got off the phone to Italy, they are currently fucked, along with most of Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more positive note:

America's Cup veteran Bruno Trouble predicts 'a show you have never dreamt of' at Auckland 2021

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/122781129/americas-cup-veteran-bruno-trouble-predicts-a-show-you-have-never-dreamt-of-at-auckland-2021-

Love this - he labels the last Americas Cup as “a vulgar beach event smelling of sunscreen and french fries”!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

TE made brief mention on his Sailing Illustrated show that ‘one hears’ somebody is out recruiting European cities for their interest-level in venue-hosting a possible AC37 Defense... With a non-refundable down payment for in case it eventualizes? 
 

If true then I’m guessing money is really tight, or why else would they be seeking forward-payment already. 

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

I heard that Vladimir Putin has put a billion rubles in Dalt's Monaco account.

Co-sponsor will be Donut Trump if he can win the pissing contest. 

Funny,

But again, if some city is being recruited well it’s hardly surprising if it gets around. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This selling off defense venues for cash has got to stop. It makes the AC a vulgar moneygrubbing event run by smalltown NYYC wannabes, smelling of desperation and grift. Also sheep. 

THANKFULLY, Ineos will spare New Zealand the shame of being further associated with such things. 

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

(slapping myself on the back) I have been making several of these exact same points.. Usually eliciting Kiwinger poo throws! :)
 

But yes, succinct and to the point, from a guy who is an actual expert. 

 

The massive hole in the article is that he conveniently forgets that the America's Cup was locked in NYSC from 2007 to 2010, and then was on life support until 2013 and effectively 2017.

Even financial support from LV for the Cup, as it had been, worked only up to a point - and then the struggle became too hard for teams and LV. ETNZ only stayed in because they had to in order to survive, and used the VOR entry to keep their name up in lights,  it became a distraction in the end, but got pulled out of the fire once the boats hit Europe.

Before the Court case there was 11 countries, after the Court case and the choice of the AC72, there was just three NZL, ITA (late starter) and SWE (broke wing sail and then boat). If you took NZL out of that group what sort of Cup would SFO have been remembered as? A tragi-comedy?

In 2017 Ellison owned half the boats one way or another, only NZL, GBR and SWE were independent. To say nothing of the Framework - well intended or otherwise.

Now there are four strong well-funded teams - all independently owned and from four great yacht clubs - how can that be the disaster it is claimed?

Plus there is no Dalton clause - so if teams don't like something they are free to speak their mind without being sent to the Int Jury or Arb Panel.

Bruno Trouble's take on the situation is very sound.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

I do not know why I bother, but....

That whole post was just rubbish. Admit it. You call me a fanboy, but you’re exactly the same. I’ve admitted it, and am proud to say I’m a fanboy of ETNZ. You’re a fanboy of AM. A cheerleader. You have been from the start lol

Thats why you bother... Fanboy.

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

That whole post was just rubbish. Admit it. You call me a fanboy, but you’re exactly the same. I’ve admitted it, and am proud to say I’m a fanboy of ETNZ. You’re a fanboy of AM. A cheerleader. You have been from the start lol

Thats why you bother... Fanboy.

giphy.gif.3b38a99e2e396eba2e8a844650c9dad1.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you test a foil that is not legal, then the boat is not legal. If the boat is of size and not legal, then it is a surrogate, which is not allowed. So all the foils seen must be legal and either modified or count to the limit.

Note the modifications are limited by mass, so there's probably some density trickery going on to maximise the number of useful modifications. Note also that the allowance for flaps is 20 and 20% modification on mass, so there's a lot of development and trickery available there. Is there a definition of a flap?

Is the bulb considered a fairing or a main wing? Is the 20% change allowance at each change or from original? Does the modification need to be made to the actual built and measured wing, or can it be made to the design and a whole new wing built within the 20% mass limit? If I read the rule the answers are probably there.

As a guess, they've maybe got primary metal structure that makes up a signficant portion of the mass which doesn't change (much), for a forward and aft position wing. Flap definition may allow the tips and span to be modified significantly.

With 6 wings and 20 flaps and careful rule trickery, you could conceivably have 40 or more wings for testing. But that is a lot of iterations to manage and test. The 3 main wings and 10 flaps (each side) is probably more than enough to keep the on-water testing busy.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ncik said:

If you test a foil that is not legal, then the boat is not legal. If the boat is of size and not legal, then it is a surrogate, which is not allowed. So all the foils seen must be legal and either modified or count to the limit.

by your definition, the boats must be in measurement at all times. this is simply not true

There are team communications between boat and shore/chase boats. LR had motors installed instead of people grinding for their social distancing rules. ETNZ has had items sticking off one side of their foils and there for non-symmetrical.

if you wet a set of foils then it is part of your 6. if they don't measure you wont get a cert for them so you have to make them legal within the modification rules if you wish to use them else you have thrown away 1 or more of your 6 options when it comes time to race time

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

+ 6 foil arm fairings

im betting the bulbs etnz have been using are part of the arm fairing allowance and not the foil allowance

the bulbs don't have to weigh anything .. they can be from hollow carbon to solid lead .. so long as they stick within their own 20% allowance and the total weight of the boat

 

apart from the bulb shapes the foils look the same as some of the non bulb foils

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking is that the external bulb shape is probably easy to modify without declaring it to be "new" within rules. The vast majority of the mass would be a heavy (steel I seem to recall) core of the bulb combined with possibly heavy wings.  As long as these heavy items are not modified much you do not violate the total mass change of 20%.  Applying a lighter material (such as glass cloth and/or glass filled epoxy) on top of the core could be used to get your external shape.  For areas getting pounded by cavitation, a more durable material like kevlar might be worth considering.  

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

by your definition, the boats must be in measurement at all times. this is simply not true

There are team communications between boat and shore/chase boats. LR had motors installed instead of people grinding for their social distancing rules. ETNZ has had items sticking off one side of their foils and there for non-symmetrical.

if you wet a set of foils then it is part of your 6. if they don't measure you wont get a cert for them so you have to make them legal within the modification rules if you wish to use them else you have thrown away 1 or more of your 6 options when it comes time to race time

If they're not in measurement, then they're not AC75s, hence surrogates.

There are probably some mutually agreed rules regarding your second paragraph, or the other teams are just not interested in pursuing the infringements, for various reasons, for their own perceived benefit. If LR wanted to use motors instead of people and I was head of ETNZ (or any other team) I would not pursue an enforcement because one-day I might want to also use a motor for testing (two boats, COVID, etc). There's also the consideration that using motors is not the same as people power nor person weight and dynamic movements, so the value of testing in that config is debatable and might lead LR down the wrong path. Same with communication and the bits hanging off the foils. The teams will definitely pick their battles.

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

Hah Clarkey will be along shortly to bang on about  Saint GD saving the Cup from the deathly grip of Larry & Wussell thereby making the AC more affordable and thus accessible.

Nothing to see here  move along and just spend another few hundred millions of the publics loot enriching the sailing elite.

Farmers article is pretty succinct and to the point.

Simpler cheaper far less complex boats would mean a future for the class.

 

Who gives a fuck about the future of the class? An AC "Class" is designed for one cycle, and one cycle only. They are custom built for one reason and one reason only. To win the Cup. The AC72 had no future. Then they went smaller with an AC50. That had no future either. If ETNZ defends, look for the class to continue. If they don't, all bets are off, and we may get another class that lasts just one cycle. This is how the AC works. No one cares about the future until the current cycle is decided.

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

If they're not in measurement, then they're not AC75s, hence surrogates.

There are probably some mutually agreed rules regarding your second paragraph, or the other teams are just not interested in pursuing the infringements, for various reasons, for their own perceived benefit. If LR wanted to use motors instead of people and I was head of ETNZ (or any other team) I would not pursue an enforcement because one-day I might want to also use a motor for testing (two boats, COVID, etc). There's also the consideration that using motors is not the same as people power nor person weight and dynamic movements, so the value of testing in that config is debatable and might lead LR down the wrong path. Same with communication and the bits hanging off the foils. The teams will definitely pick their battles.

teams aren't allowed surrogates so guess they are all disqualified then

the only rules they have to abide by are the AC75 class rule, the protocol and the DOG.

if someone is breaking them then expect it to go to the arbritration pannel as it will end up with points awared in the match ... think oracle kingpin debarkle

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

And here his private team site, that goes 10 years back to the future. (click on Menu-Future :unsure:).

http://www.georgia-racing.co.nz/news

That much respected QC chooses his words very carefully, but seems a bit behind the times and over the hill.

 

Ploughing through the legal speak in Jim Farmer's plaint re AC-36 it's pretty obvious the Auckland Queens Counsel, successful ocean racer and former Emirates Team New Zealand Board member is disenchanted with Dalts' management of the team and his conduct of the Cup defence. There is more than a wistful If-only-I'd-been-there note to his self-published handwringing.

Dalton has achieved mightily to bring the RNZYS's Cup defender to its present solid position. OK,  his full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes attitude may raise the hackles of the persnickety but overall he's a big jewel in the team's crown. The rightful responsibility for the three million bucks charge that Farmer looks on so disparagingly will be settled by arbitration. Time enough to kvetch if Dalton is stuck with the bill.  Meantime the work got done.

Farmer, more than most, should understand the history of past challenges and lighten up on his concerns that we'll never host another defence here in NZ should we be successful this time. Contrast his dour view with Cup maestro Bruno Trouble who has forecast a memorable event plus flexibility next time.

“While we can certainly make some changes such as with a nationality rule, budget caps, format, possibility to sail an existing boat in the following Cup, etc … but we want to keep the Cup where it belongs: on the absolute edge of technology.” Trouble was reported as saying today in stuff.co.nz

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Priscilla said:

Four completely different class yachts from Valencia 2007 disregarding 2010 is this a sustainable strategy to attract entrants to future cycles.

 

It's not broken. Leave the fucking thing alone, I say.

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

An AC "Class" is designed for one cycle, and one cycle only.

Crikey Clarkey you’ve got a solid dose of convenient memory syndrome.

From 1958 to 1987 one class of yacht 12m with Courageous winning two cycles.

From 1992 to 2007 one class of yacht IAAC75.

Both classes relied heavily on future development using past contenders as trial horses it’s called progression.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NeedAClew said:

This selling off defense venues for cash has got to stop. It makes the AC a vulgar moneygrubbing event run by smalltown NYYC wannabes, smelling of desperation and grift. Also sheep. 

THANKFULLY, Ineos will spare New Zealand the shame of being further associated with such things. 

You might want to get your facts straight! The only Defenders in modern times who have whored out the venues have been the two billionaires who tried to turn the AC into a money-making gig: Bertarelli and Ellison.

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

If they're not in measurement, then they're not AC75s, hence surrogates.

..

"Surrogate Yacht means any yacht exceeding 12m LOA which is capable of producing meaningful design or performance information for use either directly or indirectly in the design, construction or sailing of an AC75 yacht and as further provided in the AC75 Class Rule.."

They're sailing AC75s already - they just don't have to be MC-certified yet except perhaps as part of their developmental evolution to know where they're at in terms of Class Rule compliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites