Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 20.2k
  • 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

2 hours ago, WakaNZ said:

Very reliable, how I knew about the mule (Te Kahu) and the Judges decision before either were public. 

Yeah, but you haven’t really told us anything, have you? It’s such a nondescript statement that anything would fit it. 

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

Wow. Sailing with the Code 0 is a real sight. Gybing looks worth avoiding though.  

Except that's NOT a Code Zero sail, EX. Not even close.

Well, maybe a little close. More like a screecher.

Edited by Sailbydate
Explanation
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WakaNZ said:

Themarket.com is a subsidiary of TWG ( The Warehouse Group ), Same owners of Torpedo7, Sir Stephan sharing the love across the retail brands.  

 

3 hours ago, weta27 said:

New sponsor, new foil appendage?

DSC_1925.jpg

DSC_1926.jpg

Looks like a fence is being put on that wing, just like a old Soviet jet fighter 

image.jpeg.1371be5a3d6f3947f2c978aa7235050a.jpeg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also no cover above any of the crew except trivially briefly.

 

4 hours ago, weta27 said:

New sponsor, new foil appendage?

Did they lose some sponsors?

That mainsail looks a lot more bare than I remember.

Maybe just a re-arrangement of existing sponsor locations?

Link to post
Share on other sites

America`s Cup AC75 Yachts Te Aihe & Defiant Sailing in the same Patch Auckland - September 21, 2020

AUCKLAND NEW ZEALAND, September 21, 2020. The moment we have all been waiting for! Emirates Team New Zealand AC75 Yacht Te Aihe and American Magics Defiant out sailing on the Waitemata Harbour on the same day. Rules prevent them duelling but it was interesting to see how each yacht handled the light Easterly breeze

 

 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you call a jib on a cable flown from a bow sprit?

Ha, ha. Yea. That old hoary chestnut.

I don't know. let's call it a Code Zero. And just to complicate things further, we have a cable-less Code Zero.

But as you say, EX, big fuck off sail from the bowsprit - that'll do me. ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probs late the party on this, as mentioned just above, the ETNZ boat now seems to be able to sail at will with the leeward part of the foil breaking the surface. I thought this ( and perhaps crossing a wake) was previously the point of doom, and triggered the wipe outs. Either way, they're looking mighty impressive. 

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

I'm probs late the party on this, as mentioned just above, the ETNZ boat now seems to be able to sail at will with the leeward part of the foil breaking the surface. I thought this ( and perhaps crossing a wake) was previously the point of doom, and triggered the wipe outs. Either way, they're looking mighty impressive. 

AM have been doing it a lot also.

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

pass the sick bag for useless promo puff piece.

I mean thats the rest of the world reaction when Ineos trots it out.. luv n hugs x

Funny. I've been told, some people actually enjoy watching commercials and many are influenced by them. Who'd have thought, eh?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

pass the sick bag for useless promo puff piece.

I mean thats the rest of the world reaction when Ineos trots it out.. luv n hugs x

You do have to enjoy how the Kiwi's can pivot from puff pieces being shit when Ineos does it to fucking the most amazing thing ever when ENTZ does it. These Kiwi fucks would make great politicians. Every last one of them in AC Anarchy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pusslicker said:

You do have to enjoy how the Kiwi's can pivot from puff pieces being shit when Ineos does it to fucking the most amazing thing ever when ENTZ does it. These Kiwi fucks would make great politicians. Every last one of them in AC Anarchy.

COVID affects us all in different ways. If you need a hug just reach out

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 4:54 AM, The_Alchemist said:

Even if the bulb is less than 20% of the mass, the foil wings have changed considerably from the original two foils.  So NZ has used up at least 4 of their foils.  

It’s not about the bloody bulb!
 

anything that’s  in the box below the foil arm is subject to the 20% change by area, the change to area can only be accommodated within the 20% mass change. 
 

if making it 20% bigger (the foil assembly) is going to add more than 20% mass of the original then you can’t do it 

so getting tied up that the bulb has changed by 20% is a road to no where, as it’s the entire structure as a whole that you need to consider. 

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

You do have to enjoy how the Kiwi's can pivot from puff pieces being shit when Ineos does it to fucking the most amazing thing ever when ENTZ does it. These Kiwi fucks would make great politicians. Every last one of them in AC Anarchy.

Aww cry me a river you fucking crybaby.

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

You do have to enjoy how the Kiwi's can pivot from puff pieces being shit when Ineos does it to fucking the most amazing thing ever when ENTZ does it. These Kiwi fucks would make great politicians. Every last one of them in AC Anarchy.

Yeah/nah!   It was an obvious "infomercial. 

Seemed to me Kiwi reactions were quite muted.

Of course one Brit rant and then your poisonous outburst.

Perhaps you could find another source of Cup news and commentary.

It would  lower your blood pressure and improve the climate here

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

Crikey as erudite as ever at least you’re consistent.

There you are again, just popping up as soon as I post something. I'm flattered lol. Are you a Kiwi today? or just another bandwagon jumper sitting on the fence? 

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

so getting tied up that the bulb has changed by 20% is a road to no where, as it’s the entire structure as a whole that you need to consider. 

And no one but the MC has any idea of the mass within the change regions of the iges file...

So Probly have to give up guessing on remaining foils and let the MC do their job.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

It’s not about the bloody bulb!
 

anything that’s  in the box below the foil arm is subject to the 20% change by area, the change to area can only be accommodated within the 20% mass change. 
 

if making it 20% bigger (the foil assembly) is going to add more than 20% mass of the original then you can’t do it 

so getting tied up that the bulb has changed by 20% is a road to no where, as it’s the entire structure as a whole that you need to consider. 

My understanding comes from 5.10 (b) & (c)  

where it states that the 80% that remains must match the original components.  ...unmodified and in the same place in both versions.

That doesn't leave a lot of room for moving wings around at different angles and still call them in the original place.

The part that is fuzzy is in section (f) where they allow them to declare a hypothetical "original component" where it is not required to be identical to the component when it is first installed.  This looks like the basically throws out the constraints of the earlier parts of the rule.

 

5.10 For components listed in Rule 5.1 that have a “Change allowance” mass percentage:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.

(e) When checking the shape of such a component against a declared IGES file, the Measurement Com-
mittee may make an allowance for unintended distortion of a component during manufacture.

(f) Competitors may declare a hypothetical “original component” which must comply with the relevant
rules for that component type, but is not required to be identical to the component when it is first
installed and afloat. In this case, the “original component” comprises those regions of the actual
component as-launched that match the hypothetical component, combined with the regions in the
hypothetical component that do not match the as-launched component and are presumed to have
been removed/modified to achieve the as-launched component. The component as first launched
must have corresponding declarations which must satisfy the permitted changes with respect to the
hypothetical “original component”.
(g) If the component when it is first installed and afloat does not comply with the relevant rules for that
component type, the Competitor must declare a hypothetical component that does comply with
those rules, in accordance with Rule 5.10 (f).

 

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

 

The part that is fuzzy is in section (f) where they allow them to declare a hypothetical "original component" where it is not required to be identical to the component when it is first installed.  This looks like the basically throws out the constraints of the earlier parts of the rule.

 

That doesn't throw out the constraints. What it means is effectively they can chose the 80%. Take the following simplified example. 

My first foil is ABCDEFGHIJ

My second is 12CDEFGHIJ. That has only changed by 20% so all is well.

But then the third is

12CDEFGH98. That is more than 20% changed from the first one so that would at first sight seem illegal. However clause f allows them to say that the 80% bit is 12CDEFGH. then even though that is not what was in the first foil, all 3 foils only have 20% changed from that. so they are all legal compared to the "declared original"

Though I suspect the 20% of mass changed bit is open to a lot of interpretation in other ways, so I foresee some protests/clarifications

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

That doesn't throw out the constraints. What it means is effectively they can chose the 80%. Take the following simplified example. 

My first foil is ABCDEFGHIJ

My second is 12CDEFGHIJ. That has only changed by 20% so all is well.

But then the third is

12CDEFGH98. That is more than 20% changed from the first one so that would at first sight seem illegal. However clause f allows them to say that the 80% bit is 12CDEFGH. then even though that is not what was in the first foil, all 3 foils only have 20% changed from that. so they are all legal compared to the "declared original"

Though I suspect the 20% of mass changed bit is open to a lot of interpretation in other ways, so I foresee some protests/clarifications

So are you saying the limit is a 20% change from the last change?  That basically throws out the limitations in what you can change, it just defines the steps you take to make the change (20% at a time).  It is confusing it what is actually allowed.

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

I should have clarified that you can change an unlimited % ( not 20%of area) as long as the area change is the equivalent of the 20%mass  based on the submitted and approved IGES file 

It is 20% of mass, but that means the other 80% of mass has to be identical to the original in position, shape, location, etc...   but you have (f) that seems to open it back up....with hypothetical original components.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
(e) When checking the shape of such a component against a declared IGES file, the Measurement Com-
mittee may make an allowance for unintended distortion of a component during manufacture.
(f) Competitors may declare a hypothetical “original component” which must comply with the relevant
rules for that component type, but is not required to be identical to the component when it is first
installed and afloat. In this case, the “original component” comprises those regions of the actual
component as-launched that match the hypothetical component, combined with the regions in the
hypothetical component that do not match the as-launched component and are presumed to have
been removed/modified to achieve the as-launched component. The component as first launched
must have corresponding declarations which must satisfy the permitted changes with respect to the
hypothetical “original component”.
(g) If the component when it is first installed and afloat does not comply with the relevant rules for that
component type, the Competitor must declare a hypothetical component that does comply with
those rules, in accordance with Rule 5.10

 

you may only step 20% from the original

you may not step 20% then step another 20% from that

the same 80% of the part must remain unchanged for all changes to the part

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

It is 20% of mass, but that means the other 80% of mass has to be identical to the original in position, shape, location, etc...   but you have (f) that seems to open it back up....with hypothetical original components.

They way I read this statement and I also did have a look at the rules, is that you could have a bulb made of lead and wings made of carbon fiber. As long as you don’t alter the bulb and the bulb equals 80 % of the mass you can change your wings as much as you like. Considering high light carbon is to lead you wouldn’t need a big bulb to be 80% of the weight. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mako23 said:

They way I read this statement and I also did have a look at the rules, is that you could have a bulb made of lead and wings made of carbon fiber. As long as you don’t alter the bulb and the bulb equals 80 % of the mass you can change your wings as much as you like. Considering high light carbon is to lead you wouldn’t need a big bulb to be 80% of the weight. 

You're assuming that the foil wings are carbon. That may not necessarily be the case...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phill_nz said:

.......

you may only step 20% from the original

you may not step 20% then step another 20% from that

the same 80% of the part must remain unchanged for all changes to the part

That is how I was interpreting the rule when I posted it above.  

What is your interpretation of the hypothetical "original component" in section (f)?  The "but is not required to be identical to the component when it is first
installed and afloat. In this case, the “original component” comprises those regions of the actual component as-launched that match the hypothetical component, combined with the regions in the hypothetical component that do not match the as-launched component and are presumed to have been removed/modified to achieve the as-launched component."
almost seems to open up a loop hole and allow more changes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NZL3481 said:

You're assuming that the foil wings are carbon. That may not necessarily be the case...

You are totally right on that point. It could be made up by all sorts of material. 
interesting point is these wings at high speed might be suffering cavitation. So they need to be resistant to this damaging effect. 

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

So are you saying the limit is a 20% change from the last change?  That basically throws out the limitations in what you can change, it just defines the steps you take to make the change (20% at a time).  It is confusing it what is actually allowed.

No, it is 20% change from whatever is "claimed" as the original, not from the last foil. so in the example I gave

My first foil is ABCDEFGHIJ

My second is 12CDEFGHIJ. 

The third foil is  12CDEFGH98

But I have declared my "original" to be the 2nd one, so anything that is 20% from that is fine

So XYDEFGH98 would not then be OK , because although only 20% from the previous foil it is more than 20% from the declared original. Similarly ABCDFGH98 because although onlt changed 20% from the first foil, it is more than 20% away from the "declared original"

But 12CD56GHIJ is fine, because only 20% has changed from the "declared original"

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

Hypothetical component + density trickery = as many foils for testing as you desire.

The trick will actually be to design only good ones so testing time is maximised and $$$ are minimised.

Best foil design will be the winning trick. Easy.

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

Hypothetical component + density trickery = as many foils for testing as you desire.

The trick will actually be to design only good ones so testing time is maximised and $$$ are minimised.

That is what is looks like.... but then why even put in the "restrictions" in the first part of the rule and then write an exception.  Were they hoping to trick the other teams into just following the "restrictions"?  

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

That is what is looks like.... but then why even put in the "restrictions" in the first part of the rule and then write an exception.  Were they hoping to trick the other teams into just following the "restrictions"?  

Except that as has been said one advantage of the bulb is that you can stick most if the mass there and then change the foils themselves as much as you want. And the others started with bulbs whereas ETNZ didn't. So the other teams seem to be more attuned to what is possible than the others. 

We have little idea how many different foil shapes GB have tried for example because there has been such a paucity of publicly available photos 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see those blended wing planes, I think about what it would be like sitting away from the middle when the plane makes an course adjustment going in for landing, and one side goes up pretty hard the the other side down pretty hard. The passengers out on the sides would go up and down pretty hard. And then they start puking.

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

When I see those blended wing planes, I think about what it would be like sitting away from the middle when the plane makes an course adjustment going in for landing, and one side goes up pretty hard the the other side down pretty hard. The passengers out on the sides would go up and down pretty hard. And then they start puking.

At that stage they turn the Actual windows off, engage Tranquil Mode Landing setting on the big screens  and  fool the punters its actually going to be a smooth landing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 4:05 PM, NZL3481 said:

You're assuming that the foil wings are carbon. That may not necessarily be the case...

I didn't realise until either BA or Grant Simmer (can't remember) recently said in a Shirley Robertson podcast that ETNZ rudders in BDA were steel not carbon and they'd done some "interesting" things with them. I'd never cottoned on to that.

I wouldn't rule anything out in this game! (except perhaps ferro :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fish7yu said:

America's Cup: Team New Zealand open ground-breaking simulator to fans and rivals 

Duncan Johnstone13:52, Sep 28 2020

 

America's Cup: Team New Zealand open ground-breaking simulator to fans and rivals

 

If only they'd bring out a version you could log into via the Internet. That would be friggin awesome!  :)  Not to mention increasing interest in the AC worldwide.

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

Just like those old days on Virtual Skipper.... Wasted hours on this thing many moons ago.  

http://www.virtualskipper.com/

Hahaha... as an old fart, I'm more inclined to consider [anti]social media like Twitter and Facebook to be a waste of time, than VS! :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites