Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

So are these AC40's being built by McConaghy in China?

Yes. That is why the new nick for them on SAAC is the 'All Chinese' 40's :)

Te Rehutai (was it?) was a pretty awesome boat, these could be even sharper and I am guardedly optimistic.

 

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

Yes. That is why the new nick for them on SAAC is the 'All Chinese' 40's :)

Te Rehutai (was it?) was a pretty awesome boat, these could be even sharper and I am guardedly optimistic.

 

Maybe we should update ABNZ to just non-NZ Team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
2 hours ago, Liquid said:

"Let's reduce AC costs by having an entirely different boat to develop and staff..."

 

Why not use the 69F?

 

Or the Fly40 Persico are already developing as a standalone and fully managed class? Mainly, I expect, because TNZ get less of a cut from anything built outside of their control. 

https://www.sail-world.com/news/240315/The-Persico-Fly40-experience 

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

Or the Fly40 Persico are already developing as a standalone and fully managed class? Mainly, I expect, because TNZ get less of a cut from anything built outside of their control. 

https://www.sail-world.com/news/240315/The-Persico-Fly40-experience 

Until I see a real Fly40 flying, I'm going to assume these are a dead duck instead. 

Yes, we have the 69F, but it's not really the same at all.

With the AC40 at least, we have real images and a production schedule. 

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

Until I see a real Fly40 flying, I'm going to assume these are a dead duck instead. 

Yes, we have the 69F, but it's not really the same at all.

With the AC40 at least, we have real images and a production schedule. 

To be fair I thought I had read a more recent update from Persico about the progress of these things but I can't find anything with any substance since that August article. I'd expect that there are enough European based interests to get these things up and running but guess we'll have to wait and see. 

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

Or the Fly40 Persico are already developing as a standalone and fully managed class? Mainly, I expect, because TNZ get less of a cut from anything built outside of their control. 

https://www.sail-world.com/news/240315/The-Persico-Fly40-experience 

I'm not convinced that ETNZ will really make much off these, definitely not enough to make a dent in the funding requirements for the AC. If they get their own ones paid for then that's about it.

it's more to do with keeping control over the event, and subsidising the youth and wormen's events which is probably part of their sponsorship feel good proposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, shebeen said:

I'm not convinced that ETNZ will really make much off these, definitely not enough to make a dent in the funding requirements for the AC. If they get their own ones paid for then that's about it.

it's more to do with keeping control over the event, and subsidising the youth and wormen's events which is probably part of their sponsorship feel good proposal.

Ugh. Haters gon hate.

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

Why do you believe that?

The price is set at $1.85m

For argument's sake, let's say the cost price (since it is outsourced to China) to ETNZ for 8 boats come to $1.35m each, so they'd be making $0.5m per boat. The six boats externally sold to others just covers the $2.7m they'd have spent on their own two

 

Secondly the COR has input and oversight here, if this was a cashcow for ETNZ then they'd have to be very smart in how they did this.

Similiar issues with the HSV, it seems like a way to sneak a revenue stream in, but with a campaign budget of ~$150m(thumbsuck), it's not that significant.

 

image.png.53936b30ccabc0d3a5943f0c7c84e860.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"...then ACE shall provide a full breakdown of all costs, supported by financial information capable of
being audited."

That might be a tough ask, according to some folk hereabouts. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

"...then ACE shall provide a full breakdown of all costs, supported by financial information capable of
being audited."

That might be a tough ask, according to some folk hereabouts. ;-)

I think they would just put it at the quoted price and take the hit rather

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

 

 

I liked that CNC carving a lot. You only have to do that once in my opinion.
After that the mold is fabricated with this model.
Great. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Schakel said:

I liked that CNC carving a lot. You only have to do that once in my opinion.
After that the mold is fabricated with this model.
Great. 

And you know that the lines match the IGES description 100%. 

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

And you know that the lines match the IGES description 100%. 

It's the output file of the autocad 3D drawing.
But it's for CNC specialist from the robot arm company.
CAD/CAM Computer-Aided Design / Computer-Aided Manufacturing!
1422832559_7axisCNCmachinecarvingtheAC40model.png.1c224d1725ed71b3a1e908dad0b5b2f8.png

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

It's the output file of the autocad 3D drawing.
But it's for CNC specialist from the robot arm company.
CAD/CAM Computer-Aided Design / Computer-Aided Manufacturing!
1422832559_7axisCNCmachinecarvingtheAC40model.png.1c224d1725ed71b3a1e908dad0b5b2f8.png

You do realize that this is the standard manufacturing method for creating a plug for a yacht mold for the last 20 years, don't you?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The polars for the AC40 show a remarkably showing a very fast upwind boat - doing 39kts, compared to the 40kts reckoned to be the top speed of the AC75 in the last Cup. Downwind speed looks to be less than the AC75's, which regularly topped 50kts." ... Sail-World 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does leave you wondering what's the point of the AC75. Just needs a little stretch to the DoG waterline minimum and add some design elements.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

to boost the budget?

clearly, you can't have a one-design series. but still, the box rule could have been 40' rather than 70'. a dream for the city of sails.

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

You do realize that this is the standard manufacturing method for creating a plug for a yacht mold for the last 20 years, don't you?

It doesn't have enough solar panels for him... ya know to make it 1% faster. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2022 at 7:48 AM, barfy said:

And you know that the lines match the IGES description 100%. 

For the enthusiastic computer freak:
These are the parameters descibed in the IGES programme.

https://wiki.eclipse.org/IGES_file_Specification

Piece of cake, really simple. hahaha.
(movement along seven axis has to be described)

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

can anybody explain the theory behind the vestigial keel? kinda ruins the look, imo..

1 strength to carry mainsheet n forestay loads   

2 room for the FCS rams

3 lift to help get the chines out

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so the list is 

1) Liftoff/help water let go of the boat/lift to help get chines out 

2) Strength to carry main and forestay loads 

3) Room for the FCS rams 

4) End plating 

anything else?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Ok so the list is 

1) Liftoff/help water let go of the boat/lift to help get chines out 

2) Strength to carry main and forestay loads 

3) Room for the FCS rams 

4) End plating 

anything else?

The roads. Obviously the roads.

 

Sorry, someone had to do it

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding is that end plating doesn't work unless completely sealed. for example. bringing the main - all the way - down to the deck of the boat end-plates the flow. and the high pressure on the windward side of the sail must escape aft hence pushing the boat forward. however, if there is any gap, then turbulence will form beneath the sail. breeze moving from windward to leeward that saps energy from the sail (and does not help to motivate the hull - simply because its not flowing aft). ps: i just made this shit up - please correct me if I'm wrong. :-)

so yeah I guess that keel must be something of an end plate - just because it does look like it is. but it would seem to only work during takeoff when it is right on the water.

not sure how effective it can be as an endplate if any turbulence is allowed for form beneath it.

luna-rossa-new-zealand-americas-cup-sail

 

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

my understanding is that end plating doesn't work unless completely sealed. for example. bringing the main - all the way - down to the deck of the boat end-plates the flow. and the high pressure on the windward side of the sail must escape aft hence pushing the boat forward. however, if there is any gap, then turbulence will form beneath the sail. breeze moving from windward to leeward that saps energy from the sail (and does not help to motivate the hull - simply because its not flowing aft). ps: i just made this shit up - please correct me if I'm wrong. :-)

From experience on sailboards, I'd say you are wrong. The sails we used in the late 80s were designed so you could close the gap and as you did so by raking the rig back, you could feel the speed difference it made. It was progressive, it didn't need to be right down the deck to make a difference.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if that's just sail shape. you can see how much effort the AC boats take to close the gap. And, tbh, I didn't just make all this shit up..

On 1/24/2022 at 5:21 PM, carcrash said:

..My jib clew is the height of the boom, so the leech of the jib helps the main (slot) as much as a deck sweeper, but without any end plate effect. End plate effect is real, but end plate effect only works at all if there is ZERO gap between jib and deck. One inch eliminates the advantage, and in fact causes a very large vortex, which means energy, which means drag. A higher clew greatly reduces the vortex, so is probably faster than a just barely above the deck sail. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2022 at 5:21 PM, floater said:

can anybody explain the theory behind the vestigial keel? kinda ruins the look, imo..

American Magic, the super scow, didn't have it. Too bad it ended with a lose oilpump that penetrated the hull.
AC75AmericanMagic-1.jpg.20eb2808c38c5da16dc40e56ebb7f193.jpg
AC75AmericanMagicDroneSail-1.thumb.jpg.bcfeb8cd7fa7fa237f56ceb39ba4552b.jpg
Having a flat as possible bottom impoves the ground effect.
https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/219159-the-definitive-ground-effect-thread/

But to have broken boats is the downside of flatbottom too weak keel inforcements.
1583265676_OneAustralia1995.jpeg.4e8666d196614ec58e01fe807bc994d7.jpeg
One Australia 1995

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Schakel said:

American Magic, the super scow, didn't have it. Too bad it ended with a lose oilpump that penetrated the hull.
AC75AmericanMagic-1.jpg.20eb2808c38c5da16dc40e56ebb7f193.jpg
AC75AmericanMagicDroneSail-1.thumb.jpg.bcfeb8cd7fa7fa237f56ceb39ba4552b.jpg
Having a flat as possible bottom impoves the ground effect.
https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/219159-the-definitive-ground-effect-thread/

But to have broken boats is the downside of flatbottom too weak keel inforcements.
1583265676_OneAustralia1995.jpeg.4e8666d196614ec58e01fe807bc994d7.jpeg
One Australia 1995

 

wrong boat, boat 1 Defiant had the flat bottom. Boat 2 Patriot had the keel and went down

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

American Magic, the super scow, didn't have it. Too bad it ended with a lose oilpump that penetrated the hull.
AC75AmericanMagic-1.jpg.20eb2808c38c5da16dc40e56ebb7f193.jpg
AC75AmericanMagicDroneSail-1.thumb.jpg.bcfeb8cd7fa7fa237f56ceb39ba4552b.jpg
Having a flat as possible bottom impoves the ground effect.
https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/219159-the-definitive-ground-effect-thread/

But to have broken boats is the downside of flatbottom too weak keel inforcements.
1583265676_OneAustralia1995.jpeg.4e8666d196614ec58e01fe807bc994d7.jpeg
One Australia 1995

 

Here we go again

These boats don't make/want/benefit from ground effect.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Schakel said:

American Magic, the super scow, didn't have it. Too bad it ended with a lose oilpump that penetrated the hull.

Having a flat as possible bottom impoves the ground effect.

This is how misinformation spreads. The hole was not due to a loose oil pump (which you're already confusing an oil pump for a battery bank). THutch said in many interviews after the incident stated that. The was due to a blown out panel between two ring frames, which was not designed to take loading the way an ac765 falling outta the sky generates.

if as flat a possible a hull section was at all desirable for an ac75 (or a foiling monohull in general, AC40, etc..) why did we end up with all v2 hull shapes having a "keel sump". While, I'm sure some interaction is taking between with the air below the hull and the surface of the water, my guess is that the designers spend far more time making that as efficient as possible, and not so much time trying to apply a square old cold war era concept to a round bleeding edge hull design hole.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Schakel said:

American Magic, the super scow, didn't have it. Too bad it ended with a lose oilpump that penetrated the hull.
AC75AmericanMagic-1.jpg.20eb2808c38c5da16dc40e56ebb7f193.jpg
AC75AmericanMagicDroneSail-1.thumb.jpg.bcfeb8cd7fa7fa237f56ceb39ba4552b.jpg
Having a flat as possible bottom impoves the ground effect.
https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/219159-the-definitive-ground-effect-thread/

But to have broken boats is the downside of flatbottom too weak keel inforcements.
1583265676_OneAustralia1995.jpeg.4e8666d196614ec58e01fe807bc994d7.jpeg
One Australia 1995

 

The failure of AUS 35 had nothing to do with keel reinforcement. Virtually all of those boats had an integral keel box running from the inner lower hull through the deck. The aft edge of the keel box was generally connected to the transverse bulkhead that formed the forward bulkhead of the cockpit.

The keel fin runs all the way to deck level, and is pinned in the box.

The failures of AUS 35 in 1995 and Young America in 2000 were largely due to inadequate longitudinal reinforcement of the cockpit side decks, in part probably because of the absence of cockpit sidewalls. They both folded in half aft of the forward cockpit bulkhead.

Think of the hull as a longitudinal I-beam, then cut out the web in the aft 50% of the length of the beam, behind the forward cockpit bulkhead, so that the flanges carry the entire bending moment.

Then wind 7.5 tonnes on the runners and throw in a lumpy sea state.

What can possibly go wrong?

Young America was probably saved when the boom  jammed into the aft end of the cockpit sole, effectively stopping the boat from completely breaking in half. Bowman Jerry Kirby (Rome Kirby's father) trimmed the main hard down, locking the boom in place.

It was a very near miss.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new AC40 Class won't be racing in hand-to-hand combat until at least Q4 of 2023 or Q1 of 2024 I am hearing! So no Preliminary Events until that.

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

Are they allowed to place the FCS rams outside of the supplied units as you're suggesting?

https://emirates-team-new-zealand.americascup.com/en/news/349_A-look-inside-the-AC75-foil-cant-system.html

no i am not suggesting that.     Its about where you put the volume in the hull while considering the FCS unit must fit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, breezie said:

no i am not suggesting that.     Its about where you put the volume in the hull while considering the FCS unit must fit.

 

I mean I would understand wanting to move other heavy items down low in the hull like that, but specifically the FCS rams are part of a supplied unit, so I doubt they would be able to just relocate them without a measurer having something to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I recall is that there was already a problem onboard One Australia which meant that load had been transferred to a winch not originally intended to take such loads.

Here's an article and a quote (and even more details at the link) about the sinking of One Australia:

"I built this boat. Yes, the primary winch failed and they transferred the load to I think the running back stay winch. I’m not a sailor, just a boat builder. Either way, it’s like trying to break a stick with your hands close together and then moving them further apart. The boat wasn’t designed to take the load applied at such a distance."

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2019/03/05/americas-cup-sinking-one-australia/

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jmh2002 said:

What I recall is that there was already a problem onboard One Australia which meant that load had been transferred to a winch not originally intended to take such loads.

Here's an article and a quote (and even more details at the link) about the sinking of One Australia:

"I built this boat. Yes, the primary winch failed and they transferred the load to I think the running back stay winch. I’m not a sailor, just a boat builder. Either way, it’s like trying to break a stick with your hands close together and then moving them further apart. The boat wasn’t designed to take the load applied at such a distance."

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2019/03/05/americas-cup-sinking-one-australia/

 

I like that video One Australia being sucked to the bottom of the Pacific. Went quickly, now you see it now you don't.
Guess it justifies a vestigated keel. 

 

 

9 hours ago, atwinda said:

This is how misinformation spreads. The hole was not due to a loose oil pump (which you're already confusing an oil pump for a battery bank). THutch said in many interviews after the incident stated that. The was due to a blown out panel between two ring frames, which was not designed to take loading the way an ac765 falling outta the sky generates.

if as flat a possible a hull section was at all desirable for an ac75 (or a foiling monohull in general, AC40, etc..) why did we end up with all v2 hull shapes having a "keel sump". While, I'm sure some interaction is taking between with the air below the hull and the surface of the water, my guess is that the designers spend far more time making that as efficient as possible, and not so much time trying to apply a square old cold war era concept to a round bleeding edge hull design hole.

Thanks for the info:
Couldn't make out from the onboard video what penetrated the hull, if on board crew said it was the battery pack it surely was.
2043536306_BatterypenetratinghullAC75Patriot.png.abcdc4d70cf1a6784a387c49f096b52e.png
The second remark is more important and I quote:
"While, I'm sure some interaction is taking between with the air below the hull and the surface of the water, my guess is that the designers spend far more time making that as efficient as possible, and not so much time trying to apply a square old cold war era concept to a round bleeding edge hull design hole.

It is about making choices:

                    1.       How much reinforcements do you make around the keelbeam to keep the boat safe.
                    2.      How flat can you make the hull to create extra uplift.

The imoca 60' experience more loads on their keelbeam then the AC40's and do have a flat bottom:
1380097130_Apiviabottom.jpg.66b005a5483730e7a2e6b8a9edf8e9f0.jpg
1117560726_CharalImoca.thumb.jpeg.cda20a2d7f195a53e925db72f659966e.jpeg


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jmh2002 said:

What I recall is that there was already a problem onboard One Australia which meant that load had been transferred to a winch not originally intended to take such loads.

Here's an article and a quote (and even more details at the link) about the sinking of One Australia:

"I built this boat. Yes, the primary winch failed and they transferred the load to I think the running back stay winch. I’m not a sailor, just a boat builder. Either way, it’s like trying to break a stick with your hands close together and then moving them further apart. The boat wasn’t designed to take the load applied at such a distance."

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2019/03/05/americas-cup-sinking-one-australia/

 

The key takeaway from that article was the lack of longitudinal reinforcement in AUS 35. Remember that the boats at that time had a maximum rule displacement of 25 tonnes, and righting moment was king when going uphill, which was where those races were largely won or lost, assuming an even start.

Every gram saved in the hull went into the bulb.

The builder states the bulb (12T)  and fin (5T) together weighed 17 tonnes. That would actually be pretty light for an AC bulb. Later boats got to a bulb/fin weight of about 20 tonnes, with the steel fins at maybe 2.5 tonnes.

Remember that this was the time when a few boats--notably NZL 32 and 38--were getting extremely narrow, with a bmax of around 3.5 m. Some first-generation IACC boats had a bmax of around 5 m.

In other words, form stability was almost irrelevant, with the boats dependent on a ballast package with the lowest possible CG. The loads put on the increasingly-light hull construction were phenomenal.

Some teams would tap-test every section of hull after sailing sessions to look for areas of possible delamination. There was little or no margin for error.

The hulls could also not be autoclaved--cured under vacuum only--so it was really difficult to optimize construction.

These proportions were more extreme than the so-called "six-beam cutters" of the late 19th century.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, accnick said:

Young America was probably saved when the boom  jammed into the aft end of the cockpit sole, effectively stopping the boat from completely breaking in half. Bowman Jerry Kirby (Rome Kirby's father) trimmed the main hard down, locking the boom in place.

It was a very near miss.

that'll buff right out?

 young-america-crew-try-to-salvage-their-

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

The key takeaway from that article was the lack of longitudinal reinforcement in AUS 35. 

Actually I think the key takeaway from the article is that the primary winch load was transferred to another winch, and another part of the structure of the boat, that was not designed for this amount of load.

Yes the boats were built extremely light - "the hull and deck finished weighed only 1.1 tonnes".

But the longitudinal reinforcement wasn't required if the boat was operated within it's design parameters.

This level of racing boats is extreme and the tolerances are very slim, to save weight and be fast.

Effectively it was crew error. They were not fast enough against the kiwis so probably wouldn't have won that race anyway.

It would have been smarter to retire and not risk damaging the boat (or losing the boat in their case) but hindsight is easier than the heat of the moment during a Cup race.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmh2002 said:

Actually I think the key takeaway from the article is that the primary winch load was transferred to another winch, and another part of the structure of the boat, that was not designed for this amount of load.

Yes the boats were built extremely light - "the hull and deck finished weighed only 1.1 tonnes".

But the longitudinal reinforcement wasn't required if the boat was operated within it's design parameters.

This level of racing boats is extreme and the tolerances are very slim, to save weight and be fast.

Effectively it was crew error. They were not fast enough against the kiwis so probably wouldn't have won that race anyway.

It would have been smarter to retire and not risk damaging the boat (or losing the boat in their case) but hindsight is easier than the heat of the moment during a Cup race.

 

I think it's fair to say that both issues played a part. Either without the other should not have broken the boat in half.

Do you someone stood there and said "don't put the jib sheet on the runner winch, or the boat will break in half?"  When you are racing, and one winch fails, do you think they will retire if there is another winch that might do the job?

You would think the winch might come out of the deck before the boat would break in half.

By the way, one of the designers, Iain Murray (yes, that Iain Murray) was sailing on the boat that day.

It was a pretty astonishing day on the water. San Diego rarely had a real lump of sea, but there was always a substantial swell, even in light air.

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

I think it's fair to say that both issues played a part. Either without the other should not have broken the boat in half.

My point is, why add longitudinal strengthening and make the boat heavier and slower when this is not needed if the boat is sailed within it's design parameters? That's not how design thinking works at this level. There would have been no allowance for jury rigging primary sheet loads to an alternative and lesser winch on an America's Cup boat. That just would not have been considered during design.

These were not for example Whitbread boats of days past where some allowance was made for 'misadventure', and where boats are venturing into the deep south where rescue capabilities are limited and boats and crews must fend for themselves.

This is bay racing at the very very very top level where the boats are built so light that they are mostly junk after the Cup is finished. And if they are not junk, then they were built too heavy in the first place - that is the type of design thinking. These boats were not built to last - they were built to win.

Also to be fair the One Australia sinking was over 25 years ago and computer modelling regarding the structures has come a long way since then. 

But even now you could say something similar about American Magic - the boat just crashed down into the water, isn't it designed to withstand that?

Well, clearly not, not at least on a side angle against the flat surfaces, and not from that height. Were splash downs and crash downs envisaged during the design process? Yes of course, but clearly not to that extent, and that seems reasonable since accounting for every eventuality beyond the normal design and sailing parameters just adds weight and makes the boat slower - and a winning America's Cup boat that does not make.

 

10 minutes ago, accnick said:

Do you someone stood there and said "don't put the jib sheet on the runner winch, or the boat will break in half?"  When you are racing, and one winch fails, do you think they will retire if there is another winch that might do the job?

You would think the winch might come out of the deck before the boat would break in half.

Well, that is exactly the problem isn't it - nobody thought about the implications to the boat's structure of what they were doing, or they made a guess and thought/hoped it would be ok, or they said who cares, we're racing - go hard or go home...

So, they went home... (fortunately, all of them, and still alive to tell the tale).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jmh2002 said:

 

Well, that is exactly the problem isn't it - nobody thought about the implications to the boat's structure of what they were doing, or they made a guess and thought/hoped it would be ok, or they said who cares, we're racing - go hard or go home...

So, they went home... (fortunately, all of them, and still alive to tell the tale).

 

To their credit, they managed to get AUS 31 together to get back on the race course, but they had to do some serious work to get that boat to measure in, and it wasn't nearly as fast a boat.

A number if AC teams have learned the hard way that their design/construction/operating tools were not quite as good as they thought they were. When you design, build, and/or sail too close to the edge, you risk failure. Ask TNZ in 2003 about that one.

"To finish first, you first have to finish."

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

A number if AC teams have learned the hard way that their design/construction/operating tools were not quite as good as they thought they were. When you design, build, and/or sail too close to the edge, you risk failure...

Absolutely. And if there are not some failures then probably the design envelope wasn't being pushed as far as it could have been.

It's a delicate balance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jmh2002 said:

Absolutely. And if there are not some failures then probably the design envelope wasn't being pushed as far as it could have been.

It's a delicate balance. 

If it breaks it's too weak. If it doesn't break it's too strong.

Hero to zero in nothing flat.

The problem is that breakages almost always occur at really inopportune times, often with cascading results and a devastating impact on crew morale and the team's chances.

Think TNZ in 2003. Nearly sinking in race one, boom and spinnaker pole issues, and a mast falling down, all within a few days.

In that case, they had a boat with known issues that had never been pushed in training the way it had to be pushed when racing against a battle-tested opponent. If the crew doesn't have confidence in the boat--and TNZ did not--they will be unwilling or unable to push as required when the cards are on the table.

Then add in American Magic in AC 36, Oracle's first boat in AC 34 (the flexible flyer), and the Artemis tragedy in AC 34, in a boat that had already broken major things.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dg_sailingfan said:

Looks like most of the 3rd Generation AC75 will have a "Self Tacking Jib" hence you don't need Jib Trimmers anymore:D

At least it will still take a small army to raise and lower the sails....

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dg_sailingfan said:

Looks like most of the 3rd Generation AC75 will have a "Self Tacking Jib" hence you don't need Jib Trimmers anymore:D

You think the jib will be trimmed exactly the same irrespective of wind strength, upwind/downwind, tactical situation etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

You think the jib will be trimmed exactly the same irrespective of wind strength, upwind/downwind, tactical situation etc?

ETNZ did have a Self-Tacking Jib if you reckon for AC34 in SF which gave them a certain Advantage early in the Event.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2022 at 7:32 AM, accnick said:

Young America was probably saved when the boom  jammed into the aft end of the cockpit sole, effectively stopping the boat from completely breaking in half. Bowman Jerry Kirby (Rome Kirby's father) trimmed the main hard down, locking the boom in place.

It was a very near miss.

Wow!

I will openly admit that if I was on a boat that was breaking in half, I wouldn’t think to crank the main sheet on…

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2022 at 3:32 PM, accnick said:

Young America was probably saved when the boom  jammed into the aft end of the cockpit sole, effectively stopping the boat from completely breaking in half. Bowman Jerry Kirby (Rome Kirby's father) trimmed the main hard down, locking the boom in place.

It was a very near miss.

AC30, Auckland, with JS at the helm of Young America? I didn't follow that AC very closely but have read some of JS's descriptions of that campaign - fun stuff!

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

AC30, Auckland, with JS at the helm of Young America? I didn't follow that AC very closely but have read some of JS's descriptions of that campaign - fun stuff!

No, Ed Baird was skipper of Young America, the boat that broke in 2000. They repaired that boat and got it back on the race course, but it was too little, too late.

Jimmy Spithill, at age 19, was skipper of Young Australia that year. His boat was AUS 31, the boat that One Australia used in San Diego in 1995 after AUS 35 broke in half and sank.

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

No, Ed Baird was skipper of Young America, the boat that broke in 2000. They repaired that boat and got it back on the race course, but it was too little, too late.

Jimmy Spithill, at age 19, was skipper of Young Australia that year. His boat was AUS 31, the boat that One Australia used in San Diego in 1995 after AUS 35 broke in half and sank.

Bingo! Misread Young America for Young Australia, my bad.

Interesting, thanks. Was that Ed's first AC?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2022 at 8:47 AM, accnick said:

No, Ed Baird was skipper of Young America, the boat that broke in 2000. They repaired that boat and got it back on the race course, but it was too little, too late.

Jimmy Spithill, at age 19, was skipper of Young Australia that year. His boat was AUS 31, the boat that One Australia used in San Diego in 1995 after AUS 35 broke in half and sank.

And the only boat to take a race from Black Magic in 1995

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2022 at 1:32 AM, accnick said:

 

 Bowman Jerry Kirby (Rome Kirby's father) trimmed the main hard down, locking the boom in place.

 

one has to ask what the bowman was doing back there in the first place!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, shebeen said:

one has to ask what the bowman was doing back there in the first place!

This was after the shit hit the fan. There wasn't anything he could do up forward.

The boom jammed aft when the boat broke, but it was all pretty precarious, and not at all clear the boat wasn't going to do a full-on AUS 35.

For those of us who had been in San Diego in 1995, there was a strong sense of deja vu.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2022 at 3:37 PM, shebeen said:

one has to ask what the bowman was doing back there in the first place!

Jerry is one of those guys who seems to be everywhere when you need him! Great guy and I remember being alongside accnick in San Fran in 2013 sitting at the dock seeing a beaming Jerry as Rome walked down the dock to USA17. Never seen a man looking more proud.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm struggling to understand who would want one of these things - or really, what you would do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

ac40.jpg.d446d60da65e0c7674e5a40f7c29a0ee.jpg

It's happening 

"...some resemblance to the current America's Cup champion, Te Rehutai, but maybe with a softer and less extreme hull shape. The stern sections look more reminiscent of Luna Rossa than Te Rehutai."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it? Like the AC75, it's designed to race on one foil and rudder elevators. Two foils in would certainly add more stability, but at the expense of a lot more drag. As you'll recall, for certain manoeuvres the AC75 used both foils in, but low drag is where maximum speed is at.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.