2016 Olympic Multihull

[Tornado-Cat]

1. So it will be an advantage to be heavier upwind for

increased righting moment with no penalty downwind.

As you wrote it in the report, can you please provide me with a

clarification.

2. why you do not see curved boards in the AC45. Plus you will not see any in the AC72?s.

Except if any of the low budget teams buy the shared design offered as this

has it. You will see ? L boards

8. MNA sailor feedback was that some felt that they were at the upper limit of the

competitive combined crew weight.? This would be expected as many of the MNA

sailors were out of the desired weight range but this was not mentioned in

the report.

Also in the report there is a statement some teams ?felt that the optimal

crew weights will drop as more teams get familiar with the boat?

Regards

Darren

1. the MNA sailors said the contrary

2. The reason is very simple, the AC45 was design with straight boards because its main goal was to train the teams on the wing. It is also one design, so, no obligation to work on foils

For the AC72, I presume that Darren was made aware of the OR design, but how can he know TNZ and Artemis design ? possible but higly improbable. And it it was the case it would only be for their first boat and not the second one. Also, VPLP is not a architect for "cheap team", it was the designer of USA17, with C board. However it is right that we may see L boards, somw have been tested on OR AC45.

8. If MNA sailors are not able to represent average still sailors, even after the grounding regular mixed crews because tthey were too heavy, well, that proves that the Viper would eliminate most current sailors. The only solution for the best ones would be to become anorexic, which validates Nahid's point.

 

[Helen]

Firstly, the email that has appeared here is from Darren Bundock to Dick Batt (head of the ISAF Equipment committee) and Jason Smithwick (head of the ISAF technical committee).

It was asking for justification of some of the statements that were included (or not included) in the ISAF report..... His email should be read as such. It is not a discussion of his opinion vs your opinion.

If ISAF are going to say comments like "Platform not as stiff as some other boats tested"..... Then where is their evidence? This is something that could easily be tested... but WAS NOT tested at the Santander trials.

If ISAF are going to say "Curved boards cater for a wider crew weight range".... again, where is there evidence???? This should be something that can be measured or proven - Not someone's opinion!!!!

 

[macca]

I'm pretty sure if ISAF commented that the Hobie 16 wasn't as stiff as the Viper there wouldn't be anyone asking for data!!

It is an OBSERVATION!!! Not an absolute measure, but still relevant to the trial in terms of sailor feedback.

 

[SimonN]

1. So it will be an advantage to be heavier upwind for

increased righting moment with no penalty downwind.

As you wrote it in the report, can you please provide me with a

clarification.

2. why you do not see curved boards in the AC45. Plus you will not see any in the AC72?s.

Except if any of the low budget teams buy the shared design offered as this

has it. You will see ? L boards

8. MNA sailor feedback was that some felt that they were at the upper limit of the

competitive combined crew weight.? This would be expected as many of the MNA

sailors were out of the desired weight range but this was not mentioned in

the report.

Also in the report there is a statement some teams ?felt that the optimal

crew weights will drop as more teams get familiar with the boat?

Regards

Darren

1. the MNA sailors said the contraryHow can you say that? Do you even understand the point that Darren is making? To be able to comment you need to take 2 identical boats but put curved boars in one and straight boards in another, and that didn't happen in the trials. It is a simple fact that, upwind, you need more weight in the curved board boat to get the same righting moment. That is because the curved board moves the ecntre of resistance inboard, meaning it reduces effective beam. that is not an opinion. It is a fact. The idea that curved boards also equal things out downwind is also correct, because the drag from the foils is less than the drag from the reduced wetted surface and as such, reduces the advantage of lightweights. I accept that the differences might be small, but it is fact that they exist, not opinion. So when the evaluation report stated that curved boards would make the weight range wider, it wasn't based on the physics involved.

2. The reason is very simple, the AC45 was design with straight boards because its main goal was to train the teams on the wing. It is also one design, so, no obligation to work on foilsThat's funny, seeing that the N17 is a one design! So are you now saying that the N17 shouldn't have curved foils?

For the AC72, I presume that Darren was made aware of the OR design, but how can he know TNZ and Artemis design? possible but higly improbable.I think that the OR design team will have a pretty good idea of whether other teams will used C foils based on how obvious it is that whether they will work or not. I think most people now accept that we won't see C foils, but could very well see J, S or even L foils. Darren isn't saying we will only see straight foils on AC72's

8. If MNA sailors are not able to represent average still sailors, even after the grounding regular mixed crews because tthey were too heavy, well, that proves that the Viper would eliminate most current sailors. The only solution for the best ones would be to become anorexic, which validates Nahid's point.Again, your opinion but strangely, in many countries, there are already mixed teams in training who fit within the weight range and I can assure you that they are not anorexic. You have never replied to the fact I pointed out that the best British female youth sailors of recent times didn't transition to Olympic sailing because they were too small. Where are they in your data?

For me, the really interesting thing about Darren's email is that for all the bullshit claims that the evaluation panel were biased and that Carolijn is abusing her position to exert undue influence, it is clear that this is not the case.

 

[F16_wouter]

1335929320[/url]' post='3696034']

1335880249[/url]' post='3694663']Yes you're right TC...

30+... at Carnac (on 160 boats)...

So indeed TC , what is exactly your point ?

That.

Care to count the number of other ISAF trial boats at Carnac ? Point in case more Vipers there then H16's, same for other makes.

I guess your point is that none of the boats at the trials should be selected, huh ?

 

[CAL21]

It is an OBSERVATION!!! Not an absolute measure, but still relevant to the trial in terms of sailor feedback.

Who uses or relys on observations at the pointy end of equipment evaluation?

 

[F16_wouter]

1334999765[/url]' post='3682081']I admit that I cringe when reading the appendix. Not because of the errornous points you make (what else is new ?), but because many of the percentages don't add up to 100%. Some of the totals add up to over 150% in fact. That way it is not hard to score high points in the excellent department.

Lets compare the two boats in the short list to eachother. Note that the percentages represent "Good", "Average" and "Bad" judgements on individual criteria

Viper F16

All precentages add up to 100% except

5e 63% + 33% + 3% = 99%

5f 34% + 62% + 3% = 99%

7a 27% + 67% + 7% = 101%

9a 77% + 16% + 3% = 96%

Nacra 17

Out of 38 criteria only 3 criteria add up to 100%, out of the 35 "typos" only 2 are below 100% where 5 criteria related to safety have not been tested for the Nacra 17. Additionally, 13 percentages are above 120% and 6 percentages are 140% or higher.

1a 78% + 2% + 0% = 99%

1b 71% + 30% + 0% = 101%

2a 87% + 22% + 0% = 109 %

2b 93% + 13% + 0% = 106%

2c 56% + 35% + 0% = 91%

3a 72% + 43% + 0% = 115%

3b 85% + 29% + 0% = 114%

3c 94% + 20% + 0% = 124%

3e 61% + 54% + 0% = 115%

4a 89% + 33% + 0% = 122%

4b 93% + 20% + 0% = 113%

5a 88% + 33% +0% = 121%

5b 91% + 23% +0% = 114%

5c 67% + 75% + 5% = 147%

5d 88% + 27% + 0% = 115%

5e 62% + 48% + 0% = 110%

5f 90% + 21% + 0% = 110%

6a 74% + 53% + 0% = 127%

6b 70% + 75% + 0% = 145%

6c 75% + 89% + 0% = 164%

6d 84% + 26% + 0% = 110%

6e 50% + 52% + 4% = 106%

6f 69% + 38% + 0% = 107%

6g 80% + 27% + 0% = 107%

6h 83% + 33% + 9% = 125%

6i 84% + 40% + 0% = 124%

7a 70% + 86% + 0% = 156%

7b 90% + 50% + 0% = 140%

8a 0% + 0% + 0% = 0%

8b 0% + 0% + 0% = 0%

8c 0% + 0% + 0% = 0%

8d 0% + 0% + 0% = 0%

8e 0% + 0% + 0% = 0%

9b 85% + 83% +0% = 168%

9c 97% + 33% +0% = 130%

I imagine that TC would have had a field day if the Viper were to have these "typos" instead of the Nacra 17. The cries of foul play would never have stopped !

(P.S. The Tornado averages are wrong in only 3 cases : 4b = 101% 6F = 101%, 9a = 93% )

Maybe Dick and Jason can also clarify why the percentages behave so differently for one of the boats compared to the others at the trials ?

 

[SimonN]

I think that there are a few truths that come out of this. First, for all the percentage add ups (or not, as the cas emight be), the sailors expressed a preference for the N17. However, that clearly isn't the whole story and there seems to be other factors to consider.

Of the things above, I am actually shocked that ISAF could even consider equipment that wasn't at the trials. For instance, to go for the N17 with a carbon mast would simply be wrong. Nacra didn't take a carbon mast to the trials and I don't even know whether they have built and tested a carbon mast for the N17 yet. And before anybody says developing a carbon mast is easy, it isn't. Not only do you need to get a mast that bends how you want it to, but it needs to match the sails.

I am also surprised that the "facts" given to the evaluation panel by the manufacturers weren't checked.

One thing I am sure of, and that is any errors would have been made in good faith by the evaluation panel and that there is no conspiracy going on. I am sure there was no intentional bias to any boat or manufacturer and it might even be that in an attempt to be seen to be completely fair, it has lead to an unintentional bias.

 

[drew584]

I think that there are a few truths that come out of this. First, for all the percentage add ups (or not, as the cas emight be), the sailors expressed a preference for the N17. However, that clearly isn't the whole story and there seems to be other factors to consider.

Of the things above, I am actually shocked that ISAF could even consider equipment that wasn't at the trials. For instance, to go for the N17 with a carbon mast would simply be wrong. Nacra didn't take a carbon mast to the trials and I don't even know whether they have built and tested a carbon mast for the N17 yet. And before anybody says developing a carbon mast is easy, it isn't. Not only do you need to get a mast that bends how you want it to, but it needs to match the sails.

I am also surprised that the "facts" given to the evaluation panel by the manufacturers weren't checked.

One thing I am sure of, and that is any errors would have been made in good faith by the evaluation panel and that there is no conspiracy going on. I am sure there was no intentional bias to any boat or manufacturer and it might even be that in an attempt to be seen to be completely fair, it has lead to an unintentional bias.

Simon,

They did take a carbon mast to the trials, and it broke in the very first capsize of the boat. So while you are mistaken about it not being there you are very accurate about getting the design right, if it gets selected how many masts are teams going to have to buy before the design is right and how different are the boats goign to be because of the differences in masts???

Lots of things people seem to be forgetting about when choosing the boats, one is proven and one is a complete unknown quantity. You pick.

 

[SimonN]

Simon,

They did take a carbon mast to the trials, and it broke in the very first capsize of the boat. So while you are mistaken about it not being there you are very accurate about getting the design right, if it gets selected how many masts are teams going to have to buy before the design is right and how different are the boats goign to be because of the differences in masts???

Lots of things people seem to be forgetting about when choosing the boats, one is proven and one is a complete unknown quantity. You pick.

Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood what Darren had said. Having been stung by the undeveloped mast situation before, I get a bit wary and while I won't be going for the Olympics, I do hope past lessons will be remembered. With the 49ers, i went through 4 masts in the first year after they were made an Olympic class and then they changed to a better mast. In effect, I needed 5 masts in just over 1 year. That was half the cost of a new boat down the tubes!

 

[macca]

If the alloy section is chosen then the Nacra has for sure the most reliable mast of the two. It is the Infusion section which is certainly less prone to breakage than the Viper mast.

I can't speak for the carbon option suggested by both builders, but it isn't rocket science to build a reliable carbon stick for one of these boats. As for the claims that the Nacra is an unknown quantity I am pretty sure that the fact both boats are built in the same factory negates this issue.. Plus Nacra/CMI have been building curved boards for the F20 for some time now and they are refined in the process and reliable.

 

[dtw8689]

Ya have to take D comments somewhat canted since he is a Viper factory team member.

 

[rdeheld]

Ya have to take D comments somewhat canted since he is a Viper factory team member.

Who's independend here?

 

[CAL21]

If the alloy section is chosen then the Nacra has for sure the most reliable mast of the two. It is the Infusion section which is certainly less prone to breakage than the Viper mast.

Has that been measured or observed?

 

[CAL21]

Ya have to take D comments somewhat canted since he is a Viper factory team member.

Doesn't invalidate his observations.

Was anyone unaware?

 

[maritimesailski]

1. So it will be an advantage to be heavier upwind for

increased righting moment with no penalty downwind.

As you wrote it in the report, can you please provide me with a

clarification.

2. why you do not see curved boards in the AC45. Plus you will not see any in the AC72?s.

Except if any of the low budget teams buy the shared design offered as this

has it. You will see ? L boards

8. MNA sailor feedback was that some felt that they were at the upper limit of the

competitive combined crew weight.? This would be expected as many of the MNA

sailors were out of the desired weight range but this was not mentioned in

the report.

Also in the report there is a statement some teams ?felt that the optimal

crew weights will drop as more teams get familiar with the boat?

Regards

Darren

1. the MNA sailors said the contrary

2. The reason is very simple, the AC45 was design with straight boards because its main goal was to train the teams on the wing. It is also one design, so, no obligation to work on foils

For the AC72, I presume that Darren was made aware of the OR design, but how can he know TNZ and Artemis design ? possible but higly improbable. And it it was the case it would only be for their first boat and not the second one. Also, VPLP is not a architect for "cheap team", it was the designer of USA17, with C board. However it is right that we may see L boards, somw have been tested on OR AC45.

8. If MNA sailors are not able to represent average still sailors, even after the grounding regular mixed crews because tthey were too heavy, well, that proves that the Viper would eliminate most current sailors. The only solution for the best ones would be to become anorexic, which validates Nahid's point.

Here is a good example of actual Olympic (and AC) level sailors, with real weights, having a VERY good regatta on a Viper. Off of the viper class page:

Media Release

For immediate release

2 May 2012

VIPER DELIVERS FINAL STRIKE

The French potential Olympic team of Moana Vaireaux and Manon Audinet sailing their Viper in the prestigious Eurocat long distance raid have stolen the show taking overall fleet victory on the final day of racing in Carnac, France.

Vaireaux and Audinet were thrilled after returning to the harbour and realising they had beaten more than 300 teams in the pinnacle event of the weekend. Vaireaux paid tribute to the weeks training the French Olympic squad had completed on Vipers prior to the Eurocat regatta.

The 2012 edition of Eurocat has seen some of the most competitive Viper sailing to date, with 23 entrants from five different nationalities and consisting of 18 mixed crews. World champions, Olympians and Americas Cup sailors are among the mix of the international sailors.

“The competition is tough at the front but we are having great fun” said Frenchman Arnaud Jarlegen, who is taking time off from his Americas Cup campaign with Team Energy.

Viper Class President Raphael Sicouri said, ““It is fantastic to see some of the most accomplished catamaran sailors racing on the same one design boat, on the same course and helping all the other sailors. The class is going from strength to strength with now over 200 boats”

Darren Bundock, former Tornado Olympian commented, “The racing on Friday was almost perfect with three highly competitive races and three different winners. It great to see how mixed sailing has really taken off in the Viper class. The women are pushing us guys, Audrey Ogereau helmed to victory in the first heat, while Celine van Dooren crewed winning the second race. Amazing job by Manon Audinet crewing to win overall in the long distance”

Audrey Ogereau and Valentin Bellet won the Viper fleet racing class from fellow country men Emmanuel Le Chapelier and Yaouen Lecoublett.

The Viper class is very pleased but not at all surprised the Viper rated extremely well at the recent Olympic equipment evaluation trials and is one of the two recommended equipment choices to be decided at the ISAF mid year meeting next week in Stressa, Italy.

For further information about the Viper please go to our website www.viperclass.org

 

[Tornado-Cat]

1. So it will be an advantage to be heavier upwind for

increased righting moment with no penalty downwind.

As you wrote it in the report, can you please provide me with a

clarification.

2. why you do not see curved boards in the AC45. Plus you will not see any in the AC72?s.

Except if any of the low budget teams buy the shared design offered as this

has it. You will see ? L boards

8. MNA sailor feedback was that some felt that they were at the upper limit of the

competitive combined crew weight.? This would be expected as many of the MNA

sailors were out of the desired weight range but this was not mentioned in

the report.

Also in the report there is a statement some teams ?felt that the optimal

crew weights will drop as more teams get familiar with the boat?

Regards

Darren

1. the MNA sailors said the contraryHow can you say that? Do you even understand the point that Darren is making? To be able to comment you need to take 2 identical boats but put curved boars in one and straight boards in another, and that didn't happen in the trials. It is a simple fact that, upwind, you need more weight in the curved board boat to get the same righting moment. That is because the curved board moves the ecntre of resistance inboard, meaning it reduces effective beam. that is not an opinion. It is a fact. The idea that curved boards also equal things out downwind is also correct, because the drag from the foils is less than the drag from the reduced wetted surface and as such, reduces the advantage of lightweights. I accept that the differences might be small, but it is fact that they exist, not opinion. So when the evaluation report stated that curved boards would make the weight range wider, it wasn't based on the physics involved.

I never contradicted the physics. The perception of the sailors is positive so, as you say, that the difference may be very small.<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

2. The reason is very simple, the AC45 was design with straight boards because its main goal was to train the teams on the wing. It is also one design, so, no obligation to work on foilsThat's funny, seeing that the N17 is a one design! So are you now saying that the N17 shouldn't have curved foils?

It is not what I was meaning, the ACWS do not need to have the best boat. The N17, while being one design, wants to be the best boat vs its competitors. <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

For the AC72, I presume that Darren was made aware of the OR design, but how can he know TNZ and Artemis design? possible but higly improbable.I think that the OR design team will have a pretty good idea of whether other teams will used C foils based on how obvious it is that whether they will work or not. I think most people now accept that we won't see C foils, but could very well see J, S or even L foils. Darren isn't saying we will only see straight foils on AC72's

I think nobody knows, and that each team is trying to intox the others. I agree that we will probably see different kind of boards which will be the most exciting part of the AC. (my personnal guess: L with controlable flaps like a plane).<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

8. If MNA sailors are not able to represent average still sailors, even after the grounding regular mixed crews because tthey were too heavy, well, that proves that the Viper would eliminate most current sailors. The only solution for the best ones would be to become anorexic, which validates Nahid's point.Again, your opinion but strangely, in many countries, there are already mixed teams in training who fit within the weight range and I can assure you that they are not anorexic. You have never replied to the fact I pointed out that the best British female youth sailors of recent times didn't transition to Olympic sailing because they were too small. Where are they in your data?

I never responded because I don't know them, I don't even know if they exist and, even if they do, decisions should not be based on exceptions but on majority of sailors.

For me, the really interesting thing about Darren's email is that for all the bullshit claims that the evaluation panel were biased and that Carolijn is abusing her position to exert undue influence, it is clear that this is not the case.

I absolutely agree with you that this letter is the best one Dick Batt could ever receive. When I read the letter my first reaction was .........Oh, well, ....that is a good tempo !

BTW, the Viper was also considered a flexible platform by Jonathan Loday from the Spitfire team.(see his FB page)

 

[F16_wouter]

1335964480[/url]' post='3696480']

1335960351[/url]' post='3696426']If the alloy section is chosen then the Nacra has for sure the most reliable mast of the two. It is the Infusion section which is certainly less prone to breakage than the Viper mast.

Has that been measured or observed?

Neither. The superwing alu mast (Taipan, Blade, Falcon, Viper, Aquaraptor and several homebuilds) has been used for over 25 years now (longer then any F18) and has proven to be one of the most reliable alu mast ever produced. Since the F16 class start back in 2001 I know of only 3 mast breakages. One on a trailer by mishandling, one after sailing with a F18 spinnaker for a season doing double trapping and uncleating the main and a third that hit bottom when turtled. The only superwing breakages of any significance were when Aussia Taipan sailors (pre F16 era) experimented with etching the masts with acid to reduce wallthickness and make them lighter still. They were looking for the limit and found it. As a matter of fact I know of more infusion mast breakages, but you will never her me say that the infusion masts are unreliable. Macca is just playing fast and loose with facts here and he knows it. He has done that more often.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Yes you're right TC...

30+... at Carnac (on 160 boats)...

So indeed TC , what is exactly your point ?

That.

Care to count the number of other ISAF trial boats at Carnac ? Point in case more Vipers there then H16's, same for other makes.

I guess your point is that none of the boats at the trials should be selected, huh ?

Darren B claims 23 Viper at Carnac.

Some of these Vipers were from the french Olympic squad as they had planned, incorrectly, it would be the next Oly platform. The grass root argument falls short and goes in favor of a bigger boat which represent most of the fleet. And you know it.

 

[macca]

1335964480[/url]' post='3696480']

1335960351[/url]' post='3696426']If the alloy section is chosen then the Nacra has for sure the most reliable mast of the two. It is the Infusion section which is certainly less prone to breakage than the Viper mast.

Has that been measured or observed?

Neither. The superwing alu mast (Taipan, Blade, Falcon, Viper, Aquaraptor and several homebuilds) has been used for over 25 years now (longer then any F18) and has proven to be one of the most reliable alu mast ever produced. Since the F16 class start back in 2001 I know of only 3 mast breakages. One on a trailer by mishandling, one after sailing with a F18 spinnaker for a season doing double trapping and uncleating the main and a third that hit bottom when turtled. The only superwing breakages of any significance were when Aussia Taipan sailors (pre F16 era) experimented with etching the masts with acid to reduce wallthickness and make them lighter still. They were looking for the limit and found it. As a matter of fact I know of more infusion mast breakages, but you will never her me say that the infusion masts are unreliable. Macca is just playing fast and loose with facts here and he knows it. He has done that more often.

Wouter, try to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. We are debating facts here.. Eurocat and Texel 2010 were not good events for Viper masts, Just ask Brett and Bundy... Brett missed all of Texel because he broke a mast on the first day in normal conditions and they had no spares after the breakages at Carnac. Not fast and loose, just hard and true.