ChairborneRanger
Anarchist
2 weeks tops. *Finger in the air*
AC40
- Thread starter Varan
- Start date
The_Alchemist
Super Anarchist
Why? They wrote the rules and broke their one LQE12, so too bad.
Sailbydate
Super Anarchist
Haven't been able to find it either, Riddle.
A cynic might suggest that it's currently being re-written by ETNZ to get them out of the shit they now find themselves in.
I could suggest an amendment, something to the effect that '....an AC40, LEQ12 platform may be returned to Class, following a valid Measurement Certificate. Once re-measured as Class Compliant, an AC40 can again be re-converted to an LEQ12 platform, or substituted by another AC40, if available'.
Ducking and running...
chesirecat
Super Anarchist
Might need permission from CoR and approval might not be a foregone conclusion plus LR are not known for their passive approval.
Although I haven't been able to find one after hunting for it just now...
JALhazmat
Super Anarchist
Question for @Mozzy Sails
is there someone with oversight that confirms the spec of a boat when it sails?
while a visual change can be seen how are changes to code accounted for if you were slipping between AC40 spec and LEQQ12
in a case where a team has both boats on the water or when a team has splashed then broken the boat and has used the single LEQ12 allocation
does it rely on the teams honesty not to put the spare AC 40 in the water but run out of spec code for the control systems.
is there someone with oversight that confirms the spec of a boat when it sails?
while a visual change can be seen how are changes to code accounted for if you were slipping between AC40 spec and LEQQ12
in a case where a team has both boats on the water or when a team has splashed then broken the boat and has used the single LEQ12 allocation
does it rely on the teams honesty not to put the spare AC 40 in the water but run out of spec code for the control systems.
The spare AC40 is allowed in the water in AC40 class spec, the debate is wether they can install LEQ12 foils on an AC40 hull, or if doing so turns a class spec AC40 hull into a LEQ12 hull (theres a single LEQ12 only because of the component limits on the hull)
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
I think Jal is asking a different question. Given that an AC40 has an automated flight control system, how do competitors know that NZ haven't stuck a software upgrade on for the AC40 competitions.
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
What do we reckon for the delays this will bring?
My guess
2 weeks analysis
2 weeks re-design and re-write the rule
4 weeks re-build the bow (be risky to overlap that with the design in case you need to change something in that bow design)
3 weeks re-testing in AC40 form
Assuming NZ do their boat first before delivering anyone else that means an 11 week delay for them
But then Ineos boat needs re-workingso thats another 2 weeks for that. So 13+ week delay for everyone else. Potentially more depending how far advanced the other boats are and whether the changes can be incorporated in build
I note that is quite a lot of the NZ summer gone. When were they planning to move north?
My guess
2 weeks analysis
2 weeks re-design and re-write the rule
4 weeks re-build the bow (be risky to overlap that with the design in case you need to change something in that bow design)
3 weeks re-testing in AC40 form
Assuming NZ do their boat first before delivering anyone else that means an 11 week delay for them
But then Ineos boat needs re-workingso thats another 2 weeks for that. So 13+ week delay for everyone else. Potentially more depending how far advanced the other boats are and whether the changes can be incorporated in build
I note that is quite a lot of the NZ summer gone. When were they planning to move north?
shebeen
Super Anarchist
I'm guessing there is nothing in the rules to do with what happens if you break your LEQ12.
Now that ETNZ have broken their LEQ12, they could actually rewrite the rules to suit themselves here, but it's actually more like adding to the rules than modifying them. It could be a clause that says you "can use another AC40 hull as your LEQ12 while you repair your original LEQ12". That's much easier than breaking the rules, but would need Ineos to agree. How would they achieve this, force some restriction on the current Ineos AC40 while they "investigate" the failure.
Who else would complain, not AM or Alinghi who are waiting for an AC40 as their LEQ12, so don't really need more delays.
So that leaves just Luna Rossa.
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
@shebeen They do have the right to change the AC40 rule (e.g. to allow strengthening), But Ineos can just say no to NZ allowing themselves another AC40 can't they. Doesn't matter what the others think.
Lets face it, can you see NZ changing the rules if it had been Ineos breaking their LEQ12?
Its a no from me
Lets face it, can you see NZ changing the rules if it had been Ineos breaking their LEQ12?
Its a no from me
Last edited:
Jethrow
Super Anarchist
I certainly don't know for sure however I would expect that the AC-40's would fall under the same arbitration/ technical committee as their bigger sisters. I would hope that TNZ can't just change the rules to say well we've broken our LEQ12 so we'll just substitute another until it's fixed!
shanghaisailor
Super Anarchist
Very True
Which was why the Lotus race cars were considered relatively fragile which is why a driver like Jim Clark excelled in them so much - he had so much empathy with a race car. To many he was the greatest ever, even Jackie Stewart said so.
shanghaisailor
Super Anarchist
Too true Sailbydate
The_Alchemist
Super Anarchist
I can easily see AM and Alinghi complaining about NZ changing the rules to allow them to just substitute in another AC40 for the LEQ12. Why should NZ get such an advantage, just because they will have a backup hull available to them? UK or LR will have to wait until they fix their LEQ12 hulls if they have a breakdown. There are specific reasons on limiting the number of hulls, masts, foils, sails, etc... and if you break them you need to wait until you fix them. That is the design risk everyone takes in the AC.
I also can see where AM and Alinghi would still want their original AC40 without structural modifications. They do not want their LEQ12 launches to be delayed and will just deal with the structural defects as supplied. This is for experimental uses only.
But the AC40 needs to be redesigned and certified by all of the teams before they are used for the AC40 Class Races. You can not have them sailing structurally defective boats.
enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
It certainly has been the most interesting thing discussed on here for this cycle.
I would imagine behind the scenes there is much paddling by the swans to negotiate the AC40 delivery and update schedule. I wonder if @Mozzy Sails will get to hear any of it
smackdaddy
Super Anarchist
Someone earlier called the AC40 a “structurally defective” boat. Replace the word “structurally” with ”fundamentally” and you’re much closer to the truth. This is nothing more than Krusty and his Kar of Klowns trying to launch their own golden parachute business on the financial back of the AC competitors - because they can write the rules. But also because they see the writing on the wall as for their chances of hanging on to the Blinky Urinal.
The problem is, as I’ve said from the very beginning, it’s becoming more clear by the day that this boat has precisely zero chance of ever becoming an adopted class or having any success whatsoever in the private market. It’s not just a piece of junk structurally as has now been clearly shown, it’s a complete failure of fundamental design for any of the intended uses.
And all of this undermines the very thing that Krusty wants so bad - trust in his brand (I was going to say Kiwi brand, but he threw the Kiwis under his bus long ago. They should be happy at this point that he is now drinking from his own broken chalice.)
Last edited:
Funny.
But a counter to that is in how they were not using the AP (which may have done a better job in that moment) and in how the Women and Youth may not have been allowed to race in a sea swell that big anyway.
To add a 'bow ring' and some 'longitudinals' (and maybe some counterweight aft to maintain balance) will hopefully not add too much weight, changing for example their required lift-out speed; maybe it will be minimal.
Last edited:
smackdaddy
Super Anarchist
That‘s what you guys don’t seem to understand. What is the intended purpose of this boat? And that’s not a rhetorical question.
If the AC40 was just a test platform, fine. No argument from me. But, with it’s stated design intention, if it can ONLY be ridden by passengers in full auto mode in calm conditions - otherwise it falls over and breaks apart, even in the seasoned hands of the top 0.1% of pro sailors in the world in 15-20 knots and relatively mellow seas - what kind of brand is that for a boat?
This thing is the equivalent of the 1971 Ford Pinto - but with far more obvious dangers than an exploding fuel tank. And if Krusty pushes this thing into the market, and the clearly inevitable happens based on what all of us are already seeing - he’s going to have that same Pintoesque level of gross liability.
Seriously, you tell me what it would take logistically and financially to campaign one of these in a private market “OD class”. How long is that line going to be?
And you've also reinforced my point as to why this boat is not only ridiculously wrong for the YACnSCAC, but is actually demeaning to them. They will be forced to be passengers on faulty automated drones.
Last edited:
