For the pleasure of speculation, if I was willing to foils as soon as possible, I would chose:I think we need both new boats with the rig up before we can really have this conversation in full.
But I actually think the answer lies in the weather on any given day, ETNZ really look to have targetted the light stuff hard and I feel AM are at the other end with LR somewhere in between, although those foil pods are just odd and don't even look real, are we sure they are not just for show!
I think you're naive to think there will be any sort of ground effects or hovercraft like effects for Defiant. Their shape is purely conceived for minimal drag through the air whilst up on the foils. It's going to go splat when she comes down off the foils, and be way more sticky with her large wetted area than the other two. In marginal conditions Defiant will be the last boat to rise, and the worst performer in any contact with a chop.I would prefer the Orca hoping to get a small air cushion between hull and water.
I think the answer is no. You want maximum space for flow to pass between or you accelerate the flow and increase cavitation issues.Rocket pods? Maybe to help with flow at the tips of the flaps? But then why only on the bottom?
T joints on the bulb look dirty, shouldn't they be filleted?
I think it is for drag. The rule definitions seem to preclude the pod from inclusion in the mass modification calc, or at best an interpretation is required. Someone posted they felt the definitions section where this argument logically derives is normative, but the rule does not state that it is normative, and I don't think we can assume.We don't know whether the torpedo is for better hydro drag or to play with the mass within the rule.
That is what I thought at the beginning, we tried concave with sailboards years ago and it did not work. However these boats will sail over 40 kts, have you put your hand outside of a car at 80 km per hour ? it lifts, and the boat is a bit more larger than a hand. I don't say the boat won't crash, I think a few cm of air cushion above water can make the difference. Remains to be seen though.I think you're naive to think there will be any sort of ground effects or hovercraft like effects.
I think this is broadly right darth reapius, except that in addition to high-speed low-speed the tradeoff between takeoff speed and top speed is a factor too that teams have to weigh, looking at their predicted modes around the race course in different scenarios.I think you could be right. Te Aihe's foils definitely look to have more surface area. More lift for lower wind ranges. What are the rules for foil changes in the cup match?
To really get lift (like a wing) the underside would need to be dead flat to generate pressure differential. Their hull is still quite round which leads me to believe it's more about drag reduction than lift. Also, at speed they're getting enough lift from the foils, so lift generated by the hull would not seem necessary.have you put your hand outside of a car at 80 km per hour ? it lifts,
Kinda like doing an edge touch? Interesting idea, but from what we've seen these boats seem to come down with a flat attitude. There does seem to be some heel - either way - whilst flying, but yeah, coming down with a significant heel might lead to some unintended consequences - as in capsizes - as well as requiring very precise control between the main, helm and foils.josh_bartoszuk1 said:what if the flatness of Defiant's hull is meant for windward-heel touch downs?
Definitions aren't normative when there is a rule that is explicit. Rule 13.2 (c) defines the bulb as part of the "foil wing":I think it is for drag. The rule definitions seem to preclude the pod from inclusion in the mass modification calc, or at best an interpretation is required.