Dan Bernasconi Describes The Three AC75 Concepts

[rh3000]

Someone linked to Dan Bernasconi's interview on Radio NZ today - it's a great, short and interesting piece - including Dan describing what the three concepts are - evidently it's the gamut “We are looking at the complete spectrum of what you could imagine in monohulls,”.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018617276/team-nz-designer-how-we-won-the-cup

1. Concept 1 “...a fairly conventional but high performance monohull...”
   
2. Concept 2 “...a semi-foiling monohull...”
   
3. Concept 3 “...is it possible to get a really big yacht fully foiling. The sailors who are listening will know about foiling Moths which are single-handed fully foiling boats which are great. But on those you use a lot of your body weight to balance, and that is something which is really difficult to scale up.”
   

Still good to know they are dedicating time to finding the answer for concept 3.

 

[Raptorsailor]

noice.

 

[nav]

^^ Good interview/er - thanks...

Just the barest generalities regarding concepts - didn't someone claim they are now considering/will be sharing just 2?

 

[jonas a]

1 too boring?

2 too complicated?

3 too complicated and dangerous?

 

[rgeek]

1. What's 3ft between friends?

2. Shit for match racing

3. All the criticisms of the AC50 will apply, except that it has 1 hull. Will require batteries. Will go fast enough not to require crew for sail handling.

 

[HFC Hunter]

3. is a little unfair given moths aren't an ideal platform for multiple foils which would be far more workable at 75 feet. Dan knows that as well. With a blank drawing board, I'd expect to see some fun going towards deliberately flying the mono.

 

[Indio]

If they can solve Option 3 (water ballast perhaps?), we may see worse horizon jobs over the longer races than the 800-1000-metres leads we saw in AC35.

Very informative hearing Bernasconi say that the primary driver for the cyclors was the need to free up the hands to help sail the boat, and the additional power generated was a bonus - albeit one which they were able to harness profitably.

Very well-deserved award.

 

[IPLore]

1 too boring?

2 too complicated?

3 too complicated and dangerous?

1. Too boring?

2. Most likely?

3. Too complicated and expensive? 

If you are TNZ and you want to avoid the Italian preference for option #1, then its not surprising that you continue to develop the #3 concept so that both sides can agree on #2 as a compromise. 

 

[jonas a]

1. Too boring?

2. Most likely?

3. Too complicated and expensive? 

If you are TNZ and you want to avoid the Italian preference for option #1, then its not surprising that you continue to develop the #3 concept so that both sides can agree on #2 as a compromise. 

Could well be that they'll end up with option no two, ie with something that can sail in displacement mode, but also has some kind of foiling or skimming mode. Yet to see a foiling monohull (not dinghies) do well on a normal sausage course

 

[jonas a]

1. What's 3ft between friends?

2. Shit for match racing

3. All the criticisms of the AC50 will apply, except that it has 1 hull. Will require batteries. Will go fast enough not to require crew for sail handling.

I actually think that no 1 would be best for racing, even if it is the least interesting option from an engineering point of view. Obviously that option too, could lead to some approaches never seen before

 

[~HHN92~]

Could well be that they'll end up with option no two, ie with something that can sail in displacement mode, but also has some kind of foiling or skimming mode. Yet to see a foiling monohull (not dinghies) do well on a normal sausage course

DZ was basically this concept in a trimaran.

 

[WetHog]

Is it safe to assume option 3 is out?

WetHog   h34r:

 

[3to1]

no. 2- the Goldilocks concept.

 

[Indio]

1. Too boring?

2. Most likely?

3. Too complicated and expensive? 

If you are TNZ and you want to avoid the Italian preference for option #1, then its not surprising that you continue to develop the #3 concept so that both sides can agree on #2 as a compromise. 

Why would ETNZ want to "avoid the Italian preference for option #1"?? The choice of the type of boat is mutually agreed-to between the Defender and CoR which discharges any consideration ETNZ might have been obliged to take aboard, notwithstanding that ETNZ was always going back to monohulls. Working through the details to be documented in the AC75 Class Rule is a consultative process with stakeholders but ultimately, ETNZ have the final say.

 

[~Stingray~~]

Is it safe to assume option 3 is out?

WetHog   h34r:

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

 

[rh3000]

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

I agree with your answer, but not your reason.

I could actually see DB designing a balls-to-the-wall pure #1, for entirely ETNZs own reasons, and not because somehow LR are commandeering the process.

The only reason why I think they won't do #1 is there is negligible trickle down right? Perhaps same issue with #3 too - too far ahead of what could trickle down to regular boats.

Simple fact - ETNZ have no interest wasting time and money pursuing concepts if LR is in the driving seat on the choice and it's already decided - if there's one thing you should know by now about ETNZ is they don't have any desire to invest energy into fools errands.

 

[Indio]

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35,




 

Dream on  :lol:  Why don't you go resuscitate the African Diaspora Maritime Corporation Challenge from the grave to give you something to go with the chips on your shoulders? Because NYYC won't even let you darken their doorway...

 

[Terry Hollis]

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

What evidence do you have that makes you assert that P$B "the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35"

 

[ro!]

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

I don't think it's 'safe' to make assumptions about anything yet, anyone who thinks GD is rolling over for PB knows nothing about the man, or has an agenda...

goldielocks median?...alcohol fueled twattery if ever I heard it...

15-20 spinbot posts a day puts him back on his schedule for 50,000 quality posts before his head explodes from Kiwi/Italian/Brit hatred....