I agree the problem now is that anyone copying ETNZ will now have a relatively competitive boat.
The gains in each new generation of boat will become less and less
Last edited by a moderator:
Emirates Team New Zealand.
- Thread starter Salty Seacock
- Start date
The gains in each new generation of boat will become less and less
jaysper
Super Anarchist
Kind of.
I think unlike the IACCs, there is a LOT LOT more stuff that cannot be seen or easily analysed, including the profiles of the foils, the internal actuation mechanisms, the flight control systems, the internal mechanisms and the control software of the main sails, etc.
So yep, whilst the teams can get a good leg up by analysing ETNZ and LR (who also had a lot of good ideas), there will be at least as many questions that will go unanswered.
LRPP were pretty close to start off with, but once the ETNZ boys figured out how to sail TR properly, LRPP were left way behind.
Remember, the races were sailed in the ideal wind strength range for LRPP, and they were match hardened.
ETNZ was not race ready, practicing against a chase boat and in a simulator can not duplicate real race conditions, therefore once TR had a gauge on LRPP's strengths and weakness in real racing environment, TR were sailing constantly 2∼3knts faster VMG even in LRPP's preferred wind range of 8∼12knts.
I think TR is about 1/2 a generation ahead of the Challengers.
I agree but people can be induced to speak by cash, regardless of all the non disclosure people sign. At some stage somewhere someone will fall out with some syndicate and blab. I doubt even ETNZ can stop that happening. There’s 30 plus designers in ETNZ it only takes one to leave and the secret is out.
This is a problem in F1 and in 2007 McLaren got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and got a massive penalty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_controversy
Has the spying in F1 stopped, I doubt it
MaxHugen
Super Anarchist
One factor may have been the experience ETNZ got from AC35, in using and controlling very narrow thin foils successfully with their advanced controller systems.
Would be interesting if LR had had that experience too - how much closer would speeds have been?
Certainly in terms of sail control, I wouldn't describe LR as conservative. With their "boom" below the false deck, they had the cleanest mainsail profile at deck level of anyone. Of course they missed out on the extra ~3m2 of sail that NZ had, and I don't think LR could induce as much camber as NZ did with the mast-base "camber adjustment device".
jaysper
Super Anarchist
Well thats a different matter, although ETNZ does seem to have a fairly tight team.
However, I was responding to the benefits of copying the boat rather than poaching talent.
That said, I would argue that a team such as INEOS may not get the same performance out of any talent poached as does ETNZ.
If you look at INEOS during the racing, it was all very command and control. This is fine for the military when you want 1000 grunts to simultaneously race towards their likely deaths without question. However, not so valuable when dealing with such a creative and intellectually taxing task as designing a yacht.
If INEOS are like this on the boat, it is not unreasonable to surmise that it could very well be the same in the design office. Certainly their boat was solid but not particularly innovative.
Kate short for Bob
Super Anarchist
- 3,634
- 544
Geez you post some crap. Not only are you out of step with modern military methods your perception of how INEOS was managed on board is way off.
It IS "unreasonable to surmise" not only because your onboard perception is wrong but you are comparing two completely different work environments which that in itself would demand differences.
You are also off in terms of innovation - not only were they very competitive in the ACWS they won enough races in a row to go straight through to the Prada Cup final. Not a bad effort for their first attempt at this design class especially when you consider the head start ETNZ and Luna Rossa had.
jaysper
Super Anarchist
Well it is you that is posting crap as I've worked with the military and seen that at the end of the day that a person's opinion matters only so far as it doesn't contradict their superior officers.
Now if you have likewise worked with the military I can only surmise it was an enlisted serviceman since only enlisted personnel are ever so brainwashed to see it any other way.
Sheesh, talk about fucking clueless.
chesirecat
Super Anarchist
Plus that's not how Ratcliffe operates. His head office is very small and he lets individual operations make their own decisions with just the usual monthly CEO and board reports. I suspect he's on quite good terms with the NZ Gov.
Last edited by a moderator:
Completely agree this top down approach doesn’t work, even in the military. Israel’s military is very much who’s best for the job...not what rank you have. The German army in both world wars where more willing to let low ranked men make decisions, because they were best placed to judge the situation.
You must be joking, they were not competitive at all. In the end, the results speak the loudest, they were crushed by Prada.
Other people outside kiwis have been critical of the culture in Ineos. A whole team to massage the ego of one man called Ben Ainslie. It was like something out of the Victoria period. “Alright Guv then doff your hat”. The mozzie boys were brutal against their culture. They will never win with him in the team.
dullers
Super Anarchist
To be honest the difference between all the boats would fall within 1% but the hardest and most expensive part is within the 1%. I think INEOS wanting to be COR is to help on that 1% and give longer development time. It would have been interesting to speculate where we would be if covid had not stopped the other challenger races in 2020. All the boats would have been that bit better again.
IPLore
Super Anarchist
ETNZ won the design war. They also had a very skilled and cohesive sailing team with a good decision making structure. At the end of the day, they had all three ingredients for a successful AC campaign: Great Design team with good leadership
Talented Sailing Team with good decision making
Good overall management which allowed everyone to focus on their role but also collaborate.
Just because NZ won (deservedly), I think it is wrong to conclude that the other teams were universally bad at all these things.
Ineos had a talented sailing team with good and collaborative decision making. This was amply demonstrated in the round robin, where Ineos won all their races without having the fastest boat. The interaction between tactician, helm and other team members was very effective. I would argue it was also demonstrated in the humor and self depreciation in the ACWS. The match with LR, some frustration emerged at times. They were losing and that is natural but I still felt the team worked as a team. On design, t is clear that Ineos started on the back foot. They caught up and we give them some credit for that.....but clearly as they prepare for the next edition, they need to question their design process. Arguably the management and separation of roles between sailing and management also needs strengthening.
AM had a talented design process. AM hada lot of potential as a boat and incorporated interesting innovation. I would suggest their sailing team was less strong than the other boats and the decision making was flawed. Who made the final call on tactics? Was TH tactician or merely input provider or grinder? What was Paul Goodison's role in the tactical decision tree? The fact that ths was not challenged or changed spoke to the question of whether the overall management was well structured with TH in charge of management and the tactician. NYYC needs to think about management for the next edition and really needs to think how to step change upgrade the sailing team (no obvious and easy answers there)
LR were strong on all fronts but perhaps not as good NZ. I do think that management and getting the very best from what they had was a noticeable feature of LR. To me, Max S is the quiet unsung hero that played an important part in LR's success in reaching the final.
Talented Sailing Team with good decision making
Good overall management which allowed everyone to focus on their role but also collaborate.
Just because NZ won (deservedly), I think it is wrong to conclude that the other teams were universally bad at all these things.
Ineos had a talented sailing team with good and collaborative decision making. This was amply demonstrated in the round robin, where Ineos won all their races without having the fastest boat. The interaction between tactician, helm and other team members was very effective. I would argue it was also demonstrated in the humor and self depreciation in the ACWS. The match with LR, some frustration emerged at times. They were losing and that is natural but I still felt the team worked as a team. On design, t is clear that Ineos started on the back foot. They caught up and we give them some credit for that.....but clearly as they prepare for the next edition, they need to question their design process. Arguably the management and separation of roles between sailing and management also needs strengthening.
AM had a talented design process. AM hada lot of potential as a boat and incorporated interesting innovation. I would suggest their sailing team was less strong than the other boats and the decision making was flawed. Who made the final call on tactics? Was TH tactician or merely input provider or grinder? What was Paul Goodison's role in the tactical decision tree? The fact that ths was not challenged or changed spoke to the question of whether the overall management was well structured with TH in charge of management and the tactician. NYYC needs to think about management for the next edition and really needs to think how to step change upgrade the sailing team (no obvious and easy answers there)
LR were strong on all fronts but perhaps not as good NZ. I do think that management and getting the very best from what they had was a noticeable feature of LR. To me, Max S is the quiet unsung hero that played an important part in LR's success in reaching the final.
strider470
Super Anarchist
The unsung heroes of LR, apart from Max and Presti that everyone actually knows, were also Nobili and Vascotto.
IPLore
Super Anarchist
dg_sailingfan
Super Anarchist
The notion by Bruno Trouble and I am saying this again, to have AC37 contested in Auckland in 2022 as he claims, is inconceivable.
Even if you waive the CIC Rule (looks like he's pushing for that) so that ETNZ & INEOS can sell Te Aihe & Britannia 1 respectivly to new Teams you need to give these Teams time to get organized. That takes about half a year to a year I think.
Let's say ETNZ & INEOS publish the Protocol for AC37 between September and November this year and the Challenger Entry Period starts 1st January 2022 and closes June 30th. If that happens we might have some Preliminary Regattas in the 2nd Half of 2022 maybe in Cagliari, Portsmouth and Newport (that would be cool) and then another 2-3 Events in 2023, another few Events in 2024 culminating with the CSS starting in November 2024 and running through until February 2025 with the Match being contested in March 2025.
Remember: Auckland is also a Stopover for the rebranded "The Ocean Race" which starts in October 2022 in Alicante. The Auckland Stopover is likely to be in March 2023 so highly unlikely Trouble is right with 2022.
I predict either an AC Match in Auckland in 2024/2025 or in August/September 2022 on the Solent.
Even if you waive the CIC Rule (looks like he's pushing for that) so that ETNZ & INEOS can sell Te Aihe & Britannia 1 respectivly to new Teams you need to give these Teams time to get organized. That takes about half a year to a year I think.
Let's say ETNZ & INEOS publish the Protocol for AC37 between September and November this year and the Challenger Entry Period starts 1st January 2022 and closes June 30th. If that happens we might have some Preliminary Regattas in the 2nd Half of 2022 maybe in Cagliari, Portsmouth and Newport (that would be cool) and then another 2-3 Events in 2023, another few Events in 2024 culminating with the CSS starting in November 2024 and running through until February 2025 with the Match being contested in March 2025.
Remember: Auckland is also a Stopover for the rebranded "The Ocean Race" which starts in October 2022 in Alicante. The Auckland Stopover is likely to be in March 2023 so highly unlikely Trouble is right with 2022.
I predict either an AC Match in Auckland in 2024/2025 or in August/September 2022 on the Solent.
Last edited by a moderator:
In many ways Ineos had the worse boat in the fleet. I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a dog. It seemed to be half a generation behind.To be fair the crew work was good, and that was the difference between them and AM. They still have a long way to go before being competitive with LR and ETNZ.
one thing we have learnt is F1 car designers know fuck all about hydrodynamic
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxHugen
Super Anarchist
I really disliked the Ineos B2 hull from launch. The least surface area for a given volume is via a sphere. The boxy skeg of Ineos seemed to increase wetted area and drag for take-off, compared to TR's curved canoe-shaped bustle. Not to mention that weird midship bustle they had to add as well.
Once airborne, I thought the Ineos skeg would also produce some nasty vortices compared to the other 3 boats. Although I can't calculate the drag of a hull, the CFD videos by @Mikko Brummer show significant vortices and turbulence from hull (he used a model of TR), so reducing these should also be an important consideration for the designers.
With what looked like a draggy external hinge on Ineos's "W" (seagull) foil, I'm assuming they tried out a Fowler flap arrangement. As @Basiliscusmentioned, having a slot between the foil body and flap can be helpful for lift. However, maximum lift is really only required for take-off. By the time the boat is doing 30 knots, foil angle is at or close to 0°, with only a small flap angle. At 40 knots, the flap is primarily used to control flight height, as ample lift is available.
The Ineos team may have also underestimated the opportunities the double skin mainsail offered, and perhaps didn't give this area enough thought. Someone mentioned that BA wasn't overly impressed by it originally?
It will be interesting to see what the next iteration of the AC75 will implement... will ITUK follow ETNZ with foil design, and do something very different with the hull, etc?
Thoughts are, as always, IMO.
JALhazmat
Super Anarchist
I can’t wait to see the design resumes from the critics who think they did such a shit job..
picking holes in something from distance with only a tiny amount of data to create your hypothesis from is rather different from being given a blank sheet of paper and designing from scratch.
some of the local experts would do well to remember that. Because we all know you ain’t gonna be turning up in anyone design teams come the next cup.
picking holes in something from distance with only a tiny amount of data to create your hypothesis from is rather different from being given a blank sheet of paper and designing from scratch.
some of the local experts would do well to remember that. Because we all know you ain’t gonna be turning up in anyone design teams come the next cup.
