Luna Rossa Challenge. AC 36

[enigmatically2]

Which one please?

72

 

[Zeusproject]

where are these interpretations found?

Sounds to me they must be on 

 

[buckdouger]

Very simplistically, can a quite flat zero be partially furled something like this to increase up-range performance?

 

[bortolo]

 

[terrafirma]

13 minutes ago, bortolo said:

At about the 7.40 mark in this clip it appears Luna Rossa put the after burners on and run down the Kiwis? Could be camera angle but sure looked encouraging for Luna Rossa fans.! Of course you can't read shit into some of these videos but for those that believe..! 

 

[JALhazmat]

The control on the jib through tacks and gybes seems way more precise than is ‘Normal’

not a flutter or crease at any point, they did have a questionable set up when they first launched B2 and there have been rule clarifications asked so I wonder?  
 

maybe they just have  it absolutely nailed ? 

 

[bortolo]

By the way, based on Justin's great videos on YouTube (and his descriptions) it seems that yesterday all boats aligned and raced.

Apparently INEOS and AM even had two full "races" of 6 legs. 

Looks like the new "rule" preventing coordinated sailing at less than 100m for more than 30 seconds does not work. Or has it been allowed?

 

[enigmatically2]

I think they generally were at least 100m apart. The telephoto lens' being used makes it look closer- as well as harder to really tell relative performance

 

[bortolo]

I think they generally were at least 100m apart. The telephoto lens' being used makes it look closer- as well as harder to really tell relative performance

Yes, the rule is such that they can still "race" and do speed tests, it seems.

 

[fish7yu]

 

[Xlot]

No runners still ... ??

 

[dbeauvar]

maybe they will find a way to lower the main without sending a guy all the way to the top of the mast.

If that's the case, i think they pass the rule and would be able to sail without runners.

They may have to reinforce the base of the mast so that it doesnt fall forward somehow (when main down and no runner).

Just a wild guess.

Regards,

D.

 

[dbeauvar]

Could they have a backstay between the two skins that is completely slack during racing, and then trimmed to keep the mast vertical when they drop the main?

Regards,

D.

 

[buckdouger]

maybe they will find a way to lower the main without sending a guy all the way to the top of the mast.

If that's the case, i think they pass the rule and would be able to sail without runners.

They may have to reinforce the base of the mast so that it doesnt fall forward somehow (when main down and no runner).

Just a wild guess.

Regards,

D.

I wonder if I'm missing something, but aren't the running backstays implied as specified in the rig plan (is it publically available even?) and that alone means they can't be removed?

 

[NZL3481]

I wonder if I'm missing something, but aren't the running backstays implied as specified in the rig plan (is it publically available even?) and that alone means they can't be removed?

What if they're not removed? Perhaps they just run down the back of the mast inside the twin mainsail skins. There is no weight saving, but there's a fair chunk of wind drag gone...

 

[OldWoodenShip]

What if they're not removed? Perhaps they just run down the back of the mast inside the twin mainsail skins. There is no weight saving, but there's a fair chunk of wind drag gone...

This has already been addressed and ruled as non-compliant by interpretation #72.

 

[NZL3481]

There's nothing in interpretation/ruling 72 that prohibits the backstays being kept tucked away between the mainsail skins.

So long as the specified parts (dogbones, ferrule caps, strops and other specified parts) are used and the runners can be adjusted (that does not limit them being adjusted inside the mainsail skins), then it's fine.

Strops can be altered, moved or changed.

The ruling is largely centred around whether the runners have to be in-situ altogether (yes) and they have to be rigged so they can be 'adjusted'. Whether you choose to operate/adjust the runners is another thing altogether.

Play on Luna Rossa...

 

[buckdouger]

There's nothing in interpretation/ruling 72 that prohibits the backstays being kept tucked away between the mainsail skins.

So long as the specified parts (dogbones, ferrule caps, strops and other specified parts) are used and the runners can be adjusted (that does not limit them being adjusted inside the mainsail skins), then it's fine.

Strops can be altered, moved or changed.

The ruling is largely centred around whether the runners have to be in-situ altogether (yes) and they have to be rigged so they can be 'adjusted'. Whether you choose to operate/adjust the runners is another thing altogether.

Play on Luna Rossa...

Doesn't the rig plan specify where the chain plates are and that runners must be connected. Is your idea therefore that with a huge strop you keep them connected at both ends but there's tons of slack to route it through the skins still?

 

[trt131]

Whats to stop them using VB cord as the runner, a lot less drag.

 

[NZL3481]

Doesn't the rig plan specify where the chain plates are and that runners must be connected. Is your idea therefore that with a huge strop you keep them connected at both ends but there's tons of slack to route it through the skins still?

Exactly. Then you're class compliant.