Recon diary

[dogwatch]

IMHO
The AC will be won by the boat that can climb onto foils in the lowest wind speed?

That is quite possible. Sea breeze is likely to be negligible by the end of October. Spain can be affected by low pressure systems but mostly, they track much further north. Light and shiite is very possible. Or we might be saying, it’s not usually like this around here.

 

[Stingray~]

Bit of a sideline but during TE's show yesterday Jon Emmet posted a link to an interview he did with Mozzy, from about a year ago. Kinda fun.

 

[The_Alchemist]

Here is an interesting video of the US Navy wave test tank:

 

[Mozzy Sails]

Maybe, if we asked @Mozzy Sails nicely (please?) he could pin that Noticeboard link at the top of his thread?

Not sure if I can do this, the opening post is locked now from editing. Is there some other way to put useful links on the first page?

 

[remenich]

Not sure if I can do this, the opening post is locked now from editing. Is there some other way to put useful links on the first page?

Everybody can bookmark.

 

[johnstarks]

Todays update:

RULE ENQUIRY #025 – Instrument Post
DRAFT INTERPRETATION

The Rules committee notes that in addition to the statements made in the original enquiry, TR-4.16(b) also states that “test components shall be counted even if they only resemble one aspect of an AC75 Class Yacht component, without matching the overall functionality...”

In this case, the towing post need only resemble one (or more) aspects of either the form or function of a mast tube (TR-4.16(a)). An instrumented towing post on an LEQ12, with its base mounted on the mast ball, introducing load through the mast ball and further supported by other rigging terminations at the very least partly resembles some aspects of a mast tube and is therefore captured under TR-4.1.

The Rules Committee considers 75-1.4, requiring that yachts be propelled by sails only, and that the instrumented towing post cannot hoist sails, as irrelevant in this context.

The Rules Committee considers that in the case of TR-4.16, resemblance should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

END


Looks like they Ineos got shot down. I guess they need to get creative with how it looks?

 

[Stingray~]

Todays update:

RULE ENQUIRY #025 – Instrument Post
DRAFT INTERPRETATION
...

Looks like they Ineos got shot down. I guess they need to get creative with how it looks?

Yep, the decision apparently revolved around a definition of 'resembles.'

 

[JALhazmat]

install the new “not a mast ball” location 1inch aft and get on with it, it can’t be a mast if it’s not on the mast ball and is can’t be a mast If it doesnt resemble the form of one so graft on some extra bits and go sailing /towing ;-)

 

[Varan]

Build a Dalton mannequin over the post and tie the towline where appropriate.

 

[Sailbydate]

Not sure if I can do this, the opening post is locked now from editing. Is there some other way to put useful links on the first page?

I think @ Editor may have to arrange it, Mozzy. So, never mind. Thanks for your response. And I'm enjoying your work!

 

[Mozzy Sails]

The rules committee are saying if INEOS want to drag other teams in to this, then they have to do it on a case-by-case basis. Which is fair enough. That last competitor response did come across as mud slinging, and whilst interesting, not specific to the mast tube / tow post issue.
"The Rules Committee considers that in the case of TR-4.16, resemblance should be determined on a case-by-case basis."

It is a weird situation, where the definitions in the technical regulations don't really count for anything where the LEQ12s are concerned and everything is going to have to be queried on a case by case basis against is resemblance in form or function to an AC75 component.

These are the definitions that might have been relevant were it not for TR-4.16:
11.108 Mast tube
The principal spar of the yacht. For the AC75 Class Yacht this includes the one design laminate provided in the mast specification as well as any team designed reinforcements permitted by the AC75 Class Rules. The mast tube excludes any attached components such as luff tracks, mainsail support structures and control systems as well as taping or local reinforcements for the connection of such components.

and an LEQ12 specifically excludes instruments and structure required to support that structure (I guess this definition is why the initial enquiry refers to the tow mast as an 'instrument post').

11.95 LEQ12 yacht

Any sailing yacht (or platform towed to simulate a sailing yacht) including an AC40 Class Yacht, that exceeds 6 m LOA, is less than or equal to 12 m LOA (including all fittings when sailing such as rudder struts and bowsprits, but excluding instrumentation and structure required only to support that instrumentation) and that is capable of producing meaningful design or performance information for use either directly or indirectly in the design.

I guess the next query will be whether LRPP's foils instrument is not part of an LEQ12 (as per definition), and therefore not part of the foil as it is "instrumentation and structure required only to support that instrumentation" or whether, as INEOS seem to infer, LRPPs instrument on the foil has one or more features which resemble a foil / wing and therefore should have been notified and will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis as TR.4.17 seems to bypass these definitions anyway.

And talking of LRPPs instrument a bit of image manipulation show's this (sneak preview of this months recon report)...

These are

 

[Scillyjosh]

The rules committee are saying if INEOS want to drag other teams in to this, then they have to do it on a case-by-case basis. Whilst is fair enough. That last competitor response did come across as mud slinging, and whilst interesting, not specific to the mast tube / tow post issue.
"The Rules Committee considers that in the case of TR-4.16, resemblance should be determined on a case-by-case basis."

It is a weird situation, where the definitions in the technical regulations don't really count for anything where the LEQ12s are concerned and everything is going to have to be queried on a case by case basis against is resemblance in form or function to an AC75 component.

For example mast tube is defined as:
11.108 Mast tube
The principal spar of the yacht. For the AC75 Class Yacht this includes the one design laminate provided in the mast specification as well as any team designed reinforcements permitted by the AC75 Class Rules. The mast tube excludes any attached components such as luff tracks, mainsail support structures and control systems as well as taping or local reinforcements for the connection of such components.

and an LEQ12 specifically excludes instruments and structure required to support that structure (I guess this definition is why the initial enquiry refers to the tow mast as an 'instrument post').

11.95 LEQ12 yacht

Any sailing yacht (or platform towed to simulate a sailing yacht) including an AC40 Class Yacht, that exceeds 6 m LOA, is less than or equal to 12 m LOA (including all fittings when sailing such as rudder struts and bowsprits, but excluding instrumentation and structure required only to support that instrumentation) and that is capable of producing meaningful design or performance information for use either directly or indirectly in the design.

I guess the next query will be whether LRPP's foils instrument is not part of an LEQ12, and therefore no part of the foil as it is "instrumentation and structure required only to support that instrumentation" or whether, as INEOS seem to infer, LRPPs instrument on the foil has one or more features which resemble a foil / wing and therefore should have been notified.

And talking of LRPPs instrument a bit of image manipulation show's this (sneak preview of this months recon report)...
View attachment 558055

Interesting that Luna Rosa are using go pro whilst INEOS appear to have a much more integrated package. It looks like the cameras on INEOS are some kind of automate ethernet over coax system suggesting they are running some kind of much bigger on board data acquisition system.

 

[enigmatically2]

cameras on INEOS are some kind of automate ethernet over coax system s

Why do you think coax? Why not straight ethernet?

 

[Scillyjosh]

Why do you think coax? Why not straight ethernet?

Coax in the picture above which appears to be attached to the camera. It's the way to go for large numbers of cameras in these kind of applications, pretty standard in advanced robotics and autonomous systems. It reduces the amount of wiring volume and is more robust to interference. There is also lots of hardware available think autonomous systems development kits from companies like NVIDIA. Not sure how far they've gone with it but you could do some pretty fancy realtime processing on the images and data using the technology stack from other fields such as robotics.

 

[shebeen]

Would it be too dangerous to a 'real' mast to use it for tank-testing purposes with the attachment point well up from the deck, close to where the COE would be under sail?

I think so. INEOS have rigged up their LEQ sailing mast. Looks like a Southern Spars manufactured part.

I think there are a few features of the test mast which would be hard to replicate on the sailing mast like the bearing collar, and the stays attaching close to where the tow line take off comes from, so the tow line isn't pulling midsection.

I suggested on the other thread that they could use the real mast, with a sleeve over it to distribute load etc. The sleeve being part of tow rope would be ok( I think)

so in light of the tow mast being declared illegal, why not just go ahead with this sleeve plan using the real mast section?

Might look a bit agricultural, but could work to get the same data and save plenty of time.
As it is now on a case-by-case, this would be a whole new complaint required from whoever wants to file it.

 

[enigmatically2]

Photo is too blurred to be sure IMO. I wondered whether you had any other reason to think they are doing that

 

[Scillyjosh]

Photo is too blurred to be sure IMO. I wondered whether you had any other reason to think they are doing that

It's definitely this:

 

[Scillyjosh]

More interestingly though is it shows both an ability to recognise the value of adding sensors from the initial design stage but also a significant increase in technological maturity on it over the competitors.

 

[enigmatically2]

More interestingly though is it shows both an ability to recognise the value of adding sensors from the initial design stage but also a significant increase in technological maturity on it over the competitors.

Provided they can get round this mast interpretation

 

[Scillyjosh]

so in light of the tow mast being declared illegal, why not just go ahead with this sleeve plan using the real mast section?

Might look a bit agricultural, but could work to get the same data and save plenty of time.
As it is now on a case-by-case, this would be a whole new complaint required from whoever wants to file it.

Other option, fit the mast backwards. Then create a dummy sail i.e. something attached to all the batten cars that spreads the load over the whole mast ( probably would have to be measured as a sail) then tow from a ring on that sail