Recon diary

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
4,251
2,229
Earth
Looks like there is a new rule interpretation request aimed at working out some possible arrangements of the mainsheet ram and what is allowable. Hard to work out exactly they have in mind, but arrangement B is intriguing
#037
 

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,357
1,290
United Kingdom
I think this is talking about INEOS mainsheet clew boards. All the other teams have standard double ended hydraulic rams. INEOS has a 'push / pull' ram. The benefit is they don't have any hoses going to the very leech, so more the the system is further forward between the two sails.
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
4,251
2,229
Earth
I think this is talking about INEOS mainsheet clew boards. All the other teams have standard double ended hydraulic rams. INEOS has a 'push / pull' ram. The benefit is they don't have any hoses going to the very leech, so more the the system is further forward between the two sails.
Meaning you think Ineos have arrangement B?
I can't see why any of those 3 arrangements would not be considered "conventional".

Incidentally, did you have any view on my suggestion that the Ineos foil arms are designed that way to provide the "correct" scaling for RM given that all the boats are "heavy" for their scaled length?
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
4,251
2,229
Earth
There have been several comments and discussions about the merits of using an LEQ12 vs an old AC75 as a development test-bed, but we haven't discussed much about the AC40 vs an LEQ 12.

This occurred to me whilst watching the AC40 360 video. At least partly because it is designed as a race boat it is a very "clean" design. Much is below deck. That has the advantage that little of what is below decks can be seen - albeit an advantage that is largely negated by the fact that all the teams will be getting one so they can easily inspect below decks. Sure the AC40 can test different foils and I suspect we will see more there from all teams, but I'm thinking of the onboard and above deck systems.

Whilst NZ could, in LEQ12 form, change things below decks, it is very much harder to. Which is why the LR and Ineos LEQ12s have it seems been built to allow changes to be made more easily. So do NZ (as the only team using the AC40 as their test boat) risk falling behind? Obviously they started ahead, but we can already see LR, AM and Ineos improving systems further, improvements that would be visible on the NZ AC40 if they were doing the same (things such as horizontal mainsheet rams, jib cars that allow live changes to jib sheeting angle). I strongly suspect that there are other things that we are less aware of (the complete purpose of the Ineos traveller and the AM trim system in the lower main zone for example).

Now undoubtedly NZ can copy all of these modifications, but without the ability to test, they risk being an iteration behind.
Have NZ sacrificed some advantage for the income that these boats bring?
 

The_Alchemist

Super Anarchist
3,066
1,680
USA
There have been several comments and discussions about the merits of using an LEQ12 vs an old AC75 as a development test-bed, but we haven't discussed much about the AC40 vs an LEQ 12.

This occurred to me whilst watching the AC40 360 video. At least partly because it is designed as a race boat it is a very "clean" design. Much is below deck. That has the advantage that little of what is below decks can be seen - albeit an advantage that is largely negated by the fact that all the teams will be getting one so they can easily inspect below decks. Sure the AC40 can test different foils and I suspect we will see more there from all teams, but I'm thinking of the onboard and above deck systems.

Whilst NZ could, in LEQ12 form, change things below decks, it is very much harder to. Which is why the LR and Ineos LEQ12s have it seems been built to allow changes to be made more easily. So do NZ (as the only team using the AC40 as their test boat) risk falling behind? Obviously they started ahead, but we can already see LR, AM and Ineos improving systems further, improvements that would be visible on the NZ AC40 if they were doing the same (things such as horizontal mainsheet rams, jib cars that allow live changes to jib sheeting angle). I strongly suspect that there are other things that we are less aware of (the complete purpose of the Ineos traveller and the AM trim system in the lower main zone for example).

Now undoubtedly NZ can copy all of these modifications, but without the ability to test, they risk being an iteration behind.
Have NZ sacrificed some advantage for the income that these boats bring?
AM and Alinghi will be using their AC40 as LWQ12 also. AM will do foil design and 2 boat racing.
 
There have been several comments and discussions about the merits of using an LEQ12 vs an old AC75 as a development test-bed, but we haven't discussed much about the AC40 vs an LEQ 12.

This occurred to me whilst watching the AC40 360 video. At least partly because it is designed as a race boat it is a very "clean" design. Much is below deck. That has the advantage that little of what is below decks can be seen - albeit an advantage that is largely negated by the fact that all the teams will be getting one so they can easily inspect below decks. Sure the AC40 can test different foils and I suspect we will see more there from all teams, but I'm thinking of the onboard and above deck systems.

Whilst NZ could, in LEQ12 form, change things below decks, it is very much harder to. Which is why the LR and Ineos LEQ12s have it seems been built to allow changes to be made more easily. So do NZ (as the only team using the AC40 as their test boat) risk falling behind? Obviously they started ahead, but we can already see LR, AM and Ineos improving systems further, improvements that would be visible on the NZ AC40 if they were doing the same (things such as horizontal mainsheet rams, jib cars that allow live changes to jib sheeting angle). I strongly suspect that there are other things that we are less aware of (the complete purpose of the Ineos traveller and the AM trim system in the lower main zone for example).

Now undoubtedly NZ can copy all of these modifications, but without the ability to test, they risk being an iteration behind.
Have NZ sacrificed some advantage for the income that these boats bring?
Hard to say, we don't see the full picture of what ETNZ are doing or what they have planned. I would assume they are smarter and sneakier and have a plan.
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
4,251
2,229
Earth
AM and Alinghi will be using their AC40 as LWQ12 also. AM will do foil design and 2 boat racing.
But they have both had the chance to test deck systems already. But can't test foils on them so have to change horses to some extent.
I can't see they'll get much out of 2 boat racing such different boats though.

But either way they have been able to test above water systems on one boat and below water on another. NZ seem more restricted- though they can 2 boat race more effectively. One advantage it is true
 

barfy

Super Anarchist
5,227
1,454
It might be good training for ETNZ to put the A team on the vanilla AC40 and have them duke it out with a faster modded boat.
 

Varan

Super Anarchist
6,846
2,025
Using an AC40 as your LEG12 funds ETNZ's campaign. Way would a competitor do that?
 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
13,134
3,631
PNW
Conditional on entry into America’s Cup Women’s and America’s Cup Youth regattas, as well as pre-Cup regattas.
We saw a list posted some time ago about who ordered one AC40 and who ordered two. IIRC then Ineos ordered just one but Alinghi, like AM and ETNZ, ordered two.
 

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,357
1,290
United Kingdom
Meaning you think Ineos have arrangement B?
I can't see why any of those 3 arrangements would not be considered "conventional".

Incidentally, did you have any view on my suggestion that the Ineos foil arms are designed that way to provide the "correct" scaling for RM given that all the boats are "heavy" for their scaled length?
I think INEOS might have A on the mainsheet clew rails (or outhauls).

B actually looks like what they could have for the jib car (the 3d printer type thing).

And yeah, INEOS weird arms could be about correcting righting moment for a heavy boat... only reason to do that would be if they couldn't make the rig bigger I guess. But their rig looks proportionally same as LR and LR have a very next scale replication in beam, suggesting they could get the weight okay for beam (albeit heavy for length and volume).
 

NZK

Anarchist
957
732
Roaming
That will be a laugh to watch the fugley built not fast box boat in a race against an AC40.
From what I heard the original expectations inside the INEOS camp was for T6 to be significantly slower than the AC40s.

I can understand having T6 in full 'mule' mode with easy access for mods etc but it does seem odd that they won't be able to run a boat-on-boat training programme.
 






Top