Recon diary

[enigmatically2]

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.

Makes sense for T6 to be slower with the smaller beam for example.

2 boat tuning makes sense for practising starts and fine tuning a race boat, but that's not what T6 is for. For this stage the 2nd boat is the simulation. If they change X, does that make the difference the sim suggests. If so they can use the SIM to design the race boat, if so they recalibrate that part of the SIM.
This is even more the case with dynamic areas such as ability to lift out and turns where it is almost impossible to duplicate what the 2 boats are doing (whether it be trim changes or waves at that exact movement) so you don't know know what causes any differences. yes you can repeat to eliminate random events to some extent, but again, easier to do against Sim

 

[Forourselves]

Using an AC40 as your LEG12 funds ETNZ's campaign. Way would a competitor do that?

Seems risky to shoot yourself in the foot just because you think it might effect ETNZ's campaign.

 

[Dogfish]

I think all this talk about boat speed is a complete red herring. If you know you are getting a AC40 there is little point in copying it with T6. Once you have established the T6 baseline I suspect the goal will to make it faster than the AC40 there by validating your design process. Once foiling there is little reason why T6 should be any slower once optimized. Just using a AC40 will take you down a certain route dictated by NZ as certain parameters are fixed.

 

[enigmatically2]

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).

Or could they utilise B on the main traveller? Or something close to that arrangement anyway.

If Ineos have A on the clew rails, what are the others doing as that type of double ended ram would make sense

 

[NZK]

Makes sense for T6 to be slower with the smaller beam for example.

2 boat tuning makes sense for practising starts and fine tuning a race boat, but that's not what T6 is for. For this stage the 2nd boat is the simulation. If they change X, does that make the difference the sim suggests. If so they can use the SIM to design the race boat, if so they recalibrate that part of the SIM.
This is even more the case with dynamic areas such as ability to lift out and turns where it is almost impossible to duplicate what the 2 boats are doing (whether it be trim changes or waves at that exact movement) so you don't know know what causes any differences. yes you can repeat to eliminate random events to some extent, but again, easier to do against Sim

I'm not arguing with any of this - I just thought that with the pockets of INEOS we would have seen 2 AC40s in the boat park for some in-house match racing.
Or maybe Ben doesn't want the risk of being shown-up by one of the underlings......

 

[Jethrow]

I just thought that with the pockets of INEOS we would have seen 2 AC40s in the boat park for some in-house match racing

They are spending all their R&D budget trying to perfect the cloning technique to have a Sir Ben each side steering!

 

[The_Alchemist]

I'm not arguing with any of this - I just thought that with the pockets of INEOS we would have seen 2 AC40s in the boat park for some in-house match racing.
Or maybe Ben doesn't want the risk of being shown-up by one of the underlings......

Yes, It looks like INEOS has made some serious errors in their planning. T6 was intended to be a pull test platform which didn’t workout within the rule interpretations. Now they have an LEQ12 that can’t sail against the AC40 for 2 boat racing. This all comes from no trust in their original simulation models from the last cup. Now with very little time sailing, they have to be feeling they are way behind with self inflicted limits on their ability to get ahead.

 

[NZK]

Yes, It looks like INEOS has made some serious errors in their planning. T6 was intended to be a pull test platform which didn’t workout within the rule interpretations. Now they have an LEQ12 that can’t sail against the AC40 for 2 boat racing. This all comes from no trust in their original simulation models from the last cup. Now with very little time sailing, they have to be feeling they are way behind with self inflicted limits on their ability to get ahead.

I'm not sure T6 was ONLY intended to be a towing platform. From what I understand they always had intentions to sail it but the Merc engineers wanted to start with a very rigorous programme of validating sim/modelling output and a significant portion of this could have been achieved with the towing set-up - this would also have meant the early stage testing and validation could have been managed without the need for the full sailing team involved. Losing the tow testing meant they had to totally change their logistics and timelines to get more sailing team on the water earlier - this is big fuck-up especially considering how Sail GP commitments are limiting time on the water for Ben, Parko etc. From what I can tell is they had a very detailed plan in place and very early it's gone to shit....

 

[JALhazmat]

Yes, It looks like INEOS has made some serious errors in their planning. T6 was intended to be a pull test platform which didn’t workout within the rule interpretations. Now they have an LEQ12 that can’t sail against the AC40 for 2 boat racing. This all comes from no trust in their original simulation models from the last cup. Now with very little time sailing, they have to be feeling they are way behind with self inflicted limits on their ability to get ahead.

so the mast they had out the few days after the tow mast was first seen.. that was just an afterthought was it never meant to be used or seen they just lashed it up at the last minute..

yes, they wanted to use it as a tow platform but are you genuinely suggesting that they had no intention of running sails or control systems on that platform?

 

[enigmatically2]

Now with very little time sailing, they have to be feeling they are way behind with self inflicted limits on their ability to get ahead.

They have been sailing an awful lot this year. Would be interesting to see Mozzy's totals updated. And that sailing has been clearly productive.

Yes the inability to do that tank testing was a blow, but i think they have reset nicely.

I still think LR have had the most productive sailing time though

 

[Kiwing]

I presume LR will get an AC40 to two boat test their LEQ12 with? That would be interesting?

 

[enigmatically2]

@Mozzy Sails do you see any information which says what % of changes have been made against TR 4.3 (and to a lesser extent 4.4). I would be particularly interested in what % of the hull surface (i.e. deck) has been changed for the AM and Alinghi AC75s and how close they are to the 12.5% maximum

 

[Lakrass]

Yes, It looks like INEOS has made some serious errors in their planning. T6 was intended to be a pull test platform which didn’t workout within the rule interpretations. Now they have an LEQ12 that can’t sail against the AC40 for 2 boat racing. This all comes from no trust in their original simulation models from the last cup. Now with very little time sailing, they have to be feeling they are way behind with self inflicted limits on their ability to get ahead.

If it was the main purpose, then they would have declared the pulling mast their only mast as the ruling just prevented them to change the mast once it was used, not to use that particular one. They definitely picked the one mast that had most interest to them.
Still the most intriguing team so far about their program and choices.

 

[enigmatically2]

Still the most intriguing team so far about their program and choices.

I think that is right.
I know there has been a lot of criticism and sniping aimed at Ineos, some of it fair, most uninformed rubbish. I don't think they have progressed as far as they would have wanted by now for a couple of reasons, but they do seem to have a very well defined, deliberate development path that they are now stepping through quite effectively.
There are a number of cases where they haven't made the "obvious" choices. So they clearly have something in mind. I think we can detect a whiff of F1 input.

But as always at this point, only time will tell who has it right

 

[Mozzy Sails]

@Mozzy Sails do you see any information which says what % of changes have been made against TR 4.3 (and to a lesser extent 4.4). I would be particularly interested in what % of the hull surface (i.e. deck) has been changed for the AM and Alinghi AC75s and how close they are to the 12.5% maximum

I don't have the % change, but I do have revisions.

The AM hull is revision B. But revision A was a hypothetical configuration which was never sailed.

Alinghi are on D, and again version A was an un-sailed hypothetical version. They last changed to put the jib track on.

From technical regulations:
4.21 Version A of a component is the version from which changes to that component are compared and measured. It may be the configuration in which the component was launched, or some other hypothetical configuration.

 

[enigmatically2]

Interesting. I would have expected them to have to declare with each revision what % they think has been changed.

In thinking about this I realise something about the rules:
Rule 4.3 states (for a legacy 75) that 87.5% of the hull surface is immutable, with the caveat pointing to 4.9 which states that "
The hull lower surface of a legacy hull cannot be modified; changes to the hull surface of a legacy hull
shall be confined to the deck."

I had been thinking that only 12.5% of the deck can be changed, but because 4.3 is expressed as a % of the hull surface, they can actually change approx 25% of the deck, because the deck is only approx half of the hull surface

 

[JonRowe]

For the old boats is version A the version as measured in the last cup? Or is it that plus modifications to make it a V2 rule boat?

 

[Sailbydate]

For the old boats is version A the version as measured in the last cup? Or is it that plus modifications to make it a V2 rule boat?

As quoted by:

From technical regulations:
4.21 Version A of a component is the version from which changes to that component are compared and measured. It may be the configuration in which the component was launched, or some other hypothetical configuration.

 

[JonRowe]

As quoted by:

That is what drove my question, all legacy components had to have been measured in the last cup, but is that version A in this cup? Or are they allowed to have modified them as per the legacy rules and declared as version A?

 

[enigmatically2]

That is what drove my question, all legacy components had to have been measured in the last cup, but is that version A in this cup? Or are they allowed to have modified them as per the legacy rules and declared as version A?

They had to have been at that config at some point during the last cup I think