Recon diary

[enigmatically2]

My gut feel is you'd struggle to achieve a net benefit with internal conduits because the surface area would be large.
I'm also not sure where you'd ingest the spray if the outside surface has to be closed, bonded and in the locations specified by the rule - maybe at the bottom of the fairing?

I meant small conduits at the front of fairing (rear of arm). But I agree that I think you'd struggle to see a net benefit. But someone is asking questions in that area, so maybe someone sees something

 

[Mozzy Sails]

For those wanting a pointer, Mozzy asks at around 12:00 in, saying

"What if Ineos's clipping the water is intentional? So, not a side effect of scaling? Could the extreme flap angles with the windward foil touching the water have some useful input in terms of maybe having leverage or even reducing leeway?"

And then tells how the new FCS spec will be released on March 1, which makes me wonder if there's a chance Ineos has always had a preview of what that will be, including about if the foil arm shape and elbow position will be changed.

More speculation (me): If the reason LR's Q is running with a tip on one of the foils then maybe it can provide not just leeway when dipped but also RM? At close to 50 knots, this could be a powerful force.

FCS spec released:

Nothing really on range or not having the windward foil down.

There is this:

As the AC37 Class Rule has a wider Foil Wing box than the AC36 Class Rule, the cant
range and overall stroke of the FCS cylinders shall be reduced. To accomplish this
reduction, ACE has instructed Cariboni to produce a new inner gland part with an
extended stop to restrict the piston movement at full extension.

 

[enigmatically2]

Well whoever asked #45 got the response they wanted I think. No rules on shape or bonding to arm. So maybe we will see something inventive there at some point

 

[Stingray~]

Well whoever asked #45 got the response they wanted I think. No rules on shape or bonding to arm. So maybe we will see something inventive there at some point

Wow! That does open possibilities.

 

[buckdouger]

Well whoever asked #45 got the response they wanted I think. No rules on shape or bonding to arm. So maybe we will see something inventive there at some point

The downside of this approach, bringing it as a rule query, is now all teams will be thinking about this area. That could also be a tactic to waste other teams' time of course.

 

[Sailbydate]

Cup Spy Mar 8: Comparing the day's AC40 statistics - who was on top?

Alinghi Red Bull Racing and American Magic both sailed their AC40's - achieving very different statistics for achieving dry tacks and gybes.

www.sail-world.com

 

[Stingray~]

 

[Dogfish]

I suspect that they have looked at systems like you suggest. I think there will be to much line ( stretch issues ) and loads of friction as you say. They have to have clew hydraulics so having the mainsheet cylinder close by is not such a issue. They may also be able to piggy back off it for other sail functions in the lower area of the sail between the skins.

 

[wajamamaj]

Mozzy, I understand the very simple cylinder on a fixed axis, but is it really that more complicated for the forward end of the cylinder to be a pivot point and the aft end moving through the arc of the traveler? I know that's your point but it doesn't seem a very large envelope (pizza slice?) of movement.

Regarding clew tension/position and to pile on with new ideas: What about a big flat rotating cam between the skins at the aft end? Control with a secondary line up from the mainsheet car? It could be a variable pitch cam. Pull the line = cam moves to extend the effective pull point of the mainsheet further aft. The cam could be pretty light and narrow.

If any teams adopt my cam idea I would appreciate naming rights for the device and an all expenses trip for two to AC37. Make a PR segment out of it.

 

[robingimblett]

Does the recon provide any data from the boats in testing i.e. foil arm cant angles and wind speed? If not from recon what is known about leeward foil arm angles used for takeoff, particularly at low wind speed?

 

[enigmatically2]

Query #49.

A way of building taller mast, but the bottom lower?

Or a means of extending control down further (mast rotation perhaps)

Or both

Or something else?

 

[ChairborneRanger]

Does the recon provide any data from the boats in testing i.e. foil arm cant angles and wind speed? If not from recon what is known about leeward foil arm angles used for takeoff, particularly at low wind speed?

nothing

 

[Mozzy Sails]

Query #49.

A way of building taller mast, but the bottom lower?

Or a means of extending control down further (mast rotation perhaps)

Or both

Or something else?

This is just what ETNZ did in the last cup. The mast tubes we're a fixed length with a fixed placement of the mast rotation point. ETNZ MRP on a plinth means they must have extending the mast down.

Given that LR are sailing with a trench deck and magic have put in a rules enquiry about a trench deck, and that a trench deck won AC36, it seems most teams will go that way. But I guess each team just wants to be certain it fits within rules.

 

[Mozzy Sails]

In fact, righty on cue Te Rehutai mast with extension clear. This photo shows it really nicely:

 

[JALhazmat]

Given the hard no to the INEOS Tow mast as it had resemblance to an actual mast how the actual fuck do you get to graft on an extra section to a mast making it longer and still have it pass the fixed length mast tube requirement?

 

[Mozzy Sails]

Yeah, it's interesting where the LEQ12 quota is for a 'mast tube', and 'mast tube is a specific part of the mast for both OD AC40s and AC75s (not complete mast). Yet, when it comes to the tow mast that qualified based of a likeness to a 'mast' in it's entirety, rather than specific elements of the just the OD mast tube.

Basically, the narrow definition of mast tube has helped ETNZ put an extra foot of mast on for AC36 and has allowed them to stick bit to the top of their AC40 mast, but does nothing for INEOS who wanted to use something which isn't a sailing mast at all.

But that's probably just my inner whinging pom.

 

[JALhazmat]

Yeah, it's interesting where the LEQ12 quota is for a 'mast tube', and 'mast tube is a specific part of the mast for both OD AC40s and AC75s (not complete mast). Yet, when it comes to the tow mast that qualified based of a likeness to a 'mast' in it's entirety, rather than specific elements of the just the OD mast tube.

Basically, the narrow definition of mast tube has helped ETNZ put an extra foot of mast on for AC36 and has allowed them to stick bit to the top of their AC40 mast, but does nothing for INEOS who wanted to use something which isn't a sailing mast at all.

But that's probably just my inner whinging pom.

Hmm not really a whinge though is it, more WTF is interpreting the rules

maybe there’s something missing, and the masy for Teehee doesn’t resemble or function as the mast at all, and it definitely won’t be having sales run up it is it definitely isn’t a mast tube..

 

[enigmatically2]

Despite being a whinging pom, I do get why this is allowed. I still think banning the mast tube was a stretch, but I do see why this is easier within the rules. But....how far can it be taken

 

[JALhazmat]

How?

 

[Dogfish]

It's a fairing the mast tube is the required lenght and the mast foot is still in the same position. Anybody know what that bit of metal hanging down is ?