Recon diary

[nav]

^I addressed this elsewhere but you ignored it.
I know you're a fan boy and all but what is it about this frankenfoil that has you so hopeful.
Looking around at 'foils' generally, be they under a boat, sticking out the sides or front of a plane or in a turbine, they don't look like this unless it's demanded structurally*. There are good reasons for this, as mentioned earlier, what possible advantage are you guessing at and why would you imagine this group has found something everyone else who has considered it over the last couple of hundred years has missed?
*F1 'loves' to micromanage the airflow around their creations for sure - but that's a different kettle of fish

 

[enigmatically2]

If you mean me, the. I don't know. I get why the w has advantages for stability and low speed lift. But I am far from convinced those outweigh the disadvantages.

But Ineos have far more info than any of us. The AC is littered with history of one team seeing an advantage where others do not.

Some they are right, some do not. So of course I am hopeful. But confident I am not

 

[nav]

Sure they have more info than you or me, but that's not the point is it?
Do they have more info than all other aero and hydro-dynamicists who have been considering these issues for so long - or is your contention that the requirements here are so specific that all that knowledge and experience is mute and that overly-complex, hard to build, hard to control thick draggy clown foils are actually a good thing now

 

[JALhazmat]

Hard to build? Hard to control? Thick?

not even you know how hard they are to build how hard to operate and anyone with a vaguely working pair of eyes can see that they’re as thin in section as anybody else’s.

the point is with the America’s Cup nobody gives a fuck who is second, least of all the people that were second. So you can either sit there and do a copy and paste of what the winners did last time or a subtle variation of the same thing and hope that your variation is a little bit better than what they’ve come up. or you can do something that is different that “throws the ball, as far as you can“ remember that phrase? and if it works (which it clearly does as it foils tacks and gybes, even the prior version did) the worst case is you don't win the cup, which puts you in the same group as four other teams who didnt win with there “superior kiwi clone” foils.

best case you’re ahead of everybody and win

 

[Kiwing]

If you visualize a choppy surface with the foil tip breaking the surface most of the time wont a W foil near horizontal have more chance of more of it being in the water? hence keeping the boat higher out of the waves? A bit of the hull in the water is more draggy than no hull in the water?

Could this be the thinking behind the W foil exploration?

 

[JALhazmat]

possibly, the other thing I wonder about is that with the hinges on the bottom surface, whether they’re actually being used, partially to prevent ventilation propagating from the surface piercing section of the foil through to the rest of the wing,

For something that is “just a hinge” they start very very close to the leading edge and extend a long way back. Almost like a fence.

Fuck it, I don’t really know it’s just guesswork and I haven’t looked at their exact positioning versus what is sticking out of the water because we don’t have access to that.

 

[Kiwing]

None of us really know but it is so much fun speculating?

 

[JALhazmat]

Speculation is one thing, blatant shitting on teams for daring to do something different in what is essentially a testing phase Is something else

 

[enigmatically2]

None of us really know but it is so much fun speculating?

And that's all it can be. The assertions by some that they know more than any of the teams is risible. There will be many design decisions over the next month's. Only time will tell which are correct

 

[barfy]

Obviously to a large extent, but if you have never sailed (say) a W or something else radical then your SIM will be less accurate. Given the margins and trade-offs in play, that inaccuracy might tell you the wrong answer as to whether it is worth it.

There must have been some data gleaned from last cycle and the development of the last W. Anyway, time will tell. Perhaps in 5 years we'll all be hooning around on W wings rather than T's.
Edit: ya, and all the posts above I just saw, what they said.😁

 

[buckdouger]

they don't look like this unless it's demanded structurally*

Or because of the way the rules are drafted. I think @Mozzy Sails addressed this in his video on these foils.
Don't forget LR also had a foil like this early in the last cycle, it's the third time we've seen a gull style foil.
On its face it looks like the actuation challenges and compromises are what make this direction difficult. It's also an area that Ineos may feel they have an advantage.
Another possibility is that the geometric simplification you carry out (or don't) when taking CAD of foil like this into CFD creates tradeoffs between result accuracy or computational requirements - those sliding interfaces in the 'fence' features have tiny edges, as do all the edges of the flap segments. Maybe Ineos via the F1 connection feel they have the ability to simulate this better.
I suspect for the current gull wing foils on Ineos they're more interested in collecting verifiable validation data for this particular type of geometry and if so, they think they can make race foils in a much more streamlined fashion.

 

[enigmatically2]

Worth noting also that putting large fences/hinges on allows you more scope for changing them later.

 

[The_Alchemist]

An interesting story on why the Corsair wing was bent and what they discovered.

Designing the Bent-Wing Bird

A Chance Vought designer pays respects to the venerable F4U Corsair, workhorse of World War II naval aviation.

www.usni.org

 

[enigmatically2]

I've been thinking about @Mozzy Sails video about the use of a tack height adjuster to control clew angle. It's quite an elegant solution, but I'm struggling to see advantages over the clew adjustment
1) as Mozzy said, when in the raised position the tack height adjuster will obviate end plating at the deck. It will also raise the centre of effort and thus heeling moment. It is true that is only when you want close the leech for lift-out and when foiling it will be down again, but still negative
2) it does allow a simpler clew but means a more complex tack (and halyard lock) and weight at the jib tack is worse than weight at the jib clew.

Anyone?

 

[Sailbydate]

Cup Spy Mar 30/31, Apr 1: American Magic does massive nosedive in a top end breeze

American Magic headed out in top end conditions, staying inshore in flatter water, instead of a more violent sea state in the Gulf of Mexico. Their session ended with a massive nosedive, which had sufficient force to rip his goggles from his helmet.

www.sail-world.com

 

[crashtack]

I've been thinking about @Mozzy Sails video about the use of a tack height adjuster to control clew angle. It's quite an elegant solution, but I'm struggling to see advantages over the clew adjustment
1) as Mozzy said, when in the raised position the tack height adjuster will obviate end plating at the deck. It will also raise the centre of effort and thus heeling moment. It is true that is only when you want close the leech for lift-out and when foiling it will be down again, but still negative
2) it does allow a simpler clew but means a more complex tack (and halyard lock) and weight at the jib tack is worse than weight at the jib clew.

Anyone?

I'd wager those are minor enough points that they don't consider them consequential

 

[enigmatically2]

I'd wager those are minor enough points that they don't consider them consequential

When you are looking for the marginal gains these teams are, everything is consequential if there is no trade-off. And I can't see a benefit of that way of doing it that way. I'm sure there is or they wouldn't be doing it. I just can't see what

 

[shebeen]

When you are looking for the marginal gains these teams are, everything is consequential if there is no trade-off. And I can't see a benefit of that way of doing it that way. I'm sure there is or they wouldn't be doing it. I just can't see what

"MARGINAL GAINS" what's that?
it's the incremental improvement of every possible aspect of the team/equipment/athletes.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...ins-tarnished-bradley-wiggins-dave-brailsford so entrenched it's now ridiculed.

This was Team Sky cycling philosophy to a ridiculous degree, some of it will filter over into Ineos sailing team from the cyclor training aspect first up. I'm not saying other teams will leave stones unturned, but expect Ineos to unpack the river.

an example from simple marginal gain left on the table from AC36 was AM skipper unable to flop over from one side of the boat to the other. Dean Barker was just not agile/fit enough to drive that boat to his top ability.

 

[JALhazmat]

Dean had only recently finished cancer treatment..

you try it

 

[shebeen]

Dean had only recently finished cancer treatment..

you try it

I had forgotten about that, so probably not the right example in terms of illustrating the point from a humanity perspective.

but he definitely was too slow around the boat, and it affected them directly. He has been replaced by two moth sailors.