jon711
Well-known member
I caught up with the racing in the evening afterwork on YT. 5 seconds to the start it goes to a 30 second ad break, when it returns they are halfway up the fist beat!!!! arrrrgggghhhh
AC37 - The Americas Cup Match GB vs NZ
- Thread starter dunedin
- Start date
dunedin
Well-known member
Somebody not involved with the teams submitted a protest about the swear words from Ben caught on a live mike after the end of an interview, and the NZ skipper during sailing. Not being progressed.
Chris 249
Active member
As I said earlier, people can agree to disagree on the extent to which a major existing event should change its format. However you have a tendency to claim I said what I have not said.
I did NOT say that because I do not like the current boats* that the current Cup "isn't the Cup". I was NOT referring to my ideal of what the Cup is. What I said was clear - the Cup's format in terms of boat style was not really changeable for most of its history. For most of its history, the Cup was sailed in the fastest existing class of inshore racing monohull. That was constant and therefore NOT really "changeable".
Yes, the challenger and defender can agree to change the Cup class, or the change can effectively be forced on one side by the other. However, that does NOT change the fact that there was a strong practice of using an existing class for over a century and therefore in that respect the Cup was not very "changeable".
As I have said before, one can disagree about the relevance of the history of the Cup - but that does not mean that one can change the historical facts.
* I don't actually dislike the current boats. I do feel that it is bad for the sport to have them in the premier event because successful participant sports normally use the same sort of rules and kit in the premier events as in the normal weekend events, and they haven't been good for the AC itself in terms of the number of entries and perhaps its overall sigificance.
flaming
Well-known member
It's debatable if that's true during the 12s era, especially post about 1975, but even accepting it I go back to my point which is "That's historically interesting, but so what? What relevance does that have to the cup of today?"
The cup DID periodically change what boat was used. That they chose something that already existed is a product of their era. And especially in the 1958 that adopted the 12s when the cup restarted after a 20 year break. For that cup it was felt that using an existing meter class was a more affordable option than going back to the J's of the last pre-war cups. If they'd operated in the commercial and sporting reality that we do today they'd probably have dreamed themselves up a new class then. Different times, different solutions.
But if you accept that the defender can essentially do what they want, and the cup of today is the cup, then whilst discussing the history of the cup is an endlessly fascinating topic in itself, in the context of a thread about the current cup I confess to being somewhat at a loss to understand what your point is?
Chris 249
Active member
As noted earlier in post 35, I was referring to when the 12s were chosen. I could have been more specific but if so that means every post will be longer.
In post 34, you said that ""what the cup is about" could mostly be summed up as "changeable". Therefore;
1- in post 34 you referred to what "The Americas cup has always been". If the Cup's past was relevant "in the context of a thread about the current cup" yesterday then the Cup's past is still relevant today. Nothing significant changed in the past day;
2- If the Cup's past is irrelevant in this thread then perhaps you shouldn't have raised the Cup's past only yesterday;
3- the Cup wasn't really very changeable until the cats came in.
4- To say that the choice of classes that existed "is a product of their era" may or may not be true but is a complicated subject that can only be discussed at length and with reference to historical evidence. Whether that practice should have changed is equally complex and also useless to discuss unless we go to the lengths of obtaining evidence.
Considering that this is just a deviation perhaps we should leave it there.
dunedin
Well-known member
Let’s not duplicate here the diversion that was in the previous thread. Perhaps take back there if you want to
Roberto
Well-known member
Has anyone read any analysis/informed opinions about the hull/water surface interaction, in particular aerodynamics?
Travelling at 30-50kt the hull body can generate huge aerodynamic forces, any idea where the hull body is working along its hypothetical lift/drag curve? Do they tend to only minimise drag? Do they make use of some aerodynamically generated lift to complement the foils? Do they look for a specific aerodynamic interaction between the water surface and the hull (suction, ground effect, whatever) or they simply try and not touch the water?
Has anyone seen articles, notes, on the subject? The more technical the better
Travelling at 30-50kt the hull body can generate huge aerodynamic forces, any idea where the hull body is working along its hypothetical lift/drag curve? Do they tend to only minimise drag? Do they make use of some aerodynamically generated lift to complement the foils? Do they look for a specific aerodynamic interaction between the water surface and the hull (suction, ground effect, whatever) or they simply try and not touch the water?
Has anyone seen articles, notes, on the subject? The more technical the better
dunedin
Well-known member
The fact that Formula 1 teams are heavily involved in the designs means that the aerodynamics and lift, downforce, drag etc have been very extensively modelled by the most expensive computers. But also that they probably won’t discuss what they have learned to risk giving away their secret sauce.Has anyone read any analysis/informed opinions about the hull/water surface interaction, in particular aerodynamics?
Travelling at 30-50kt the hull body can generate huge aerodynamic forces, any idea where the hull body is working along its hypothetical lift/drag curve? Do they tend to only minimise drag? Do they make use of some aerodynamically generated lift to complement the foils? Do they look for a specific aerodynamic interaction between the water surface and the hull (suction, ground effect, whatever) or they simply try and not touch the water?
Has anyone seen articles, notes, on the subject? The more technical the better
flaming
Well-known member
Last post on this... But that's literally my point. The cup has always been changeable, as in able to be changed. The fact that it went through periods of relative stability in rules does not change the fact that at any point the holders could simply change the rules if they chose to. And often did.
Which is my whole point - what the cup was once has extremely little relevance to what it is, and will be, because the power to change it rests solely with who just won it...
14K478
Well-known member
“Aerodynamically”, the boats’ hulls are operating in ground effect. I’m sure this is studied, but variations in boat speed will have a big effect on the lift generated by the hull.
Chris 249
Active member
With a 1600m gap I'm waiting for the Kiwi commentator to say 'THERE'S NOTHING IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Hermit
Well-known member
Nice to get a win on the board.
dunedin
Well-known member
Absolutely - great result. Just a shame the conditions were in the all or nothing type winds for a hydrofoil. Very tricky for Britannia to avoid a drop off the foils which would have been disastrous.
SaltIre
Well-known member
4:2
Bobc
Well-known member
Christ, what a race.
Bobc
Well-known member
I don't think I breathed at all during the last leg.
Chiara’s slave
Well-known member
You are not alone in that.
Buck Turgidson
Well-known member
Happy to report that the lights are all on and it’s busy busy busy inside the INEOS shed. I thought I better pop down here and have a look on my way to València.
Buck Turgidson
Well-known member
That didn’t go well! Really off the pace today.
awol
Well-known member
