wully1
Well-known member
How do you know what proportion of time they spend on the foils. Anyway, it's not as simple as that. The bigger the foils and the more lift they create, the more drag they create also. So big foils with a high lift profile will get the boat foiling sooner but will have a slower top speed, whereas smaller, thinner foils will allow a higher top speed but will not create as much lift. So the whole "ground effect" hull shape really does matter, as this can create lift without the associated drag. Don't forget that the first iteration of the boat (and the American boat) were basically very flat underneath, and I suspect that they found the hulls very "sticky" (i.e. it took a lot of power to get the hulls to break clear of the water), which is why they have all shaped the hulls with things that look like steps (they are basically steps which reduce the wetted area, and hence the drag, quickly in stages as the boat begins to foil). This is a horribly complicated subject.
My worry is that it all comes crashing down because if there isn't enough wind for these boats to foil, the entire event becomes a failure.
The foil design has to be optimised - I never mentioned increasing size. These boats are supposed to be foiling so the proportion of time on foils is or should be 100%.
Also dropping off the foils at the speed these boat go at means your race is lost by a leg or so.
Also you cannot create lift without drag.
And...a flat hull surface has less surface area than a concave and so less skin friction drag. But..conclaves give more surface area. It’s tricky to get the balance of that and the requirement below.
And....to get planing you need a ‘planing flat’ don’t know what the yottie term is for that but curvy plan form hulls don’t plane.
All the stuff you talk about as been tried and tested before in surfing and windsurfing - guess what works? I’ll give you a clue - it’s not the clunky extreme shapes like Ineos.