Yes you used a very bad comparison to not make any valid point that I could see. Compare a 1972 MG (Sports Car for the masses) to a 2013 F1 car. Still no point was made.
I think such comparison is legitimate in both cases. The light formula 1 car could become airborne at the speeds it reaches, due to its light weight. This was corrected with negative lift devices. Besides that, does a 2013 Formula 1 car weight 1/3rd the weight o of a 1972 MG? or go three times as fast? As far as I know, there are no comparable devices on an AC72 to keep it from being flipped by a sudden gust or handling mistake.
You are correct. The wing could safely sail in winds higher than the reefed soft rig. The wing sail has no need to reef. The power of the sail can be reduced to zero. The CE can be very low to provide the required amount of heeling force and the area above used to provide extra RM. This is a level of safety and control a flogging soft sail cannot match. The only reason to reef a soft sail is because it cannot be de-powered without flogging itself to death. If you want to learn something about light multihulls with tall rigs, you should look closely at the wing trim. In breeze over 15 the top of the wing has reversed camber. It is NOT adding to heel nor is it trying to pitch pole the boat. The top 1/3 to 1/2 of the wing is adding to RM.
As far as I can tell, the wing sails of the AC72's are made of two or more vertical components, which are themselves vertically continuous, kind of like an airplane wing with one or more very large flaps, one behind the other.
I am not aware of these of these components being divided vertically, like the sails on a square rigger, with a mainsail, a top sail, and a top gallant sail. If this were the case, the remedy you mention for being over powered might work
From the pictures I have seen, I can see no such vertical divisions. Correct me if I am wrong.
Or are you saying that each of these two or more vertical components can locally morph its airfoil camber?
You are saying that all the challengers and all their designers sat down with Oracle and agreed to a set of rules that produced a "patently dangerous" boat? Really?
I'm not aware they they get to do this. I thought the defender gets to chose both the venue and the boat type. Even if I'm wrong about this, which I may well be, that doesn't change my criticism of the general design choice. It just makes LE look a lot less personally responsible.
You implied that a life was lost because the boats are unsafe. If the reason they are unsafe is as stated above, you are claiming that this is the reason for the capsizes and the death.
Yet not one other person has even hinted at that.
I do find that curious. It seems so obvious to me. I'll leave open the possibility that I may be wrong (it won't be the first time). But I'll add the possibility that that the others on this thread may be so taken by the gee whiz technology and the Jules Verne performance of these boats, that they fail to see the danger in them. It is absolutely astounding that a real sailboat, one that can return under sail to where it started from, can reach highway speeds. But let's just look at the facts.
1.) Two have capsized,
2.) One capsized, killing a crew member, which, as far as I know, is the first crew fatality in the entire history of the AC, and
3.)After the fatal capsize, the wind strengths, which these boats are allowed to sail in, was reduced considerably.
I'm am sure reasonable people can interpret the relationship between these three events differently. So far, I have not seen a convincing argument that my interpretation is wrong.
Oracle had an oops that happened so quickly the ability to feather the wing would not have made any difference. Artemis had a structural beam failure that was not related to the ability to feather the wing.
As far as I know, it is not clear whether the structural failure happened before of after the capsize. As for the first capsize, the account I read at least implied that things were getting out of hand before this momentary oops happened. It had something to do with wind and tide conditions, implying the boat was sailing in conditions that it was not fit for.
You are trying to tie unrelated things to somehow convince yourself that you are right and the teams that designed the boats are wrong.
To me they are not unrelated at all. And, except for the possibility that these design rules were agreed upon rather than mandated by Team Oracle, you have failed to show how they are.
Not a chance in any breeze that allows foiling. If you would take the time to read what the designers of the boats have to say you would know that you are not even close.
What if they are wrong. Events that occurred before the top wind speeds these boat were subsequently allowed to sail in were reduced, seem to imply that. I have also noticed that, though the top speeds have been stunning, the average speeds (of around 15 kts)don't seem so much so. Then why was there an upper weight limit, which allowed only 440 lb maximum weight range between boats? This is the main core of my suspicion. If I were them and I was completely certain the foiling boats were absolutely superior, in any conditions up to a gale, I would welcome a heavier competing boat, not ban it.
You don't like LE, I get that. I don't like him either. But I stop short of making things up and comparing 40 year old production boats to current design to make some point.
I had no opinion of LE before this event, and my subsequent opinion of him has moderated somewhat, as I have become aware of the possibility that the design rules may not have been dictated by him.
As for the comparison of a Hobie 16 (forty year old design or not) to an AC72 scaled down to its size, it is you who has failed show the comparison invalid. Simply stating one was designed forty years before the other, seems more like a diversion than an actual argument. My comparison was not about technology. It was about weight and proportion. That part you seemed to completely ignore.
The AC has never had much of a reputation for good sportsmanship. LE, Oracle, and GGYC are no different than those that have gone before.
Compare Alinghi's A5 Cat with an AC72 and see if the new design is all that radical.
What happened was that the design concept was for semi-displacement (partial foiling) boats. That configuration would have limited speeds to well under 40 knots and the boats could have sailed in higher breeze. Once they could sail 100% on foils the drag was so far reduced that they became 45+ knot boats.
Oracle has stated that one of the problems they had to solve was cavitation of the rudder T foil ... this leads to loss of control. (Daiquiri came to that conclusion here weeks ago).
The lower wind speed limit was not due to any limitation of the wing or that the wing was too large. The boats were simply too fast to control reliably.
Which may well have something to do with the wing and its size, me thinks. Otherwise, they could have simply sailed slower in the higher winds. Right? even racing sailboats (in a race) reef sometimes, don't they?
