34th America's Cup: multihulls!

Doug, I think if a sailor falls overboard, they are very likely going to be in the path of a daggerboard or rudder, whether it has horizontal components to it or not. Of course these do increase the chance of being struck. If a crew falls off between the hulls at speed, they are much safer than if they fall overboard at the hull, I've lost a crewmember over the weather side of a 16ft cat and the weather rudder struck her, causing whiplash, all at around 12knots boatspeed, so the concern is very real that someone could be decapitated on these boats.
Folks who fall overboard usually try to grab onto something, in doing so they often grab too late and as a result are swung in under the hull before they let go, and are straight in the path of the rudder.
All these rudder safety rules are a load of nonsense and a hidden agenda to enforce a rule change on the class for the benefit of OR and to keep AR in the game. I don't for one second believe that adding a small amount of surface area to the rudder foil is going to stop the forces on a 40m high wingsail from pitchpoling the boat if the crew and skipper get it wrong. In fact, in a severe bow-down moment, horizontal appendages on the rudders will do two things : attempt to pull the rudders back down (a desired effect) and slow the boat down, further increasing the load on the wing as the apparent wind comes further aft and drives the boat under like a hot nail into polystyrene. (undesired effect).
If they were actually concerned about safety, they should just have all the boats install lifelines around the outer edges of the hulls. That would be easy to enforce on everyone, and no-one would gain an advantage or lose their current advantage by doing so. They should also require all boats to have passed a structural test or provide data to the satisfaction of the RC (who should have engineers verify the data), to ensure that once capsized or pitchpoled, the boat will not fold up. When Oracle capsized, the boat displayed that it had at least been designed to stay in one piece for long enough for the crew to get off safely. The fact that it stayed in one piece long after that while being subjected to some rough water and the subsequent salvage attempt, shows that it can be done.
The boat in one piece, even if upside down, makes it much easier to implement any other safety plans that they have to retrieve a trapped crewman.
The reason they will not ask the teams to ensure their boats won't fold up when capsized, is that they know the COR can't fulfil this requirement, and they most certainly do NOT want ETNZ or LR to become the COR by default, and lose a competitor from the already overpromised and underdelivered fleet.

 

34th AC

=================
That is absolutely 100% false.

Russel Coutts has a nice summary on facebook:

OK, time for another comment!

1. Prada's wings (and TNZ for that matter) comply with Iain Murray's new safety rules. That's right folks...they would not have to change anything to race under the new rules.

2. The new rules do not affect foiling. A smaller rudder wing (set at more angle) can achieve the same force as a larger wing at less angle.

3. Iain Murray is the first regatta director in the history of the AC to be elected by the teams. In all other years it has been the Defenders race committee....for example in NZ it was the RNZYS.

Unfair????
=========================
Iain Murray-I believe him- particularly the highlighted areas below: (unfortunately my highlight system is not working. The relevant parts are obvious and include claim that LR and TNZ would not measure(false), about two teams trying to get advantage, that he had no choice but to impose safety requirements-after the first recommendations after Oracle were ignored)

"I made these recommendations to the teams on May 22, over six weeks before the first race of the Louis Vuitton Cup,” he said. “At that meeting, all of the teams agreed to all 37 of the safety recommendations. Grant Dalton (managing director of Emirates Team New Zealand) walked to the front of the room, shook my hand, and told me, ‘Good job. You won’t get any pushback from us.’”

But on June 28, Emirates Team New Zealand filed a protest with the International Jury over the changes. Yesterday afternoon, Luna Rossa Challenge did the same.

Murray also states plainly that claims saying that the Italian and Kiwi boats would not measure as AC72s and are thus ineligible to race are false. He says the official measurers have informed him that both Luna Rossa and Emirates Team New Zealand are fully able to comply with the AC72 Class Rule.

“They can race on the first day, Sunday July 7, with their equipment as it is now because it already meets the minimum requirements set out in my Safety Rules,” he said.

“So this isn’t about teams not being able to comply. This is about two teams trying to gain an advantage from changes I’ve implemented to make all of our racing safer.”

On the issue that seems to be most contentious to some of the teams, the requirement to have deeper rudders with larger winglets, Murray says these are important Safety Rules.

“This to give crews more control. The new Safety Rules allows the angle of the rudder winglets to be adjusted up to five minutes before a race instead of by 8.00am on race days.”

That allows for a more precise setting in the prevailing wind conditions at start time. What the teams are protesting about now are features they had previously requested.

“Dean Barker, the skipper of Emirates Team New Zealand, emailed me in December of last year asking for the period when teams could adjust the rudder elevators (wings) to be extended from when they left the dock in the morning (under the original class rule) until up to the warning signal for racing (as it is now, under the Safety Recommendations),” Murray continued. “He suggested the boat would be safer, and easier to control, if the final adjustment could be made just before the race start.

“When the Safety Review Panel met with the teams in May, all of them acknowledged that deeper rudders, with larger wings, add more control. Luna Rossa Challenge wiped out twice at 36 knots of speed during training because they lost control and rounded up head to wind. More surface area increases control.”

“Now can you see why I’m frustrated?” he asked.

The protests say that Murray exceeded his authority in imposing the changes to the Class Rule without the unanimous consent of the teams. Murray said that when mediation failed he had no choice but to proceed with the safety recommendations.

“I was appointed Regatta Director by the challengers, and accepted in that role by the defender. I work on behalf of all the teams,” Murray explained. “In this case, I’m really saving the teams from themselves. Not one team likes all of the recommendations.

“Disappointingly, for competitive reasons, two of the teams are now protesting over some of these safety recommendations. But I don’t believe you can pick and choose. These safety recommendations are a package and together they increase safety for our sailors and they are now Rules of the event.”

The International Jury is scheduled to hear the Emirates Team New Zealand protest beginning on Monday July 8. There is no schedule yet for the Luna Rossa protest.

 

34th AC

More on the jury: http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Ameri...ds-without-resolution-in-Rules-impasse/111751

 

I agree the lack of lifelines is a curious safety omission, especially given that one helmsman has already fallen overboard. It would take very little time, cost very little and be equally fair to all boats

Agreed, a smaller foil can give as much lift as a larger one if the AofA changes. but at what extra drag?

I also agree that when racing a helmsman often temporarily hands over duties to a crew member, but it is rare to see it as a requirement

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

 

I don't think that has ever been the real question. Your quotes show just OR team's smart attempt to shift the playground and put the blame for this fuss on LR and TNZ.

LR and TNZ were rules-compliant and competitive right from the beginning. We could have seen it from the videos you have been posting in the last couple of months. OR didn't look nearly as good on water as LR and TNZ, and there have been plenty of comments here about how apparently badly OR was sailing compared to TNZ.

So, LR and TNZ at that point saw that they had a competitive advantage over the OR, because they have been technically capable of making a good boat within the existing rules.

Now we have these new safety requirements. The problem with them is - will they (specifically, the elevator) make OR sail better? Or even become competitive? If yes, then new rules are clearly disadvantageous for LR and TNZ and favorable to OR. If it is so, then LR and TNZ have every right to protest and disagree with the new rules.

The team which was unable to design a safe boat or to sail it in a competitive or safe mode within the old rules (the ORACLE) could have retreat from the AC if they felt that their boat was unsafe. Or they should adopt smaller sails, which would give them less pitching moment. Or a nice, round, fat, buoyant bow. But ORACLE could not retreat from the AC because (citing the application for the USCG Event Permit - http://noticeboard.americascup.com/w...035-1039.pdf):
"The 34th America's Cup is projected to inject an estimated $900 million dollars into the San Francisco region"

That's the juice of it all. All the rest are just vain talks and cheap attempts by ORACLE team (Murray included, at this point - even if it was not his intention) to place the blame on the other side, which is rightly angry because probably damaged by the new rules.

 

34th AC

More on the safety recommendations here: http://www.sailracingmagazine.com/e...hits-out-at-etnz-and-luna-rossa-safety-claims

 

Doug, you quote Russell Coutts' latest Facebook post, did you bother to read any of the comments folks made below..
It seems like he is fast running out of a fan base who believe him.

 

34th AC

=============
I believe him and Murray for the most part. I think TNZ and LR are/were trying to pull some shady stuff. But there's no point in saying anything else untill the Jury speaks.

 

A nice, theoretical paper on exactly how the gravitational pull of the moon will influence how someone falls off an AC72 :

"The projection you are talking about is maybe 130 mm." he said, pulling out a document he had prepared to answer this issue.

"I have produced a little paper on when they [crew members] might be likely to fall out - [on] a tack or gybe. So rather than say they stick out another 130 mm and therefore it is far unsafer, I have put a little bit of science behind it.

"So with a gybe the G-force is basically pushing you to the leeward side and with a projection of gravity of 9.87 metres per second squared, the freeboard at 1.2 metres, the rudders that might be 0.6 of a metre under water in a gybe, a man falling 2.7 metres, the speed of the yacht a 15 metres per second, the radius of turn at around 100 metres, the man overboard fall speed would be 7.27 metres per second. The man overboard fall time would be about 0.74 of a second. The lateral acceleration from the g-force across the boat would be about two metres per second and the man overboard would fall 0.56 of a metre outside the beam of the boat and the rudder elevator would only be 130 mm and two feet under water. That's in a gybe situation.

"A similar situation happens in a tack except that the rudder elevators in a tack are both in the water.

"If the boat is going along and a man falls off and let's say the rudder elevator is out of the water, it would be a glancing blow because the man falling of and the rudder elevator would be sailing at the same speed. It's not like a fish in the water or a stationary log that's going to have severe damage - it's a glancing blow.

"So the likelihood of this happening is minuscule compared to the safety of having the rudders in control of the yacht," Murray summarised. "

I can't believe he said that, I am truly stunned if he actually believes the above nonsense himself. A man doesn't fall overboard according to a "scientific paper".
If a man falls off a yacht doing 30knots, he lands in the water. He slows down rapidly to around 6knots rather quickly in a dense medium, given his rather un-aerofoil shape. The rudder is still doing 30knots. If that is a glancing blow, Australians must be really tough.

I hope that he gives a copy of his scientific paper to his lawyers, in the event that someone is badly hurt by the extended elevator which he assures us is necessary and will always be out of reach of a falling person, according to his very thorough scientific research.
I think his ego has surpassed his sense of reality, probably quite some time ago.

 

The round-robin races were important when there were many challengers, and the round-robins eliminated all but the top 4 teams. With three challengers, all the teams go to the semi-finals regardless of the outcome of the round-robins.

One team will get a bye to the Louis Vuitton finals. The winner of the round-robin races will get the choice as to whether they want to participate in the semi-finals for practice, but risk getting eliminated, or take the bye to the finals.

 

Doug, I do not want to hurt your feelings and dismiss the passion you are showing for this huge breakthrough of foiling sailboats into a top sailing event.
However, it is imo not ok to comment other people's opinions with words like:

based on just personal beliefs. You basically have nothing as a proof of your beliefs but words from some interested parties, which are saying things contrary to what other parties are saying.
So, you will realize that the claim like:

in absence of proofs different from just personal claims from parties involved in the mishap (and trying to get themselves out of the mess), becomes itself a logical falsity.

Cheers

 

34th AC

Slavi, from the reading I have done, the assertion that there is a hidden agenda is 100% false. It's the old conspiracy theory attack line and I reject it. At this point in this fiasco people are picking who they believe-thats the way it has to be until there is more information-there is no information to support either your or Steves conspiracy theories and until there is I reject them both 100%.
I won't comment further until the Jury decides and ,after that, only on the basis of concrete new information, not speculation. It's a complete waste of time to continue to go in unproven speculative circles no matter whose side you're on-it accomplishes nothing so I'm out of it. I don't have the time to continue to research this though I have a feeling there is a lot of info here that has not been read-so be it. I'm done for now.

 

34th AC

I am amazed that no one commented on this video and the three axis foil system....

 

I agree with that, also from my standpoint. Cheers

 

I agree with this. I'm not sure why it seems to be ignored. Are they so vain that they can't accept the lines will upset their sexy boats? Who cares if it slows the boat down .000001 knots (jk), all boats will be affected equally.

I hope it doesn't happen but if anyone is hit by a foil it will be gruesome and easily could be fatal. The foils are extremely strong and thin in section, basically a blade.

Sad part is it is way too late to be having this discussion.