Sad day for Americas cup sailing
Discussion
British Sailor dies
Wonder when it will get back to who's the best sailor rather than who has the biggest budget and highest tech.
Inshore regatta sailing is now way more dangerous than F1
Wonder when it will get back to who's the best sailor rather than who has the biggest budget and highest tech.
Inshore regatta sailing is now way more dangerous than F1
SpeedYellow said:
Wonder when it will get back to who's the best sailor rather than who has the biggest budget and highest tech.
Never been like that Kurt, you know that... even in the 30's with the J's...Fair Winds Bart, a true legend of a sailor and top bloke - I will raise a pint (or 3)...
First of all RIP Andrew
I got caught under a capsized boat back in my youth and will never forget the experience. Mine had a much happier outcome however...
Have they pushed the tech on these boats too far?
I raced a succession of sports catamarans back the late 90's, early 00's progressing through Hobie 14's, 16's, 18's and finally Hurricane 5.9's, some of these (especially the 14 and 16) were very tricky right on the edge and could bit in even a modest breeze. The issue (but also the attraction) of these boats was the lack of buoyancy in the bows meaning they could pitch pole very easily if you didn't get the boat balanced correctly, bearing away in a breeze was particularly dodgy if you didn't get your weight back quickly enough.
When I first saw the AC72's being launched my first thought was that the bow buoyancy looked very low and now both contenders have tripped over and this one ending in a sad loss of life. I was hoping that antipitchpole devices would be installed on the bows to counter this but if they are they are obviously not doing their job correctly.
I got caught under a capsized boat back in my youth and will never forget the experience. Mine had a much happier outcome however...
Have they pushed the tech on these boats too far?
I raced a succession of sports catamarans back the late 90's, early 00's progressing through Hobie 14's, 16's, 18's and finally Hurricane 5.9's, some of these (especially the 14 and 16) were very tricky right on the edge and could bit in even a modest breeze. The issue (but also the attraction) of these boats was the lack of buoyancy in the bows meaning they could pitch pole very easily if you didn't get the boat balanced correctly, bearing away in a breeze was particularly dodgy if you didn't get your weight back quickly enough.
When I first saw the AC72's being launched my first thought was that the bow buoyancy looked very low and now both contenders have tripped over and this one ending in a sad loss of life. I was hoping that antipitchpole devices would be installed on the bows to counter this but if they are they are obviously not doing their job correctly.
Matt Cyclone said:
Never been like that Kurt, you know that... even in the 30's with the J's...
Fair Winds Bart, a true legend of a sailor and top bloke - I will raise a pint (or 3)...
Yeah just wishful thinking I guess. Very sad loss to the sailing world. Best wishes to everyone there and raise a pint for me.Fair Winds Bart, a true legend of a sailor and top bloke - I will raise a pint (or 3)...
These boats are not graceful yachts that float around while their crew sip G&T in the afternoon sunshine. They are cutting edge racing machines, designed and built down to a weight and pushed to the absolute limit. There will always be gear failure at this end of a sport (any sport using advanced composites), as every tiny fraction counts. A weave of carbon to thick in the wrong place has dramatic influences on boat speed, an over-specced bond between hull and spar can change the pitching momentum of the boat etc, etc. The crew know this and they demand that the boats are built right to the edge.
It's not just the cats that are fragile; there have been critical failures in boats from within the IACC class, Open 60, 12m, IOR, IMS, Volvo etc, etc.
Whenever anyone racing at this level steps on a boat, they do so knowing and accepting the risks in the pursuit of raw boatspeed. I've done it often enough to know the risks I take and, whilst sometimes, things get a little interesting, I would never have it another way, as any extra weight, overbuild, compromise means that the boat isn't performing up to and beyond its limit.
The guys know this and, whilst Bart's sad, sad departure is raw, they will be back out on the water again, pushing the boat harder than ever before in his memory.
It's not just the cats that are fragile; there have been critical failures in boats from within the IACC class, Open 60, 12m, IOR, IMS, Volvo etc, etc.
Whenever anyone racing at this level steps on a boat, they do so knowing and accepting the risks in the pursuit of raw boatspeed. I've done it often enough to know the risks I take and, whilst sometimes, things get a little interesting, I would never have it another way, as any extra weight, overbuild, compromise means that the boat isn't performing up to and beyond its limit.
The guys know this and, whilst Bart's sad, sad departure is raw, they will be back out on the water again, pushing the boat harder than ever before in his memory.
schmalex said:
These boats are not graceful yachts that float around while their crew sip G&T in the afternoon sunshine. They are cutting edge racing machines, designed and built down to a weight and pushed to the absolute limit. There will always be gear failure at this end of a sport (any sport using advanced composites), as every tiny fraction counts. A weave of carbon to thick in the wrong place has dramatic influences on boat speed, an over-specced bond between hull and spar can change the pitching momentum of the boat etc, etc. The crew know this and they demand that the boats are built right to the edge.
Interesting contrast with F1 where safety has become far more important in recent years. How many dead sailors will be required before sailing goes the same way?
The mantra always was when designing Volvo boats that they should fall apart crossing the final finish line, thus not being over designed. This was much the case for the. V60's but as we all know the V70's were a different breed operating most of the time either at or past the limit.
These types of boats (including the Americas cup boats ) are now at the point where crew preservation is one of the major considerations, with mono's there are only a few "failure mechanism" most of which are reasonably predictable and should they happen crew will either be over board or trapped in the hull probably off shore as a worst case.
As we have seen with the new multi's both AC and offshore beasts they seem to either fall apart, pitch pole, capsize with increasing frequency as the crew sailing past the limit. A lot of these designs although using FEA on computers still cannot calculate all the loads hence the frequent failures.
Having sailed on a few ex V60's and Maxi 80 I was always aware of the risk, and that was doing transatlantics. I suppose you plan for the worst and hope for the best, I just hope that it was a freak combination of circumstances as opposes to something that was avoidable.
The fact the crew have personal oxygen supplies (either on this boat or others) tells you all you need to know about what the perceived risk was!
These types of boats (including the Americas cup boats ) are now at the point where crew preservation is one of the major considerations, with mono's there are only a few "failure mechanism" most of which are reasonably predictable and should they happen crew will either be over board or trapped in the hull probably off shore as a worst case.
As we have seen with the new multi's both AC and offshore beasts they seem to either fall apart, pitch pole, capsize with increasing frequency as the crew sailing past the limit. A lot of these designs although using FEA on computers still cannot calculate all the loads hence the frequent failures.
Having sailed on a few ex V60's and Maxi 80 I was always aware of the risk, and that was doing transatlantics. I suppose you plan for the worst and hope for the best, I just hope that it was a freak combination of circumstances as opposes to something that was avoidable.
The fact the crew have personal oxygen supplies (either on this boat or others) tells you all you need to know about what the perceived risk was!
schmalex said:
These boats are not graceful yachts that float around while their crew sip G&T in the afternoon sunshine. They are cutting edge racing machines, designed and built down to a weight and pushed to the absolute limit. There will always be gear failure at this end of a sport (any sport using advanced composites), as every tiny fraction counts. A weave of carbon to thick in the wrong place has dramatic influences on boat speed, an over-specced bond between hull and spar can change the pitching momentum of the boat etc, etc. The crew know this and they demand that the boats are built right to the edge.
It's not just the cats that are fragile; there have been critical failures in boats from within the IACC class, Open 60, 12m, IOR, IMS, Volvo etc, etc.
Whenever anyone racing at this level steps on a boat, they do so knowing and accepting the risks in the pursuit of raw boatspeed. I've done it often enough to know the risks I take and, whilst sometimes, things get a little interesting, I would never have it another way, as any extra weight, overbuild, compromise means that the boat isn't performing up to and beyond its limit.
The guys know this and, whilst Bart's sad, sad departure is raw, they will be back out on the water again, pushing the boat harder than ever before in his memory.
Intesting post schmalex.It's not just the cats that are fragile; there have been critical failures in boats from within the IACC class, Open 60, 12m, IOR, IMS, Volvo etc, etc.
Whenever anyone racing at this level steps on a boat, they do so knowing and accepting the risks in the pursuit of raw boatspeed. I've done it often enough to know the risks I take and, whilst sometimes, things get a little interesting, I would never have it another way, as any extra weight, overbuild, compromise means that the boat isn't performing up to and beyond its limit.
The guys know this and, whilst Bart's sad, sad departure is raw, they will be back out on the water again, pushing the boat harder than ever before in his memory.
I'm a 'for fun' sailor rather than a serious racer, and it sounds like you're more clued up than me but you raise a few questions.
Firstly, whilst I completely understand and agree with your attitude to 'safety meddling' (I hate it too), at what point would you consider that the boats are badly designed and not fit for purpose?
To my mind, the AC45s have the balance right in terms of speed, entertainment and tippyness. When they go over, it's not usually catastrophic, and spoils a race, rather than a life. The AC72s seem a bit...dodgy, frankly.
Everyone said when Oracle went over in the Bay, that it would happen again and that they were inherently unstable, and now its happened again and we're a man down.
Putting aside the desire to build to fine tolerances, race to extremes etc etc which I, all in favour of, at what point is the line crossed with regard to performance over safety?
I'm genuinely interested in a experienced racer's thoughts, as whilst I'd love a shot in a 45, the 72 just seems not quite there, to me.
Disastrous said:
Intesting post schmalex.
I'm a 'for fun' sailor rather than a serious racer, and it sounds like you're more clued up than me but you raise a few questions.
Firstly, whilst I completely understand and agree with your attitude to 'safety meddling' (I hate it too), at what point would you consider that the boats are badly designed and not fit for purpose?
To my mind, the AC45s have the balance right in terms of speed, entertainment and tippyness. When they go over, it's not usually catastrophic, and spoils a race, rather than a life. The AC72s seem a bit...dodgy, frankly.
Everyone said when Oracle went over in the Bay, that it would happen again and that they were inherently unstable, and now its happened again and we're a man down.
Putting aside the desire to build to fine tolerances, race to extremes etc etc which I, all in favour of, at what point is the line crossed with regard to performance over safety?
I'm genuinely interested in a experienced racer's thoughts, as whilst I'd love a shot in a 45, the 72 just seems not quite there, to me.
The 72's are pretty much where the performance / safety line starts swinging in the wrong direction. These boats are SO fast and SO powerful that there is very little time to react to a problem. That the crew carry personal air is somewhat telling! Snap a spar / pop a shroud plate etc at 40+ kts and you are pretty much a passenger. However, they are the pinnacle of performance high tech design (Adrian Newey has stated many times that he'd like to design an AC boat).I'm a 'for fun' sailor rather than a serious racer, and it sounds like you're more clued up than me but you raise a few questions.
Firstly, whilst I completely understand and agree with your attitude to 'safety meddling' (I hate it too), at what point would you consider that the boats are badly designed and not fit for purpose?
To my mind, the AC45s have the balance right in terms of speed, entertainment and tippyness. When they go over, it's not usually catastrophic, and spoils a race, rather than a life. The AC72s seem a bit...dodgy, frankly.
Everyone said when Oracle went over in the Bay, that it would happen again and that they were inherently unstable, and now its happened again and we're a man down.
Putting aside the desire to build to fine tolerances, race to extremes etc etc which I, all in favour of, at what point is the line crossed with regard to performance over safety?
I'm genuinely interested in a experienced racer's thoughts, as whilst I'd love a shot in a 45, the 72 just seems not quite there, to me.
I wouldn't say these boats are not fit for purpose. I haven't read too much into the why's and wherefore's of what happened, but looking at the shots, I would take a guess that the helm stuck the bow into the back of a wave a little too hard, resulting in a spar join breaking. One can't comment whether that is not fit for purpose design / a manufacturing flaw / a mistake from the helm or a combination of all 3 (or more) factors.
It is very unfortunate and the press will start drawing parallels with other boats whose rigs have dropped / keels fallen off / rudders dropped out (that happened to me at 25kts boat speed in the late '90's - a bit of poo came out, then!!) etc, etc. However, each incident on a race course is pretty much impossible to replicate, so it's very difficult to say whether race boats are under-designed. They all push it close (sometimes too close), but, personally, I would hate to see things changed as that's a part of the pull.
ALawson said:
with mono's there are only a few "failure mechanism" most of which are reasonably predictable
One Australia? 1995 AC in San Diego, monohull snapped in half and sank in about two minutes. Crew were lucky.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yau9A7XDHs
To be fair, the bowmen were being idiots. There is no point flaking a headsail when it's obvious the hull is going down. Quite why the foredeck crew didn't bail out at the same time as the afterguard was, and still remains, a mystery to me, as they put themselves directly in harm's way needlessly.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff