Artimis flipped

[Guest]

Yep we know plenty...during a bearaway the boat failed structurally and the rig came down and a crewman was underwater for 10 minutes.

 

Apart from the time the crewman was underwater and without the need to know why or how the boat and rig failed the circumstance must have been 101 in the risk management plan, i.e. most of the sailing world knows (because the teams have told us many times) that this is the manoeuvre when the boats are most at risk and a capsize/pp was always possible and if that happened the outcome of a crewman either trapped or unconscious or both in the water was very likely.

 

In most respects the cause is a red herring as far as crew safety is concerned given that these boats are extreme, they are still testing etc. etc, and we have been told that this could happen and the outcome was a very likely scenario.

 

This was a rescue failure of an outcome, i.e. f*ck up at the top mark, that the teams have told us is a very likely scenario.

[gonzo 0]

Artemis helmsman Nathan Outteridge has officially refuted a description of the crash of the Artemis Racing AC72 which has been circulating on international news sites since last week.

 

The description was given by Outteridge’s father to reporters at the Australian Newcastle Herald newspaper and appeared to suggest that the Swedish catamaran had begun to break up before it capsized.

 

In the article Outteridge’s father is quoted as telling Herald reporters how his son had described the crash in a phone call:

 

“Nathan told me [the turn] didn’t seem any different to any other occasion. The bow dug in a little bit but he said that’s not unusual. The next thing he heard a cracking noise and the boat went on its side. Before it capsized it snapped in half, Nathan described it as folding like a taco shell.”

 

Today however, Artemis Racing’s communications department issued an email with the following statement from Nathan Outteridge appearing to contradict how his father had been reported:

 

“The description of the accident in the Newcastle Herald while quoting my father is not correct and does not reflect the facts. Unfortunately it has been relayed by other media. Right now, we are all still mourning and working to understand what happened. I hope everyone can respect this and I thank all those who have expressed support.”

[gonzo 0]

Artemis helmsman Nathan Outteridge has officially refuted a description of the crash of the Artemis Racing AC72 which has been circulating on international news sites since last week.

 

The description was given by Outteridge’s father to reporters at the Australian Newcastle Herald newspaper and appeared to suggest that the Swedish catamaran had begun to break up before it capsized.

 

In the article Outteridge’s father is quoted as telling Herald reporters how his son had described the crash in a phone call:

 

“Nathan told me [the turn] didn’t seem any different to any other occasion. The bow dug in a little bit but he said that’s not unusual. The next thing he heard a cracking noise and the boat went on its side. Before it capsized it snapped in half, Nathan described it as folding like a taco shell.”

 

Today however, Artemis Racing’s communications department issued an email with the following statement from Nathan Outteridge appearing to contradict how his father had been reported:

 

“The description of the accident in the Newcastle Herald while quoting my father is not correct and does not reflect the facts. Unfortunately it has been relayed by other media. Right now, we are all still mourning and working to understand what happened. I hope everyone can respect this and I thank all those who have expressed support.”

 

What a load of bollocks- typical PR spin written by the spinner(s) then 'published by Nathan' while the team continue to work through what went wrong. I've no problem with them taking time to methodically confirm what went so wrong but this sort of wordy nonsense is worthy of a separate thread re the art of talking loud while saying nothing.

[otto 31]

Discussing the design at work last week, I said that these boats have missed a major design plus. The fact that they actually have Hulls is a downer. The Hull is not needed and in fact probably adds to complexity, certainly to weight, to bad stress dissipation and takes away greater speed potential. All they really need are three or four "floats" instead of two very long Hulls to keep the boat afloat, when at rest/below foiling speeds. Once underway, the boat would lift on the foils faster due to less weight and not having wetted surface friction to overcome. The savings in Hull structure could now go into a "frame" far better adapted at taking the stresses and creating better control. My idea would be a "X" frame with braces fore aft in place of the Hulls and a foil at the front corner. Aft foil could either be the same as they have, or even two, one in each aft corner. With the foil forward, no nose diving. No Hull nose, no nose diving. Of course, I am no designer. It's easy for me to say these things with no real knowledge.

 

something like this