News Around the World
It was less the dreadful performance of the previous Ineos UK raceboat in Auckland in 2021 that was such a savage letdown, much worse was the fact that none of the science and technology group (aka the designers) saw it coming. So when the first outings painted an immediate picture of a new AC75 solution that plain did not work, it was a long time before it was possible to narrow down the worst areas in a grim overall picture. The obvious scapegoat was the curious coffin-shape structure beneath the hull of the new boat, where every other Cup team had some sort of low wetted area, narrow skeg; but other than take-off drag and windage this was soon judged less of a problem than the consequence of the team having driven a long way in the wrong direction with their foil designs
AUSTRALIA The significant shift During the Sydney SailGP regatta we caught up with Ineos skipper Ben Ainslie. Seahorse Magazine: We can’t talk about this Cup without mentioning the last AC36 in Auckland. What did you do well there? Ben Ainslie: I think we recovered well, from what were ultimately some poor outcomes from our key design decisions. When I say that it is not to criticise our designers – anyone who gets involved in this kind of boat knows that the designers are only as good as the tools they have, and ultimately we weren’t able to develop quality tools that were accurate enough. We believed that they were – but ultimately they weren’t, and we put too much faith in them. Once we started sailing the boat we also didn’t do a good job
of rapidly identifying where the problems lay – particularly in the foils; we had some fundamental issues with the foils and flap angles at different speeds, which hugely hindered performance. If we are truly honest it took us way too long to identify what the issue was. Once we did that we made some significant gains, but we couldn’t get around the fundamental geometry of both the hull and the foils – which just wasn’t good enough. SH: A totally new class and concept. When did it become apparent that you would struggle? BA: Within about six weeks of launching the boat in NZ we went onto our race foils and had significant performance issues. We weren’t allowed to line up with other boats, but we got close enough to see we were clearly struggling in manoeuvres – particularly under 12kt of wind when it became a huge problem. So we knew we were in big, big trouble then, and we went through
that Christmas competition – which was just hugely embarrassing for the team and our supporters. You could hear the sniggers walking to the boat and so it was very difficult for everyone, but I am incredibly proud of how the team dug in through that. Frankly, a lot of teams would have downed tools and given up. We didn’t. SH: A key lesson from AC36 was about validating information quickly. Small sentence – huge statement. BA:Yes, it is… And for those who understand the design challenge that doesn’t happen overnight. Looking at other teams – particularly the Kiwis – there has been 30 years of development there and I think they were the first team to have continuity with their design tools. Other teams such as Oracle were right up there with simulation tools – but TNZ and maybe Luna Rossa are the only ones to have
32 SEAHORSE
continuity in design software and simulation tools. In effect we have been playing catch-up, and part of our relationship with Mercedes F1 is at least about getting on a par in that regard… SH: First launch was T6 for you. Other options could have been an AC40 or your AC75 as a full-sized test bed. Big call? BA:A massive call and as Challenger of Record probably our biggest decision in negotiating the protocol with the Kiwis. Ultimately we didn’t have enough confidence in our raceboat from last time to use it as a design platform, and we didn’t want to be reliant on the Kiwi AC40 as a testing platform. So with the partnership with Mercedes we thought it was important we went through a full build cycle together before getting into the raceboat. We were a little late with T6, but the lessons learnt are still invaluable. SH: With T6 you really started again from scratch, towing without the rig in… BA:Again it is part of the significant shift. This Formula 1 partnership is not just a token thing, it’s a full collaboration and you see that in T6. It is probably the most sensored yacht that has ever gone in the water; we did a lot of tow testing early on to get data on foil performance, without aerodynamic impact – and now we are in a full testing programme all the way through this summer. That boat is a different approach, very different from the AC40. It certainly isn’t a raceboat – it is purely a test boat. SH: How much data are you collecting compared to last time? BA: Infinitely more. Our last test boat was fairly basic because we were allowed to build two AC75s, and so your first AC75 effectively became your test platform. This cycle you can only build one AC75, and so the test boat is much more sophisticated. SH: After the last two campaigns – where do you get your confidence to move forwards? BA: You have to back yourself in this game, it is extremely tough to even get to the startline, to get the right team and enough backing. Going into this way back in 2014 I was new, starting a new team. There had only been one team to take it on their first hit, Alinghi with Ernesto Bertarelli, and he very intelligently took the core team and design talent from the previous winner. We weren’t able to do that and have done this from the grass roots up, and this takes time. I committed to getting the job done and that is what we will do – whether it is this time or the next time we will find out pretty soon, next spring we will have a good idea how the teams are stacking up. If you don’t want to put your neck on the line then stay at home and put your feet up.
CARLO BORLENGHI
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121
