Trickle-up. Led by Dan Bernasconi, Team New Zealand is now beyond any doubt a fully fledged technology company. It has been on that route since first leading the way with Cup foiling in 2012, and since then development of new ideas and technical solutions have continued apace. Hydrogen Cup support boats were not well-received by rivals but they have forced the pace of progress in the field. TNZ Design Works now employs around 40 specialists with too many PhDs to count; when Glenn Ashby (above) asked for a wind-powered land speed record breaking machine, it wasn’t quite the walk in the park but the technicians (left) never doubted the result
basis. Some structural testing, of course, looking at camber arm viability etc, massive input from North on the double-skinned mainsail. But general prototype testing? Something tangible to provide evidence that a 75ft monohull could take off and fly, stably, on just one foil and one diminutive elevatored rudder? Not a bit of it –indeed the first manifestation of the class rule to fly wasn’t even a Kiwi product, it was Ineos’s scaled-down test boat. In fact, nearly all the challengers produced a smaller test-bed boat while the Kiwi team went straight into the design and build of their full-scale 75. Let’s consider the magnitude of this for
a moment. I’ll put my finger in the air and take a stab at the numbers involved at that time – shall we say $400-600m across the campaigns? That level of commitment to an event where the type and style of boat is absolutely unprecedented, let alone vali- dated, where nothing tangible has been presented as a proof of concept. I think it’s
not the first time that morning that I use the words ‘ballsy call’. Well, the rest is history, as they say,
with the 2021 event declared an outstand- ing success despite the interruption of Covid, and 2024 likewise only more so. The boats are outstanding and I ask Dan whether they perform as they had more or less expected from all the simulation, and I feel he would have been honest and said so if they hadn’t. Other teams too might have been able to answer that question, as four of the six participants in Barcelona were using the Gomboc simulator… the same four that went furthest in the competition. But the Barcelona event wasn’t just
unique for the AC75s; various tack-ons had been added to the rule and other chal- lenge preconditions. A big section of the AC75 rule itself takes a stab at sustainabil- ity but alongside that was a requirement that each team design, develop and build two hydrogen-powered 10m foiling chase
boats as an accelerator to a greener future; as was the requirement to purchase a 40ft derivative of the AC75s that could be used as a learning tool, but also as the feedstock for both a youth and women’s champi- onship. With only eight crew on the latest AC75s, access to this great experience will be rare, and the AC40s are clearly intended to widen the pool of experienced big boat foiling flyers, of any age or gender. And what of the next event? Well, we
know now who won and it’s hard to imag- ine that the next event won’t be in AC75s. But will they be the same? They have already come down nearly a tonne in dis- placement from the original 7-plus tonnes of 2021 (three fewer crew, no bowsprit or code zero, more highly developed struc- tures) and Dan feels there is more to come off, including some actual lead at the junction of the foil arms, and expectation of further structural refinement. Lift-off below 6kt of wind speed would
not surprise him. Plus if he ends up in the same role leading rule development, he will also be keen to sharpen the sustain- ability aspiration further. Impressive. Progressive.
Rob Humphreys, Lymington q SEAHORSE 43
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 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
