<<Okay so this is obviously an America's Cup analysis
now.>>
Yes! But aren't we lucky to have Rick to take this from the realm
of opinion to numbers? We've hashed this over for years, and it's
great to see a real discussion of the impact.
<<Rare Bird hardware failure is easier to explain as
underestimated rudder loads.>>
As I recall, the stainless pin was corroded almost completely
through when it failed, so I wouldn't necessarily chalk this up to
underestimated loads.
That said, twice the pin size could handle twice the corrosion, so
I definitely support the new beefier pins. And if the new pins are
a better grade of stainless (perhaps the old ones were sold as grade
A, but were really grade B), so much the better. I'll bet that the
new ones weren't from an anonymous low-cost asian supplier who takes
liberties with grading.
<<When people listen to the BD debacle it must be a put
off.>>
I imagine so. That's the problem with a public forum that
discusses works in progress.
One thing that some forget is that BD has very challenging design
criteria -- going for very shallow draft, while also allowing
kick-up foils to handle the skinny water, is a tall order. This has
been complicated by BD's governing committee having not quite yet
worked hand-in-glove with Rob as a team to sort out all the
factors.
Solving the problem will probably require a continuous feedback
circle, where Rob can make suggestions, the committee can verify the
results of all the suggestions, allowing Rob to hone in on what to
do (perhaps with the help of knowledgeable contributors like Rick).
And so on, through several iterations. Rudolph has thankfully been
very open and patient.
<<I am talking about real visible stuff, not a number on a
page.>>
And the good news is that you've verified how well things can
work, even without the extra knot or two of optimization. That's
more than most of us can say.
- Mike
Doug Haines wrote: