Look in the legacy adapters section
1 Like
Thanks! Found it!
This blog post is interesting, but I think there is a big assumption in the analysis that is completely overlooked and not mentioned at all, which is laminarity. I think the analysis is theoretically correct, but it assumes good laminar flow. That cannot be stated as a fact.
Suppose you have a mast that is not perfectly sanded to a race finish, but extruded, anodized and welded, leaving a surface with macro and micro roughness, add a few scratches, sunscreen marks, some turbulence from the water surface and bubbles from breaking waves, and I think that most users experience much less laminarity than the CFD software was configured for.
If one assumes non-laminar flow, thickness suddenly matters a lot more. In non-laminar flow, thinner sections can generally perform better.
Maybe this explains the different viewpoints?
I’m not convinced.
Cedrus paid to use America Cup modeling which more than likely incorporate turbulent flows.
Thicker sections, tubercles, similar to AFS perform exceptionally well in turbulent water.
Very thin section would have a harder time to keep the water attached to the surface as soon as you change the angle of attack (or angle at which the turbulent water attacks the leading edge).
Regarding the hardware (SS or Titanium) for the adapters. What do you guys think about using different materials based on the type of clamping force? SAB is parallel pocket, Code tuttle inspired, AFS conical taper, FOne T2 tuttle type? Different loads on each adapter.
I am with Josh on Cedrus engineering. Laminar flow from a weld is less than a .001%. I say that because you must include all components including foil and board at takeoff. Once out the foil is still the issue with laminar flow and is the greatest impact on stiffness.That’s common sense because or what’s physically in the water when on foil. It’s also common sense because of the size of the object being pushed through the water. Mush mor linear and surface area from foil than mast when riding.
I do support your desire for nasa engineering and a super high value ride , but I would much rather get spacex engineering and ride everyday. 