Team_GBR

Members
  • Content Count

    1,169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team_GBR

  1. Team_GBR

    AC36 CLASS RULE

    You really are an obnoxious piece of work, as bad, if not worse, than any other fanboy. Some tell me there was a time when you were an informed and made a significant contribution to this forum. I find it hard to believe. What do you really not understand? ETNZ and LR did not undertake any activity that was illegal. They signed an agreement, which in itself cannot be cheating. The terms of that agreement were very public and before they acted on the agreement, the IJ interpreted that agreement. In the light of the interpretation, the agreement wasn't actioned. To me, all of that is the exact opposite of cheating. Cheats do not tell the world what they are doing. They do not take part in a process to understand if what they intend to do is legal. If what ETNZ and LR did was cheating, then every team that has ever asked for an interpretation that was told was against the rules must be guilty of cheating as well. So STFU and stop being a total dick.
  2. Team_GBR

    AC36 CLASS RULE

    Stingray Don't be a complete dickhead. What you are quoting is nothing to do with cheating. ETNZ and Luna Rossa were very public about how they were going to cooperate and before they did anything, there was a ruling that some of their cooperation was not allowed by the rules. They did nothing wrong at all. To the NZ fanboys The change of the boat rule was agreed by the majority as stipulated by the protocol. Get over it. It was 100% legal. If you want to believe that teams like Artemis and BAR voted for the change because they were indebted to Oracle, so be it, but the idea is laughable. Just as laughable is the idea that the rule change was to hamstring LR. All the technology and ideas for the 62 would have worked for the 50, as evidenced by ETNZ who picked up the best of LR's technology and continued to develop their boat into a winner. Bertelli simply spat the dummy and in the process, probably lost his best chance ever of winning the AC.
  3. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    You really are making zero effort to tackle the real issues. You cannot use diagrams and videos of different boats taken at completely different times to "prove" your case. I will try to explain 1. We all know that if the case moves, the pole moves, but that doesn't prove that if the pole moves, the case must be moving. What you have never shown is the board moving backwards and forwards at the same rate as the pole, as shown in your original video. When you first posted the video, you were asked why we couldn't see the board moving and you have never answered that. You can zoom in on the board just like you did on the gantry, but if you do so, you cannot see the board moving. 2. Again, you miss the key point. If you take the video and in particular the gantry, you can see that the rapid back and forth movement pivots around the top of the case. In other words, it is only the unsupported bit of the gantry that is moving. It should be pivoting around a point at the bottom of the hull if the whole case was moving. 3. Again you fail to explain how they could move that amount of load that often on an ongoing basis. It defies all logic. I know you have said they "worked their arses off" but that doesn't explain it. You do know that in joint talks, Oracle admitted to running out of hydro pressure and ETNZ admitted they couldn't produce as much as Oracle, but you expect us to believe Oracle somehow found a quantum leap more. To believe that, you have to say that the ETNZ hydro system was a fraction of the efficiency of Oracle's. That doesn't stack up. 4. No reply to what controlled the system. While I accept there could have been a hidden box, how were instructions routed. There would have needed to by wires which would not have been part of the design schematic for the board rake system and those could not have been hidden from the measurers. The measurers were all over the boat on a daily basis. it wasn't just a quick "this is what was altered" session to re-certify the boat. They also knew the boats inside out. 5. You aren't very good at sarcasm or is it me not realising you were being sarcastic to avoid answering. You have never provided an evidence that it would be beneficial to move the board that often. The world of aerodynamics really is an open book. Where is the literature on this phenomena. Instead, you post a video of another boat moving the board less often and say that is proof. It is not. What i am convinced the video shows is the gantry being buffeted by the wind. The area in which the gantry is situated is in turbulent airflow and that is compounded by an apparent wind speed of about 50 knots. It would be a surprise if the gantry wasn't moving around. Have you ever watched a bare flagpole on a breeze. It does exactly the same thing. You even get that effect on dinghy masts in serious breeze. Do you really think the gantry would stay stationary? In short, you have no video of the board moving in the way you claim during any of the racing, despite all the footage there is. You could even improve your circumstantial evidence if you can show the gantry stationary in earlier races, but you do not. You cannot explain how it was possible for them to move the board in the way claimed and you cannot show any evidence that it would help performance, even if they could do it. You accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being an Oracle apologist, but based on the evidence provided, I do not see how a neutral such as myself can accept what you say.
  4. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    No you did not. The video you posted showed the board moving far less frequently. If you cannot tell the difference, there is no point in even discussing it with you. Believe what you want. Here is another thing. In the AC72 video, you cannot see the board moving below the boat, but you can in this video. Why is that? Also look at the range that the board moves on the AC45 video. It is significantly further than is being claimed on the AC72. Why is that? So many key questions, so few answers from you. Maybe somebody with more time on their hands will complete the list 1. Why can't you see the board moving on the AC72 and can only see the gantry moving 2.Why is the pivot point that the gantry is moving around different from the pivot point of the board 3. How did they have enough oil to move the board that often 4. What controlled the whole system 5. What benefit is there in moving the board as frequently as is claimed? WAIT! You answered that (by posting a video of a different boat moving the board at a different interval and claiming they are the same).
  5. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Are you a troll? ACS says that the movement intervals are very different. You claim the AC45 video shows the same thing. I believe you are wrong. It isn't the individual movement that is important, it is the regularity of that movement, and I agree with ACS, that we are looking at a very different order of magnitude. So please can you answer that point, because at the moment, your constant avoidance of the issues and your repetitive stance is making you look like a troll.
  6. Team_GBR

    Luna Rossa Challenge. AC 36

    What drugs are you on? OR had no hope in any conditions because their boat was, at best the 3rd best AC50. There were no conditions when OR showed themselves to be competitive against either ETNZ or Artemis. I suspect that even SBTJ would have given them a close run in most conditions. Above 14 knots OR were pretty weak and against both Artemis and SBTJ were consistent losers in those conditions.
  7. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    You are the one with no idea. The reason why the increments are are small and different before the implementation of the 0.5 degree system is that the buttons used to work on the basis of it raked more the longer the button was pushed. this is where the problem was. It was a totally imprecise system. Whoever was pressing the button had no idea of exactly how much the board would move when the button was pressed because a fraction of a second longer meant a bit more rake. that is why the numbers are so inconsistent. They changed to a system where one press of the button moved the board 0.5 degrees. ETNZ used a system similar to what Oracle was using when the above recording was done and they commented that their system was imprecise and they were lucky to get within 1 degree of the figure they needed. Do not mistake the fact they could accurately measure where the foil was at any moment for the ability to put the foil to any particular position.
  8. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    I have looked at it very closely and I don't believe the foil box is moving at the same time and in the same direction as the movement being shown of the gantry. Of all the movements of the gantry back and forth, I think there might be one where the foil box moves, although it is very hard to be sure and you would expect an occasional movement of the box because they did change the rake of the foil. The problem is that the top of the gantry is moving further than the bottom of the gantry. If the gantry is solidly mounted to the foil box, it would move the same at the top and bottom as the foil box moves, but as you clearly identify, the movement low down is far less than the movement high up. This says the gantry is pivoting at its attachment point. Its basic geometry. You post video evidence of the gantry moving and of a boat that isn't an AC72. You do not post video evidence of the board moving. Even Barfy admits he cannot show the board moving. He claims it is because too little of the board is sticking out to see the movement but anybody who wants to be totally objective will observe that you can movement of the gantry even close to its pivot point, so why can't you see the board moving?
  9. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    No, the system on the boats are different. You cannot say because something is happening on a 45 or on a 50, it happens on a 72. You are the one who usually goes on about circumstantial evidence or assumptions, but you make the biggest ones of everybody. How about you tackle the key points made, rather than argue through such a tortured route. 1. Why can't you see the board moving when you should be able to? 2. Why is the gantry titling from a fixed point that is different from that of the board? The gantry is clearly fixed at the bottom and is tilting back and forth. If it was firmly attached to the top bearing/slider, the bottom and top would move the same amount when the board is raked.
  10. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    ^ Clearly I haven't explained myself very well. The first thing to understand is the gantry attaches to what is in effect the top bearing, which moves back and forward to rake the board. The board pivots about the bottom bearing where it comes out of the hull. The gantry only attaches to the board via the rope that pulls it up and down. So far, so good? Let's assume that the people who make the claim that this shows the board moving are correct about one thing, that the gantry is solidly fixed to the top bearing. That would mean that the gantry moves back and forward as the bearing is moved back and forward. It is important to realise that the whole of the gantry would move, but what we are seeing in the video is the top is moving while the bottom is still. If it was moving with the bearing, the whole of the gantry would move back and forward the same amount but it is clear that is not happening. To your points 1. I am not sure what you mean, but the gantry moves at its attachment point independent of the top bearing because if it did not, it would pull at an angle depending on the rake of the board. 2. There was no board movement along the lines being claimed, so this point is irrelevent 3. Which assertion? It is very clear that the gantry is rocking back and forth and therefore it cannot be moving in response to the top bearing moving. 4. The board is not moving. It is the gantry that is moving.
  11. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Of course the whole foil rake moves. It does so on all the boats - AC72, 45, 50 etc. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there is a benefit to raking the foil backwards and forwards at the interval being claimed for Oracle. If it was happening at an interval of, say, 5 seconds, then it wouldn't be an issue, but multiple times in a second, that is an issue. That's not speculation or an unfounded assumption. That is what top foil gurus said at the time. I note that you still won't tackle the issue of not being able to show the board moving. That beats all other arguments dead. Nobody has shown the board moving, just the gantry, and the only "excuse" has been that there wasn't enough board sticking out to show anything, which is demonstrably false. There is another problem with the video and the theory that I had forgotten. The board rakes around the bottom bearing. The top bearing is what is moved. Look carefully at the video, The gantry is moving around a pivot point on the top bearing. If it was solidly attached to the top bearing and was moving with it, you would see the whole thing moving back and forward rather than it pivoting. There is no way that the movements shown by the gantry can be an indicator of how the foil is moving. Tackle the substantive issues, because until somebody can show the foil moving and how the gantry reflects that movement, all the other points don't matter.
  12. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    14 hours on and nobody can show the board moving. That, more than anything else, is very telling. You need to be in some fantasy world to believe that. The load on the top of the case that needed to be moved was over 7 tonnes. We also know that the need for hydro was vastly increased by keeping the main winch spinning all the time, something ETNZ said they didn't have enough hydro for. These systems had a finite limit and there was little difference in the capacity of the competitors. You don't need exact capacity figures to realise that simply spinning the main winch under load all the time would max out the hydro and OR technical people have admitted that there were times when there wasn't enough hydro to operate the boards when Jimmy pressed the button. This is incorrect and misleading. Every single day during the racing, the measurers inspected the Oracle boat and issued a new certificate. Contrary to what some might want us to believe, these inspections were not just a cursory glance. The measurers knew these boats inside out and while I could accept that something might be missed on a single inspection, there were something like 9 inspections made after the alleged changes and they didn't see anything. But those don't move at multiple times per second. You are comparing apples and pears. If you move the wing at the right speed, the loses due to increased separation before flow reestablishes are really minor. The issue comes when you are changing the AoA so often and continuously. I believe that there is an misconception driving the assumption Oracle must have cheated. Before they changed mode, they could not foil upwind, so we have no way of knowing whether their upwind foiling, if achieved, would be stable or unstable. What we do know is that they were rock solid downwind in the early races and often a little faster than ETNZ. When ETNZ started foiling upwind, which they did, they didn't foil with the same control as Oracle, but they did get foiling. Why is there an assumption that when Oracle managed to get foiling upwind, it had to be unstable like ETNZ and that it could only be corrected by illegal means. What we know from many other situations is that there is a great deal of difference in foiling stability from relatively small changes in foil design. Why is it so hard to believe that the Oracle foils were a more stable design than ETNZ's.
  13. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    I am going to have one last attempt to put this to bed. When it was first posted, a number of people pointed out that the board, which is seen below the hull, does not move. The person who made the video claimed that was because too little sticks below the hull to be able to see the movement. That was a truly pathetic argument and can be debunked a number of ways. The easiest on can be done on any screen of worthwhile size, say above 22 inch. Get to the zoomed in part of the video where the "markers" are used. Cover your screen with a piece of paper so that all you can see is a small amount of the gantry sticking up from the hull, the same amount as there is foil sticking down below the hull. Tape it in place. The mark the paper where the gantry is for a reference and play the video. You can still clearly see the gantry moving. This tells us that if you can see this small lower part of the gantry moving, you must be able to see the foil moving and debunks the argument that you cannot see the foil moving because there is too little of it sticking out the hull. There was other evidence to debunk this as well. Somebody else showed a video where you could see the foil move and the gantry clearly did not. Then there were the unanswerable questions. How could they have enough hydro to keep moving the foil back and forward? How was the system controlled and how did that control system not get spotted by the measurers. Finally, a number of aerodynamics experts stated very clear that there was no benefit to moving the whole foil back and forth at that speed and that it was actually detrimental to speed, unlike a flap on the back of a wing (as per aircraft wings). This is because a flap deflects already attached flow while moving the whole foil simply increases the separation bubble and disturbs initial flow. To summarise, nobody can show the foil moving, nobody can explain how the foil could be moved in the way suggested and nobody can show an advantage to doing so. I have no reason to defend Oracle. If they cheated, I would be up there with everybody else calling them out, just like when they were actually caught cheating. In this particular case, I have not seen any evidence of them cheating. As to the other matter, being discussed and which was subject to the disallowed protest, that Oracle used a system that bloke the rules? While personally don't believe so, I can see that there is a chance it did break the rules but that was not cheating. They clearly showed it to the MC, and asked them if it was allowed. Oracle used a system that the MC said was legal. The argument isn't whether Oracle cheated, but whether the MC got it wrong. Again, in this case, I cannot see how it could be called cheating.
  14. Team_GBR

    Cheap, Fast Dinghy

    There are so many other factors you don't mention. For instance is your sailing experience and that of your crew. Then there is your size. The fact you don't know the speed of major fast dinghies is worrying, because if you are good enough to sail them, you probably would know about them. You don't want to be sailing a 505 if you and your crew are both 65kgs and you wouldn't want to sail a Laser 2 if you both weigh 100kgs. You also don't mention whether you want a no trapeze, single or even twin trapeze. All are factors A cheap I14 is probably the fastest 2 man dinghy you will find for the money, but it is also the hardest to sail, needing skill, a bit of weight and the ability to twin trapeze. In the wrong hands there would be issues. At best, you would potentially be slower round the course than an easier to sail boat and will spend a lot of time upside down while at worse, it would be dangerous.
  15. Wise words, which also apply to OR's AC72.
  16. Team_GBR

    C-Class Little Cup news

    Sorry to be late to the party, but there is a significant difference other than cost between the 2. One is for the America's Cup, the oldest international trophy in sport. For centuries, it has been one of the most recognised pissing contests between the mega wealthy. While there was a time (pre AC multihulls) that the Little Cup was the coolest thing in sailing, it never established the same level of prestige as the AC.
  17. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Another ironically funny post. You call the "grumpy Grant" thing BS, yet even members of his own team have said he can come over all grumpy. The "choker" thing has mainly come from a small group of NZ fans having a dig at Dean Barker. You attack people who are worried about the rules that ETNZ are putting in place saying that is the defender's right yet you are complaining that people said the same when Dalton complained. Irony, or hypocrisy?
  18. Team_GBR

    Team NYYC

    This is really funny. You do realise that most think this new design for the next AC will cost just as much as the 72's Again, you haven't understood what is going on. If the new boats are going to be anywhere near the speed of the AC50's as claimed, the big kite isn't going to be used except in very light winds (say sub 6-7 knots). These boays will use the same sail configuration upwind and down in most conditions
  19. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    I hope that is just journalistic license, but to suggest this sail design is a ETNZ breakthrough is totally wrong and very disrespectful to people who have been working on this type of sail for a long time.
  20. Team_GBR

    Team NYYC

    It's the first time I can remember a defender actually testing ideas ahead of a rule release. I believe that if they are so uncertain about it that they need to test it, there is no need for it in the cup. What team wouldn't like a 3 month lead on all the other teams when it comes to an innovation nobody else has tried. ETNZ have always set a higher standard than others when they have been the defender and they have always played fair as a challenger, but it's hard not to notice that when Oracle became the defender they asked an outside company (M&M) to write the rule for a brand new and untested class without tying them into the team but now ETNZ are doing all the rule development and testing in house, giving them an advantage. While I understand that as defender they can do whatever they want and they are breaking no rules, the optic isn't great and I am surprised they want to be seen working to a lesser standard than Oracle in any area. It would be pretty stupid making an undeveloped innovation one design. Soft wings are in their infancy and need to be properly developed.
  21. Team_GBR

    Team NYYC

    You don't see that in any way as giving ETNZ a huge advantage. By the time the rule is published, ETNZ will have a 6 month head start on all the other teams. When Alinghi did that, Grant Dalton said it was unfair and was very detrimental to all challengers.
  22. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    This is where it all breaks down. How can you take the high ground and make a comment like this. ETNZ did not choke. They sailed their boat to the best of their ability and despite what some like to make out, without hindsight, there was very little they could have done differently. Their biggest mistake can only be seen as a mistake with hindsight - the agreement to the day off that allowed OR to make significant changes that would not have been made without that day off. People forget that ETNZ improved considerably over the course of the regatta and that took real effort. To call their loss a choke is disrespectful to them and to the achievement of OR in turning the situation around.
  23. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Hang on a moment. I cannot remember any ETNZ supporter being against Ellison's efforts to bring Bertarelli to task. You seem to have forgotten that before Ellison and Coutts became the devils incarnate, they were seen as the knights in shining armour saving the cup.
  24. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    I will put it another way. What made AC34 great was all the things you talk about. It kept the interest and intrigue going for the whole event. Each of the sub plots enhanced the story, just like all of Dalton's outbursts did, and Spithill's wind ups and the LR temper tantrum where they refused to sail a race. Add the whole thing together and it was the best edition of the cup I can remember.
  25. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Exactly the same grounds as ETNZ had in AC34. They protested because they did not accept the decision of the measurement team as to the legality of the foil control system,. In AC35, OR raised a number of concerns about the New Zealand boat but while they didn't agree with the decisions, they accepted them.