bclovisp

Members
  • Content count

    378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bclovisp

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  • Birthday 12/31/1909

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ici
  1. bclovisp

    Jules Verne Trophy 2016

    Clap. Clap. Clap. Joyon is the most under rated sailor alive. Hero.
  2. bclovisp

    VG Tracker

    I'm not a developer but all of this makes sense to me. The fact that people start insulting Yann for not doing things their way is beyond me.. but i guess we all love a SA shitfight (although this is my first post in may years). I don't know any of the parties involved, including the Geovoile team, but i would just like to say one more thing: many years ago, Geovoile created the first "nice" tracker. Back then, when i was following Joyon, this tracker was much more revolutionary than Forss' today. Thank you for that. Yes there may be things to improve now, but let's not forget what we owe Yann... and that unless i missed something he is not a million dollar-making developer in the Silicon Valley but a one-man show living in a small coastal city. C.
  3. bclovisp

    Vendee Globe 2016?

    V&A Waterfront, in front of the Table Bay Hotel. thank you!
  4. bclovisp

    Vendee Globe 2016?

    Hello, i am visiting South Africa for my honeymoon, and I am reaching Cape Town now for a couple of days. Anyone knows where the Imoca are parked?
  5. bclovisp

    VOR 2017-18

    Great stuff Chasm. As often.
  6. bclovisp

    Universal Tracker

    Merci !!!
  7. bclovisp

    VOR 2017-18

    great phrase to portrait the biggest issue of todays' VOR On the underpowered boat issue, let me disagree. The Whitbread was raced on 9-knot-shitboxes, with "comfortable" bunks and no carbon or pendular keels, yet has that undefined je-ne-sais-quoi that you guys are missing. I'm afraid these days are just gone, and the current VOR makes a lot of sense from many angles (ability to attract sponsors, high level racing, etc). But yes i somehow miss those days when a boat could be called L'Esprit d'Equipe (team spirit), when trimming was something that happened every half hour, once everybody had enjoyed a good meal, a good nap and a good cigarette, but at the same time the guys were going for an adventure that could last for three or five weeks, nobody knew as there were no routing softwares... On the other hand, we surely wouldn't get 3-hour tracker updates!!! C.
  8. bclovisp

    New imoca boats

    in the video Josse comments that some CoG choices were made knowingly at the expense of deck ergonomy
  9. bclovisp

    Team Vestas grounded

    Depends on the circumstances. For both personal and business reasons, Thomas Coville didn't seem too happy about hitting a container in the channel at the last route du rhum. I might even say he seemed much more depressed than Nico.
  10. bclovisp

    Team Vestas grounded

    There is almost no ego on any of these boats. I know almost every one of these guys and gals, and out of the 60-odd sailors in this race, there are maybe 5 that like the camera or the spotlight. Ego doesn't mean need for publicity or being a loud mouth. Ego can be the mere fact of underestimating one's risk of making mistakes in a specific field, based on experience (good track record) and trust into one's analyses and judgment. As in: Wouter would probably not have liked it if somebody asked him everyday "hey did you think of zooming in" as he would have thought he knew best... and yet he failed to do it.
  11. bclovisp

    Team Vestas grounded

    A culture thing, where safety takes a back seat? As seen by the lack of harnesses? Yes and no: it can be seen as "macho" not to wear a pfd. But i don't think it is to risk running aground, except maybe for some loud-mouthed coastal racers who know that safety is a stroke away. Or maybe i'm too idealistic.
  12. bclovisp

    Team Vestas grounded

    That caused a flash back . . . I cut my teeth at McKinsey, decades ago, but for a brief moment you brought it all back with that post. I have had an opportunity to study some elite military ops . . . . And the primary answer is they (Generally) have the luxury of a level of training ( both functional and mission specific), which you (generally) do not. They also (generally) have well developed process check lists and go/no go parameters. What they do is technically difficult but not intellectually complicated - somewhat different from what you do. They also expect things to go tits up and actively prepare contingency plans. That is very unusual in business, where generally all the focus is on getting "plan A" perfect. I was educated as a game theorist and that always drive me nuts. Thanks to both. Which comes back to the question of "how, in a small team going through a joint effort over several weeks without enough time to anticipate every scenario, in a highly volatile environment, do you maximize performance while minimizing risks". Thinking about it, I guess that the short answer is that you need to have a clear vision of what outcomes you MUST avoid (eg running aground, presenting a flawed model's results to the client), and what outcomes you want to favour (win the race, deliver a sexy presentation). The entire team must have those two sets of goals clearly in mind, and it's the skipper/manager's role to help them deliver on both. In the case of Vestas, it seems to me that we have such an experienced and competition-focused crew that they forgot that the most basic part of navigation (not running aground) still required to use some of their skills. Not unlike a F1 team who would release the pilot before the guys have finished bolting the wheels. Or a manager who would do 5 rehearsals of the storyline without checking the model. And such risk is in my view higher when everyone on the time is highly experienced and apparently TRUSTABLE. I am sure that if the navigator had been one of us, Nico would have double checked everything. And that wouldn't have offended me. At all.
  13. bclovisp

    Team Vestas grounded

    This is an aside to the main question, but clearly related. There is a lot of understanding of stressed brittle systems, and how to manage them. The level of naivety in the VOR is exemplified in the way one of the few secrets left within crews in the precise watch system they use. Clearly no team really knows the answer, and they are all flailing around with their own pet ideas. Agreed, was just elaborating on one subpoint, the rest being clear and in my mind logical. As another side not, I would be curious to know how commandos (navy seals etc) manage those "stress brittle systems"? how the highest ranked guy is supposed to "manage" highly trained experts? They are in even smaller teams in even more stressful situations, with lethal risk, and armies tend to create and revisit procedures over years and years of experience. In my field (strategy consulting), we have not so dissimilar issues to a VOR boat: small teams of highly skilled people with big egos, time pressure, lack of sleep, complex data to analyze and act upon... which leads to similar pbs, the main one being that the project manager didn't allocate his/her time properly by lack of identifying correctly the main risks/rewards, hence focusing priorities on the wrong stuff and missing a failure (eg while the manager is attending a client interview, the trusted consultant is making a mistake in the model... which is the same as helming/trimming while the navigator is looking at weather without the depth map underneath). There are some procedures to minimize such risks (daily team meetings etc) but it's also a matter of managerial psychology (identifying weak signals that something/somebody may create a pb). I would be happy to learn of something more reliable!
  14. bclovisp

    Team Vestas grounded

    I wish you had written this much earlier. It is so critical to understanding of the issues. Probably one of the most important posts. From a safety critical sense we would call these systems "brittle". This is one of life's eternal trade-offs. The more highly optimised things become, the more brittle they are. With the VOR, they removed much brittleness (both figuratively and literally) from the boats compared to the VO70. But the human systems remains highly optimised and brittle in comparison. Whether the reduction in crew numbers since the last round has made things more brittle is another matter, but it is clear that this level of competition level optimisation of roles is both crucial if you want to win, and inevitably leads to higher risk. This is the nature of sport. Where I am unconvinced, is that this isn't soluble. I have been critical for quite some time of the hairy chested macho attitude to human factors in these races. Personally I have a deep suspicion that crew performance could be improved, and race performance concomitantly improved if some time was spent looking into these issues. The constant idea that saving a kilo of mass is more important than some small crew comfort is almost certainly misplaced if the added comfort is able to do things like improve the quality of sleep they get. This accident might be the trigger to start being serious about such things. +1 and one-design would have been a perfect opportunity for that (and no i'm not saying they should sail on clipper race yachts... there must be an in-between that's fast but still allows to read a paper map inside)
  15. bclovisp

    Team Vestas grounded

    As far as the interview goes the answer to all of the above can be boiled down to "Thats not my job." - Unless your are asking Wouter. In which case the printable answer is "I've made a big mistake." That view is also reinforced by the other interviews. A single point of failure has been set up. A failure happened, given the affected area the result was not that unpredictable. There are no signs that oversight, review or any other method to mitigate such a problem was used. There are two interesting areas left to explore. What has Wouter to say? Did he all the preparation for the leg himself? How do the other teams handle navigation? There seem to be quite a few differences. In the end, will something change as a result of this? The cynical view is no, nothing will change, too many survivors. Unfortunately the above is way closer to the truth than many may think. I'd be curious in particular to get the views of Dongfeng (several guys with nav experience as signle handers) and Mapfre (Iker seems to have his own vision of where to go)