Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Brian Weslake

There was no SAS

Recommended Posts

This comes from something I posted on another thread, but I felt it was worth re-stating.

 

Firstly, both Coutts and Tom Speer have stated clearly that there was no Stability Augmentation System used on Oracle.

 

The rumours regarding a Stability Augmentation System originated on the Facebook page of a kiwi called Paul Wiggans https://www.facebook.../paul.wiggans.3, a mechanical engineer. It appears to have been based on speculation only with no inside knowledge of what systems Oracle actually used. It was then circulated to a bunch of gullible journos (including Clean) who were desperate to find a scapegoat for TNZ's loss. As a result it's now widely believed by the NZ public that Oracle won the Americas Cup by cheating.

 

It's a sad indictment of how social media can shape national opinion.

 

P.S. Clean, I located the original source of this BS in two minutes using google. Some investigative journalist you turned out to be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since some have consciencly deciided to propagate misinformation on this issue implying OR unfairly won the cup, which comes acoss as pure sour grapes despite the clear facts from those that do know and have stated such, this is one thread that is warranted.

 

From the insistence of some (Clean included) to immediately demand the details of the unfortunate death of a respected Artemis sailor, to the full on character assination of Ian Murry as well as Paul Cayard, this site is clearly the cess pool of political nuclear waste regarding the AC.

 

Unfortunate that more don't have some sense of priority of the facts over their personal political agendas, like Ta Koodie..

 

SA's unparalled reputation for politically based garbage and factual inaccuracy is well deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean: Since we are on the subject of the sources of bullshit slingining: It is surely enough past time for you to out who hooked you into posting that JS was about to get banned from the AC.

 

Who's troll hook was it, that you so readily swallowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, to prove Ta Koodie and others are full of shit;

 

Kramer on Saturday denied any use of computer-automated controls to manage the foils and stabilize the yacht. "Negative. No," he said.

The yacht had a stabilization system but it was operated by humans, Kramer said. "There's no computer driving any surfaces at all."

 

Small electronic switches were used to open and close the hydraulic valves clutches. Theses were commercially available, not customized, according to Kramer.

The measurement committee gave Oracle permission in August to use an "electro-mechanical actuator" to move a valve. The jury on September 6 dismissed New Zealand's claim that the actuator violated the manpower-only rule but on the basis that it was filed too late.

"Most items we used in there are literally servos from your kid's remote-control airplane," Kramer said. "It's exactly as simple as that. It gets bolted to a valve and that is what operates things."

Kramer said the many changes made to the yacht were "all small and all visible."

 

Clear enough ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comes from something I posted on another thread, but I felt it was worth re-stating.

 

Firstly, both Coutts and Tom Speer have stated clearly that there was no Stability Augmentation System used on Oracle.

 

The rumours regarding a Stability Augmentation System originated on the Facebook page of a kiwi called Paul Wiggans https://www.facebook.../paul.wiggans.3, a mechanical engineer. It appears to have been based on speculation only with no inside knowledge of what systems Oracle actually used. It was then circulated to a bunch of gullible journos (including Clean) who were desperate to find a scapegoat for TNZ's loss. As a result it's now widely believed by the NZ public that Oracle won the Americas Cup by cheating.

 

It's a sad indictment of how social media can shape national opinion.

 

P.S. Clean, I located the original source of this BS in two minutes using google. Some investigative journalist you turned out to be!

Would you expect them to tell the contrary ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The manager of Core Boat builder confirmed this to!

 

The men he sent ( to change place with the first shift) went there as planned and with no foils or secret kit to make magic.

 

When they got there they worked their arse of 26/8 to get Oracle foils and other stuff to work as designed... and correctly.

 

Rudders were a big part of that too!

 

They made the foil system more understandable, stable, and easy to work to the settings.

 

Basically the took what they had and got it to work as it should and viola!... the boats speed they had expected came!

 

Meanwhile ETNZ relied on Pie warmers, and not much else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, both Coutts and Tom Speer have stated clearly that there was no Stability Augmentation System used on Oracle.

 

The rumours regarding a Stability Augmentation System originated on the Facebook page of a kiwi called Paul Wiggans https://www.facebook.../paul.wiggans.3, a mechanical engineer. It appears to have been based on speculation only with no inside knowledge of what systems Oracle actually used.

They had something, that much is certain. Whether it was an SAS or something else, they had something which resulted in contributing to the massive improvement throughout the regatta. No amount of plain crew-work improvement could account for the turnaround we saw with OR.

 

I also dispute that OR's magic piece of tech was first mentioned by that guy on 26 Sept. He may have surmised the SAS part, but the fact ETNZ was writing to the MC in late August shows people either knew or had good indication something of this sort was being worked on.

 

Similarly, Coutts did not say OR didn't have some magical piece of kit, he just said they did not have a self-adjusting system because that would be illegal (or words to that effect).

 

It was then circulated to a bunch of gullible journos (including Clean) who were desperate to find a scapegoat for TNZ's loss. As a result it's now widely believed by the NZ public that Oracle won the Americas Cup by cheating.

Nonsense. Most people I know accept the result and are not going around saying or suggesting OR cheated in the finals. What is probably widely thought is that where someone has shown themselves to be cheats on a number of occasions there should be extra effort put in by the authorities to make sure nothing amiss goes on in the future. I think this sentiment would be consistent around the yachting world, not confined to NZ.

 

People want to be able to trust the Measurement Committee but these are the same people who missed, for over a year, blatant cheating where you'd think there might have been a little more checks in place. Easier said than done for sure but so far as the AC goes, people don't quite realise - nor would they be happy to hear - that the measurement of the boats is not all that comprehensive. They check some stuff but leave the rest to the integrity of the team. That is where the gap between what reality and perception grew so wide. That in-itself is a failing of the measurement system and how they explain it to the public (or don't as is the case).

 

It's a sad indictment of how social media can shape national opinion.

Agreed, except for the part about national opinion in this particular instance. Only conspiracy theory-prone people are going around saying OR cheated.

 

I am disappointed for OR in some ways because their ACWS cheating will always cast a poor light over their attitude and actions throughout the entire AC cycle and, especially their contempt for their competitors who were some of the only reasons this AC was of any interest at all. A better way to have managed the whole thing would have been to make it publicly known that the MC would scrutineer all boats far more thoroughly for the AC because of public perception - and that they would be re-scrutinised immediately afterwards also. By not doing doing that the organisers (i.e. ultimately Oracle) have left question-marks hanging there forever.

 

Most importantly for Oracle is the future implications of this all. It will have a direct impact on potential entrants to the next cup. Such was the negativity surrounding the honesty and integrity of aspects of the way the cup was run teams will be disinclined to enter under anything less than a completely revamped protocol in which the challengers have a much bigger say. Unless Oracle cedes to that they will be looking idly at their feet for the next few years. They defended the cup but will be regarded as relatively untrustworthy by the few key people around the world who are capable of pulling challenges together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question, in I think the last race, JS pressed a button on steering wheel and boom Oracle was on the foils?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Naples, if you're willing to waste some money, you can play the game of the three cards in the streets. The queen wins, here is the queen, guess where the queen is. :-) The same here with the SAS. Is there any SAS, or not? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways if it really is there, it's just another innovation of the AC, as long as other teams can use it next time all is good. Or they ban it either way all is fair in love and war. And it's only cheating if ya get caught :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..And it's only cheating if ya get caught :P

Well the AC45s show otherwise. They weren't caught - it took Oracle dobbing themselves in for anything to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question, in I think the last race, JS pressed a button on steering wheel and boom Oracle was on the foils?

 

Thats because JS had buttons on the wheel to control the dagger foil pitch. A button to go forward, a button to go back. Its no secret. Barker had it too, in some form...

 

The point is they had humans controlling the pitch, not a computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one question, in I think the last race, JS pressed a button on steering wheel and boom Oracle was on the foils?

 

Yes, of course he did. In fact, I've seen the button myself. It is actually labeled "Foil-O-Matic ON/OFF." I'm surprised that a none of the thousands of people that have seen the video and the boat in person never mentioned it. It is clear as day and has a big pile of wires running out of it to a very discreet black box, labeled SAS, mounted under one of the pedestal grinders. From the box, a bunch of hydraulic tubes, labeled "TO/FROM Foil," run forward in each hull and another set of wires labeled "TO/FROM Herbie" go towards the wing. Other than that, the wheel looks pretty much like every other wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Firstly, both Coutts and Tom Speer have stated clearly that there was no Stability Augmentation System used on Oracle.

 

The rumours regarding a Stability Augmentation System originated on the Facebook page of a kiwi called Paul Wiggans https://www.facebook.../paul.wiggans.3, a mechanical engineer. It appears to have been based on speculation only with no inside knowledge of what systems Oracle actually used.

They had something, that much is certain. Whether it was an SAS or something else, they had something which resulted in contributing to the massive improvement throughout the regatta. No amount of plain crew-work improvement could account for the turnaround we saw with OR.

 

I also dispute that OR's magic piece of tech was first mentioned by that guy on 26 Sept. He may have surmised the SAS part, but the fact ETNZ was writing to the MC in late August shows people either knew or had good indication something of this sort was being worked on.

 

Similarly, Coutts did not say OR didn't have some magical piece of kit, he just said they did not have a self-adjusting system because that would be illegal (or words to that effect).

 

>It was then circulated to a bunch of gullible journos (including Clean) who were desperate to find a scapegoat for TNZ's loss. As a result it's now widely believed by the NZ public that Oracle won the Americas Cup by cheating.

Nonsense. Most people I know accept the result and are not going around saying or suggesting OR cheated in the finals. What is probably widely thought is that where someone has shown themselves to be cheats on a number of occasions there should be extra effort put in by the authorities to make sure nothing amiss goes on in the future. I think this sentiment would be consistent around the yachting world, not confined to NZ.

 

People want to be able to trust the Measurement Committee but these are the same people who missed, for over a year, blatant cheating where you'd think there might have been a little more checks in place. Easier said than done for sure but so far as the AC goes, people don't quite realise - nor would they be happy to hear - that the measurement of the boats is not all that comprehensive. They check some stuff but leave the rest to the integrity of the team. That is where the gap between what reality and perception grew so wide. That in-itself is a failing of the measurement system and how they explain it to the public (or don't as is the case).

 

It's a sad indictment of how social media can shape national opinion.

Agreed, except for the part about national opinion in this particular instance. Only conspiracy theory-prone people are going around saying OR cheated.

 

I am disappointed for OR in some ways because their ACWS cheating will always cast a poor light over their attitude and actions throughout the entire AC cycle and, especially their contempt for their competitors who were some of the only reasons this AC was of any interest at all. A better way to have managed the whole thing would have been to make it publicly known that the MC would scrutineer all boats far more thoroughly for the AC because of public perception - and that they would be re-scrutinised immediately afterwards also. By not doing doing that the organisers (i.e. ultimately Oracle) have left question-marks hanging there forever.

 

Most importantly for Oracle is the future implications of this all. It will have a direct impact on potential entrants to the next cup. Such was the negativity surrounding the honesty and integrity of aspects of the way the cup was run teams will be disinclined to enter under anything less than a completely revamped protocol in which the challengers have a much bigger say. Unless Oracle cedes to that they will be looking idly at their feet for the next few years. They defended the cup but will be regarded as relatively untrustworthy by the few key people around the world who are capable of pulling challenges together.

 

 

Slander and hypocrisy. Your whole post suggests cheating, yet you deny you believe it? This kind of shit is getting tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the proven and convicted AC45 cheaters say the SAS on the AC72's is legal ... so be it. They and the MC can be trusted, right?

BUT this has gone too far. Next generation (if such a thing occurs) will have devices somewhat like F1 tried then outlawed ... because it removes human skills and interest. I mean we watch sailing (and most other sports) to observe hyper- humans - not Frankenstein remote controlled boredom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slander and hypocrisy. Your whole post suggests cheating, yet you deny you believe it? This kind of shit is getting tiresome.

Huh? Learn to read muppet. Oracle did cheat in the ACWS on at least 5 known, proven occasions and additionally were earlier penalised for spying. For that reason their conduct throughout the entire cup when it comes to areas of honesty should be viewed with extra scrutiny because not doing so has offered all those people with no evidence of cheating the ideal conditions they need to build their conspiracy theories. Oracle themselves should have made this happen for the integrity of the cup.

 

The manner in which the cup ended with all sorts of discussion of secret devices only fuelled speculation so it was incumbent on the organiser to do as much as practical to demonstrate to the public (who aren't overly bothered with actual details) that Oracle had been under increased scrutiny with regards to their AC boat for the specific reason of public perception. This would have cut most of the silly conspiracy-type theories off at the knees before they ever gained any following.

 

I have seen plenty of "they cheated bla bla" claims online - none of which hold up to much scrutiny (nor basic logic in most cases) but the AC management organisation did the reputation of the cup no favours whatsoever by not addressing that fact by actively, publicly ensuring everyone knew the boat was completely legit. Instead they just let them race which is, in effect, the same thing to those who understand the measurement process but not so to the majority of the audience who go "how do we know it was legal?"

 

The thing that matters in the public perception here is not what can or cannot be proved - rather how to satisfy the customer that OR were more closely watched because of their poor recent history (not to mention the repeated public refusal to show any contrition or acceptance of wrongdoing as the International Jury ruled) when it came to sporting integrity.

 

For what it's worth the capabilities of the Measurement Committee were also found wanting in the ACWS insofar as the public perception is concerned. People rightly wanted to know why, if the boats were all supposed to be the same, they were basically never checked except when damage/repairs occurred. To sailors is seems perfectly normal to have an honour system in place but once the ACWS cheating stuff came out, that system seemed quite inadequate in hindsight. That same MC then ran the measurement process for the AC and, in my opinion, more should have been made about the process and rigours that went into it - if only for the sake of public perception.

 

As it stands many people still think OR cheated somehow - and yet they have no evidence whatsoever. Why? Because it likely never existed, because the boat was fine. Neither OR or the MC look better for the proliferation of the allegations - especially because the crazier the conspiracy theory the more the people who believe it are active in spreading it around - which can only be a disincentive to teams wishing to enter, sponsors thinking of getting involved and to AC fans. It was poor management of the situation by the race management imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the proven and convicted AC45 cheaters say the SAS on the AC72's is legal ... so be it.

No, they didn't have a Stability Augmentation System that was judged legal. They didn't have a Stability Augmentation System at all.

 

They had a daggerboard rake adjustment system that used a servo, and was set using buttons or a lever. It was controlled by the most powerful computer on the planet, a human brain. Or as Werner Von Braun once said, the only computer that can be mass produced by unskilled labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Dirk has done some rabid conspiracy theorists a massive favour. Now that OTUSA are "convicted cheaters" it is a forgone conclusion that there was a SAS.

 

This whole argument is rich ground for just about every logical fallacy that exists.

 

FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, if the proven and convicted AC45 cheaters say the SAS on the AC72's is legal ... so be it.

No, they didn't have a Stability Augmentation System that was judged legal. They didn't have a Stability Augmentation System at all.

 

They had a daggerboard rake adjustment system that used a servo, and was set using buttons or a lever. It was controlled by the most powerful computer on the planet, a human brain. Or as Werner Von Braun once said, the only computer that can be mass produced by unskilled labour.

On another topic - Does unskilled labour produce a skilled computer - or another unskilled one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems pretty clear that Oracle had a perfectly legal hydraulic control system, they also probably had some very advanced indication systems which helped the crew know where they should be setting the gear.

 

So, (and it was all legal, above board, and generally pretty spectacular work so dont jump down my throat, I am not whining) is this a direction we want to take, at what point does the computer take over from skill and experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapback.png

They had something, that much is certain. Whether it was an SAS or something else, they had something which resulted in contributing to the massive improvement throughout the regatta. No amount of plain crew-work improvement could account for the turnaround we saw with OR.

 

Simply wrong.

 

As SimonN pointed out elsewhere, Moving Ainsle into the Tactician role was invaluable. Why? because he had been the guy driving the tune up boat and had been the person whom the experimented with with various mode tunings. So the conversation loop between him and spithill on Mode was way different than with Koesteckii

 

Two, ETNZ sailed like Shite in the last 3 races. In particular in the last race, Ashby made a Newbie mistake starting the 3rd leg. Perhaps he believed they still had BETTER upwind speed than OTUSA - but after taking the Alcatraz side of the gate in a flood tide, instead of believing in their strategy and boatspeed and going to the boundary to get into the Alcatraz cone, then doing a short tack to stay in it and then cross the adverse current where it was less bad - they tacked to cover. And if you look at the track http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/25/sports/americas-cup-course.html?_r=2& (starts at around 5:30) you see that they sail into the classic geographic header and get shoved by current, meanwhile OTUSA gets to current relief faster and then splits tacks because of how they want to organize their progress up course (ie Course Management)

 

And for the rest of the upwind leg OTUSA is "In Phase" and ETNZ is out - every tack.... and I mean EVERY TACK you see the same thing - both boats come on course at about the same median, but about 25% of the way into the tack OTUSA gets lifted and ETNZ gets headed.

 

In fact on that crucial 3rd Upwind Leg ETNZ averaged rounghly 0.6 knots FASTER THAN OTUSA...but OTUSA saiiled 600+ meters less distance

 

And THAT made the diffference. You don't need SAS to win when you sail 600 meters less distance

 

AC Final Race

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be awesome if someone would do an analysis of Oracle's losing and winning races in terms of wingtrim and high/low modes (should be plenty of video footage available!)

(Would do it myself if I had the time),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

snapback.png

They had something, that much is certain. Whether it was an SAS or something else, they had something which resulted in contributing to the massive improvement throughout the regatta. No amount of plain crew-work improvement could account for the turnaround we saw with OR.

 

Simply wrong.

 

As SimonN pointed out elsewhere, Moving Ainsle into the Tactician role was invaluable. Why? because he had been the guy driving the tune up boat and had been the person whom the experimented with with various mode tunings. So the conversation loop between him and spithill on Mode was way different than with Koesteckii

 

Two, ETNZ sailed like Shite in the last 3 races. In particular in the last race, Ashby made a Newbie mistake starting the 3rd leg. Perhaps he believed they still had BETTER upwind speed than OTUSA - but after taking the Alcatraz side of the gate in a flood tide, instead of believing in their strategy and boatspeed and going to the boundary to get into the Alcatraz cone, then doing a short tack to stay in it and then cross the adverse current where it was less bad - they tacked to cover. And if you look at the track http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/25/sports/americas-cup-course.html?_r=2& (starts at around 5:30) you see that they sail into the classic geographic header and get shoved by current, meanwhile OTUSA gets to current relief faster and then splits tacks because of how they want to organize their progress up course (ie Course Management)

 

And for the rest of the upwind leg OTUSA is "In Phase" and ETNZ is out - every tack.... and I mean EVERY TACK you see the same thing - both boats come on course at about the same median, but about 25% of the way into the tack OTUSA gets lifted and ETNZ gets headed.

 

In fact on that crucial 3rd Upwind Leg ETNZ averaged rounghly 0.6 knots FASTER THAN OTUSA...but OTUSA saiiled 600+ meters less distance

 

And THAT made the diffference. You don't need SAS to win when you sail 600 meters less distance

 

Exactly, at the speeds these winged creatures are travelling its a game if millimeters. There have been many claims of 10- 20% improvements by Oracle, rediculous. Those sort of improvements would result in winning deltas of multiple minutes.

 

I did not keep track but pretty sure all races ended with less than 60 sec splits. At 40knots thats fucking close! In a 10 knot IOR shitbox that would be amazingly close!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In '83 and afterwards there is no real evidence the "winged keel" was faster, but the possibility got inside Dennis and co's head,

this time it was reversed.

 

Match racing in the end is a head game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, if the proven and convicted AC45 cheaters say the SAS on the AC72's is legal ... so be it.

No, they didn't have a Stability Augmentation System that was judged legal. They didn't have a Stability Augmentation System at all.

 

They had a daggerboard rake adjustment system that used a servo, and was set using buttons or a lever. It was controlled by the most powerful computer on the planet, a human brain. Or as Werner Von Braun once said, the only computer that can be mass produced by unskilled labour.

On another topic - Does unskilled labour produce a skilled computer - or another unskilled one?

 

Err, it might do if there's at least one blonde involved....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

snapback.png

They had something, that much is certain. Whether it was an SAS or something else, they had something which resulted in contributing to the massive improvement throughout the regatta. No amount of plain crew-work improvement could account for the turnaround we saw with OR.

 

Simply wrong.

 

As SimonN pointed out elsewhere, Moving Ainsle into the Tactician role was invaluable. ..

 

And for the rest of the upwind leg OTUSA is "In Phase" and ETNZ is out - every tack.... ..

 

In fact on that crucial 3rd Upwind Leg ETNZ averaged rounghly 0.6 knots FASTER THAN OTUSA...but OTUSA saiiled 600+ meters less distance

 

And THAT made the diffference. You don't need SAS to win when you sail 600 meters less distance.

Well I'll take Grand Dalton and a myriad of other people with undoubtedly better judgement of the boats speeds all said that Oracle significantly improved their boat-speed upwind throughout the regatta. Even Russell Coutts confirmed they made a big leap in his "the numbers don't make sense" comments when asked about what they did to improve. Spithill also mentioned numerous times they had been making changes to the boat and indeed allegedly a crew of staff from Core in NZ flew up to do some composite work (which is what they specialist in), only after the regatta did Spithill try and then say he was just joking and they hadn't changed anything. He was in obfuscate mode by that point.

 

Their delta in similar-conditions upwind improved by well over a minute (although it's impossible to make definitive claims since the wind is never the same twice - these are an experienced yachty comment from Dalton). They were consistently considerably faster in some conditions upwind in the last 6 or 7 races compared to the first 6 or 7 which all-but confirms changes to the boat, either in weight dist, foil use, wing camber, wing rake etc or a combination of all in addition to and crew work improvements.

 

As for the distance sailed comment, that still supports the theory since earlier it was them who was consistently sailing further upwind. Likewise, averages can be spurious and deceptive in upwind sailing because they don't equally account for one boat getting a favourable shift (or vice versa) or the time spent in adverse current.

 

To point out the bullshit of your distance sailed comment let's not pick one race and imply it somehow shows a trend, because it does not. In the previous 7 races before that Oracle sailed further but faster in races 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and sailed less distance and faster in race 18. (ETNZ did the upwind leg quicker in 4 of those 7 still).

 

But compare that to the first 6 races of the regatta ETNZ sailed the upwind leg further but faster in race 1, 2, 3 and less distance and quicker in races 5 and 6. Only in race 4 did they sail less distance and slower > losing 10 seconds on the leg, the only time in those 6 races that happened.

 

No tactician is going to make a difference like that compared to sorting the balance dist, wing geometry etc on the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just one question, in I think the last race, JS pressed a button on steering wheel and boom Oracle was on the foils?

 

Thats because JS had buttons on the wheel to control the dagger foil pitch. A button to go forward, a button to go back. Its no secret. Barker had it too, in some form...

 

The point is they had humans controlling the pitch, not a computer.

right thankyou, thats all I wanted to know, thats why I asked :) and didn't oracle dob themselves in because they were going to be outed anyways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, to prove Ta Koodie and others are full of shit;

 

Kramer on Saturday denied any use of computer-automated controls to manage the foils and stabilize the yacht. "Negative. No," he said.

The yacht had a stabilization system but it was operated by humans, Kramer said. "There's no computer driving any surfaces at all."

 

Small electronic switches were used to open and close the hydraulic valves clutches. Theses were commercially available, not customized, according to Kramer.

The measurement committee gave Oracle permission in August to use an "electro-mechanical actuator" to move a valve. The jury on September 6 dismissed New Zealand's claim that the actuator violated the manpower-only rule but on the basis that it was filed too late.

"Most items we used in there are literally servos from your kid's remote-control airplane," Kramer said. "It's exactly as simple as that. It gets bolted to a valve and that is what operates things."

Kramer said the many changes made to the yacht were "all small and all visible."

 

Clear enough ?

I would say, no, not clear enough. As steward of the America's Cup I believe GGYC and Oracle Team USA owe it to the Cup viewing public to make the details of the system clear for external review. Their denials are vague and open to interpretation. The system drawn in the public interpretation has one linear actuator that is far larger than an RC place servo. If there were more servo's, operating in the system, then it is not the system drawn in the PI. I don't neccesarily agree with the decision to allow linear actuators, but the MC decided it was fine and I can see the argument there and the decision was made....sail on, but what was the computer or sensor output and was it directly put back into the system in any way? My guess would be the whole Herbie rumor is complete crap, but as steward of the cup, I think it is in the best interest of the cup to make the system clear to the public. As most agree the foil systems will be dramatically different in the next cup, probably with controllable surfaces, this should not disadvantage oracle in the future.

 

In '83 and afterwards there is no real evidence the "winged keel" was faster, but the possibility got inside Dennis and co's head,

this time it was reversed.

 

Match racing in the end is a head game.

While I would agree that the wings on Aus II's keel were not effective as winglets (have run CFD on this keel and speak as designer of highly successful 12m keels in the early 2000's), they were effective as ballast lowering devices. Similarly Aus II's upside down keel did not reduce the neclace vortex as well as S&S 87 by any means, it still was a shorter root chord and again the lowering of ballast compared to all prior keels was significant. Given the choice of Aus II's keel or any of the other '83 keels, I would certainly choose Aus II. It was far more than just a head game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

snapback.png

They had something, that much is certain. Whether it was an SAS or something else, they had something which resulted in contributing to the massive improvement throughout the regatta. No amount of plain crew-work improvement could account for the turnaround we saw with OR.

 

Simply wrong.

 

As SimonN pointed out elsewhere, Moving Ainsle into the Tactician role was invaluable. ..

 

And for the rest of the upwind leg OTUSA is "In Phase" and ETNZ is out - every tack.... ..

 

In fact on that crucial 3rd Upwind Leg ETNZ averaged rounghly 0.6 knots FASTER THAN OTUSA...but OTUSA saiiled 600+ meters less distance

 

And THAT made the diffference. You don't need SAS to win when you sail 600 meters less distance.

Well I'll take Grand Dalton and a myriad of other people with undoubtedly better judgement of the boats speeds all said that Oracle significantly improved their boat-speed upwind throughout the regatta. Even Russell Coutts confirmed they made a big leap in his "the numbers don't make sense" comments when asked about what they did to improve. Spithill also mentioned numerous times they had been making changes to the boat and indeed allegedly a crew of staff from Core in NZ flew up to do some composite work (which is what they specialist in), only after the regatta did Spithill try and then say he was just joking and they hadn't changed anything. He was in obfuscate mode by that point.

 

Their delta in similar-conditions upwind improved by well over a minute (although it's impossible to make definitive claims since the wind is never the same twice - these are an experienced yachty comment from Dalton). They were consistently considerably faster in some conditions upwind in the last 6 or 7 races compared to the first 6 or 7 which all-but confirms changes to the boat, either in weight dist, foil use, wing camber, wing rake etc or a combination of all in addition to and crew work improvements.

 

As for the distance sailed comment, that still supports the theory since earlier it was them who was consistently sailing further upwind. Likewise, averages can be spurious and deceptive in upwind sailing because they don't equally account for one boat getting a favourable shift (or vice versa) or the time spent in adverse current.

 

To point out the bullshit of your distance sailed comment let's not pick one race and imply it somehow shows a trend, because it does not. In the previous 7 races before that Oracle sailed further but faster in races 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and sailed less distance and faster in race 18. (ETNZ did the upwind leg quicker in 4 of those 7 still).

 

But compare that to the first 6 races of the regatta ETNZ sailed the upwind leg further but faster in race 1, 2, 3 and less distance and quicker in races 5 and 6. Only in race 4 did they sail less distance and slower > losing 10 seconds on the leg, the only time in those 6 races that happened.

 

No tactician is going to make a difference like that compared to sorting the balance dist, wing geometry etc on the boat.

Dalts has a vested interest in saying OTUSA was faster. and Coutts SAYS The OPPOSITE - yes they iimproved - they basically got to Par and just outsailed ETNZ who was not used to racing against a par boat

 

An how is it that OTUSA is faster if the data shows they sailed a shorter distance upwind at a slower average speed?

 

 

Look if OTUSA was that much faster than ETNZ then in the race in which it counted - the one in which we can hear The Benster urging the crew on with "Come On Guys Work Your Asses Off On this one!!" OTUSA sails slower than ETNZ

 

Yes in the first 6 races ETNZ was faster. no question. But after that it basically was Par and Ainsle schooled Ashby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dalts has a vested interest in saying OTUSA was faster. and Coutts SAYS The OPPOSITE - yes they iimproved - they basically got to Par and just outsailed ETNZ who was not used to racing against a par boat

 

An how is it that OTUSA is faster if the data shows they sailed a shorter distance upwind at a slower average speed?

 

Look if OTUSA was that much faster than ETNZ then in the race in which it counted - the one in which we can hear The Benster urging the crew on with "Come On Guys Work Your Asses Off On this one!!" OTUSA sails slower than ETNZ

 

Yes in the first 6 races ETNZ was faster. no question. But after that it basically was Par and Ainsle schooled Ashby

So, to sum up your comment about Dalton: if someone is associated with boat X and they say boat Y is faster when they lose it's because they have a vested interest in saying so.

 

Just what is that vested interest? Are they trying to somehow make out the situation which was plainly evident was because of something for which there is basically no statistical evidence at all (tactics) compared to the stuff for which there is - more ideal course positioning, better mode at the right time and better VMC?

 

It is an odd position to assume that non-self aggrandising comment by a related person should be taken at the opposite of face value or that they're playing some game. Dalton has been known for decades as a pretty straight-shooter, never afraid to call a spade a spade, and famously vocal in self-criticism of his team (internally especially) but whenever he talks about the speed or improvement of another boat he's suddenly talking porkies? Give me a break. The guys is so famously frank in his speaking they wrote a rule in to keep him quiet. He also knows as well as anyone that talking about a boat's speed makes no difference whatsoever to the speed it goes.

 

Similarly, if he wanted to play some mind game wouldn't it be more in his interest to say the boats were the same speed and that his crew just needed to work better - to egg his own guys on in their daily internal briefings? No, they were busting arse (or had an empty tank) trying to make sure they did everything better each day - again, something he's sort of indicated when he mentioned their numbers compared to the LVC and the first half of the AC.

 

No-one as accomplished in sailing as Dalton goes out there and says another boat is faster unless he is pretty near certain it is the case. That's the sort of stuff borderline sociopaths like Spithill get up to when they go into mind-game mode.

 

So far as you bringing up the race where Ainslie says "work your asses off" Oracle sailed that leg 29.1 seconds faster than ETNZ so I don't know what planet you are on where that can possibly equate to them being slower. I know you ran off and looked at the average speed on that stats page but you should skip across a couple of columns to the "time on leg" to see what really happened. The stats don't show VMG or VMC - both of which Oracle were significantly ahead at. There is no way they could not have been in sailing the leg 4.2% quicker than the other boat (690.7 vs 719.9 seconds). End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dalts has a vested interest in saying OTUSA was faster. and Coutts SAYS The OPPOSITE - yes they iimproved - they basically got to Par and just outsailed ETNZ who was not used to racing against a par boat

 

An how is it that OTUSA is faster if the data shows they sailed a shorter distance upwind at a slower average speed?

 

Look if OTUSA was that much faster than ETNZ then in the race in which it counted - the one in which we can hear The Benster urging the crew on with "Come On Guys Work Your Asses Off On this one!!" OTUSA sails slower than ETNZ

 

Yes in the first 6 races ETNZ was faster. no question. But after that it basically was Par and Ainsle schooled Ashby

So, to sum up your comment about Dalton: if someone is associated with boat X and they say boat Y is faster when they lose it's because they have a vested interest in saying so.

 

Just what is that vested interest? Are they trying to somehow make out the situation which was plainly evident was because of something for which there is basically no statistical evidence at all (tactics) compared to the stuff for which there is - more ideal course positioning, better mode at the right time and better VMC?

 

It is an odd position to assume that non-self aggrandising comment by a related person should be taken at the opposite of face value or that they're playing some game. Dalton has been known for decades as a pretty straight-shooter, never afraid to call a spade a spade, and famously vocal in self-criticism of his team (internally especially) but whenever he talks about the speed or improvement of another boat he's suddenly talking porkies? Give me a break. The guys is frank in his speaking they wrote a rule in to keep him quiet. He also knows as well as anyone that talking about a boat's speed makes no difference whatsoever to the speed it goes.

 

Similarly, if he wanted to play some mind game wouldn't it be more in his interest to say the boats were the same speed and that his crew just needed to work better - to egg his own guys on?

 

No-one as accomplished in sailing as Dalton goes out there and says another boat is faster unless he is pretty near certain it is the case. That's the sort of stuff borderline sociopaths like Spithill get up to.

 

So far as you bringing up the race where Ainslie says "work your asses off" Oracle sailed that leg 29.1 seconds faster than ETNZ so I don't know what planet you are on where that can possibly equate to them being slower. I know you ran off and looked at the average speed on that stats page but you should skip across a couple of columns to the "time on leg" to see what really happened. The stats don't show VMG or VMC - both of which Oracle were significantly ahead at. There is no way they could not have been in sailing the leg 4.2% quicker than the other boat (690.7 vs 719.9 seconds). End of story.

No - not just association. When you are up 8-1 and lose it, you have a deep deep deep psychological interest in there being a reason beyond your control as to why that happened rather than "We choked"

 

as for "No statistical evidence"? WTF?

 

24.61 knots upwind vs 23.96 for Leg 3 is not statistical evidence?

the course sailed and the persistent phase shifts is not "statistical evidence"?http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/25/sports/americas-cup-course.html?_r=2&

The fact that OTUSA sailed 603meters less upwind despite being slower is not "statistical evidence"?

The fact that off the wind on leg 2 the speed delta is 37.75 vs 37.50 (ie 1/4 of a knot still in NZLs favor)? is not "statistical evidence"

the fact that NO BOAT EVER has made it pay to tack away from the Alcatraz Cone in a flood tide is not "statistical evidence"?

 

 

What counts as "statistical evidence" for you? Dougie's unsupported claims and the number of times he posts them?

 

 

Yes OTUSA finished that leg in 29 seconds less than ETNZ.... while sailing slower according to the statistical race data There is a way to do that. Its called SAIL IN PHASE.... I think someone may have written some things about that.. http://www.amazon.com/Positioning-Sailboat-Stuart-Walker-M-D/dp/0393033392/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380546534&sr=1-1&keywords=stuart+walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, to prove Ta Koodie and others are full of shit;

 

and this is new news?? :blink::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - not just association. When you are up 8-1 and lose it, you have a deep deep deep psychological interest in there being a reason beyond your control as to why that happened rather than "We choked"

Are you suggesting that it is not possible Dalton's comments - which would also be the result of him having seen a plethora of data - to be simply an honest assessment of what he saw?

 

If so, it reflects poorly on you that you have such cynical assumptions about how people act. It would be a particularly strange turnaround for Dalton too considering his track record for frankness.

 

as for "No statistical evidence"? WTF?

 

24.61 knots upwind vs 23.96 for Leg 3 is not statistical evidence?...

What counts as "statistical evidence" for you? Dougie's unsupported claims and the number of times he posts them?

 

Yes OTUSA finished that leg in 29 seconds less than ETNZ.... while sailing slower according to the statistical race data There is a way to do that. Its called SAIL IN PHASE...

Oracle sailed further and sailed at a lower average speed than ETNZ. They however sailed the leg 4.2% faster than ETNZ.

 

Please sit down and consider your numbers in light of the broader metrics of the leg. The numbers you quoted do not and cannot possibly tell the whole story for the simple fact Oracle sailed the leg considerably faster than ETNZ. What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend? They sailed the same or slightly lower boat-speed but at better angles (on average), ergo they reached the other end faster and more efficiently. The fact you refuse to concede this is mind-boggling to say the least.

 

My comment about statistical analysis - had you bothered to actually read my post instead of reading what you thought I wrote - was that there is less statistical evidence that tactical changes accounted for the improvement in Oracle's performances than there is for it being inherent, fundamental boat-speed improvement. Not that there aren't statistics galore for people intent on arguing every point, however spurious and facetious the use of the numbers may be.

 

Oracle's boat did change significantly during the regatta in one, perhaps key, way - and one which might explain the crew from Core Building flying up from NZ - the weight was shifted aft-wards. It was obvious when looking at the boat when in displacement mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or as Werner Von Braun once said, the only computer that can be mass produced by unskilled labour.

That is a gem of a quote in this otherwise tired, retreaded thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dalton is going to read his data with coloration now that they lost.

 

Now as to OTUSA's improvement - yes in race 10/11 they basically stepped up their game - but they were not "faster". They basically came up to par with ETNZ. No denying that. But there is precious little evidence they were FASTER THAN ETNZ

 

 

 

There is a lot of evidence on OTUSA sailing better. Look at the number of match race penalties dealt to ETNZ vs OTUSA - its not even close.

 

Look at how every time OTUSA was overlapped at Mark 1 they drove ETNZ aggressively upwind to where the would fall off the foils and then OTUSA would accelerate away.

Look at how OTUSA consistently outperformed ETNZ on playing the shifts better and tactically engaging better (the infamous tack that should not have been taken in race 18)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

You blokes can think and chatter all you want,,but why do you think that our strategist and tactician were both put on grinders?

 

 

 

that's right--to power the massive tacti-uter. Larry thinks of everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if they had really wanted a SAS Oracle could have used this unit to get full control and ride height control. It would fill that role nicely having an intergral GPS, magmetometer (compass), accelerometer, and even barometric pressure for around $200. It can interface with multiple airspeed indicators that are about the size of a dime and simply plugs into the boat with a USB cable.

 

https://pixhawk.ethz.ch/px4/modules/pixhawk

 

pixhawk-logo-view.jpg?w=450

 

Pixhawk is an advanced autopilot system designed by the PX4 open-hardware project and manufactured by 3D Robotics. It features advanced processor and sensor technology from ST Microelectronics® and a NuttX real-time operating system, delivering incredible performance, flexibility, and reliability for controlling any autonomous vehicle.

The benefits of the Pixhawk system include integrated multithreading, a Unix/Linux-like programming environment, completely new autopilot functions such as Lua scripting of missions and flight behavior, and a custom PX4 driver layer ensuring tight timing across all processes. These advanced capabilities ensure that there are no limitations to your autonomous vehicle. Pixhawk allows existing APM and PX4 operators to seamlessly transition to this system and lowers the barriers to entry for new users to participate in the exciting world of autonomous vehicles.

The flagship Pixhawk module will be accompanied by new peripheral options, including a digital airspeed sensor, support for an external multi-color LED indicator and an external magnetometer. All peripherals are automatically detected and configured.

 

Wait, it uses a 'unix/linux' type of OS so Larry would never have allowed in on the Oracle Java boat! Also isn't available until October but with his money might have been able to pull a few strings to get one a few weeks early.

 

Some neat stuff being done by the RC 'radio control' guys, I was especially impressed with this autonomous sailplane that uses a similar autopilot unit that can 'sniff' out thermals for long sustained cross country flights. Much in the same manner that a human sailplane pilot reacts to a strong updraft and then waits a couple seconds before circling back and centering in the rising column of air. When the autopilot senses that the lift has dropped to a defined value or it reaches a designated altitude, it then resumes its course to the next GPS waypoint. It is even able to detect the rate of drift downwind of the thermal cone as they do not rise straight into the air from their source and lean downwind. It also remembers the gps point of origin on the ground so when on the return route it can come back and check if their is lift still available at that location. Much like going into the notorious 'Cone of Alcatraz'.

 

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/full-autonomous-cross-country-soaring-flights-with-the?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A830155&page=5#comments

 

This is certainly going to bear much consideration for the next AC cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if they had really wanted a SAS Oracle could have used this unit to get full control and ride height control. It would fill that role nicely having an intergral GPS, magmetometer (compass), accelerometer, and even barometric pressure for around $200. It can interface with multiple airspeed indicators that are about the size of a dime and simply plugs into the boat with a USB cable.

 

https://pixhawk.ethz.ch/px4/modules/pixhawk

.

 

......at that price,maybe it's not long until we find these on moths! :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cute device.

 

Wait, it uses a 'unix/linux' type of OS so Larry would never have allowed in on the Oracle Java boat! Also isn't available until October but with his money might have been able to pull a few strings to get one a few weeks early.

 

 

Java is a programming language, not an operating system. Larry owns Sun Microsystems - which was one of the most important early Unix companies, and still sells their own Unix variant (Solaris). Sun is where Java came from, and why Oracle has it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice video of Dirk at the ICCCC. I love the reaction when Clean mentions the dynamic yaw stabiliser. Now the idea of some more C-Class events, that is worth pursuing...

I wish I had the time and money, I would be there with a boat too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cute device.

 

Wait, it uses a 'unix/linux' type of OS so Larry would never have allowed in on the Oracle Java boat! Also isn't available until October but with his money might have been able to pull a few strings to get one a few weeks early.

 

 

Java is a programming language, not an operating system. Larry owns Sun Microsystems - which was one of the most important early Unix companies, and still sells their own Unix variant (Solaris). Sun is where Java came from, and why Oracle has it now.

Sun also had a flavor of Linux as did Oracle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sun also had a flavor of Linux as did Oracle...

 

Oracle is still pushing its unbreakable Linux. It has gone pretty quiet however. Larry has had a go on many occasions with Linux based ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And for the record, to prove Ta Koodie and others are full of shit;

 

Kramer on Saturday denied any use of computer-automated controls to manage the foils and stabilize the yacht. "Negative. No," he said.

The yacht had a stabilization system but it was operated by humans, Kramer said. "There's no computer driving any surfaces at all."

 

Small electronic switches were used to open and close the hydraulic valves clutches. Theses were commercially available, not customized, according to Kramer.

The measurement committee gave Oracle permission in August to use an "electro-mechanical actuator" to move a valve. The jury on September 6 dismissed New Zealand's claim that the actuator violated the manpower-only rule but on the basis that it was filed too late.

"Most items we used in there are literally servos from your kid's remote-control airplane," Kramer said. "It's exactly as simple as that. It gets bolted to a valve and that is what operates things."

Kramer said the many changes made to the yacht were "all small and all visible."

 

Clear enough ?

I would say, no, not clear enough. As steward of the America's Cup I believe GGYC and Oracle Team USA owe it to the Cup viewing public to make the details of the system clear for external review. Their denials are vague and open to interpretation. The system drawn in the public interpretation has one linear actuator that is far larger than an RC place servo. If there were more servo's, operating in the system, then it is not the system drawn in the PI. I don't neccesarily agree with the decision to allow linear actuators, but the MC decided it was fine and I can see the argument there and the decision was made....sail on, but what was the computer or sensor output and was it directly put back into the system in any way? My guess would be the whole Herbie rumor is complete crap, but as steward of the cup, I think it is in the best interest of the cup to make the system clear to the public. As most agree the foil systems will be dramatically different in the next cup, probably with controllable surfaces, this should not disadvantage oracle in the future.

 

>In '83 and afterwards there is no real evidence the "winged keel" was faster, but the possibility got inside Dennis and co's head,

this time it was reversed.

 

Match racing in the end is a head game.

While I would agree that the wings on Aus II's keel were not effective as winglets (have run CFD on this keel and speak as designer of highly successful 12m keels in the early 2000's), they were effective as ballast lowering devices. Similarly Aus II's upside down keel did not reduce the neclace vortex as well as S&S 87 by any means, it still was a shorter root chord and again the lowering of ballast compared to all prior keels was significant. Given the choice of Aus II's keel or any of the other '83 keels, I would certainly choose Aus II. It was far more than just a head game.

 

 

It all comes down to this. You just want to know how it works. Your wasting your time. I'm sure if you had spent your millions to develop something similar you would be happy to give it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As steward of the America's Cup I believe GGYC and Oracle Team USA owe it to the Cup viewing public to make the details of the system clear for external review. Their denials are vague and open to interpretation

 

This is an amusing rhetorical device, but one that actually is meaningless. See the poster I linked to above for a list of fallacies. This argument embodies a number of them. It is the sort of stuff I remember from high school debating, usually from the losing team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As steward of the America's Cup I believe GGYC and Oracle Team USA owe it to the Cup viewing public to make the details of the system clear for external review. Their denials are vague and open to interpretation

 

This is an amusing rhetorical device, but one that actually is meaningless. See the poster I linked to above for a list of fallacies. This argument embodies a number of them. It is the sort of stuff I remember from high school debating, usually from the losing team.

Furthermore, how is OTUSA supposed to explain something that *does not exist*.

 

This is something that Kiwis seem to not want to understand. Even if Oracle hands their 72's over for public inspection, when nothing incriminating is found, they'll accuse them of removing the non-existent-system. Nothing can vindicate Oracle in this epic spree of juvenile extrement flinging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Dirk has done some rabid conspiracy theorists a massive favour. Now that OTUSA are "convicted cheaters" it is a forgone conclusion that there was a SAS.

 

This whole argument is rich ground for just about every logical fallacy that exists.

 

FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

 

YES!!! Thank you. More readable here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sun also had a flavor of Linux as did Oracle...

 

Oracle is still pushing its unbreakable Linux. It has gone pretty quiet however. Larry has had a go on many occasions with Linux based ideas.

Well there was this bit about how everyone that got to claim the $1 million for having their "unbreakable" servers "broken" had to keep quiet about it or lose the $1 mil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting tired of the `Oracle sailed slower but boxed smarter' arguments.

 

In the latter races you could see the boat speed difference both upwind and downwind. In the race 16 video when the two boats were close, they showed the VMG numbers along with the boat speed numbers and Oracle clearly had better VMG with similar or even slightly slower boat speed; ie they were sailing higher.

 

In various commentaries Oracle team members have said themselves they changed the boat to find more boat speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Other than the author not having a clue about why days were missed. He says there were days which both teams agreed to take off. Huh?

Rudder T foil modification

This was one of the biggest performance enhancing changes.

The T-foils on Oracle's rudders were found to be cavitating at speed which caused drag and reduced the lift of the foil. The bubble was developing at the intersection of the vertical rudder and horizontal foil, towards the after end. To reduce this a filet was added.

But I'm also hearing that a nose cone type device was also fitted to the forward end of the rudder foil intersection to move the pressure distribution, much like the bulbous bow on a ship.

While the modifications may have reduced the drag of the rudder, there may well have been an improvement in the trim of the boat too. With more efficient lift at the back, it may have been possible to reduce the angle of attack of the main foils, reducing drag further.

Hull interceptor

A vertical plate like device known as an interceptor was fitted to the transoms to modify the flow out from the stern and reduce drag. The system acts like a boot spoiler on a car and is a popular device on boats like Open 60s.

 

These points were among those mentioned in the FV interview that went un-translated, I can now add that it was with CFD meister Mario Caponnetto.

 

Except that offsetting vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer surfaces and adding an acorn at the intersection really is l'enfance de l'art - which, in the words of the ETNZ senior designer I passed Mario's comments to, can be translated as "red herrings" ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting tired of the `Oracle sailed slower but boxed smarter' arguments.

 

In the latter races you could see the boat speed difference both upwind and downwind. In the race 16 video when the two boats were close, they showed the VMG numbers along with the boat speed numbers and Oracle clearly had better VMG with similar or even slightly slower boat speed; ie they were sailing higher.

 

In various commentaries Oracle team members have said themselves they changed the boat to find more boat speed.

hmm VMG was running up and down the scale and mostly they were showing SOG numbers.

 

if in fact your claim about the boatspeed difference is true

 

How come the data shows IDENTICAL average speeds for the last race?

How come the data from the last race shows ETNZ's upwind speed of 24.61 knots and OTUSAs of 23.96 kots?

 

How come on the NYT plot in the last part of the course where ETNZ is finally in the same phase as OTUSA they sail parallel courses? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/25/sports/americas-cup-course.html?_r=2&

 

What I'm tired of is folks claiming something about the speed numbers that simply isn't true... look it up click on the image below

 

AC Final Race

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm getting tired of the `Oracle sailed slower but boxed smarter' arguments.

 

In the latter races you could see the boat speed difference both upwind and downwind. In the race 16 video when the two boats were close, they showed the VMG numbers along with the boat speed numbers and Oracle clearly had better VMG with similar or even slightly slower boat speed; ie they were sailing higher.

 

In various commentaries Oracle team members have said themselves they changed the boat to find more boat speed.

hmm VMG was running up and down the scale and mostly they were showing SOG numbers.

 

if in fact your claim about the boatspeed difference is true

 

How come the data shows IDENTICAL average speeds for the last race?

How come the data from the last race shows ETNZ's upwind speed of 24.61 knots and OTUSAs of 23.96 kots?

 

How come on the NYT plot in the last part of the course where ETNZ is finally in the same phase as OTUSA they sail parallel courses? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/25/sports/americas-cup-course.html?_r=2&

 

What I'm tired of is folks claiming something about the speed numbers that simply isn't true... look it up click on the image below

 

Its pretty clear, if you look at the tracks, TNZ was sailing lower angles and faster. OR sailed higher and slower, resulting in less distance sailed and better VMG. Not that hard to figure out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny (big surprise!), from here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11132657

 

Sir Russell Coutts says the foil-adjusting technology rumoured to be the key to Oracle's comeback in the America's Cup was a figment of someone's imagination.

 

The Oracle chief executive said "Herbie" as it had been termed, was a beat-up.

 

"It would be illegal to have an automated system on board. It would not be allowed. The measurers inspected the boats before and after each day of use and they saw nothing.

 

"It's amazing how some so-called knowledgeable people started to believe in stuff like that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

snapback.png

They had something, that much is certain. Whether it was an SAS or something else, they had something which resulted in contributing to the massive improvement throughout the regatta. No amount of plain crew-work improvement could account for the turnaround we saw with OR.

 

Simply wrong.

 

As SimonN pointed out elsewhere, Moving Ainsle into the Tactician role was invaluable. ..

 

And for the rest of the upwind leg OTUSA is "In Phase" and ETNZ is out - every tack.... ..

 

In fact on that crucial 3rd Upwind Leg ETNZ averaged rounghly 0.6 knots FASTER THAN OTUSA...but OTUSA saiiled 600+ meters less distance

 

And THAT made the diffference. You don't need SAS to win when you sail 600 meters less distance.

Well I'll take Grand Dalton and a myriad of other people with undoubtedly better judgement of the boats speeds all said that Oracle significantly improved their boat-speed upwind throughout the regatta. Even Russell Coutts confirmed they made a big leap in his "the numbers don't make sense" comments when asked about what they did to improve. Spithill also mentioned numerous times they had been making changes to the boat and indeed allegedly a crew of staff from Core in NZ flew up to do some composite work (which is what they specialist in), only after the regatta did Spithill try and then say he was just joking and they hadn't changed anything. He was in obfuscate mode by that point.

 

Their delta in similar-conditions upwind improved by well over a minute (although it's impossible to make definitive claims since the wind is never the same twice - these are an experienced yachty comment from Dalton). They were consistently considerably faster in some conditions upwind in the last 6 or 7 races compared to the first 6 or 7 which all-but confirms changes to the boat, either in weight dist, foil use, wing camber, wing rake etc or a combination of all in addition to and crew work improvements.

 

As for the distance sailed comment, that still supports the theory since earlier it was them who was consistently sailing further upwind. Likewise, averages can be spurious and deceptive in upwind sailing because they don't equally account for one boat getting a favourable shift (or vice versa) or the time spent in adverse current.

 

To point out the bullshit of your distance sailed comment let's not pick one race and imply it somehow shows a trend, because it does not. In the previous 7 races before that Oracle sailed further but faster in races 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and sailed less distance and faster in race 18. (ETNZ did the upwind leg quicker in 4 of those 7 still).

 

But compare that to the first 6 races of the regatta ETNZ sailed the upwind leg further but faster in race 1, 2, 3 and less distance and quicker in races 5 and 6. Only in race 4 did they sail less distance and slower > losing 10 seconds on the leg, the only time in those 6 races that happened.

 

No tactician is going to make a difference like that compared to sorting the balance dist, wing geometry etc on the boat.

Dalts has a vested interest in saying OTUSA was faster. and Coutts SAYS The OPPOSITE - yes they iimproved - they basically got to Par and just outsailed ETNZ who was not used to racing against a par boat

 

An how is it that OTUSA is faster if the data shows they sailed a shorter distance upwind at a slower average speed?

 

 

Look if OTUSA was that much faster than ETNZ then in the race in which it counted - the one in which we can hear The Benster urging the crew on with "Come On Guys Work Your Asses Off On this one!!" OTUSA sails slower than ETNZ

 

Yes in the first 6 races ETNZ was faster. no question. But after that it basically was Par and Ainsle schooled Ashby

 

ETNZ made their leaps in boatspeed during the LV Series and between LV and the start of the AC Finals. I think Oracle had a pretty good idea of their speed/ability against ETNZ in regards to the LV series.

 

My thoughts are that a couple things happened that lead to both teams being complacent at one point or another:

 

1) Oracle thought they would be just as fast as ETNZ in race 1 of the finals (It's hard to believe that they didn't do any 'modeling' with the data feeds presented via TV, etc) BUT they lost their trimmer AND ETNZ made some speed/handling enhancements between the LV and the AC Finals and put Oracle in a boatspeed disadvantage.

2) ETNZ with a boatspeed and handling advantage AND a commanding lead, didn't feel that Oracle could find another gear and got complacent.

3) Oracle's trimmer got his act together and he and Jimmy finally found their comfort zone

4) Oracle basically did what ETNZ did between regattas - but Oracle did it during the regatta -- they got faster and ETNZ was out of tricks.

 

Was it an SAS system? or was it finely tuning the boat based on new real world data and learning how to race in live combat?

 

I think just the transition from Dirk to the new trimmer and being forced to find some boatspeed answers in the handling/tuning area could easily have been enough to accomplish their improvements. Of course an SAS system could have accounted for this too.

 

In the end it looks like ETNZ was caught napping early in this regatta and either didn't apply the resources to getting faster or they had topped out their boatspeed just prior to the start of the AC Finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's been a lot of talk about what "augmentation" means. Augmentation is not autopilot and it doesn't need to know the complete "state" of the system it's controlling. The control system in a plane is there as a buffer between the pilot and the plane to "do as I say, not as I do." Jimi would push a button that says "up" and one that says "down." That is the manual daggerboard cant control in the Jury's Ruling, and somebody has a MC pdf that says it's legal to have the electrical impulse act on a valve. The "secret" and controversial part is another loop after Jimi pushes the button that says "naaa, wait a minute, I'll come up slowly," like the oscillations being reduced in the 747 to keep people from getting ill. https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/mae5070/ControlLectures.pdf


I bet the kiwis also had such a system, but they were more conservative, so less room for tweaking and improvement. It's not a "computer" just like a mechanical thermostat with two different metals in a coil isn't a computer or those old mechanical chokes on muscle cars. But it is a control system. Then you get the big computers involved at the end of the day in "tweaking" this little mechanical device to work best. (e.g. how do you keep the thermostat from overshooting).



Oracle likely had a purely mechanical black box, in that the "computing" everybody's talking about was done by hydraulic springs, weights and maybe gyroscopes, which maintained control of the centerboard rake and foil angle by opening and closing valves connected to the grinder-refreshed hydraulic reservoir. So you're talking "thousands" of corrections per second, but it's more like analog, with infinity corrections per second. If the foils were especially well balanced, maybe you could run it at 6 psi in the reservoir. Such a control system device would be easy to design in a computer once you had all the inputs (how the boat responds) you needed for optimization of the control loop. But there's the tricky part. Figuring out what the boat will do to a given control input is known as System Identification, and it's a hard problem. Maybe it was one that took a few real AC races to fully understand.

You'd have many places for adjustment of this black box too. Hydro pressure there, reservoir "spring" coefficient there, which you could set every morning for the given conditions. Trouble is that you'd have to collect a ton of data every day to improve that tweak, so this is likely where the 'special sauce' came in late in the race. I don't think there's any rule against gathering a million channels of data off the boat, but there is one against feeding that into an onboard computer to use during the race. Most control systems are "passive" in that they don't "learn" from the system they're controlling while in-line. All that learning and system design has got to take place offline anyway. There's no room for "cheating" and no reason to do it.


Boeing's "Herbie" of 1970 was likely an analog circuit with capacitors, resistors, etc, and NOT a computer by any modern meaning of the word. The resistors and capacitors were chosen specifically to design the control system for the 747, specifically to smooth out the input the pilot was giving so that passengers wouldn't get sick. The same type of device can be built with hydraulic fluid instead of current. The Herbie was built to stabilize the 747, not fly it like an autopilot, and there's a big difference there. It's only reacting to input given to the system. Somebody needs to drive. Whatever Oracle had was specifically tuned to their boat.


The BIG jump is linear versus nonlinear control theory. And again, here's where Oracle's edge could have been. NZ's "J" style foils represent a nice peaceful linear slope of lift with ride height, provided by ventilating the tip of the foil when the ride gets too high. (NZ was slower downwind because of that tip ventilation causing drag). The L boards do this, but not gracefully, more like; too high: oh shit I'm out of the water, sploosh! So developing the nonlinear controls needed for the L boards and tweaking them is the (reportedly) $50 million dollar question. Also, the more aggressively you control the system, the more it "costs." And this is optimization. The moon-lander problem, where you have a certain amount of fuel to hit the surface, is a good example. Here you've got guys grinding that you're burning out.


One thing is for sure, a control system would be WAY better than a helmsman alone. There's a chance that these boat's don't foil at all without some kind of intervention on raw button pushing. But how much "bleed" you are willing to accept? The more aggressive the control is, the more tightly you can control, but generally the more energy you expend. This is why Ben very clearly said "work your arses off" on that last beat of the last race. They may have gone with parameters that were more aggressive, let the stability system expend more hydraulic pressure, and control that upwind foiling mode. The human element comes back into play .


First time I saw Oracle (practicing before an LR NZ louis vuitton match) I thought something was different about the ride control. She looked smoother going downwind and didn't rise as high as NZ. I figured at the time that the foil somehow sensed the surface of the water before ventilating the tip, but it may just be that the helmsman could control the boat well enough that she didn't need tip ventilation to reach cruising altitude. If anything, this technology should be encouraged and expanded for the next round of the cup. They should allow active control and computer-aided nonlinear control systems. The other thing that should be allowed is the use of stored energy for the purpose of trimming the daggerboards. This would make the next cup much safer and provide something for teams to distinguish themselves from a design perspective if the rest of the platform (wing, hulls, superstructure) is standardized.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-32507-0-40864400-1380568315_thumb.jpg

 

There's been a lot of talk about what "augmentation" means. Augmentation is not autopilot and it doesn't need to know the complete "state" of the system it's controlling. The control system in a plane is there as a buffer between the pilot and the plane to "do as I say, not as I do." Jimi would push a button that says "up" and one that says "down." That is the manual daggerboard cant control in the Jury's Ruling, and somebody has a MC pdf that says it's legal to have the electrical impulse act on a valve. The "secret" and controversial part is another loop after Jimi pushes the button that says "naaa, wait a minute, I'll come up slowly," like the oscillations being reduced in the 747 to keep people from getting ill. https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/mae5070/ControlLectures.pdf
I bet the kiwis also had such a system, but they were more conservative, so less room for tweaking and improvement. It's not a "computer" just like a mechanical thermostat with two different metals in a coil isn't a computer or those old mechanical chokes on muscle cars. But it is a control system. Then you get the big computers involved at the end of the day in "tweaking" this little mechanical device to work best. (e.g. how do you keep the thermostat from overshooting).
Oracle likely had a purely mechanical black box, in that the "computing" everybody's talking about was done by hydraulic springs, weights and maybe gyroscopes, which maintained control of the centerboard rake and foil angle by opening and closing valves connected to the grinder-refreshed hydraulic reservoir. So you're talking "thousands" of corrections per second, but it's more like analog, with infinity corrections per second. If the foils were especially well balanced, maybe you could run it at 6 psi in the reservoir. Such a control system device would be easy to design in a computer once you had all the inputs (how the boat responds) you needed for optimization of the control loop. But there's the tricky part. Figuring out what the boat will do to a given control input is known as System Identification, and it's a hard problem. Maybe it was one that took a few real AC races to fully understand.
You'd have many places for adjustment of this black box too. Hydro pressure there, reservoir "spring" coefficient there, which you could set every morning for the given conditions. Trouble is that you'd have to collect a ton of data every day to improve that tweak, so this is likely where the 'special sauce' came in late in the race. I don't think there's any rule against gathering a million channels of data off the boat, but there is one against feeding that into an onboard computer to use during the race. Most control systems are "passive" in that they don't "learn" from the system they're controlling while in-line. All that learning and system design has got to take place offline anyway. There's no room for "cheating" and no reason to do it.
Boeing's "Herbie" of 1970 was likely an analog circuit with capacitors, resistors, etc, and NOT a computer by any modern meaning of the word. The resistors and capacitors were chosen specifically to design the control system for the 747, specifically to smooth out the input the pilot was giving so that passengers wouldn't get sick. The same type of device can be built with hydraulic fluid instead of current. The Herbie was built to stabilize the 747, not fly it like an autopilot, and there's a big difference there. It's only reacting to input given to the system. Somebody needs to drive. Whatever Oracle had was specifically tuned to their boat.
The BIG jump is linear versus nonlinear control theory. And again, here's where Oracle's edge could have been. NZ's "J" style foils represent a nice peaceful linear slope of lift with ride height, provided by ventilating the tip of the foil when the ride gets too high. (NZ was slower downwind because of that tip ventilation causing drag). The L boards do this, but not gracefully, more like; too high: oh shit I'm out of the water, sploosh! So developing the nonlinear controls needed for the L boards and tweaking them is the (reportedly) $50 million dollar question. Also, the more aggressively you control the system, the more it "costs." And this is optimization. The moon-lander problem, where you have a certain amount of fuel to hit the surface, is a good example. Here you've got guys grinding that you're burning out.
One thing is for sure, a control system would be WAY better than a helmsman alone. There's a chance that these boat's don't foil at all without some kind of intervention on raw button pushing. But how much "bleed" you are willing to accept? The more aggressive the control is, the more tightly you can control, but generally the more energy you expend. This is why Ben very clearly said "work your arses off" on that last beat of the last race. They may have gone with parameters that were more aggressive, let the stability system expend more hydraulic pressure, and control that upwind foiling mode. The human element comes back into play .
First time I saw Oracle (practicing before an LR NZ louis vuitton match) I thought something was different about the ride control. She looked smoother going downwind and didn't rise as high as NZ. I figured at the time that the foil somehow sensed the surface of the water before ventilating the tip, but it may just be that the helmsman could control the boat well enough that she didn't need tip ventilation to reach cruising altitude. If anything, this technology should be encouraged and expanded for the next round of the cup. They should allow active control and computer-aided nonlinear control systems. The other thing that should be allowed is the use of stored energy for the purpose of trimming the daggerboards. This would make the next cup much safer and provide something for teams to distinguish themselves from a design perspective if the rest of the platform (wing, hulls, superstructure) is standardized.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of talk about what "augmentation" means. Augmentation is not autopilot and it doesn't need to know the complete "state" of the system it's controlling. The control system in a plane is there as a buffer between the pilot and the plane to "do as I say, not as I do." Jimi would push a button that says "up" and one that says "down." That is the manual daggerboard cant control in the Jury's Ruling, and somebody has a MC pdf that says it's legal to have the electrical impulse act on a valve. The "secret" and controversial part is another loop after Jimi pushes the button that says "naaa, wait a minute, I'll come up slowly," like the oscillations being reduced in the 747 to keep people from getting ill. https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/mae5070/ControlLectures.pdf

 

I bet the kiwis also had such a system, but they were more conservative, so less room for tweaking and improvement. It's not a "computer" just like a mechanical thermostat with two different metals in a coil isn't a computer or those old mechanical chokes on muscle cars. But it is a control system. Then you get the big computers involved at the end of the day in "tweaking" this little mechanical device to work best. (e.g. how do you keep the thermostat from overshooting).

 

 

Oracle likely had a purely mechanical black box, in that the "computing" everybody's talking about was done by hydraulic springs, weights and maybe gyroscopes, which maintained control of the centerboard rake and foil angle by opening and closing valves connected to the grinder-refreshed hydraulic reservoir. So you're talking "thousands" of corrections per second, but it's more like analog, with infinity corrections per second. If the foils were especially well balanced, maybe you could run it at 6 psi in the reservoir. Such a control system device would be easy to design in a computer once you had all the inputs (how the boat responds) you needed for optimization of the control loop. But there's the tricky part. Figuring out what the boat will do to a given control input is known as System Identification, and it's a hard problem. Maybe it was one that took a few real AC races to fully understand.[/size]

 

You'd have many places for adjustment of this black box too. Hydro pressure there, reservoir "spring" coefficient there, which you could set every morning for the given conditions. Trouble is that you'd have to collect a ton of data every day to improve that tweak, so this is likely where the 'special sauce' came in late in the race. I don't think there's any rule against gathering a million channels of data off the boat, but there is one against feeding that into an onboard computer to use during the race. Most control systems are "passive" in that they don't "learn" from the system they're controlling while in-line. All that learning and system design has got to take place offline anyway. There's no room for "cheating" and no reason to do it.

 

Boeing's "Herbie" of 1970 was likely an analog circuit with capacitors, resistors, etc, and NOT a computer by any modern meaning of the word. The resistors and capacitors were chosen specifically to design the control system for the 747, specifically to smooth out the input the pilot was giving so that passengers wouldn't get sick. The same type of device can be built with hydraulic fluid instead of current. The Herbie was built to stabilize the 747, not fly it like an autopilot, and there's a big difference there. It's only reacting to input given to the system. Somebody needs to drive. Whatever Oracle had was specifically tuned to their boat.

 

The BIG jump is linear versus nonlinear control theory. And again, here's where Oracle's edge could have been. NZ's "J" style foils represent a nice peaceful linear slope of lift with ride height, provided by ventilating the tip of the foil when the ride gets too high. (NZ was slower downwind because of that tip ventilation causing drag). The L boards do this, but not gracefully, more like; too high: oh shit I'm out of the water, sploosh! So developing the nonlinear controls needed for the L boards and tweaking them is the (reportedly) $50 million dollar question. Also, the more aggressively you control the system, the more it "costs." And this is optimization. The moon-lander problem, where you have a certain amount of fuel to hit the surface, is a good example. Here you've got guys grinding that you're burning out.

 

One thing is for sure, a control system would be WAY better than a helmsman alone. There's a chance that these boat's don't foil at all without some kind of intervention on raw button pushing. But how much "bleed" you are willing to accept? The more aggressive the control is, the more tightly you can control, but generally the more energy you expend. This is why Ben very clearly said "work your arses off" on that last beat of the last race. They may have gone with parameters that were more aggressive, let the stability system expend more hydraulic pressure, and control that upwind foiling mode. The human element comes back into play .

 

First time I saw Oracle (practicing before an LR NZ louis vuitton match) I thought something was different about the ride control. She looked smoother going downwind and didn't rise as high as NZ. I figured at the time that the foil somehow sensed the surface of the water before ventilating the tip, but it may just be that the helmsman could control the boat well enough that she didn't need tip ventilation to reach cruising altitude. If anything, this technology should be encouraged and expanded for the next round of the cup. They should allow active control and computer-aided nonlinear control systems. The other thing that should be allowed is the use of stored energy for the purpose of trimming the daggerboards. This would make the next cup much safer and provide something for teams to distinguish themselves from a design perspective if the rest of the platform (wing, hulls, superstructure) is standardized.

 

Pure speculation, no basis in fact. While there is some merit to comparing a mechanical control system to a thermostat, there is no evidence that a "purely mechanical black box" responded to anything other than 1) a manual switch to set a desired angle and 2) the angle of the foil trunk to close the valve when the desired angle is reached.

 

Furthermore, "6 psi" is wrong - the pressure limit was six bars, or six times atmospheric pressure: ~88 psi

 

And "thousands of corrections per second" isn't realistic in this application. At 40 knots, the boats are going 20.6 meters/sec. (67.5 feet/sec.), so a rate of only 100 corrections per second would be a correction every 20 centimeters (eight inches).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A control system similar to a yaw-damper that sensors (such as a rate gyro) to directly affect the position of the foils, as you describe, would be illegal under the rules, and the measurers would certainly recognise that. I think that the origin of the "Little Herbie" story is the diagram of the hydraulic control system submitted to, and approved by, the IJ (and protested by ETNZ) which does contain a component ("Component X") that looks very much like a car shock absorber, in other words a damper. I think it certainly has a damping function, but from the diagram this is clearly within the board position control loop and does not directly affect the ride height - but it may do so indirectly.

 

Without "Component X", the hydraulic system is a simple position servo: the linear actuator sets the desired position, the valve lets fluid flow to the actuator until the foil reaches the desired position, then the valve shuts off. Since mechanical components have inertia, the foil would overshoot, the valve would open in the other direction, and an oscillation would result, damped only by friction in the system and, possibly, "Component X". As far as this goes this is completely innocuous and completely within the rules.

 

However there is also the "outer loop" comprising the foil in the water and the boat. As the foil loads up, it will raise the boat which will overshoot the desired ride height and oscillate. One way of damping this oscillation would be to have some slack in the board mount, so that as the foil loads up it also rises slightly in the trunk reducing the aoa. With a conventional uphaul-downhaul arrangement this is probably satisfied by the "give" In the cables. However, a hydraulic system is solid: once the valves close the actuator locks up. "Component X" would also permit some "give" in the system but it would require very careful tuning to have the desired effect on the ride height oscillations. But then, so would the cable system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny (big surprise!), from here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11132657

 

Sir Russell Coutts says the foil-adjusting technology rumoured to be the key to Oracle's comeback in the America's Cup was a figment of someone's imagination.

 

The Oracle chief executive said "Herbie" as it had been termed, was a beat-up....

You guys are so disinclined to believe Dalton when he talked about OR's boatspeed but then readily lap up Coutts version of events even though he has probably more reason than anyone on earth to be economical with the truth about what they did to the boat. Anyone. Because Coutts says something you agree with doesn't make it more true, it just shows a very normal bias people have for regarding things they agree with as being more legit.

 

OR 100% made changes to their boat during the regatta - the weight dist was really obvious one. I'm sure they made others, as did ETNZ. Coutts says an automated system wasn't there because it would be illegal but a system as described in the Public Interpretation requests by ETNZ - or close to it - could well have been. It would have been remiss of OR not to consider it because it could 1) offer advantages if it worked and; most importantly 2) had been given the thumbs-up by the MC.

 

In what planet would a team with their resources not have tried something which was both deemed legal and had been drawn for them by another team (just assuming the unlikely scenario that they hadn't actually already thought of it themselves)?

 

Take what Coutts says with a dose of salt. He carefully doesn't say things too and talks in broad generalities. He knows an automated system would not be allowed - but that doesn't mean they didn't have something brilliant in there. The PIs would seem to indicate ETNZ thought they did (god knows how ETNZ got that notion?) since they asked repeated questions of the MC, who deemed it legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure speculation, no basis in fact: Of course!

 

Six bars of available "control" pressure makes much more sense. There's also no need to gather information from an "outer" source, like a gyroscope. All that is needed is the hydraulic pressure from the "weight" side of the foil, clearly available as master cylinder pressure, input to "component X." Boatspeed would help.

 

The car shock analogy is good, and clearly, in shocks, you match the mechanical characteristics of the shock to the mass of the car and suspension setup. You don't use a shock (or strut) from an F150 on a Jetta. The damping of the strut component is matched to the natural frequency of the shock and car-mass system. Critical damping gives you the smoothest ride, maybe not so good handling. What I'm suggesting is that Oracle could set parameters about the "strut" and "shock" before the race, and that these changes required a massive amount of data to be collected (but not used in real time) about the response of the boat. I'm also saying the "formula" to reach optimum control is fantastically more complicated. They didn't get the secret sauce on the first cook.

 

There's a "shocks and struts" analog with the OTUSA system, except as I said, the platform is more complicated than a SDOF mass-and-spring system with damping. For one: simple "damping" does not exist in aeroelastic or aerodynamic problems. It's standard to think of foil angle (AoA) increase causing an instant foil force increase, but that's aero-statics. There are unsteady flow regimes where changes in foil angles cause changes in flow potential, and the angular force that is proportional to the foil angle rate of change can be negative. Negative damping adds energy instead of taking it away. In "quasi-steady" flow regimes, this damping is at least a function of Re and foil shape/sweep/etc., but more often the quasi-steady assumptions are wrong and you're fully transient. Now you need time domain system identification of a nonlinear system to "tune" the "shocks." (We know ETNZ's foils were in an aero-elastic limit cycle oscillation because they "sung" like a motherfucker)

 

If the button on the wheel is a pure "on/off" type response, that's by definition an impulsive load to the ride height control. It'll definitely cause overshoot and problems. In the 747 you make people sick waiting for these oscillations to die out, in the AC cats, you bury a bow or break a foil. I'm contending that both boats were outfitted with mechanical "stabilizers," which took zero outside input, and yes, "actively controlled" the angle of the daggerboard case with reserve hydraulic pressure. That's especially true right after a button push, but it's also true for some time after. (i.e. "Component X" would also permit some "give" in the system but it would require very careful tuning to have the desired effect on the ride height oscillations. But then, so would the cable system. Exactly!)

 

There's a chance the system was never "locked out" of responding to changes in the board lift at all during the race. This is going to have a parasitic effect on fluid reserve pressure. The more tightly you control the system, the more "fuel" you need to use.

 

Oracle's was better, but it needed time and data to show system speed and mode improvements that were then skillfully leveraged by the sailors. We need to see more of this, not less of it, if we want foiling. Foiling resulted in some awesome match racing tactics that were never seen before, as well as some classics. "Stability augmentation" was clearly needed to make the boats even marginally safe. Systems that take data from outside sources should be allowed. Want to get the Chinese and the Koreans involved? This is a great avenue of research that contains Ph.D. theses galore. Control system design should become a point of pride for participating nations, and next to foil design, might be one of the few avenues left in a standard wing/hull/structure package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the SA audience, self included, has been duped again. Seems to be happening more frequently here lately, at least notably on the AC threads? Years ago SA was a highly reliable source for breaking sailing news. Is it still (reliably)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure speculation, no basis in fact: Of course!

 

Six bars of available "control" pressure makes much more sense. There's also no need to gather information from an "outer" source, like a gyroscope. All that is needed is the hydraulic pressure from the "weight" side of the foil, clearly available as master cylinder pressure, input to "component X." Boatspeed would help.

 

There is nothing in the schematic to suggest that hydraulic "master cylinder" pressure or boat speed were used as inputs to "component-X", only foil trunk angle and the linear actuator.

 

re: "actively controlled" the angle of the daggerboard case with reserve hydraulic pressure - the rules don't allow "significant work" by the hydraulic accumulator.

 

Here's the schematic again, from here: http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PI_52.pdf

 

 

sas-1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

SA audience that weren't following along may have been duped. SAS was utter nonsense from the start.

 

Blame the FP for their ridiculous "12 steps" article - but there was plenty intelligence within the forums to call out that utterly erroneous, misleading, and ultimately embarrassing FP post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OTUSA did not look particularly smoother off the wind. And their tip "ventilated" to control ride height as well (look at the videos), now how I could see this system working is that they could have calibrated it so that when the side load was such that the tip was about to ventilate, that the system would reduce the AoA by a degree or so. But the problem with too big an adjustment is that it makes it unpredictable for the driver who is hunting for speed to stay on the foils.

 

See the other fly in this speculative ointment is the C class cats who were also flying - but because of the shorter throw distances and less training time, with about as much consistency as Artemis Racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, at the speeds these winged creatures are travelling its a game if millimeters. There have been many claims of 10- 20% improvements by Oracle, rediculous. Those sort of improvements would result in winning deltas of multiple minutes.

 

+1

 

Dalts said that Oracle went from "50 seconds slower to 50 seconds faster" over the length of the course.

 

Assuming 100 seconds improvement over a 30 minute (nominal) race, that's roughly a 5% improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pure speculation, no basis in fact: Of course!

 

Six bars of available "control" pressure makes much more sense. There's also no need to gather information from an "outer" source, like a gyroscope. All that is needed is the hydraulic pressure from the "weight" side of the foil, clearly available as master cylinder pressure, input to "component X." Boatspeed would help.

 

There is nothing in the schematic to suggest that hydraulic "master cylinder" pressure or boat speed were used as inputs to "component-X", only foil trunk angle and the linear actuator.

 

re: "actively controlled" the angle of the daggerboard case with reserve hydraulic pressure - the rules don't allow "significant work" by the hydraulic accumulator.

 

Here's the schematic again, from here: http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PI_52.pdf

 

 

sas-1.png

But what if there were multiple (at least two) hydro cylinders, one for upwind and one for downwind. And they were specifically designed for inputs based on extensive computer programming over the course of the last few months and even during the races. Adjustable shocks that were dialed in before the launch by the installation of the preferred shocks for the day and then just prior to the races fine tuned to match a range of conditions? And within that broader range the sailors had the ability to select two or more modes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take what Coutts says with a dose of salt.

 

I would definitely take what he says with a dose of salt... but how about the race officials or jurists who inspected the boat ever day, compared the actual boat to approved schematics, and are the only folks legally allowed to interpret the rules? I don't think we have to rely entirely on Coutt's honesty when he reports that the foil control system was routinely inspected and approved as within the rules by independent race officials. I am pretty sure that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No - not just association. When you are up 8-1 and lose it, you have a deep deep deep psychological interest in there being a reason beyond your control as to why that happened rather than "We choked"

Are you suggesting that it is not possible Dalton's comments - which would also be the result of him having seen a plethora of data - to be simply an honest assessment of what he saw?

 

If so, it reflects poorly on you that you have such cynical assumptions about how people act. It would be a particularly strange turnaround for Dalton too considering his track record for frankness.

 

>as for "No statistical evidence"? WTF?

 

24.61 knots upwind vs 23.96 for Leg 3 is not statistical evidence?...

What counts as "statistical evidence" for you? Dougie's unsupported claims and the number of times he posts them?

 

Yes OTUSA finished that leg in 29 seconds less than ETNZ.... while sailing slower according to the statistical race data There is a way to do that. Its called SAIL IN PHASE...

Oracle sailed further and sailed at a lower average speed than ETNZ. They however sailed the leg 4.2% faster than ETNZ.

 

Please sit down and consider your numbers in light of the broader metrics of the leg. The numbers you quoted do not and cannot possibly tell the whole story for the simple fact Oracle sailed the leg considerably faster than ETNZ. What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend? They sailed the same or slightly lower boat-speed but at better angles (on average), ergo they reached the other end faster and more efficiently. The fact you refuse to concede this is mind-boggling to say the least.

 

My comment about statistical analysis - had you bothered to actually read my post instead of reading what you thought I wrote - was that there is less statistical evidence that tactical changes accounted for the improvement in Oracle's performances than there is for it being inherent, fundamental boat-speed improvement. Not that there aren't statistics galore for people intent on arguing every point, however spurious and facetious the use of the numbers may be.

 

Oracle's boat did change significantly during the regatta in one, perhaps key, way - and one which might explain the crew from Core Building flying up from NZ - the weight was shifted aft-wards. It was obvious when looking at the boat when in displacement mode.

 

Dalts mentions in the radio interview afterwards that the frequency of movement of the boards evident in race videos had changed and they knew they couldn't keep up....these would have been during the finals.

and a linear actuator is not a servo, and would not fit in an RC airplane, and can push 70 odd lbs...

just cause RC comes out and says this is how we did it is no reason to believe that is what happened, no team has given details of their mod choices nor needs to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to watch Dirk K in the video that Clean posted from the LAC. Asked about 'Herbie' he laughed so hard he almost fell over. That, from a normally pretty reserved guy!

 

The whole thing is a complete joke except for to the crazy tinfoil hatters, starting with Peter Lester who saw a silly FB entry reposted to ETNZ's FB as a comment, then glommed onto it like it was his new religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pure speculation, no basis in fact: Of course!

 

Six bars of available "control" pressure makes much more sense. There's also no need to gather information from an "outer" source, like a gyroscope. All that is needed is the hydraulic pressure from the "weight" side of the foil, clearly available as master cylinder pressure, input to "component X." Boatspeed would help.

 

There is nothing in the schematic to suggest that hydraulic "master cylinder" pressure or boat speed were used as inputs to "component-X", only foil trunk angle and the linear actuator.

 

re: "actively controlled" the angle of the daggerboard case with reserve hydraulic pressure - the rules don't allow "significant work" by the hydraulic accumulator.

 

Here's the schematic again, from here: http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PI_52.pdf

 

 

sas-1.png

But what if there were multiple (at least two) hydro cylinders, one for upwind and one for downwind. And they were specifically designed for inputs based on extensive computer programming over the course of the last few months and even during the races. Adjustable shocks that were dialed in before the launch by the installation of the preferred shocks for the day and then just prior to the races fine tuned to match a range of conditions? And within that broader range the sailors had the ability to select two or more modes....

 

The schematic shown is quite possibly very misleading into the actual operation of the system. For instance it is likely that the pivot is offset one way or the other so the board isnt as balanced as it appears (or maybe it is actually balanced at 10deg AOA and not as drawn), I also wouldnt be surprised if the system did not just operate in a 2D plane as shown so the lateral load characteristics of the foil could be incorporated to control the ride height in some way.

Maybe the little servos mentioned were actually to alter valving/damping in component X......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also nothing to rule out the mechanical interaction of the "valve" and component X. The notional yellow box around this valve is a mechanical link with constitutive properties, possibly adjustable. In fact, two springs labeled "a" and "b" are shown (adjustable). Hydraulic attachments A and B can deliver and measure hydraulic pressure. There's no requirement that the valve is only off or on, but not somewhere else. (Even if you assume the button is only off or on, why does the valve need to be?). You can't rule out the possibility that component X can "measure" these pressures through the link with the valve. There's also no requirement that the valve respond solely to the position of component X's mechanical link. It may be a combination of this and front/back pressure (adjustable). And clearly, the valve it is in series with the reservoir. No "significant work" can be done to propel the craft by changing daggerboard cant angle. (clearly the intent of the rule is to prevent e.g. wing pumping, rudder skulling, etc.) These sound like the type of loopholes through which you are allowed by rule to "control" ride height with hydraulic pressure. Again, needing a lot of data to successfully "tune" to do so.

 

Oracle's tip ventilated, yes, which we know "passively" controls ride height. But the loss of lift with height during ventilation is not as linear a function of height as it is for a J-board. Hence the complexity in the control system. (It also tends to cost more energy to control a "more" nonlinear system). It makes sense to ventilate going downwind, you don't mind the leeway. You rarely, rarely, ever saw them ventilate upwind. And when they did they went sideways fast, it was a mistake. So were the crashes downwind, notice those took place during very rapid changes in force provided by the board (centripetal "tipping" acceleration). Clearly, Jimi's out there mashing buttons, but there's a system installed from day 1, that got tweaked for the comeback, and that had his back on over-under shooting his target ride height.

 

There was "stability assist." It was on both boats. It was legal. It was purely mechanical without computers involved. Because of this, there was a lot to learn about how to tune it. Oracle started behind and learned faster. Good for them.

 

It's the analogy to the Herbie that bugs people, and that's fine. I don't think people were duped. A 1970s era 747s didn't feature some HAL9000 fly-by-wire system constantly monitoring thousands of channels of data. It was a simple box that sat between the pilot and the control surfaces, and it smoothed the ride. It knew very little about the "state" of the aircraft, it didn't care. The engineers at Boeing spent a lot of time designing it to function for their system. It only had to know fundamental properties about the system it was controlling. Same here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also nothing to rule out the mechanical interaction of the "valve" and component X. The notional yellow box around this valve is a mechanical link with constitutive properties, possibly adjustable. In fact, two springs labeled "a" and "b" are shown (adjustable). Hydraulic attachments A and B can deliver and measure hydraulic pressure. There's no requirement that the valve is only off or on, but not somewhere else. (Even if you assume the button is only off or on, why does the valve need to be?). You can't rule out the possibility that component X can "measure" these pressures through the link with the valve. There's also no requirement that the valve respond solely to the position of component X's mechanical link. It may be a combination of this and front/back pressure (adjustable). And clearly, the valve it is in series with the reservoir. No "significant work" can be done to propel the craft by changing daggerboard cant angle. (clearly the intent of the rule is to prevent e.g. wing pumping, rudder skulling, etc.) These sound like the type of loopholes through which you are allowed by rule to "control" ride height with hydraulic pressure. Again, needing a lot of data to successfully "tune" to do so.

 

Oracle's tip ventilated, yes, which we know "passively" controls ride height. But the loss of lift with height during ventilation is not as linear a function of height as it is for a J-board. Hence the complexity in the control system. (It also tends to cost more energy to control a "more" nonlinear system). It makes sense to ventilate going downwind, you don't mind the leeway. You rarely, rarely, ever saw them ventilate upwind. And when they did they went sideways fast, it was a mistake. So were the crashes downwind, notice those took place during very rapid changes in force provided by the board (centripetal "tipping" acceleration). Clearly, Jimi's out there mashing buttons, but there's a system installed from day 1, that got tweaked for the comeback, and that had his back on over-under shooting his target ride height.

 

There was "stability assist." It was on both boats. It was legal. It was purely mechanical without computers involved. Because of this, there was a lot to learn about how to tune it. Oracle started behind and learned faster. Good for them.

 

It's the analogy to the Herbie that bugs people, and that's fine. I don't think people were duped. A 1970s era 747s didn't feature some HAL9000 fly-by-wire system constantly monitoring thousands of channels of data. It was a simple box that sat between the pilot and the control surfaces, and it smoothed the ride. It knew very little about the "state" of the aircraft, it didn't care. The engineers at Boeing spent a lot of time designing it to function for their system. It only had to know fundamental properties about the system it was controlling. Same here.

Now that sure did shut em up. At some point down the road, all will be revealed. Or else you are about to get a job offer from the Aussies, Chinese, Koreans, Swedes, Brits . . .

 

TOG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that sure did shut em up. At some point down the road, all will be revealed. Or else you are about to get a job offer from the Aussies, Chinese, Koreans, Swedes, Brits . . .

 

TOG

Don't mistake lack of response with agreement!

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

 

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Pure speculation, no basis in fact: Of course!

 

Six bars of available "control" pressure makes much more sense. There's also no need to gather information from an "outer" source, like a gyroscope. All that is needed is the hydraulic pressure from the "weight" side of the foil, clearly available as master cylinder pressure, input to "component X." Boatspeed would help.

 

There is nothing in the schematic to suggest that hydraulic "master cylinder" pressure or boat speed were used as inputs to "component-X", only foil trunk angle and the linear actuator.

 

re: "actively controlled" the angle of the daggerboard case with reserve hydraulic pressure - the rules don't allow "significant work" by the hydraulic accumulator.

 

Here's the schematic again, from here: http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PI_52.pdf

 

 

sas-1.png

But what if there were multiple (at least two) hydro cylinders, one for upwind and one for downwind. And they were specifically designed for inputs based on extensive computer programming over the course of the last few months and even during the races. Adjustable shocks that were dialed in before the launch by the installation of the preferred shocks for the day and then just prior to the races fine tuned to match a range of conditions? And within that broader range the sailors had the ability to select two or more modes....

 

The schematic shown is quite possibly very misleading into the actual operation of the system. For instance it is likely that the pivot is offset one way or the other so the board isnt as balanced as it appears (or maybe it is actually balanced at 10deg AOA and not as drawn), I also wouldnt be surprised if the system did not just operate in a 2D plane as shown so the lateral load characteristics of the foil could be incorporated to control the ride height in some way.

Maybe the little servos mentioned were actually to alter valving/damping in component X......

Is this not the schematic of the Orbital Anti Gravity Device, it looks familiar ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Take what Coutts says with a dose of salt.

 

I would definitely take what he says with a dose of salt... but how about the race officials or jurists who inspected the boat ever day, compared the actual boat to approved schematics, and are the only folks legally allowed to interpret the rules? I don't think we have to rely entirely on Coutt's honesty when he reports that the foil control system was routinely inspected and approved as within the rules by independent race officials. I am pretty sure that happened.

You may have misread me. I wasn't suggesting anything illegal was on boat - I seem to have more faith than most here in the MC's ability to do its job. What I doubted was people taking Coutts' comments as to mean definitively that there was no special piece of kit which aided their improvement - which is not what he said at all. He denied that had an automatic control system but he didn't say anywhere that they didn't already have some other piece of special (legal) kit. He even seemed to imply that they did a couple of times when he talked about how the numbers weren't making sense with their general upwind disadvantage initially and that they made some not insignificant changes to the boat to try and get the numbers they thought they would (most of which I imagine entailed weight re-dist).

 

Insofar as the MC goes in their job - I think they had already been made to look lacking in the ACWS cheating saga so would have been particularly diligent with these boats. Again, another comment Coutts made isn't as complete as it reads - he said the boats were measured before and immediately after each race which is completely untrue. They could be measured before and after each race - which is not nearly the same thing. Oracle were issued something like 6 or 7 new measurement certificates in a 19-odd day period so they were making changes significant enough to warrant new certificates (in addition to any spot checks they may/may not have done).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites