Archived

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

Brian Weslake

There was no SAS

Recommended Posts

 

No, man - they got out-designed (OR was a more extreme boat with higher ultimate potential) and out-sailed on the race course. Your imaginary 'silver bullet' didn't win all those starts, throw down those flawless tactics, or radically evolve the way they were trimming the wing and handling the boat through transitions.

 

I didn't say "silver bullet". Instead, I'm taking RC at his word that balancing the boat - and powering up the wing - was 60% responsible for their race time gains.

 

Still, there is that other 40%.

 

And if you were watching OR jibe 3 weeks before the final - you would be a believer also that some new control was introduced to the boat.

 

3 weeks before final: OR hit about 50% of their jibes.

 

1 week before final - up that number to 90%.

 

During final - beat ET at their own game.

 

That is the ultra steep performance tragectory of a higher performance - but much more difficult to sail - boat. Factor in the 11th hour replacement of the wing trimmer, which was a huge short term setback, and now curve is even steeper during the finals, especially referenced to ETNZs relative plateau.

 

Two crews of the world's best sailors. One came out of the box with a conservative design, and built on their early foiling success. They were already very near to peak performance in the LVC. Contrast that with team OR, who missed the boat on foiling first time around, then demo'd converted B1, came out with an ultra-radical B2 and then was mired in controversy for months. They were at maybe 75% of peak performance going into the cup.

 

Of course, a huge component of that was tuning the boat. But it was not adding some 'magical foil control system' in the last 3 weeks - it was just getting it right. Once things started to fall into place, the rest snowballed, and the results are history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, man - they got out-designed (OR was a more extreme boat with higher ultimate potential) and out-sailed on the race course. Your imaginary 'silver bullet' didn't win all those starts, throw down those flawless tactics, or radically evolve the way they were trimming the wing and handling the boat through transitions.

 

 

I didn't say "silver bullet". Instead, I'm taking RC at his word that balancing the boat - and powering up the wing - was 60% responsible for their race time gains.

 

Still, there is that other 40%.

 

And if you were watching OR jibe 3 weeks before the final - you would be a believer also that some new control was introduced to the boat.

 

3 weeks before final: OR hit about 50% of their jibes.

 

1 week before final - up that number to 90%.

 

During final - beat ET at their own game.

That is the ultra steep performance tragectory of a higher performance - but much more difficult to sail - boat. Factor in the 11th hour replacement of the wing trimmer, which was a huge short term setback, and now curve is even steeper during the finals, especially referenced to ETNZs relative plateau.

 

Two crews of the world's best sailors. One came out of the box with a conservative design, and built on their early foiling success. They were already very near to peak performance in the LVC. Contrast that with team OR, who missed the boat on foiling first time around, then demo'd converted B1, came out with an ultra-radical B2 and then was mired in controversy for months. They were at maybe 75% of peak performance going into the cup.

 

Of course, a huge component of that was tuning the boat. But it was not adding some 'magical foil control system' in the last 3 weeks - it was just getting it right. Once things started to fall into place, the rest snowballed, and the results are history.

maybe - but from where I sit - the 'magical foil system' makes sense. At least it was magic in terms of OR performance.

 

They didn't display a learning curve going into the final so much as a step function. It was a big step - and so dramatic I thought it odd so few people noticed.

 

And note I am definitely not talking SAS - but instead something much more mundane.

 

It seems to me that the ETNZ sailors put together an elaborate choreography to control their jibes. I watched them develop this over the course of weeks. They spent long hours in the water - relentlessly practicing.

 

OR, OTOH, spent long hours in the shed. Their paucity of actual sailing time was very discouraging. And they only sorted out the jibe at the very last minute.

 

All the educated reporting (not FP!) makes perfect sense to me: they put some control mechanism together - like click shifters on a bike - to help them sort out the flybe. Just prior to the final.

 

And they used it upwind as well - at least this seems reasonable. So I do think a control leap played a role in their win, because their jibes were not looking particularly fast or consistent two weeks before the final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AR learned to Flybe in short order too, less than ten days.

 

The more-aft wing rake and the new wing shape trimming for opening up the grunt down low to power up onto foils upwind before gradually hardening up, made the biggest difference. They really did just have to learn how to properly optimize setting up and sailing that boat.

 

I suspect AR had big potential too, they just ran out of time before getting the best out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

True. AR did learn how to flybe - although not sure how quick - in a very short amount of time.

 

But Oracle literally spent months not learning how to flybe. Then, all of the sudden, they did.

 

And I have to say they did so beautifully. Some of of their jibes in-anger were as graceful as anything I have seen a sailboat do.

 

But hey - don't take my word for (I know you're not)! Perhaps we will get Mr. Navas take on it at some point. Or everyday sailor, or family sailor, or any one of the myriad fans watching Oracle's lack of consistent turns down the track - with increasing desperation as the final drew near.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.yachtingworld.com/blogs/matthew-sheahan/535348/america-s-cup-what-was-changed-on-oracle

 

Oracle's jump in performance half way through the America's Cup is still the subject of hot debate, particularly among the New Zealand press who are convinced that the black cat had some special device that allowed them to foil more effectively. Was the ‘Herbie', as it became nicknamed, legal? Would Team New Zealand take legal action?

The speculation should have been brought to a halt after team boss Grant Dalton confirmed on Saturday that the team would not be taking legal action over the alleged device. But the chatter still goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

True. AR did learn how to flybe - although not sure how quick - in a very short amount of time.

 

But Oracle literally spent months not learning how to flybe. Then, all of the sudden, they did.

No doubt they were aided by IM requiring all the teams to supply their operation manual for gybes/tacks (crew timing, board movements/angles/timing etc). :P

 

IM received these manuals and hit the 'forward' button for sure. Before you think of jumping on this suggestion, people who think there's no way a man of such supposed integrity* would ever do such a thing need to have a reality check about defender influence across the modern history of the AC. It is absolutely the norm to have the organising body under your thumb, not the exception. IM worked for the organisation which was directly controlled by the defender and his boss (Barclay) was the guy hired personally by Coutts and is the current Director of Core Builders who build Oracle's boats. The point being, there is no actual independence between the defender and the event authority no matter how much people try to claim is the case. All the challengers recognise this when they enter and so should the fans.

 

(*you don't earn integrity because fans claim it to be true)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize to all concerned if my insisting that some tech change on Oracle (responsible for downwind competitiveness) is somehow being linked to anything:

- not legal

- like a herbie

- or seriously anything to do with malfeasance with IM.

 

I do not wish to support any tin hat controversies. Obviously the Oracle sailing team was capable of dialing in their own boat.

 

I am just curious about the tool that enabled their consistent turns. Fully legal - no doubt. And it was clearly in place before racing started.

 

And perhaps there was nothing there at all. I'd sooner believe in nothing than anything nefarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

^

True. AR did learn how to flybe - although not sure how quick - in a very short amount of time.

 

But Oracle literally spent months not learning how to flybe. Then, all of the sudden, they did.

No doubt they were aided by IM requiring all the teams to supply their operation manual for gybes/tacks (crew timing, board movements/angles/timing etc). :P

 

IM received these manuals and hit the 'forward' button for sure. Before you think of jumping on this suggestion, people who think there's no way a man of such supposed integrity* would ever do such a thing need to have a reality check about defender influence across the modern history of the AC. It is absolutely the norm to have the organising body under your thumb, not the exception. IM worked for the organisation which was directly controlled by the defender and his boss (Barclay) was the guy hired personally by Coutts and is the current Director of Core Builders who build Oracle's boats. The point being, there is no actual independence between the defender and the event authority no matter how much people try to claim is the case. All the challengers recognise this when they enter and so should the fans.

 

(*you don't earn integrity because fans claim it to be true)

Bullshit.

 

Attacking the integrity of an independent ACRM is to attack absolutely one of the very best attributes of AC34.

 

Rather than see the obviously well-intentioned Good, some NZ'ers instead steadfastly see cheating every direction they look. Is that another cultural thing?

 

I wanted OTUSA to win primarily because the SF Bay is so vastly superior to the Rangitoto Channel but the other reason is because of the sea of shit like that above, that challenging teams would have been subjected to in NZ. There needs to be a house cleaning down there, a fresh perspective the likes of what AC34 intentionally pressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(*you don't earn integrity because fans claim it to be true)

Bullshit.

 

Attacking the integrity of an independent ACRM is to attack absolutely one of the very best attributes of AC34.

 

Rather than see the obviously well-intentioned Good, some NZ'ers instead steadfastly see cheating every direction they look. Is that another cultural thing?

The one key instance where IM had the potential to impact on the cup he came up with a recommendation which (despite your claims):

  • the only two credible challengers thought was not a legitimate safety change
  • appeared to favour the defender (at that point in time)
  • would not actually achieve what they claimed to be intended for
  • engaged in a public slanging campaign

 

None of those things scream independence or integrity. At the very best, and most charitable to IM, they are the result of misguided actions. But that is extremely charitable considering IM's history with sailing, business and the sheer plethora of available information he surely had access to with regards to these boats. He came up with a solution which was quite clearly - according to the two most experienced organisations on earth with regards to these boats at the time - not well devised.

 

Again - as if you aimed to perfectly highlight the last point in my previous post - you say he was independent but every detail of the relationship to the defender suggests otherwise and every defender in modern history has done the same. Calling something independent doesn't make it so and the more you scream it the less credible it becomes given the single, major example we have where an area of contention arose.

 

My Barclay example shows perfectly just how naive people have to be to lap up the suggestion that the organising body was truly independent is. He was hired by his friend and business associate, RC, to run the organisation. In political and many business situations that is considered the lowest form of cronyism imaginable and yet people here suggest that not only are they good appointments in an America's Cup setting (which they may well be in pure skill tersm) but, laughably, that they can actually be referred to as independent. Dream on. :lol:

 

Do you also think Rupert Murdoch has no influence over the tone of content on Fox News?

 

You ask if seeing cheating everywhere is a cultural thing for NZers. No, it's not - but detecting bullshit is and, regardless of the great way the cup was generally run the key happenings where the organisers could have had some preferential influence they made a pretty good go at it.

 

It might be worth adding that SB was adamant LR had affected the AC negatively by not attending the launch party. He said it could have caused "significant and possibly irreparable harm" but when it came to OR ACWS cheating he said to the IJ that it had no "measurable impact" in terms of potential harm to the reputation the the cup - despite it probably attracting 1000 times the negative news coverage globally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a gyro if you have enough input and data to make the analog equivalent.

 

After reviewing the mechanism from the PDF - it is fairly easy for me to surmise how this works. It's clever, it's 'analog' (in that it uses no computer) - but clearly this actively controls the main foil to optimize for foiling given some input.. which, I'll surmise is a tension input, from a certain part of the boat.

 

So, it’s an analog device that bypasses the control of the 'pilot' to make auto-correcting adjustments: an analog 'computer' to control foils.

 

Since ENTZ did not employ an automatic control system, they were at a technological disadvantage. Both parties have to play the rules.

 

I say eliminate the limits on actively controled surfaces entirely. Open it up... with the right package, it will make the sport safer and faster. What is the line between a boat that sails itself VS a crew that operates it?

post-42565-0-83438600-1380678564_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

^

True. AR did learn how to flybe - although not sure how quick - in a very short amount of time.

 

But Oracle literally spent months not learning how to flybe. Then, all of the sudden, they did.

No doubt they were aided by IM requiring all the teams to supply their operation manual for gybes/tacks (crew timing, board movements/angles/timing etc). :P

 

(*you don't earn integrity because fans claim it to be true)

Bullshit.

 

Attacking the integrity of an independent ACRM is to attack absolutely one of the very best attributes of AC34.

 

I wanted OTUSA to win primarily because the SF Bay is so vastly superior to the Rangitoto Channel but the other reason is because of the sea of shit like that above, that challenging teams would have been subjected to in NZ. There needs to be a house cleaning down there, a fresh perspective the likes of what AC34 intentionally pressed.

 

If insults and shit slinging politics played a role in winning the cup, it would have been in NZ ~ two years ago and could never be successfully challenged.

 

It's unfortunate that the more respected kiwi fans have to put up with so much BS from the likes of a few blowhards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a gyro if you have enough input and data to make the analog equivalent.

 

After reviewing the mechanism from the PDF - it is fairly easy for me to surmise how this works. It's clever, it's 'analog' (in that it uses no computer) - but clearly this actively controls the main foil to optimize for foiling given some input.. which, I'll surmise is a tension input, from a certain part of the boat.

 

So, it’s an analog device that bypasses the control of the 'pilot' to make auto-correcting adjustments: an analog 'computer' to control foils.

 

Since ENTZ did not employ an automatic control system, they were at a technological disadvantage. Both parties have to play the rules.

 

I say eliminate the limits on actively controled surfaces entirely. Open it up... with the right package, it will make the sport safer and faster. What is the line between a boat that sails itself VS a crew that operates it?

How does it 'bypass' driver input - component 'X' is between the driver and the actuator. The best it could do is dampen or limit the amplitude of driver input.

 

There were no 'actively controlled systems' that were not controlled by humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TAKEN FROM: http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PI_49.pdf

 

The way I interpret this - the user control only sets the 'height' (or likely angle of incidence) with the linear actuator while an analog computer fine tunes the AIC with a feedback device that actuates the foil angle.

 

The user has been removed from fine adjustments and an automatic system has been put between the user controlling the foil.

post-42565-0-79868900-1380681975_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us heard over beers, on the eve of R1, that the system diagrammed in PI 49 was replaced in the weeks ahead of the Match.

 

It may be why the IJ told ETNZ that their appeal, besides being too late, was also irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Blah blah blah....CHEATING!!! WHAAHHH!!!!

 

<sniffle>

Nowhere did I suggest or say cheating happened in my posts.

 

Could be you need to go back and read what I actually wrote.

 

The stuff I talked about didn't affect the outcome of the match - much like the lead in the forward king posts didn't improve the boats (well, according to RC) - but that's not the point at all. It was about influence and independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Blah blah blah....CHEATING!!! WHAAHHH!!!!

 

<sniffle>

Nowhere did I suggest or say cheating happened in my posts.

 

Could be you need to go back and read what I actually wrote.

 

The stuff I talked about didn't affect the outcome of the match - much like the lead in the forward king posts didn't improve the boats (well, according to RC) - but that's not the point at all. It was about influence and independence.

 

Well you have three years to go on about this. I suggest you scrutinize the measurement committee and the IJ and every decision they made.

 

Good luck.

 

Let me know how it all works out. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It may be why the IJ told ETNZ that their appeal, besides being too late, was also irrelevant.

No surprises to see your selective memory and convenient phrasing of a situation is still as active as ever.

 

They said "the Jury would not have been likely to have upheld ETNZ’s claim that the MC had exceeded its jurisdiction" - an indication they considered the MC's judgement better and more expert than their own, not that it was merely "irrelevant."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you have three years to go on about this. I suggest you scrutinize the measurement committee and the IJ and every decision they made.

 

Good luck.

 

Let me know how it all works out. :)

It's simple. Either you can see the explanation of the relationship between the management organisations and the defender or you can't. If you can't then you are too partisan or naive to have a discussion on the topic.

 

There is simply no such thing as an independent role where the ultimate HR decisions and source of remuneration come from an interested party. Period. The explanation would not fly in political or business situations nor does it in sport. It doesn't mean - a point I have been clear to make - that anything devious necessarily went on. It simply means that claims that IM and the management organisation were independent don't pass muster and are, basically, laughable. It's a merely a façade for the easily led which all of the challengers recognise from the outset - hence the usual negotiation period/nature of the protocol. It's just happened the last couple of cups where the defender has gone to extraordinary lengths to engage a COR who is basically their lap dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well you have three years to go on about this. I suggest you scrutinize the measurement committee and the IJ and every decision they made.

 

Good luck.

 

Let me know how it all works out. :)

It's simple. Either you can see the explanation of the relationship between the management organisations and the defender or you can't.

 

If you can't then you are too partisan and/or naive to have an intelligent debate about integrity in this cup cycle.

 

There is simply no such thing as an independent role blah blah blah...

 

Whatever you say big bob. Good luck trying to change history or whatever you're trying to do. Perceptions here mean nothing aside from more gum flapping. Don't let your lips beat your face to death in the process :)

 

Let me know how it all works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well you have three years to go on about this. I suggest you scrutinize the measurement committee and the IJ and every decision they made.

 

Good luck.

 

Let me know how it all works out. :)

It's simple. Either you can see the explanation of the relationship between the management organisations and the defender or you can't.

 

If you can't then you are too partisan and/or naive to have an intelligent debate about integrity in this cup cycle.

 

There is simply no such thing as an independent role where the ultimate HR decisions and source of remuneration come from an interested party. Period. The explanation would not fly in political or business situations not does it in sport. It doesn't mean - a point I have been clear to make - that anything devious necessarily went on. It simply means that claims that IM and the management organisation were independent don't pass muster and are, basically, laughable. it's a façade for the easily led which all of the challengers understand from the outset - hence the usual negotiation period/nature of the protocol. It's just happened the last couple of cups where the defender has gone to extraordinary lengths to engage a COR who is basically their lap dog.

This 100% true. The Deed in fact almost this conflict of interest. The trustee that is bound by law to provide fair match and enforce the terms of the trust is also trying to win the match.

 

When the power to make HR and event decisions rests with the Club rather than the sailing team, there is almost a change of managing the conflict. You put the Treasurer and the House Committee in charge of event management and keep it separate from the people competing for a place on the team to sail in defense.

 

When the Sailing team runs the whole show you get the obvious questions raised now as they were in Valencia. EB's reaction to ACM being too independent was to start new with a fake YC so he would have 100% control. When that didn't work he tried to stack thugs on the RC boat to prevent a race from starting. The Sailing teams cannot be considered neutral trustees after they win the Cup. Thus any organization they create and hire has a conflict. Simple stuff.

 

I understand Bob completely, he is not saying that anyone acted on the obvious conflict of interest. He is only pointing out that it exists.

 

If we are to take the NZ posters here as representative of kiwi nationalism we have to point out that one member of the IJ that handed down the -2 is from NZ. This is an apparent conflict of interest. Every IJ I know is above petty shit like letting personal bias effect rulings, but there is a valid question there.

 

In both cases it is impossible to prove a negative, so it might have been best to avoid the conflicts altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you can spend time deciphering these top-secret SAS documents my sources (at great personal risk) obtained from the Oracle Racing database (one cleverly disguised as an "Integrated space plan" for human space travel, ha!)...

 

 

Overall SAS control system logic..

60552073rockwell-international-integrate

 

 

Key hydraulic actuator and SAS systems isolated here..

pid-2-1.jpg

 

 

 

...or you can just STFU and accept that OR won.

 

Bring on AC35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love these conspiracy theories and even more, I love the idea that the gains were due to a single, all secret, possibly illegal, black box system that took over flying the boat. However, this really does fly in the face of a number of facts and, a number of things that can be assumed by inference. My favourite moment is in this debate is when Clean asked Dirk Kramers about the alleged system. If Dirk can laugh that spontaneously, to order, he has chosen the wrong profession, because I don't think any actor could do it..

 

On top of that, we have a fair amount of evidence for small changes to the boat and big changes to the way the boat is sailed. For me, they stack up and in particular, the changes that unloaded the foils through wing changes match what I have experienced in foiling boats (Moths and A Class). It really cannot be underestimated. The difference only a small amount can make is huge. I will attempt to explain. When sailing a Moth downhill, foiling fast, one of the worst things you can do is to noticeably ease the sheet. In loosing drive from the sail and in particular, the element of drive that pushes the boat down, you suddenly get a boat that leaps upwards, which on the moth means the foils pop out and you fall over!. One way of pushing the boat back down is to pull the sheet in. From this we know that the drive from the rig contributes significantly to the loads on the foil. Reduce the downward component of those loads and you can foil far quicker, because you can set your foils to produce less lift (more lift=more drag at the same speed). One way to achieve this is to lose the drive from the top of the rig. This is something I have been working on in the A's, because in a blow, the drive at the top of the tall mast is what pushes the bows down and gives us all the trouble. It isn't a simple matter of twist, but getting the twist to work in the right way. Get it right, and there are big gains in speed.

 

The other thing that we know from Moths is that if you get the balance between the loads on the main foil and those of the rudder right, the boat behaves better and is faster.

 

So, put all of that together. A change in wing rake, coupled with a different way of setting it up, particularly the back end twist profile, coupled with smaller changes to the rudder foil and back end of the boat should result in significant change in the behaviour of the boat. Add to this the latest from Coutts, who says that some of the ideas came Tom Slingsby, a world class Moth and A Class sailor, and I think it is totally believable and highly likely that they simply got the boat set up right and that there was no major equipment change or magic box fitted/switched on.

 

Of course, this being SA, I suspect you would all prefer conspiracy theories, cheating and bias from the officials, but this is a sailing event and when there is a very plausible and credible sailing argument, I prefer to go with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor from someone senior inside ACRM was that the SAS system may been attached to the top rudder bearing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, this being SA, I suspect you would all prefer conspiracy theories, cheating and bias from the officials, but this is a sailing event and when there is a very plausible and credible sailing argument, I prefer to go with that.

Who the hell rattled your cage? Why would anyone take the word of someone that actually sails foiling sailboats over pet tinfoil hat theory?

 

Good post mate!

 

Randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor from someone senior inside ACRM was that the SAS system may been attached to the top rudder bearing.....

 

I heard that that the SAS system was directly attached to the steering wheel. It had two hands and red hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rumor from someone senior inside ACRM was that the SAS system may been attached to the top rudder bearing.....

 

I heard that that the SAS system was directly attached to the steering wheel. It had two hands and red hair.

 

Well played :)

 

And we have a winner :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rumor from someone senior inside ACRM was that the SAS system may been attached to the top rudder bearing.....

 

I heard that that the SAS system was directly attached to the steering wheel. It had two hands and red hair.

Pure gold! First really good laugh I have had on this forum for years!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love these conspiracy theories and even more, I love the idea that the gains were due to a single, all secret, possibly illegal, black box system that took over flying the boat. However, this really does fly in the face of a number of facts and, a number of things that can be assumed by inference. My favourite moment is in this debate is when Clean asked Dirk Kramers about the alleged system. If Dirk can laugh that spontaneously, to order, he has chosen the wrong profession, because I don't think any actor could do it..

 

On top of that, we have a fair amount of evidence for small changes to the boat and big changes to the way the boat is sailed. For me, they stack up and in particular, the changes that unloaded the foils through wing changes match what I have experienced in foiling boats (Moths and A Class). It really cannot be underestimated. The difference only a small amount can make is huge. I will attempt to explain. When sailing a Moth downhill, foiling fast, one of the worst things you can do is to noticeably ease the sheet. In loosing drive from the sail and in particular, the element of drive that pushes the boat down, you suddenly get a boat that leaps upwards, which on the moth means the foils pop out and you fall over!. One way of pushing the boat back down is to pull the sheet in. From this we know that the drive from the rig contributes significantly to the loads on the foil. Reduce the downward component of those loads and you can foil far quicker, because you can set your foils to produce less lift (more lift=more drag at the same speed). One way to achieve this is to lose the drive from the top of the rig. This is something I have been working on in the A's, because in a blow, the drive at the top of the tall mast is what pushes the bows down and gives us all the trouble. It isn't a simple matter of twist, but getting the twist to work in the right way. Get it right, and there are big gains in speed.

 

The other thing that we know from Moths is that if you get the balance between the loads on the main foil and those of the rudder right, the boat behaves better and is faster.

 

So, put all of that together. A change in wing rake, coupled with a different way of setting it up, particularly the back end twist profile, coupled with smaller changes to the rudder foil and back end of the boat should result in significant change in the behaviour of the boat. Add to this the latest from Coutts, who says that some of the ideas came Tom Slingsby, a world class Moth and A Class sailor, and I think it is totally believable and highly likely that they simply got the boat set up right and that there was no major equipment change or magic box fitted/switched on.

 

Of course, this being SA, I suspect you would all prefer conspiracy theories, cheating and bias from the officials, but this is a sailing event and when there is a very plausible and credible sailing argument, I prefer to go with that.

 

This. There was a huge evolution in OR's wing trim, plus I am sure hundreds of small tweaks to the tuning and especially the foils (to reduce cavitation) that added up to a quantum leap in performance during the regatta.

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?

 

Noone 's fucking perfect mate. The chain of "improvements" referred to though make perfect sense and explain alot. TNZ got out muscled mid finals by a bigger team.

 

Oracle had the benefit of a top notch sailing team who only had to sail and give and take input, a think tank of more than a little ability analysing every race frame by frame, the design talent to come up with the changes and a build team second to none to work all night to get the job done!

 

That and a well timed postponement card and a bit of luck got them through.

 

NZ on the other hand were feeling pretty comfortable and were suddenly playing catch up. Getting, understandably more flustered with each loss. Desperation is a funny thing, maybe they did a few changes that fluffed?

 

On board Oracle you also had changing dynamics. A replacement wing trimmer playing catch up and a 3 man aftergard gelling very well. Maybe having dingy guys back there best suited these boats and how fast everythings happening?

 

Momentum did the rest. Sadly DB is possibly the best helmsman never to win an AC. You could see each loss taking its toll on him, I really felt for the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to make 3 points.

 

Any post that will not fit onscreen in its entirity should be auto erased.

 

Simon, from our scrappy start who new we we would become somewhat aligned? I think it was LandLubbers fault.

 

I'm thinking its all getting a bit messy and I will see you all about 6 months before the next cup, I just dont have the time.

 

Sorry, can I make that 4 points. Forgetting all the behind the scenes stuff and full on forum wierdness, this was the most exciting cup ever and I watched my first one in Jammies in black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^

True. AR did learn how to flybe - although not sure how quick - in a very short amount of time.

 

But Oracle literally spent months not learning how to flybe. Then, all of the sudden, they did.

No doubt they were aided by IM requiring all the teams to supply their operation manual for gybes/tacks (crew timing, board movements/angles/timing etc). :P

 

(*you don't earn integrity because fans claim it to be true)

Bullshit.

 

Attacking the integrity of an independent ACRM is to attack absolutely one of the very best attributes of AC34.

 

I wanted OTUSA to win primarily because the SF Bay is so vastly superior to the Rangitoto Channel but the other reason is because of the sea of shit like that above, that challenging teams would have been subjected to in NZ. There needs to be a house cleaning down there, a fresh perspective the likes of what AC34 intentionally pressed.

 

If insults and shit slinging politics played a role in winning the cup, it would have been in NZ ~ two years ago and could never be successfully challenged.

 

It's unfortunate that the more respected kiwi fans have to put up with so much BS from the likes of a few blowhards.

 

 

SW Sailor as aparting comment I have to say thats pretty rich coming from you. You are a master slinger and a masterbaitor in a fishy kind of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love these conspiracy theories and even more, I love the idea that the gains were due to a single, all secret, possibly illegal, black box system that took over flying the boat. However, this really does fly in the face of a number of facts and, a number of things that can be assumed by inference. My favourite moment is in this debate is when Clean asked Dirk Kramers about the alleged system. If Dirk can laugh that spontaneously, to order, he has chosen the wrong profession, because I don't think any actor could do it..

 

On top of that, we have a fair amount of evidence for small changes to the boat and big changes to the way the boat is sailed. For me, they stack up and in particular, the changes that unloaded the foils through wing changes match what I have experienced in foiling boats (Moths and A Class). It really cannot be underestimated. The difference only a small amount can make is huge. I will attempt to explain. When sailing a Moth downhill, foiling fast, one of the worst things you can do is to noticeably ease the sheet. In loosing drive from the sail and in particular, the element of drive that pushes the boat down, you suddenly get a boat that leaps upwards, which on the moth means the foils pop out and you fall over!. One way of pushing the boat back down is to pull the sheet in. From this we know that the drive from the rig contributes significantly to the loads on the foil. Reduce the downward component of those loads and you can foil far quicker, because you can set your foils to produce less lift (more lift=more drag at the same speed). One way to achieve this is to lose the drive from the top of the rig. This is something I have been working on in the A's, because in a blow, the drive at the top of the tall mast is what pushes the bows down and gives us all the trouble. It isn't a simple matter of twist, but getting the twist to work in the right way. Get it right, and there are big gains in speed.

 

The other thing that we know from Moths is that if you get the balance between the loads on the main foil and those of the rudder right, the boat behaves better and is faster.

 

So, put all of that together. A change in wing rake, coupled with a different way of setting it up, particularly the back end twist profile, coupled with smaller changes to the rudder foil and back end of the boat should result in significant change in the behaviour of the boat. Add to this the latest from Coutts, who says that some of the ideas came Tom Slingsby, a world class Moth and A Class sailor, and I think it is totally believable and highly likely that they simply got the boat set up right and that there was no major equipment change or magic box fitted/switched on.

 

Of course, this being SA, I suspect you would all prefer conspiracy theories, cheating and bias from the officials, but this is a sailing event and when there is a very plausible and credible sailing argument, I prefer to go with that.

Simon,

 

congrats on an excellent / educational post. In fact, about foil loading, I had done a back-of-the-envelope OOM calculation (prompted by a friendly dialectic with Foyle, IIRC) and was surprised about how low the wing CoE had to be in order to have the rudder stabilizer moderately loaded - but still pulling downwards, mind you.

 

Still, I'm not alone in scratching my head about how sudden the quantum jump has been. Mainly, what you say is certainly correct, but it won't come as a revelation to ETNZ's designers, agree?

 

Then, the catsailingnews piece I linked to above picks up my main specific question:

 

We will probably never know exactly what are the changes Oracle did on their boat.

It looks like they have modified the foils with some very open "tips" with less drag but poor stability.

Oracle was using a special device to trim the rake of the foils actively and much faster than ETNZ which permits to use foils with pretty horizontal tips. It also looks like they also increased the rake of the wing in order to increase the load on the rudders.

 

If you don't have a device which allows you to trim very actively the rake of the foils you need to have foils with ta much better stability but also more drag...

 

I've read here (but didn't get the link) that GD said the frequency of OR's foil adjustments, as measured from video, shot up to a value they couldn't match.

And I've relayed the opinion of an ETNZ senior designer that open tip daggerfoils, going upwind and staying close to the water surface, require closed-loop controls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically I wonder if any of the people who believe Oracle's improvements could not possibly come from wing trim, boat balance, wing rake, etc. have ever sailed. The cumulative effect of changes like that can be massive.

 

Look at any one design fleet and look at the guys winning vs. the guys coming in DFL.

 

The Oracle design clearly had more speed potential on aero alone, it was just a matter of finally figuring out how best to sail the boat. I'd bet if they kept sailing it there's still more speed to be found in 17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically I wonder if any of the people who believe Oracle's improvements could not possibly come from wing trim, boat balance, wing rake, etc. have ever sailed. The cumulative effect of changes like that can be massive.

 

Look at any one design fleet and look at the guys winning vs. the guys coming in DFL.

 

The Oracle design clearly had more speed potential on aero alone, it was just a matter of finally figuring out how best to sail the boat. I'd bet if they kept sailing it there's still more speed to be found in 17.

In J-24's, 1/2" of mast height can be the difference of 5 degrees of point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In J-24's, 1/2" of mast height can be the difference of 5 degrees of point.

 

Sounds absurd to me. Can you prove it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In J-24's, 1/2" of mast height can be the difference of 5 degrees of point.

 

Sounds absurd to me. Can you prove it?

Easily. The stock mast comes between 1/2"-1" taller than the min allowed by the rules. This results in the headstay being tight and it limits rake and rack of the mast.

 

Because the boat has the keel slightly too far aft-- but it is constrained to be there based on the rules, you need to rake the sailplan aft to avoid lee helm.

Shortening the mast by 1/2"-1" means that for a given maximum length J and Forestay, you rack your mast tip aft about 6" with a noticeable change in the helm balance

 

You could try accomplishing this with more shroud tension and or backstay tension, but doing so would tighten the forestay which needs to be slack to put fullness in the Genoa which is cut very flat because without a #2, the Genny has to be carried into the high teens/low 20s

 

One little change and you can point 3-5 degrees higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In J-24's, 1/2" of mast height can be the difference of 5 degrees of point.

 

Sounds absurd to me. Can you prove it?

Easily. The stock mast comes between 1/2"-1" taller than the min allowed by the rules. This results in the headstay being tight and it limits rake and rack of the mast.

 

Because the boat has the keel slightly too far aft-- but it is constrained to be there based on the rules, you need to rake the sailplan aft to avoid lee helm.

Shortening the mast by 1/2"-1" means that for a given maximum length J and Forestay, you rack your mast tip aft about 6" with a noticeable change in the helm balance

 

You could try accomplishing this with more shroud tension and or backstay tension, but doing so would tighten the forestay which needs to be slack to put fullness in the Genoa which is cut very flat because without a #2, the Genny has to be carried into the high teens/low 20s

 

One little change and you can point 3-5 degrees higher.

 

Nice theory but not even close to proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically I wonder if any of the people who believe Oracle's improvements could not possibly come from wing trim, boat balance, wing rake, etc. have ever sailed. The cumulative effect of changes like that can be massive.

 

Look at any one design fleet and look at the guys winning vs. the guys coming in DFL.

 

The Oracle design clearly had more speed potential on aero alone, it was just a matter of finally figuring out how best to sail the boat. I'd bet if they kept sailing it there's still more speed to be found in 17.

 

 

+1

 

With another week or so of sailing who knows just where they would have ended up speed wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof of what?

 

Point is that a tiny change can make a huge diiff in performance

 

Proof that "In J-24's, 1/2" of mast height can be the difference of 5 degrees of point."

 

I can believe that mast rake makes a difference but that's independent of mast height.

 

Merely repeating an assertion, even elaborating the details of your theory(s), doesn't prove anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read here (but didn't get the link) that GD said the frequency of OR's foil adjustments, as measured from video, shot up to a value they couldn't match.

And I've relayed the opinion of an ETNZ senior designer that open tip daggerfoils, going upwind and staying close to the water surface, require closed-loop controls

 

So we have an unsourced allegation balanced on an opinion, all from team NZ who lost.

 

Riiiiight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Proof of what?

 

Point is that a tiny change can make a huge diiff in performance

 

Proof that "In J-24's, 1/2" of mast height can be the difference of 5 degrees of point."

 

I can believe that mast rake makes a difference but that's independent of mast height.

 

Merely repeating an assertion, even elaborating the details of your theory(s), doesn't prove anything at all.

As he pointed out, that is not the case given the J24 class rule.

 

You are correct in general. He is correct in the specific case he cited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you push the button to actuate the ride height control, "a control input to move part ‘Y’," the linear actuator, and the daggerboard angle doesn't change, your stability has been augmented. Why? Because your dumbass didn't just fly the boat out of the water. There's no way around the SAS moniker.

 

We know the reason the daggerboard angle doesn't change is because of the action of component X. It's speculation about how that works, or if it specifically, or something like it, was even present on the boat at race time. You don't need sensors or computers in the "control loop." This isn't HAL9000, but it's called active control. The system is responding to changes in the "state" of the system, not just to the input of the operator. It seems the only candidate for state variables is the lifting, canting, and side force, which can be measured in the valve, and possibly in turn by component X. Change springs at a and b, change the behavior of component X, and you can optimize the handling/setup of the boat just like you were changing more traditional sailboat-systems like J measurement, rig rake, and the list goes on. (Notice OTUSA just hasn't copped to optimizing this system because of the shitstorm).

 

The moth analogy is a good one. Moth bell crank height is changed all the time. It can't be changed during a race. In the moth, you take "data" from the wand position, and actuate the flaps on the lifting foil. Does a computer do this, no. Imagine a moth with to "curled" J-boards on either side of a centerboard trunk. No wand needed, lift out of the water and ventilate the tip. Do moths need to have this specific kind of control? No, development in the class has allowed wands because it's cheap and easy. Wands were not allowed for the A/C rule.

 

Furthermore, OTUSA had a better system. They knew the lifting foil force before that force caused a change in nose height. This would be expensive an tricky in a moth. You don't need a wand or a gyroscope, and you don't have to account for the delay caused by changes in sail trim. Changes propagate pretty quickly, but not instantaneously, which is why you've got to spend a lot of off-water time accounting for these things in the control system design. Now try to design the system for a tacking maneuver. Oracle also stopped "rearing up" when they learned how to roll-tack.

 

Boat setup spans a huge rage of options. Don't underestimate the changes that were made to the setup of the daggerboard control systems when things like lowering the center of effort of the sailplan and new T-foils were introduced. The real drama isn't that such systems were in place, but that they never took a step "back" when issuing a new measurement certificate after the comeback started. That takes some serious cajones by the engineering and sailing teams.

 

Finally, I'm not aware of a rule about not having the hydro valve open ALL THE TIME. Gross input is coming from the operator, but the system sitting between him and the actual angle of the daggerboards is going to cost in terms of stored hydro power. The board is going to move all the time if the valve is open all the time, and yet the pressure in the valve never changes. It may be that board movements were becoming apparent to the TV cameras and observers on the water only after the changes to an existing setup, right before and during the comeback.

 

We need more of this for AC 35 to make foiling safe and effective over a wide range of conditions. System reliability should be the mantra. Let tactics and sailing win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've read here (but didn't get the link) that GD said the frequency of OR's foil adjustments, as measured from video, shot up to a value they couldn't match.

And I've relayed the opinion of an ETNZ senior designer that open tip daggerfoils, going upwind and staying close to the water surface, require closed-loop controls

So we have an unsourced allegation balanced on an opinion, all from team NZ who lost.

Riiiiight.

 

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.

Would you still have that link / specific reference, please?

 

Looks fairly specific to me - if only I could get the link ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Proof of what?

 

Point is that a tiny change can make a huge diiff in performance

 

Proof that "In J-24's, 1/2" of mast height can be the difference of 5 degrees of point."

 

I can believe that mast rake makes a difference but that's independent of mast height.

 

Merely repeating an assertion, even elaborating the details of your theory(s), doesn't prove anything at all.

 

As he pointed out, that is not the case given the J24 class rule.

 

You are correct in general. He is correct in the specific case he cited.

 

He hasn't proven his original assertion, which was that 1/2" difference of mast height results in five degrees closer to the wind.

 

Upon elaboration, that changed to 1/2" to 1" shorter can point 3-5 degrees higher (equivocation?).

 

And the mast tip will move aft 6 inches!? Really? My hasty calculations indicate closer to 2.5 inches aft for a 1/2" reduction in height?

 

But the point is that the claim of "five degrees closer to the wind" remains unsubstantiated.

 

BalticBandit has repeated his claim ad nauseam (~120 posts since the cup ended a week ago) that OTUSA was actually slower than ETNZ. It's crystal clear to me that tactics played a major role in their victory (his main point) but it's not so clear that OTUSA was the slower boat. He just hasn't proven that point and no amount of repetition will do it.

 

I don't care at all about J24s - I do care, though, about the steamroller style of endless repetition and don't accept it as proof of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With this active control system, you could have a complete schematic and still not know if it is skulling or whatever you call the active foils putting forward energy into the boat.

 

And why would anyone except an electronics professional want this control method instead of a mechanical wand based system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Proof of what?

 

Point is that a tiny change can make a huge diiff in performance

 

Proof that "In J-24's, 1/2" of mast height can be the difference of 5 degrees of point."

 

I can believe that mast rake makes a difference but that's independent of mast height.

 

Merely repeating an assertion, even elaborating the details of your theory(s), doesn't prove anything at all.

 

As he pointed out, that is not the case given the J24 class rule.

 

You are correct in general. He is correct in the specific case he cited.

 

He hasn't proven his original assertion, which was that 1/2" difference of mast height results in five degrees closer to the wind.

 

Upon elaboration, that changed to 1/2" to 1" shorter can point 3-5 degrees higher (equivocation?).

 

And the mast tip will move aft 6 inches!? Really? My hasty calculations indicate closer to 2.5 inches aft for a 1/2" reduction in height?

 

But the point is that the claim of "five degrees closer to the wind" remains unsubstantiated.

 

BalticBandit has repeated his claim ad nauseam (~120 posts since the cup ended a week ago) that OTUSA was actually slower than ETNZ. It's crystal clear to me that tactics played a major role in their victory (his main point) but it's not so clear that OTUSA was the slower boat. He just hasn't proven that point and no amount of repetition will do it.

 

I don't care at all about J24s - I do care, though, about the steamroller style of endless repetition and don't accept it as proof of anything.

So you've decided to discount everything he posts. Got it.

 

Cheers,

 

Randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea whether OTUSA had an SAS, or other magic bullet, but you can bet that if we were talking about ETNZ and such a thing, it would be hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread and could only be the result of those clever and plucky Kiwis outsmarting everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Would you still have that link / specific reference, please?

maybe

http://www.radiosport.co.nz/player/ondemand/1079304183-grant-dalton--america-s-cup-aftermath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites