Recommended Posts

^ What your second chart shows - by your uninformed metric that looks at the 'noise' in the data rather the averages that show the performance differential - is ETNZ getting dramatically worse*, not OR getting better. You know, the 'spooky instability' that suddenly appears in the red line.

But of course, anyone who can actually read a polar sees something entirely different - and sadly for you - it does not fit your narrative. The polars clearly show that ETNZ also improved throughout the regatta, just not at the same pace as OR.

You remind me of Indio - a self proclaimed hydraulics 'expert' who didn't know what an actuator was. 

 

* Just to clarify: ETNZ obviously did NOT get dramatically worse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, surfsailor said:

 they falsely accused OR of having in AC34...

 

Now, see this is a total lie...

Firstly ETNZ never accused anyone of having an auto system, secondly even if your argument is that by asking for MC to review OTUSA's system was them making an accusation, there was never any ruling on OTUSAs system - the MC only ruled that ETNZ had lodged their request too late and so it wouldn't be reviewed. So we simply don't know if such an accusation was true or false.

Quote

In AC35, the input on ETNZ's system wasn't human - it came directly from the computer.

This is also factually incorrect - unless you are accusing ETNZ of having another system than the one visible to us on TV and what they claimed they used and have showcased post-event.

Tuke had a physical slider in a box just like JS had a physical transverse volume-knob in his wheel - they both did the same thing. Tuke was able to keep his eye on a visual indicator as to correct angle of attack, JS probably had a visual somewhere too as all teams would have, but he had to keep his eye on plenty of other things as well.

The difference was that Tuke was able to be much more accurate and high-frequency with his slider than JS was with his knob because he wasn't steering the boat and so was able to focus entirely on hand-eye co-ordination. This wasn't just 'due to a magic system that was just an autopilot with a loophole' it was due to the decision to go with cyclors to free up hands and eyes to dedicate to such a task having calculated the pay-off that it would provide in boat speed.

OTUSA just didn't have the imagination/innovation or did their sums wrong...

Oh and thanks for making me write about Jimmy's knob on the internet

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ What your second chart shows - by your uninformed metric that looks at the 'noise' in the data rather the averages that show the performance differential - is ETNZ getting dramatically worse, not OR getting better. You know, the 'spooky instability' that suddenly appears in the red line.

But of course, anyone who can actually read a polar sees something entirely different - and sadly for you - it does not fit your narrative. The polars clearly show that ETNZ also improved throughout the regatta, just not at the same pace as OR.

You remind me of Indio - a self proclaimed hydraulics 'expert' who didn't know what an actuator was. 

 

Both improved - true. Oracle improved more - true.

But are you denying that the improvement that Oracle showed came with increased stability? (NB this does not necessarily mean they were cheating)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Maybe you missed the Gladwell article where all the accusations started. Who do you suppose the source for that was? Winnie the Pooh?

The OR system that the MC reviewed (and found fully compliant) during AC34 was simply a valve shutoff that was indexed to the case position rather than fixed to the hull - the only external input was from the buttons on the helm. There was no computer connected in any way to the foil position.

In AC35, ETNZ had a computer that told them how to fly, and presented that information on a touchscreen that a sailor simply had to track with his finger to maintain steady flight - so the computer WAS essentially connected directly to the foil system (thru a human), and the feedback loop was nearly instantaneous. All the other drivers had to steer and fly at the same time. It was a brilliant workaround for a rule that was intended to prevent computerized flight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

OTUSA just didn't have the imagination/innovation or did their sums wrong

Everyone except for ETNZ determined that the intent of the word ‘manual’ input extended to human thought input. 

The ‘full auto pilot’ intelligence, almost exactly the phrase GD used in the Clean interview, was a big factor in their game-winning setup. GD also said something like ‘We were shocked nobody else did it’ which to me sounded like more a defense of their use of it, rather than an acknowledgement that they’d taken a pretty wild rules interpretation gambit and had gotten away with it.

The measurer who was in charge of interpreting that very aspect of the AC35 Rule is a pretty cooky guy who has expressed derision at the Rule writers in this very forum - and was even fired late in the game for whatever-all nutso problems he had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

Both improved - true. Oracle improved more - true.

But are you denying that the improvement that Oracle showed came with increased stability? (NB this does not necessarily mean they were cheating)

For sure they got more stable - largely through eliminating lee helm, but also by dialing much more power into the wing, which kept them flying during transitions. Hell, they could barely pull off foiling jibes at the beginning of AC34, and their tacks were excruciating - all the result of way too much emphasis on top end L/D numbers on the wing at the expense of bottom end 'grunt'. They also discovered that their upwind models were just wrong - they had never even evaluated the super deep angles they ended up running.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ What your second chart shows - by your uninformed metric that looks at the 'noise' in the data rather the averages that show the performance differential - is ETNZ getting dramatically worse, not OR getting better. You know, the 'spooky instability' that suddenly appears in the red line.

But of course, anyone who can actually read a polar sees something entirely different - and sadly for you - it does not fit your narrative. The polars clearly show that ETNZ also improved throughout the regatta, just not at the same pace as OR.

You remind me of Indio - a self proclaimed hydraulics 'expert' who didn't know what an actuator was. 

 

Disingenuos again, avoiding addressing my point.  I am only talking about stability improvements of OR compared to NZ.  You know that but don't want to go there and throw up shiny things like "what an actuator was".  Seriously?

The first chart shows what happens when there are two buttons on the wheel.  Up & down.  All adjustments are after the event and too late, overcompensation is visible in the OR records in the first race shown above.

Then when the machine took over, it smoothed out because it was adjusting in microseconds instead of seconds.  Extremely small movements could be made at the right time.  In fact tuned properly that system could use less oil by not requiring big adjustments from one end of the scale to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, surfsailor said:

^ Maybe you missed the Gladwell article. Who do you suppose the source for that was? Winnie the Pooh?

The OR system that the MC reviewed (and found fully compliant) during AC34 was simply a valve shutoff that was indexed to the case position rather than fixed to the hull - the only external input was from the buttons on the helm. There was no computer connected in any way to the foil position.

In AC35, ETNZ had a computer that told them how to fly, and presented that information on a touchscreen that a sailor simply had to track with his finger to maintain steady flight - so the computer WAS essentially connected directly to the foil system (thru a human), and feedback loop was nearly instantaneous. All the other drivers had to steer and fly at the same time. It was a brilliant workaround for a rule that was intended to prevent computerized flight.

 

So rumour and innuendo is fine when is you're making the accusations? :-) RG's article is your proof of ETNZ making false accusations?

MC never "remeasured" the system after ETNZ's request that the system be reviewed in regards to the new information supplied in their request. You'll forgive me if I can't take your assertions of what was or wasn't in OTUSA's boat as a statement of fact.

Again, we've all seen Tuke's device, I've handled it, and again unless ETNZ are lying (who's making the accusations now eh?) then it did not work as you claim. AC35 Tuke's device did actually have a touch screen (it was a Samsung Galaxy S8 so that screen is a touch screen), but that was merely used as a cheap, portable, battery-powered, robust, water-proof passive display. The touch-screen never formed part of the system. He had a physical slider next to it that he was using. There were a bunch of requests made to the measuring committee about these types of devices (touchscreen vs 'air-gap' with two screens stacked over each other) and most were ruled illegal. However as I described what ETNZ had was basically the same feedback and input system as any other boat - it was just engineered around having a dedicated person focus on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

^ What your second chart shows - by your uninformed metric that looks at the 'noise' in the data

So you saying that the data you send me is full of noise?  That it is not accurate?

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stingray~~ said:

Everyone except for ETNZ determined that the intent of the word ‘manual’ input extended to human thought input. 

No wonder they were all losers then eh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

The first chart shows what happens when there are two buttons on the wheel.  Up & down.  All adjustments are after the event and too late, overcompensation is visible in the OR records in the first race shown above.

Then when the machine took over, it smoothed out because it was adjusting in microseconds instead of seconds.  Extremely small movements could be made at the right time.  In fact tuned properly that system could use less oil by not requiring big adjustments from one end of the scale to the other.

^ Yet your second chart 'shows' (in your mind) the OPPOSITE happening with ETNZ - which of course is BS. Those charts are made up of data points culled at a fixed interval from boats that experience massive accelerations. You simply don't know how to read a Polar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

No wonder they were all losers then eh...

Yep, I do think that ETNZ’s ‘innovative’ interpretation of the Rule was a big part of their win. That and their choice to go big on light-wind condition foils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ Maybe you missed the Gladwell article where all the accusations started. Who do you suppose the source for that was? Winnie the Pooh?

The OR system that the MC reviewed (and found fully compliant) during AC34 was simply a valve shutoff that was indexed to the case position rather than fixed to the hull - the only external input was from the buttons on the helm. There was no computer connected in any way to the foil position.

In AC35, ETNZ had a computer that told them how to fly, and presented that information on a touchscreen that a sailor simply had to track with his finger to maintain steady flight - so the computer WAS essentially connected directly to the foil system (thru a human), and the feedback loop was nearly instantaneous. All the other drivers had to steer and fly at the same time. It was a brilliant workaround for a rule that was intended to prevent computerized flight.

 

The Herbie story was broken late in the series during TVNZ's live coverage by Peter Lester and Martin Tasker - who claimed info from a 747 pilot. The issue had earlier went to the Measurement Committee. Sail-World and other media reported the story on the basis of what was circulating in Auckland at the time. The Int Jury made the observation in their ruling (with a Hearing on 5-6 September) that even if the protest (that the MC had effectively created a new rule) had been lodged within the 14 day time limit they did not believe that the MC had exceeded its jurisdiction. ETNZ accepted costs of $5,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

So rumour and innuendo is fine when is you're making the accusations? :-) RG's article is your proof of ETNZ making false accusations?

MC never "remeasured" the system after ETNZ's request that the system be reviewed in regards to the new information supplied in their request. You'll forgive me if I can't take your assertions of what was or wasn't in OTUSA's boat as a statement of fact.

Again, we've all seen Tuke's device, I've handled it, and again unless ETNZ are lying (who's making the accusations now eh?) then it did not work as you claim. AC35 Tuke's device did actually have a touch screen (it was a Samsung Galaxy S8 so that screen is a touch screen), but that was merely used as a cheap, portable, battery-powered, robust, water-proof passive display. The touch-screen never formed part of the system. He had a physical slider next to it that he was using. There were a bunch of requests made to the measuring committee about these types of devices (touchscreen vs 'air-gap' with two screens stacked over each other) and most were ruled illegal. However as I described what ETNZ had was basically the same feedback and input system as any other boat - it was just engineered around having a dedicated person focus on them.

1) Where do you suppose the cheating accusations originated? Think carefully.

2) OR's system was not reviewed a second time. It passed muster the first time, and anyone who has seen it knows that the component 'X' - a spring that was supposed protect the valve from impact - was never used.

3) My understanding is that the touch screen that displayed the position info was the same screen that was used to input that data to the foil control system. I'm happy to be wrong about that. That doesn't change the fact that the computer generated flight control commands were implemented very quickly and efficiently on ETNZ - physically moving a slider that is next to a display screen is much the same thing as stacked touch screens - which were approved, as far as I recall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, robberzdog said:

The Herbie story was broken on late in the series during TVNZ's live coverage by Peter Lester and Martin Tasker - who claimed info from a 747 pilot. The issue had earlier went to the Measurement Committee. Sail-World and other media reported the story on the basis of what was circulating in Auckland at the time. The Int Jury made the observation in their ruling (with a Hearing on 5-6 September) that even if the protest (that the MC had effectively created a new rule) had been lodged within the 14 day time limit they did not believe that the MC had exceeded its jurisdiction. ETNZ accepted costs of $5,000.

I had no idea Winnie the Pooh was a 747 pilot - I just assumed he worked for ETNZ. My bad!

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ Yet your second chart 'shows' (in your mind) the OPPOSITE happening with ETNZ - which of course is BS. Those charts are made up of data points culled at a fixed interval from boats that experience massive accelerations. You simply don't know how to read a Polar.

I clearly know how to read a polar, that is your problem.

The variation in those points is a measure of stablility.

So let's not fuck around any more girls.  Here is the eveidence that a machine was installed in OR after race 11

None of this incremental improvement bullshit.  From one race to the next his happened.

Start of regatta

image.png.334044c69dc7d9edfed8ffed4799592e.png

then race 10

5a7e30d72f85f_ORvNZR10.jpeg.6b450eb2047b64b239b7806ddfded799.jpeg

Then the last one before the update

ORvNZBefore.jpeg.be8d73a77148b0654a12afd57d05eeb1.jpeg

Herbie goes in and

ORVNZAfter.jpeg.8a056325d884db16b1b1a78380b48397.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, random said:

So you saying that the data you send me is full of noise?  That it is not accurate?

 

Yep. Instantaneous readouts culled from giant sailing boats ripping around SF bay at nearly 50 kts are all over the map. Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

I clearly know how to read a polar, that is your problem.

The variation in those points is a measure of stablility.

So let's not fuck around any more girls.  Here is the eveidence that a machine was installed in OR after race 11

None of this incremental improvement bullshit.  From one race to the next his happened.

ORvNZBefore.jpeg.be8d73a77148b0654a12afd57d05eeb1.jpeg

Herbie goes in and

ORVNZAfter.jpeg.8a056325d884db16b1b1a78380b48397.jpeg

 

 

So you're saying BOTH boats got automatic flight control after race 11?! Was the ETNZ system also called 'Herbie'?! LOL

Seriously - do you ever get tired of trolling complete bullshit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

Yep. Instantaneous readouts culled from giant sailing boats ripping around SF bay at nearly 50 kts are all over the map. Duh.

So it cannot be trusted?  Why did you send it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

So you're saying BOTH boats got automatic flight control after race 11?! Was the ETNZ system also called 'Herbie'?! LOL

Seriously - do you ever get tired of trolling complete bullshit?

Pretty compelling data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

So it cannot be trusted?  Why did you send it?

You don't know the difference between an instantaneous data point and a chart that is comprised of thousands (perhaps millions) of data points? Back to 8th grade statistics for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

Pretty compelling data.

Did you look at what you posted? Why wouldn't what you are claiming about OR apply equally to ETNZ? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, robberzdog said:

The Herbie story was broken late in the series during TVNZ's live coverage by Peter Lester and Martin Tasker - who claimed info from a 747 pilot.

Yep, was posted by some old cooter as a comment on some FB Page. It was taken up by frenzied Kiwi media and frenzied Kiwi fans but thoroughly debunked later, even by the cooter himself! Lmao!

AC36 will get its share of hyperbolic NZ media craziness too, probably times ten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

You don't know the difference between an instantaneous data point and a chart that is comprised of thousands (perhaps millions) of data points? Back to 8th grade statistics for you.

Yeah, I know the difference. The data as shown shows actuals at the time of the recording, not processed.  That's what the boat was doing.

I also know that disingenuous people would argue the reverse if averages were posted here.

YCMTSU!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stingray~~ said:

Yep, was posted by some old cooter as a comment on some FB Page. It was taken up by frenzied Kiwi media and frenzied Kiwi fans but thoroughly debunked later, even by the cooter! Lmao!

We need more of that stuff here.  Some cooter on FakeBook.  Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

 

2) OR's system was not reviewed a second time. It passed muster the first time, and anyone who has seen it knows that the component 'X' - a spring that was supposed protect the valve from impact - was never used.

3) My understanding is that the touch screen that displayed the position info was the same screen that was used to input that data to the foil control system. I'm happy to be wrong about that. That doesn't change the fact that the computer generated flight control commands were implemented very quickly and efficiently on ETNZ - physically moving a slider that is next to a display screen is much the same thing as stacked touch screens - which were approved, as far as I recall.

 

1. Sounds like we've found Winnie the 747 Poolot, not ETNZ behind that article - cool!

2. Agree it was never reviewed a second time - MC stated ETNZ missed their 14 day window... so we are now agreed that ETNZ didn't accuse OTUSA? and we agree that after their request the review never occurred and thus any suggestion that they made with this request that the system was no longer compliant was never actually proved true or false? Because I think that's where we just go to.

3. Yup and JS might have been open to this idea too had they been given the ability to have 100% eyes and hands on the controls. They weren't however because they elected to go with a 'traditional' setup that meant such a system would have been relatively useless to them - not because it wasn't legal, or in some way not in the 'spirit' of the rules. So we are now agreed that it wasn't a direct input from a computer?

Great! Enjoy your Friday :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

1) We have an anonymous guy on a forum claiming it was a 747 pilot. Could be, who knows?

2) The system was not changed between the two requests. So it was still still compliant. There are plenty of pics and explanations about how it worked posted on line.

3) Everyone would've been open to it if they'd though of it - but they didn't. What you still seem to miss is that ETNZ'  was tantamount to direct input from a computer - it just happened to be legal the way the rule was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^

1) We have an anonymous guy on a forum claiming it was a 747 pilot. Could be, who knows?

2) The system was not changed between the two requests. So it was still still compliant. There are plenty of pics and explanations about how it worked posted on line.

3) Everyone would've been open to it if they'd though of it - but they didn't. What you still seem to miss is that ETNZ'  was tantamount to direct input from a computer - it just happened to be legal the way the rule was written.

1. Sweet

2. System may not have changed (sweet) but what ETNZ wanted looked at was new

3. Sweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read earlier in this thread Slingsby was close to getting an Aussie challenge off the ground? Wish that were true but where will he find that sort of money especially if the rumors of the cost to compete in the AC36 are true? 

1. An Aussie company with no sailing ties?

2. An existing Aussie family with a well known passion for sailing?

3. Someone from complete left field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, surfsailor said:

You remind me of Indio - a self proclaimed hydraulics 'expert' who didn't know what an actuator was. 

 

* Just to clarify: ETNZ obviously did NOT get dramatically worse.

 

Nice try dumbass. Keep believing the cheaters' miraculous overnight improvement in AC34* when they were 8-0 down. All down to Spithill's ability to adjust the foil control manually in 0.5-degree increments by feel?? :lol::lol::lol:...

ETNZ are changing the inscription for AC34* to add an asterisk to the cheater's "successful" defence!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, surfsailor said:

The OR system that the MC reviewed (and found fully compliant) during AC34 was simply a valve shutoff that was indexed to the case position rather than fixed to the hull - the only external input was from the buttons on the helm. There was no computer connected in any way to the foil position.

 

Nice selective recall. The MC approved the HYDRAULIC CIRCUIT submitted by the cheaters - they did not approve the use of the indexing stepper motor-driven linear actuator switching the hydraulic control valve to control the foil which was against the Class Rule - no feed-back system, mechanical, optical or electrical was permitted! ETNZ were too slack in lodging a complain within the 14-day timeline, so their appeal was disallowed.

The MC did not specifically approve the illegal mechanical feed-back system in the cheater's application for interpretation - they erred when they approved the HYDRAULIC CIRCUIT which was not part of the question in the interpretation application. The MC failed in their duty by allowing the cheaters to cheat. But that's hardly suprising considering the people involved - Fatso Murray for one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, surfsailor said:

2) The system was not changed between the two requests. So it was still still compliant. There are plenty of pics and explanations about how it worked posted on line.

Which one of the 3 are we supposed to believe??:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rh2600 said:

1. Sweet

2. System may not have changed (sweet) but what ETNZ wanted looked at was new

3. Sweet

The system did not change - it was working. There was nothing new to look at.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indio said:

Nice selective recall. The MC approved the HYDRAULIC CIRCUIT submitted by the cheaters - they did not approve the use of the indexing stepper motor-driven linear actuator switching the hydraulic control valve to control the foil which was against the Class Rule - no feed-back system, mechanical, optical or electrical was permitted! ETNZ were too slack in lodging a complain within the 14-day timeline, so their appeal was disallowed.

The MC did not specifically approve the illegal mechanical feed-back system in the cheater's application for interpretation - they erred when they approved the HYDRAULIC CIRCUIT which was not part of the question in the interpretation application. The MC failed in their duty by allowing the cheaters to cheat. But that's hardly suprising considering the people involved - Fatso Murray for one!

Keep fighting that windmill Don . As the drawing depicts you are pretty much the last one , even the other nut jobs have left you alone to howl at the moon. Five or six years later and only one lone voice typing furiously on a little known sailing forum still spouting unproven nonsense.  If any of this was true someone that actually had some real connection to the event would have brought actual proof to lite . 

pancho-and-don-quixote-windmills.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indio said:

Nice selective recall. The MC approved the HYDRAULIC CIRCUIT submitted by the cheaters - they did not approve the use of the indexing stepper motor-driven linear actuator switching the hydraulic control valve to control the foil which was against the Class Rule - no feed-back system, mechanical, optical or electrical was permitted! ETNZ were too slack in lodging a complain within the 14-day timeline, so their appeal was disallowed.

The MC did not specifically approve the illegal mechanical feed-back system in the cheater's application for interpretation - they erred when they approved the HYDRAULIC CIRCUIT which was not part of the question in the interpretation application. The MC failed in their duty by allowing the cheaters to cheat. But that's hardly suprising considering the people involved - Fatso Murray for one!

There was no indexing stepper motor. There was no feedback system. Both boats used electrical linear actuators, as permitted by the rule, to open and close valves.

It's amazing that - 5 years after the fact - you still have no idea what anyone is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

There was no indexing stepper motor. There was no feedback system. Both boats used electrical linear actuators, as permitted by the rule, to open and close valves.

It's amazing that - 5 years after the fact - you still have no idea what anyone is talking about.

And the cheating stench still attaches itself to them now as they did then. Even the guy who was engaged by the AC35 Measurement Committee to evaluate the control systems and interpretation applications by teams does not believe the use of the mechanical feed-back provided by the linear actuator was not legal. The MC was NEVER asked to rule on its legality - doesn't matter how many times your revisionist brain tries to argue the point!!

Now tell us again: which one of the 3 versions of the cheaters' control system they published are we to believe???

 

35 minutes ago, maxmini said:

 If any of this was true someone that actually had some real connection to the event would have brought actual proof to lite . 

 

And why would anyone associated with the cheaters now bring "actual proof to light"? What possible value would they gain by revealing that they were involved in a cheat?

Several people with "real connection to the event" have accused the AC34* defenders of cheating. Did you vote for Trumpanzee as well??:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Indio said:

The MC approved the HYDRAULIC CIRCUIT submitted by the cheaters - they did not approve the use of the indexing stepper motor-driven linear actuator switching the hydraulic control valve to control the foil which was against the Class Rule -

Put up or shut up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, surfsailor said:

It's amazing that - 5 years after the fact - you still have no idea what anyone is talking about.

It's equally amazing that 5 years on, people still try to put him straight. It's a waste of keystrokes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, rh2600 said:

@inebriated mate I'm not sure you have the basis to laugh at anyone on this board - given you've failed to conceal the fact that your understanding and knowledge of AC is minimal at best.... I recall you saying it had something to do with mum not letting you stay up late to watch it or something...  whatever the reason... there's years of watching, reading, and learning to make up before you get to scoff at people like @random.

No-one laughed at you when you said that the grinders on the AC50s where pulling rope

don't get me wrong, most of the other boats didn't do this, but there you go, there's one

, or when you thought that ETNZ wasn't as good as OTUSA because they 'lost the starts' in early races that they publicly stated at the time the weren't trying to win.

i was saying that ARTEMIS, not oracle, was winning the starts, nothing about them being better because of it

Maybe do yourself a solid and go and read the history of AC34, learn where the foiling in that regatta originated from, how the teams tried to learn to control it, the tech that was used, the complaints lodged with measuring committees and their responses... perhaps come back here and share your account, and some may take the time to help you fill in the blanks.

In the mean time turning up late, asking dumb questions and making declarations the demonstrate you don't know much, and then turning and pointing at those around you that do isn't really a great look...

and i still see no proof from you of oracle cheating hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here are the last races, the last one where the supposedly choking skipper won the start, was first to the first two marks, then was blown away by equipment that had mysteriously improved overnight almost.  Notice the ultimate smooth control downwind also.  Amazing that they got to any of the marks first, they did not have a chance, just like the reversal in AC35.

That Herbie worked like a charm in San Fran.

ORvNZVMG1718.jpeg.a6e092ea5dd7d7a7fc43a7fc71853636.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, inebriated said:

 

and i still see no proof from you of oracle cheating hahaha

have another XXXX mate... I have never said they cheated, but again proving your ignorance as you clearly don't understand the machinations of what took place with the MC (thats measuring committee)

Whether or not was ETNZ was wanting to get assessed was legal or not ie neither true nor false because it was never reviewed due the request being lodged too late...

pour me one too... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, random said:

So here are the last races, the last one where the supposedly choking skipper won the start, was first to the first two marks, then was blown away by equipment that had mysteriously improved overnight almost.  Notice the ultimate smooth control downwind also.  Amazing that they got to any of the marks first, they did not have a chance, just like the reversal in AC35.

That Herbie worked like a charm in San Fran.

ORvNZVMG1718.jpeg.a6e092ea5dd7d7a7fc43a7fc71853636.jpeg

 

^  In that polar, ETNZ is every bit as smooth as OR, and very nearly as fast downwind - upwind, while they were as smooth, they had a big VMG deficit - looks like almost 3 kts at a TWA of about 38 degrees.

Of course - since you don't know how to read  a polar - you're looking at the bit in the middle (TWA from 90-125 degrees). Remind me again - how many races did OR win on the short reaching leg at the start or the bottom reaching leg to the finish?

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^  In that polar, ETNZ is every bit as smooth as OR, and very nearly as fast downwind - upwind, while they were as smooth, they had a big VMG deficit - looks like almost 3 kts at a TWA of about 38 degrees.

Of course - since you don't know how to read  a polar - you're looking at the bit in the middle (TWA from 90-125 degrees). Remind me again - how many races did OR win on the short reaching leg at the start or the bottom reaching leg to the finish?

LOL

I know how to read a polar, that is your problem.  They installed tech to control the foil it is plain as the nose on your face.  I have no idea why you are defending these people. 

But in hindsight, it was almost worth it to see how sweet turning the same rules back on Oracle was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Indio said:

And the cheating stench still attaches itself to them now as they did then. Even the guy who was engaged by the AC35 Measurement Committee to evaluate the control systems and interpretation applications by teams does not believe the use of the mechanical feed-back provided by the linear actuator was not legal. The MC was NEVER asked to rule on its legality - doesn't matter how many times your revisionist brain tries to argue the point!!

Now tell us again: which one of the 3 versions of the cheaters' control system they published are we to believe???

 

And why would anyone associated with the cheaters now bring "actual proof to light"? What possible value would they gain by revealing that they were involved in a cheat?

Several people with "real connection to the event" have accused the AC34* defenders of cheating. Did you vote for Trumpanzee as well??:lol:

" anyone " being the team that was " wronged ". 

Seriously I know you got that ass backwards on purpose to try and defend your viewpoint because anyone that could not see the point clearly being made would not be smart enough  to turn their computer on . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maxmini said:

" anyone " being the team that was " wronged ". 

Seriously I know you got that ass backwards on purpose to try and defend your viewpoint because anyone that could not see the point clearly being made would not be smart enough  to turn their computer on . 

When we see the hypocrisy almost on a daily basis from your political masters being normalised, it does make it easier to understand why most of the yanks on ACA like you and the beach bum surfsailor keep coming up with the same type of convoluted arguments to try to convince anyone that the AC4* defenders did not cheat.

1: You keep claiming that the MC "approved" the mechanical feed-back linear actuator foil control system, yet conveniently gloss over the fact that the Publuc Interpretation PI_49.pdf

did not, with the MC being grilled over their decision in subsequent PI_52.pdf and PI_54.pdf

2: Here's the coup de grâce: the PI49 application by the cheaters to the MC states

"Electro-Mechanical Actuator such as: Ultra Motion Linear Actuator Series D-A.083AB-HT17-4-2NO-P-RBC3S/RBC3S"

This particular Ultra Motion Model part number tells us that:

D-A.083AB-HT17 indicates the speed/force, such that:

A.083 = Acme Nut, 0.0833 in/rev lead screw

AB = Acme anti-backlash nut

HT 17 = High-Torque NEMA 17 size stepper motor, step angle 1.8 degrees;

4 = 4" stroke length

2NO = 2 Normally Open externally adjustable position switches

P = Precision linear potentiomater

RB3CS = Small stainless steel base rod bearing

RBC3S = Small stainless steel nose rod bearing clevis

3: Now here's PI_53.pdf showing all the "(hydraulic) valves and drive clutches  approved for use by the Measurement Committee". And guess what? The only one approved does NOT have a linear potentiometer like the one the cheaters show in PI49.

I suppose you and surfsailor will claim the cheaters did not use the UM actuator on their PI49:lol:

You lot up there have convicted and executed prisoners on less evidence!!

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Indio said:

When we see the hypocrisy almost on a daily basis from your political masters being normalised, it does make it easier to understand why most of the yanks on ACA like you and the beach bum surfsailor keep coming up with the same type of convoluted arguments to try to convince anyone that the AC4* defenders did not cheat.

 

Worse, lending more credence to your point, many American posters in SA PA cannot even begin to get their heads around anything before they have classified it into the Democrat - Republican mindmap.  This works the same for the AC because they are also incapable of considering a point made before first deciding if it is good or bad for their team.  Completely incapable of independent critical thinking.

Completely fucked in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

Worse, lending more credence to your point, many American posters in SA PA cannot even begin to get their heads around anything before they have classified it into the Democrat - Republican mindmap.  This works the same for the AC because they are also incapable of considering a point made before first deciding if it is good or bad for their team.  Completely incapable of independent critical thinking.

Completely fucked in the head.

Amen to that :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly most of those chipping in have no team to enable anymore...

< complete control = will not compete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Indio said:

When we see the hypocrisy almost on a daily basis from your political masters being normalised, it does make it easier to understand why most of the yanks on ACA like you and the beach bum surfsailor keep coming up with the same type of convoluted arguments to try to convince anyone that the AC4* defenders did not cheat.

1: You keep claiming that the MC "approved" the mechanical feed-back linear actuator foil control system, yet conveniently gloss over the fact that the Publuc Interpretation PI_49.pdf

did not, with the MC being grilled over their decision in subsequent PI_52.pdf and PI_54.pdf

2: Here's the coup de grâce: the PI49 application by the cheaters to the MC states

"Electro-Mechanical Actuator such as: Ultra Motion Linear Actuator Series D-A.083AB-HT17-4-2NO-P-RBC3S/RBC3S"

This particular Ultra Motion Model part number tells us that:

D-A.083AB-HT17 indicates the speed/force, such that:

A.083 = Acme Nut, 0.0833 in/rev lead screw

AB = Acme anti-backlash nut

HT 17 = High-Torque NEMA 17 size stepper motor, step angle 1.8 degrees;

4 = 4" stroke length

2NO = 2 Normally Open externally adjustable position switches

P = Precision linear potentiomater

RB3CS = Small stainless steel base rod bearing

RBC3S = Small stainless steel nose rod bearing clevis

3: Now here's PI_53.pdf showing all the "(hydraulic) valves and drive clutches  approved for use by the Measurement Committee". And guess what? The only one approved does NOT have a linear potentiometer like the one the cheaters show in PI49.

I suppose you and surfsailor will claim the cheaters did not use the UM actuator on their PI49:lol:

You lot up there have convicted and executed prisoners on less evidence!!

 

 

 

 

 

You know what's Trump like? You guys whining disingenuously about losing 5 years later, even after ETNZ won the subsequent event in grand style (they didn't even need Russian interference!) - you sound EXACTLY like Trump voters still shrieking their disingenuous bull shit about Hillary. You could save a lot of time by just popping into this thread and typing 'BENGHAZI!!!!!' at three week intervals.

Reality: Hillary is NOT going to jail, and ETNZ got their butts whipped in AC 34 by OR, who orchestrated one of the greatest comebacks in history (that's for YOU, Random, since I know how tough it is for a troll to not get a direct response). Here's the facts:

1) There was no 'mechanical feedback linear actuator control system' - this is something that you made up. Do you even know what those words mean?

2) Component X - which had the potential to be ruled as 'stored energy' (it was a spring) was both ruled legal AND not actually used. So that's a moot point AND irrelevant.

3) The linear actuator that OR did use is on the list of approved, commercially available actuators, in full compliance with the rule. That's what your list of approved valves shows.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

1) There was no 'mechanical feedback linear actuator control system' - this is something that you made up. Do you even know what those words mean?

This is the beauty of the interweb for fuckwits, deadshits and liars.

It does not matter if someone posts proof of their claims as Indo has, you just get your sticky fingers and type shit and hit 'Submit Reply'.

It does not matter that anyone can see that you are a liar because you are anonymous, job done, claim countered.  It does not matter that what they type is bullshit for all to see, the job of placing on record an unsupported denial, has been done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hilarious - a self proclaimed 'sailing expert' who can't read a polar chart defending a self-proclaimed 'hydraulics expert' who doesn't know what an actuator is. With a side of vitriolic, bitter trolling and ad hominem thrown in for good measure.

You guys should get a room!

LOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is clear to anyone looking at the facts is that although TNZ has never called foul, foul was indeed done.  Bleating about it after they were out flanked was a waste of time and would reflect badly on them as the losers.  All they could conceivably do was to admit to themselves that they were fucked-over, and graciously move on.  And in the circumstances that would have been hard to do.

We are talking about the highest level of a sport where even in One-design people cheat, modify equipment and sometimes even get away with it.  So if that happens when the prize is a worthless dust collector, just for the ego of it all, what the fuck should we expect to happen at AC level?  Hundreds of millions invested with careers at stake means that every means possible to win will be tried.

In the end my beef is not that OR expoited the rules and installed an autoride box, but that years after this is still denied.  Cheating is to be expected, lying about something that is tehre for all to see, visibly in the way the boat behaved and in the data record as we have all seen here.  The continued denial and lying is it unforgiveable part.  There was no Australia II lifting of the skirts and showing the keel here as they knew that the reality of it would detract from the win and the reputation of the Company.

I believe i have used the analogy before, but the is "The Emperors New Clothes" fable in modern form.  Everyone can see for themselves what happened, but a collective denial continues even after the little boy says "but he is naked!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's right - ETNZ, who has certainly never shied away from litigation in the AC - never called foul (at least not officially - who knows what the real source for all of this bullshit is). So that leaves the ETNZ interweb fanboys, who (5 years later) are still bitterly clinging to a completely baseless conspiracy - pretty much the definition of poor losers AND poor winners. You know ETNZ won the subsequent event, right?

As for your other BS, you DO know that Indio is not talking about an 'autoride' system. right? It has NOTHING to do with computer controlled flight (as seen in AC35) - In fact, there was no computer connected to OR's foil control system at all. He is talking about  the valve control system on OR's AC 72 that much more accurately (0.5 degree increments) positioned the main lifting foils than the timed electrical signals used by ETNZ. His claim is that the INTERNAL (within the system itself) mechanical stopper (that closed the valve when the foil had moved exactly 0.5 degrees) was actually an EXTERNAL mechanical feedback loop. The measurement committee clearly ruled that it was NOT.

So basically, you can add an inability to comprehend Indio's (admittedly rambling and fractured) viewpoint to your utter inability to read a polar diagram.

 

P.S - OR did release pictures of their system. It actually wasn't what won the regatta - it was already in place before the regatta started (oops - yet another part of your conspiracy crap bites the dust), their speed gains came from wing trim and completely different upwind modes - but it WAS revealed.

https://www.cupexperience.com/blog/2013/11/ac72-foil-control-system-2/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

1) There was no 'mechanical feedback linear actuator control system' - this is something that you made up. Do you even know what those words mean?

2) Component X - which had the potential to be ruled as 'stored energy' (it was a spring) was both ruled legal AND not actually used. So that's a moot point AND irrelevant.

3) The linear actuator that OR did use is on the list of approved, commercially available actuators, in full compliance with the rule. That's what your list of approved valves shows.

 

 

So you're now claiming that the cheaters did not use the Ultra Motion linear actuator they identified in their hydraulic circuit in PI49? LOL - you people are so predictable! Why would they use the device they quoted, powered by the stepper motor,  had Normally-Open externally adjustable position switches AND a precision linear potentiometer, if they weren't going to adjust constantly the actuator through positional feedback from the linear potentiometer to maintain foil position? Do you even know what a linear potentiometer is used for?

2) Component X - which had the potential to be ruled as 'stored energy' (it was a spring) was both ruled legal AND not actually used. So that's a moot point AND irrelevant.

You're right: the "spring" was a red herring - the cheaters never identified it as a "spring"

3) The linear actuator that OR did use is on the list of approved, commercially available actuators, in full compliance with the rule. That's what your list of approved valves shows.

Bullshit! The one on the approved list has no linear potentiometer. The one the cheaters covered in PI49 does.

You've just flushed your credibility and claims down the toilet!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

...The measurement committee clearly ruled that it was NOT.

Another blatant lie - do you people ever lie straight in bed?? The Measurement Committee was NEVER ASKED TO RULE on the mechanical feed-back. Go read PI49...

Quote

P.S - OR did release pictures of their system. It actually wasn't what won the regatta - it was already in place before the regatta started (oops - yet another part of your conspiracy crap bites the dust), their speed gains came from wing trim and completely different upwind modes - but it WAS revealed.

https://www.cupexperience.com/blog/2013/11/ac72-foil-control-system-2/

AGAIN..which one of the 3 versions they put out into the public domain are we expected to believe?? :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Indio -  Since you still have no idea whatsoever how the system worked, I suggest you watch the video Stingray posted. It will be enlightening for you, and you'll be able to stop seething and spraying flecks of foam all over your keyboard after five straight years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, surfsailor said:

You guys should get a room!

LOL

 

Surfsailor stay down...  or maybe come up with some evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

@ Indio -  Since you still have no idea whatsoever how the system worked, I suggest you watch the video Stingray posted. It will be enlightening for you, and you'll be able to stop seething and spraying flecks of foam all over your keyboard after five straight years.

 

 

I've got a copy of the video spinray posted. I also have the other two versions put into the public domain by the cheaters, including the NZ presentation they made at IPEC conference - all of them different.

so...which version are we expected to believe?? You have no fucking clue do you??:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Let's see the other 'versions'. But yes, I'm going by the one OR presented on multiple occasions that was both actually on the boat, and ruled legal by the MC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I see why when I clicked on this thread last night it blue screened my computer, too much 'noise'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ Let's see the other 'versions'. But yes, I'm going by the one OR presented on multiple occasions that was both actually on the boat, and ruled legal by the MC.

Search is your friend - it's your story...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Actually, no - YOU are the one claiming OR presented multiple different systems - and claimed you 'have them'. Put up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, surfsailor said:

^ Actually, no - YOU are the one claiming OR presented multiple different systems - and claimed you 'have them'. Put up or shut up.

He can’t, just put that fool on ignore and  enjoy your day - cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, surfsailor said:

^ That's right - ETNZ, who has certainly never shied away from litigation in the AC - never called foul (at least not officially - who knows what the real source for all of this bullshit is)

 

Pretty sure you bailed me up arguing the direct opposite earlier in the thread mate... ETNZ making "false accusations" and all that - you can't have it both ways ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I completely conceded that point  - IE that ETNZ did not officially make accuse OR of cheating. Nonetheless, accusations were made and litigated in the press and social media -  I doubt will ever know who started this bull shit (the phantom '747 pilot'?), but I certainly wouldn't rule out someone from ETNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 4:17 PM, random said:

We need more of that stuff here.  Some cooter on FakeBook.  Nice.

He is referring to the originator of the " herbie " comment. That person  later claimed that what he had brought into conversation was just a theory of his and one that could not have worked . As certain factions were , and for some still are, grasping at every straw they could fine it was quickly pronounced gospel.  The comments by the author of the term of the non existence of such an item was quoted  in several news outlets a few years ago, you know when all this was first brought up but never was and still hasn't been  proved . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five years after the fact not one person of the hundreds with actual knowledge or connection to the event have even come up with one accurate piece of information with regards to " herbie ". Not only that but those same people with actual skin in the game have not even raised the question of such a situation publicly . Only a few hold outs here on an obscure sailing blog continue to deny reality. At least its something to read before the upcoming AC in Italy :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, maxmini said:

He is referring to the originator of the " herbie " comment. That person  later claimed that what he had brought into conversation was just a theory of his and one that could not have worked . As certain factions were , and for some still are, grasping at every straw they could fine it was quickly pronounced gospel.  The comments by the author of the term of the non existence of such an item was quoted  in several news outlets a few years ago, you know when all this was first brought up but never was and still hasn't been  proved . 

Nice more unsubstantiated hearsay.

Words are just that, what happened, video of the foil moving several times a second and the data record showing dramatatic and sudden improvements in performance for no explained credible reason, are all I need. 

If this ever did go to court the evidence is there.  But this is sport where bullshit, denial and bar gossip seem to count for more than actual documented evidence.  And then there was Airbus, the company that controls all wing surfaces by machine because it knows that they do it better.  Can you imagine the Airbus guys looking at each other wondering why these fools think they can control that surface, react in time?  Then say nothing?

I feel for JS I really do.  Deep down he knows that AC34 was not a fair fight in the end, then when they square up again he gets his arse handed to him.  Can't be a good experience internally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ I completely conceded that point  - IE that ETNZ did not officially make accuse OR of cheating. Nonetheless, accusations were made and litigated in the press and social media -  I doubt will ever know who started this bull shit (the phantom '747 pilot'?), but I certainly wouldn't rule out someone from ETNZ.

What *is* on record is ETNZ's request to MC - which was never accepted by MC though right?

So there *is* clear evidence to support the fact the ETNZ questioned the legality of the system. - Note this is not the same as accusing someone of cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultra Motion part number_ D-A.pdf is the Ultra Motion Linear Actuator cited in the cheaters' PI49 application to the Measurement Committee who approved the hydraulic circuit.

Now lets see the apologists turning themselves inside out trying to convince they didn't use the actual UM Linear actuator they cited - the one with the linear potentiometer which is not on the list of approved valves, etc.:lol:

8 minutes ago, maxmini said:

Five years after the fact not one person of the hundreds with actual knowledge or connection to the event have even come up with one accurate piece of information with regards to " herbie ". Not only that but those same people with actual skin in the game have not even raised the question of such a situation publicly . Only a few hold outs here on an obscure sailing blog continue to deny reality. At least its something to read before the upcoming AC in Italy :) 

Actually, Dalton called them cheats, as did Bruno Troublé and a few other prominent people "with actual skin in the game", so we're in good company. Now where are your sources supporting your claims they didn't cheat?? Oh, I forgot you're happy to take their words for it..your defence relies entirely on the presumption that someone -ANYone - involved would have come out by now with information - notwithstanding highly probably air-tight NDA agreements they may have signed, especially after the King post lead convictions. What's it like living in a world relying on leaks for information??

How do you explain the Ultra Motion actuator they used - or didn't use??:lol:

Trumpism is well and truly alive in your environment..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, surfsailor said:

^ Let's see the other 'versions'. But yes, I'm going by the one OR presented on multiple occasions that was both actually on the boat, and ruled legal by the MC.

Actually, why don't you ask Jack Griffin where all the pretty pictures have disappeared to in the article dated November 2013 linked by spinray, and then compare them to the youtube IPENZ presentation in 2014  linked by (surprise!surprise!) spinray above. And then explain the difference between the two - spinray at the time tried to spin it that the cheaters were still "evolving" their foil control system - several months after AC34*!! :lol:

You boys carry on with your denial - maybe to you it is a just a river in Egypt!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indio is a very sick man, he sets himself up as an expert in hydraulics and tries to baffle everyone with his supposed knowledge but with out any real facts.  Now he is commenting on USA politics, again with out knowing any facts except what he gleans from the very left wing media in New Zealand.  Thank god he is not polluting the VOR thread like he did last time around, his lack of knowledge was unbelievably.  And remember all this is from a man who has never been is a sailboat or has never been in a sailboat race.  I suspect he is a downtrodden Public Servant who gets his thrills trolling the ineterweb.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trt131 said:

Indio is a very sick man, he sets himself up as an expert in hydraulics and tries to baffle everyone with his supposed knowledge but with out any real facts.  Now he is commenting on USA politics, again with out knowing any facts except what he gleans from the very left wing media in New Zealand.  Thank god he is not polluting the VOR thread like he did last time around, his lack of knowledge was unbelievably.  And remember all this is from a man who has never been is a sailboat or has never been in a sailboat race.  I suspect he is a downtrodden Public Servant who gets his thrills trolling the ineterweb.

Actually, our NZ media don't even bother with US politics - they just regurgitate what Fox dishes out to dazzle all the Trumpanzees, or links to whatever media site generates the most clicks. We just enjoy watching a President lie to the gullible as he governs by Twitter :lol:. What's there not to enjoy about that??

Btw, is there a reason you've got -15 reputation rating?? Or are there astute ACA members who see through your bullshit??B)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Indio, stick to golf a sport you actually play and stay the fuck away from sailing

59fb6db893250_Transfertosomeone.jpg.2ee8060d3d6ea673d42bbd340f1d53d2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Indio said:

How do you explain the Ultra Motion actuator they used - or didn't use??:lol:

Trumpism is well and truly alive in your environment..

So, Comey, you have been insulting and :lol: all that did not agree with you here. Do you have any proof or your accusation or you keep harping The MC did not rule on it ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

So, Comey, you have been insulting and :lol: all that did not agree with you here. Do you have any proof or your accusation or you keep harping The MC did not rule on it ? :D

Indo has posted details of his accusation, more that anyone else here from what I have seen.  Very convincing.  Not saying it's you, but there are plenty of fuckwits here who apparently have not read the details, or they cannot or do not want to comprehend it..

Me?  I'm Australian so I have no filter of Nationality to look through, although crew wise I should have been supporting OR against NZ shouldn't I?  But I stood back and looked at what happened objectively and I saw cheating, then looked for evidence and found it. 

I can see why some have bought up comparisons to Trump here, it is the same behaviour, denying the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rh2600 said:

What *is* on record is ETNZ's request to MC - which was never accepted by MC though right?

So there *is* clear evidence to support the fact the ETNZ questioned the legality of the system. - Note this is not the same as accusing someone of cheating.

So is that an accusation of 'cheating'? Indio also claims Dalton accused them of cheating, but then again, he's apparently off his meds, so I'd take that with a grain of salt. Either way, who cares - the charges were leveled by somebody, but turned out to be bull shit. Kind of like Trump's claims about the voter fraud.

One important point - which of course has completely escaped Random - is that both the unsuccessful protest (AFTER the system was approved, so the MC DID look at the system) and Indio were/are referring to OR's incremental manual foil adjust system (controlled from buttons on the wheel), not automatic flight control. In other words, they are talking about something that has nothing to do with Random's BS narrative.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

So is that an accusation of 'cheating'? Indio also claims Dalton accused them of cheating, but then again, he's apparently off his meds, so I'd take that with a grain of salt. Either way, who cares - the charges were leveled by somebody, but turned out to be bull shit. Kind of like Trump's claims about the voter fraud.

One important point - which of course has completely escaped Random - is that both the unsuccessful protest (AFTER the system was approved, so the MC DID look at the system) and Indio were/are referring to OR's incremental manual foil adjust system (controlled from buttons on the wheel), not automatic flight control. In other words, they are talking about something that has nothing to do with Random's BS narrative.

 

Depends really, on what the MC finds out.

If we're competing, and I'm unsure as to whether what you are doing is within the rules, and I ask for MC to have look, then I'm not sure if you are cheating yet or not, because 'cheating' will be based on what the MC rules. If the MC ruled, and found it was illegal, then I'd possibly consider you were either trying to cheat, or perhaps you just thought it was legitimate tech that had been approved.

If the item was ruled illegal, and your team had a history of deliberate cheating, and if I felt you were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the MC in the first instance, then I'd be inclined to suggest you were indeed cheating.

So what have we here?

1. ETNZ was asking for MC review of specific items they felt were missed/overlooked/obfuscated in previous review
2. MC didn't do the review
3. OTUSA do have a history of cheating
4. As a result of 2 - we don't know if the specific items were legal or not
5. Even if it was illegal we don't know if OTUSA was trying to pull a fast one or not

Given your implication that Random and Indio are shadowboxing ghosts - ideas that are conspiracy theories that have never been articulated or seen in reality - I don't think its fair to assume they aren't talking about the same issue, albeit trying to land blows on different parts of where they think the body is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, surfsailor said:

So is that an accusation of 'cheating'? Indio also claims Dalton accused them of cheating, but then again, he's apparently off his meds, so I'd take that with a grain of salt. Either way, who cares - the charges were leveled by somebody, but turned out to be bull shit. Kind of like Trump's claims about the voter fraud.

One important point - which of course has completely escaped Random - is that both the unsuccessful protest (AFTER the system was approved, so the MC DID look at the system) and Indio were/are referring to OR's incremental manual foil adjust system (controlled from buttons on the wheel), not automatic flight control. In other words, they are talking about something that has nothing to do with Random's BS narrative.

 

You really do have difficulties with comprehension, compounded by your inability to follow chronological sequence of events.

1: The MC did NOT look at the linear actuator operation - repeating it ad infinitum does not make it correct - you're still lying! Or at worst, unable to comprehend the written words..

2: The MC fucked up in their approval of the hydraulic circuit in PI49, and in their subsequent decisions in PI52 and PI54 which prompted ETNZ's application to IJ.

3: Class Rule 19.2(e) stated "The use of stored energy and non-manual power is prohibited, except

(ii) for electrical operation of hydraulic valves.....These systems may be hard wired directly between the manual inputs and shall be hard wired between the manual inputs and the valve(s) "...didn't happen. Hardwired it to the stepper motor driving the linear actuator with an integral linear potentiometer :lol:.

4: Even the International Jury recognised the mechanical feedback in the cheaters' PI49 circuit: JN120.pdf, Article 14: "PI 49
also clearly showed a system that included mechanical feedback."
Article15: "...the presence, absence or details
of Component X did not have any material effect on whether PI 49 clearly showed a mechanical feedback system or the function of the system shown."

Go easy on the weed brother!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, surfsailor said:

One important point - which of course has completely escaped Random - is that both the unsuccessful protest (AFTER the system was approved, so the MC DID look at the system) and Indio were/are referring to OR's incremental manual foil adjust system (controlled from buttons on the wheel), not automatic flight control. In other words, they are talking about something that has nothing to do with Random's BS narrative.

What the fuck was that word salad about? 

Buttons on the wheel ...

up, up, opps down no up again fuck a gust down down down down, up, up nooo down ahhhh fcuckcrash!!!!!!

Yeah sure.  I saw the video of the foil movements and they were not being made by any thumb on a button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, surfsailor said:

...referring to OR's incremental manual foil adjust system (controlled from buttons on the wheel)..

This is the magical ability of Spithill to adjust the foil in 0.5-degree increments, from the HT17 stepper-motor drive of the linear actuator, with a 1.8-degree step angle?? :lol: Oh silly me, you're about to tell us the cheaters didn't use it...

Just to remind you: the Ultra Motion linear Actuator used by the cheaters in their PI49 is Model D-A.083AB-HT17-4-2NO-P-RBC3S/RBC3S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Indio said:

This is the magical ability of Spithill to adjust the foil in 0.5-degree increments, from the HT17 stepper-motor drive of the linear actuator, with a 1.8-degree step angle?? :lol: Oh silly me, you're about to tell us the cheaters didn't use it...

Just to remind you: the Ultra Motion linear Actuator used by the cheaters in their PI49 is Model D-A.083AB-HT17-4-2NO-P-RBC3S/RBC3S

you're an idiot

watch this and tell me if you still think the same bullshit as you think now

https://youtu.be/QZ_a8VXhiSc?t=52

and don't just watch a little bit of it

WATCH IT ALL YOU PUSSY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the link about?

 

bored-secretary-polishing-nails-talking-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites