Recommended Posts

 

27 minutes ago, random said:

Yes I had seen that video before, it's got more holes in it that a Kings Cross junky.

Now about the 0.5 degree foil shifts e.g below are screen shots of the presentation in the video showing the telemetry of a bow dip, about 1:11:00 in.

Notice the number on the foil rake, 0.0125 deg

image.png.69ab83d7ae52e84080fd262748cd68d8.png

then to 0.968 deg (delta = 0.9555 deg)

image.png.3a3f831ce9fa11a5c66c1f0d4ffcbe6a.png

After a button press or two more the reading is 2.720 deg  (delta = 1.752 deg) So is this 0.5 deg increments?

image.png.1291c5c178b04a709b267842f130e809.png

If you check the video out you will see multiple button pushes but the resulting change is not divisible by 0.5.

Here are the button pushes to the the line is the 2.72 deg point

image.png.c59cf8e7349e2881281190a5a9b2bc18.png

Clearly the rake changes are not 0.5 deg increments. 

So the system was already capable of variable increments before Herbie was fitted.  More of the bullshit debunked.

 

Yep - the foils were not moving in 0.5 degree increments in February 2013, when that data is from - or even predictable increments.. That's why - 6 months later - they implemented the 0.5 degree incremented system.

 

5aa1f5b4c598c_Randumbswaterloo.png.1ab47b5539ba984e4f0ef7e34f25702c.png

:)

Share this post


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

 

Yep - the foils were not moving in 0.5 degree increments in February 2013, when that data is from - or even predictable increments.. That's why - 6 months later - they implemented the 0.5 degree incremented system.

 

5aa1f5b4c598c_Randumbswaterloo.png.1ab47b5539ba984e4f0ef7e34f25702c.png

 

Linky or it's stinky.  Seems fair, they have trouble controlling it so tha answer is to increase the increments?  Really?

Evidence is required because of your long history of bullshitting your fellow sailors.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Linky or it's stinky.  Seems fair, they have trouble controlling it so tha answer is to increase the increments?  Really?

Evidence is required because of your long history of bullshitting your fellow sailors.

Trolling is your game, not mine. You have literally spewed pages of bullshit. 

 The foils were moving unpredictably in response to the timed signal from the buttons. Loads were massive and all over the map. So OR developed a way to accurately index their foil rake control (like an indexed shifter on a bike) where each button push corresponded to 0.5 degree change (either positive or negative, depending on which button you pushed). That precision made it much easier for OR to duplicate fast settings etc. 

 

Share this post


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

Trolling is your game, not mine. You have literally spewed pages of bullshit. 

 The foils were moving unpredictably in response to the timed signal from the buttons. Loads were massive and all over the map. So OR developed a way to accurately index their foil rake control (like an indexed shifter on a bike) where each button push corresponded to 0.5 degree change (either positive or negative, depending on which button you pushed). That precision made it much easier for OR to duplicate fast settings etc. 

 

No here he says "it's all by judgement".  Yeah right.  But I thinking he knows more than you do.  I have stopped the video at the relevant place, just the sort of guy I am.

But having an electrically operated stepper was a great innovation, as without it, herbie could not be connected.  Although it explains how it works, it does not explain how the same movement eliminates the effect of different hydraulic pressures, the reason they supposedly put it on in the first place!  Seems to me that the stepper opens the valve that is then subject to the pressure available.  It does not make sense.

BTW, do you have any data on post stepper motor?  No?  Hahahaaaaaa.

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The linear actuators OR used to open and close the valves for the rake control hydraulics have been discussed ad nauseum since 2013. You might need to scroll back thru a few hundred of your own troll posts to find it - good luck.

:)

Share this post


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

Seems fair, they have trouble controlling it so tha answer is to increase the increments?  Really?

You are the one with no idea. The reason why the increments are are small and different before the implementation of the 0.5 degree system is that the buttons used to work on the basis of it raked more the longer the button was pushed. this is where the problem was. It was a totally imprecise system. Whoever was pressing the button had no idea of exactly how much the board would move when the button was pressed because a fraction of a  second longer meant a bit more rake. that is why the numbers are so inconsistent. They changed to a system where one press of the button moved the board 0.5 degrees. ETNZ used a system similar to what Oracle was using when the above recording was done and they commented that their system was imprecise and they were lucky to get within 1 degree of the figure they needed.

Do not mistake the fact they could accurately measure where the foil was at any moment for the ability to put the foil to any particular position.

Share this post


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

The linear actuators OR used to open and close the valves for the rake control hydraulics have been discussed ad nauseum since 2013. You might need to scroll back thru a few hundred of your own troll posts to find it - good luck.

:)

Thanks but I think i will listen to the presenter in the video rather than you.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

They changed to a system where one press of the button moved the board 0.5 degrees.

That's not what the guy in the video said.

If you have any telemetry records, similar to that I posted to back up your claims, I'm waiting patiently.  Till then, all you are offering is more words/

Looking forward to seeing the steps in the foil rake graph!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ No need. I know your ADHD and the large number of squirrels in your mom’s basement makes reading difficult for you, so I took the liberty of quoting the key sentence. You’re welcome!

:)

Helmsman Jimmy Spithill had buttons on the wheel to rake the daggerboard fore and aft in precise increments of 0.5 deg, giving him better control over lift for hydrofoiling.

http://www.sailweb.co.uk/america's cup/16048/oracle-team-usa-reveal-foil-control-system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and a bit more actual video referenced proof. Because as they say, a picture is worth a thousand shit talk words.

This is edited from the video that random posted of the AC45 fitted with auto ride height control.

The last two close ups are slowed down, showing the same motion at the same frequency as my first video of the AC72 did with the end of the pole which was following the foil box movements. The audio is slightly offset but I left it as it fell from premiere rather than uncoupling it and doctoring anything.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I give up - I can’t make it work. 

Thats cool footage of the AC 45. Why is that relevant?

Edit: oh wait - you think the AC45 footage that Randumb culled from a 2016 FB post is showing ‘fly by wire’? Because it sure looks to me like they’re using the same incremental manual system they used to win AC34.

 

 

Share this post


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

Thats cool footage of the AC 45. Why is that relevant?

  1. because it shows the pole moving with the foil
  2. because it is the same behaviour as seen in the 72 footage that barfy posted where it was claimed that the poles are not and indicator of foil movement.
  3. because the movements are beyond those a human can control with flexing foils
  4. because it shows the same less than 0.5 deg movements
  5. because it shows that the 72 had at least the sophistication that the 45 had ... all of a sudden, from one race to the next!

Farkin cheats!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

^ No need. I know your ADHD and the large number of squirrels in your mom’s basement makes reading difficult for you, so I took the liberty of quoting the key sentence. You’re welcome!

:)

Helmsman Jimmy Spithill had buttons on the wheel to rake the daggerboard fore and aft in precise increments of 0.5 deg, giving him better control over lift for hydrofoiling.

http://www.sailweb.co.uk/america's cup/16048/oracle-team-usa-reveal-foil-control-system

So you got no video showing 0.5 deg foil adjustments?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha. Too bad it’s a different boat, with a different foil gantry, with a different frequency from what the first video purported to show, all taking place 3 years after AC34. Sure, they could’ve reduced the increment. Or maybe the foiling 45s don’t even have incremental adjustment. Who cares - it’s an AC45. Which, by the way, was mostly designed waaay before ORs AC72.

But one thing it definitely does NOT show is ORs Cup winning AC72.

Share this post


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

So you got no video showing 0.5 deg foil adjustments?

On the squirrels in your mom’s basement? No - that’s up to you.

:)

Share this post


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

So you got no video showing 0.5 deg foil adjustments?

On the squirrels in your mom’s basement? No - that’s up to you.

 

So you have definitely got nothing?  Nothing from all the video from all the races ... you got nothing.

Some things never change.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Nope, nothing changes - not factual reality, and not the behavior of internet trolls. OR will still have pulled off the greatest comeback in sailing history, and you’ll still be flogging this dead horse for another 20 pages.

20 in a row!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after the so called trolls present evidence, you got words?  That all you got?

Even the video you posted contradicted your claims!  Fucking funni shit.

3eA2qMp.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a couple of pics from the "battle of the boats" clearly show the lifting gantry as an integral part of the foil box.

Cmon windsurf boy, lets see some pics.

 

first diagrammatic of the pole attached to the front of the foil box

foilbox.jpg.2c20aa826ebcaf982cb9d7358d025311.jpg

 

second a picture of the gantry pole clearly coming out of the foil box. notice the space forward of the pole where the foil box can move forward above the pivot point.

foilboxwithpole.jpg.f84d5e670b1e416f905959944f03853a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^this also clearly shows why movements of the top of the pole are much greater due to them being so far above the pivot point at the bottom of the hull.

The foil as it comes out of the hull is just below the pivot point, the amount of foil showing whilst foiling upwind is the same as the foil showing at the top of the box. This is the movement inebrieated? saw at the top of the box. the movement at the top of the gantry pole is the same as the movement would be at the lifting surface of the foil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so don't give me anymore shit about the gantry pole not being attached to the foil box.

out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome work barfy. 

SO we have proof that the pole is firmly attached to the case and video evidence that the foil was moving faster then anyone can press a button.

Farkin cheats I say!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Awesome work barfy. 

SO we have proof that the pole is firmly attached to the case and video evidence that the foil was moving faster then anyone can press a button.

Farkin cheats I say!

faster than someone can press a button hey??

so you're saying that you cant press a button two times a second??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the part where the fuckwits here said that moving a foil like that in the video was bad, upsets stuff.  Then we see a boat clearly doing the very thing they said was bad Karma!!!!

51aa769218bb31120b5447b292a847d8.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're on crack mate

try to find a video if jimmy going in a straight line without touching the buttons and people will belive you

until then, keep going with some ultra magnified and grainy footage of fairly different boats

the 45's foils would need to move a whole lot more because of the inherent instability of the shape

look at the 72's foils with the surface piercing tip, they have some stability built into them

when jimmy moved the foils that fast, it was because he was playing with tiny increments, and it takes lots of them to keep the boat stable

just fuck off, if ETNZ themselves didn't spot herbie from day one like you are saying it was obvious from, then it can be assumed that there was nothing there

they only protested at the end as a last ditch effort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

can't find any more AC34 vidys...Jack G has lost them off his site. Please to let me know where a library lies.

I have R17 and 19, and Never Once does Jimmy show both hands, always behind Kyle L.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I have R19, and there are two shots locked off that show the gantry pole moving, which is afixed to the foil box. Actually running all the way down the box from the OR schematic.

This video shows proof that some foil movements were at a frequency of 3 per second. Jimmy only managed one per second in the data that OR released.

What is driving the foils at such a high frequency and making some quite large moves?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picked up during the last group meeting:

"Hey you know what? Those guys at SA, you can throw whatever dumb ideas at them, they will keep fighting to explain you the truth. You just have to continue denying them using whatever argument, even making your own, and they will keep spending time and energy trying to convince you. It's so fun, you should try some times."

I must admit, they are pretty good at it. Speaking of truth and evidence, I would like video, data, whatever proof that a F1 driver is using his foot to break and accelerate his car. We never see his foot and it would be so easy to have that controlled by a control unit on board the F1... But let's speak of that in another thread on another forum!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Picked up during the last group meeting:

"Hey you know what? Those guys at SA, you can throw whatever dumb ideas at them, they will keep fighting to explain you the truth. You just have to continue denying them using whatever argument, even making your own, and they will keep spending time and energy trying to convince you. It's so fun, you should try some times."

I must admit, they are pretty good at it. Speaking of truth and evidence, I would like video, data, whatever proof that a F1 driver is using his foot to break and accelerate his car. We never see his foot and it would be so easy to have that controlled by a control unit on board the F1... But let's speak of that in another thread on another forum!

hahahahahahaha +1

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Trolling is your game, not mine. You have literally spewed pages of bullshit. 

 The foils were moving unpredictably in response to the timed signal from the buttons. Loads were massive and all over the map. So OR developed a way to accurately index their foil rake control (like an indexed shifter on a bike) where each button push corresponded to 0.5 degree change (either positive or negative, depending on which button you pushed). That precision made it much easier for OR to duplicate fast settings etc. 

 

 

Ok you just surprised me Grommet: by proving there's something you know less about than AC sail boats. :o

Standard indexing on bikes just pulls or releases a cable by a fixed amount. If you are lucky that will coincide accurately with the gears, if it's mal-adjusted, they'll all be wrong. No dubious little valve to move it precisely to the gear you wanted and hold it there no matter the tension in the chain, the terrain, the stretch in the cable etc - so big fail on that analogy:(

 

8 hours ago, surfsailor said:

Hahaha. Too bad it’s a different boat, with a different foil gantry, with a different frequency from what the first video purported to show, all taking place 3 years after AC34. Sure, they could’ve reduced the increment. Or maybe the foiling 45s don’t even have incremental adjustment. Who cares - it’s an AC45. Which, by the way, was mostly designed waaay before ORs AC72.

But one thing it definitely does NOT show is ORs Cup winning AC72.

 

There were two iterations of the AC45 rule. One was a non-folier implemented for the AC34 ACWS circus (Leadgate remember - massive scandal)

The foiling version you are referring to and as shown in the video ^ is the 2nd generation foiling version implemented for AC35 and was not designed before the AC72 but at the time of the AC62 ( which were controversially dropped remember - massive scandal)

Come on, even you should notice the patterns by now, or you could ask your Mum

1 OTUSA scandals

2 You're usually wrong

Which would tend to lead to which conclusion? :lol::lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, barfy said:

a couple of pics from the "battle of the boats" clearly show the lifting gantry as an integral part of the foil box.

Cmon windsurf boy, lets see some pics.

 

first diagrammatic of the pole attached to the front of the foil box

foilbox.jpg.2c20aa826ebcaf982cb9d7358d025311.jpg

 

second a picture of the gantry pole clearly coming out of the foil box. notice the space forward of the pole where the foil box can move forward above the pivot point.

foilboxwithpole.jpg.f84d5e670b1e416f905959944f03853a.jpg

Of course the lifting gantry is attached to the foil box - that's how it works. But the foil itself is curved as well - I would expect a small amount of articulation relative to the box to keep the compressive loads on the gantry as axial as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, barfy said:

But I have R19, and there are two shots locked off that show the gantry pole moving, which is afixed to the foil box. Actually running all the way down the box from the OR schematic.

This video shows proof that some foil movements were at a frequency of 3 per second. Jimmy only managed one per second in the data that OR released.

What is driving the foils at such a high frequency and making some quite large moves?

 

What this video shows is OR going into a tack - see the guys running across the back of the boat, and the windward foil hitting the water? Of course you knew that - that's why you ended your edit where you did. 

The foil is adjustable in 3 axis - x (cant), y(rake) and z(depth). Going into a tack they would have been adjusting at least x and y. Both would appear as movement of the wing. This video shows nothing.

Try again.
 

:)

 

Share this post


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

 

Ok you just surprised me Grommet: by proving there's something you know less about than AC sail boats. :o

Standard indexing on bikes just pulls or releases a cable by a fixed amount. If you are lucky that will coincide accurately with the gears, if it's mal-adjusted, they'll all be wrong. No dubious little valve to move it precisely to the gear you wanted and hold it there no matter the tension in the chain, the terrain, the stretch in the cable etc - so big fail on that analogy:(

 

Sure. My analogy was about indexing, not how the indexing is mechanically implemented. But sure, let's follow your 'reasoning' down the wormhole of deflection that you are so invested in - apparently you are completely oblivious to the existence of electronic shifters for bikes, which (interestingly enough) are self positioning. Duh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_gear-shifting_system

 

3 hours ago, nav said:

There were two iterations of the AC45 rule. One was a non-folier implemented for the AC34 ACWS circus (Leadgate remember - massive scandal)

The foiling version you are referring to and as shown in the video ^ is the 2nd generation foiling version implemented for AC35 and was not designed before the AC72 but at the time of the AC62 ( which were controversially dropped remember - massive scandal)

Come on, even you should notice the patterns by now, or you could ask your Mum

1 OTUSA scandals

2 You're usually wrong

 

 

Yes - they added foils to the boats. That's why I wrote " Who cares - it’s an AC45. Which, by the way, was mostly designed waaay before ORs AC72". See the word 'mostly'? Yep - words have meanings.

Now, on to your deflection. Did they change the control systems? Who knows - certainly not you. But I can assure you that a video of an AC45F foiling proves nothing about OR's AC72.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, barfy said:

^

can't find any more AC34 vidys...Jack G has lost them off his site. Please to let me know where a library lies.

I have R17 and 19, and Never Once does Jimmy show both hands, always behind Kyle L.

 

OMG - it's a conspiracy!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!

LOL

Share this post


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

Sure. My analogy was about indexing, not how the indexing is mechanically implemented. But sure, let's follow your 'reasoning' down the wormhole of deflection that you are so invested in - apparently you are completely oblivious to the existence of electronic shifters for bikes, which (interestingly enough) are self positioning. Duh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_gear-shifting_system

 

Yes - they added foils to the boats. That's why I wrote " Who cares - it’s an AC45. Which, by the way, was mostly designed waaay before ORs AC72". See the word 'mostly'? Yep - words have meanings.

Now, on to your deflection. Did they change the control systems? Who knows - certainly not you. But I can assure you that a video of an AC45F foiling proves nothing about OR's AC72.

 

Haahahahahahahaaaaaaa!  Gear shifting system ... hahahahahhaaaaaa that fucking funni!

885e39de89d01b0452da242742484522.jpg

1259088123983.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2018 at 4:53 PM, Team_GBR said:

Finally, a number of aerodynamics experts stated very clear that there was no benefit to moving the whole foil back and forth at that speed and that it was actually detrimental to speed, unlike a flap on the back of a wing (as per aircraft wings). This is because a flap deflects already attached flow while moving the whole foil simply increases the separation bubble and disturbs initial flow. 

This is a great example of some of the uninformed shit that gets posted here.  Shit that is so blatantly wrong it hurts my bullshit detector, it pegs out.

After posting video evidence that these boats rotate the entire foil very quickly on a bearing near the bottom of the boat, we get the above from GBR.

YCMTSU!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

faster than someone can press a button hey??

so you're saying that you cant press a button two times a second??

three times a second, with different degrees of movement for every press...yup, i'm saying a linear button can't pull this off.

but again, 

I post evidence hoping someone will retort with evidence and we will have a debate.

but all i get is the fucking troll army

Share this post


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

OMG - it's a conspiracy!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!

LOL

all i said muppet is that I only have access to two races atm...and *every single shot of the wheel is occluded*.

i do not draw any conclusions from this, only ask for more "data". you know, hard facts. (oh, ya na, you have no idea of what a fact is).

I then ask for any ideas on where to get footage of the last half of the races.

Could you please help out?

or just talk shit.

Actually you go on iggy now,

hoping there are some folks to have a debate with out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleaned up the last video, 

Please if anyone can point me to a library of AC34 races that would be great. I've a couple more points to look for in the footage.

Cheers

 

Share this post


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

Cleaned up the last video, 

Please if anyone can point me to a library of AC34 races that would be great. I've a couple more points to look for in the footage.

Cheers

 

That’s great footage of OR going into a tack. See the guys running across the back of the boat? Of course you did- that’s why you ended your video where you did. It’s too bad it doesn’t show what you think/are pretending it does.  

Guess what - your slides don’t show whether the gantry is ‘rigidly fixed’ to the foil box, either. Any more than Randum’s trolling slides do.

But hey - don’t let reality get in the way of your bitter, delusional fantasy! 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, barfy said:

Cleaned up the last video, 

Please if anyone can point me to a library of AC34 races that would be great. I've a couple more points to look for in the footage.

Cheers

 

Good job barfy, I also see the pole and the foil moving, up to 3 times in a second.

I agree with surfsailor we may only see the gauntry, but, IMO, it is the head of the foil.

It debunks a few theories:

- we don't see the foil moving so we have no proof

- the gauntry moves but not the foil

- There is no gain to have the foil moving that fast

- There is not enough energy produced for that

Also, even if JS was able to push 3 times in a second there is no ways he could have made 3 decisions of correction in a second.

So, IMO, there is only one explanation, it was an automated correction system, either internal or external.

I think, that if others accept the video above, that is where the discussion should be.

Again, I don't think OR cheated, but we can try to explain these moves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Each button push sends a timed signal to the linear actuator that controls the valve that - in turn - opens and sends hydraulic fluid to the big cylinders that move the foils. On OR’s system - because they mounted the valve in the board casing and the actuator (that controlled the valve) on the hull, they were able to get each button push to correspond to 0.5 degrees of movement.

So if Jimmy wanted to move the board 1.5 degrees, he could push the button quickly three times in a row, and get that result - the linear actuator would extend the required amount almost instantly (in three quick jumps), and the hydraulics and board position would catch up. The motion of the board over such a wide translation could be ‘jerky’ due to impact loads on the foil. Since the video is showing a transition (tack), a 1.5 degrees rake angle change is entirely reasonable. 

But that does not explain the AC45F, unless they added indexing systems to them during the refit. From the foils, that looks like the class legal AC45F, and in any case, OR certainly would not have been showing video of any fly-by-wire system on FB in 2016, nearly a year before AC35 - we can rule that out. And of course, class legal AC45Fs have no ‘automated correction system’. 

Occam’s razor would suggest that these edited videos show normal operation of foiling cats, 8 in a row notwithstanding. 

Share this post


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

^ Each button push sends a timed signal to the linear actuator that controls the valve that - in turn - opens and sends hydraulic fluid to the big cylinders that move the foils. On OR’s system - because they mounted the valve in the board casing and the actuator (that controlled the valve) on the hull, they were able to get each button push to correspond to 0.5 degrees of movement.

So if Jimmy wanted to move the board 1.5 degrees, he could push the button quickly three times in a row, and get that result - the linear actuator would extend the required amount almost instantly (in three quick jumps), and the hydraulics and board position would catch up. The motion of the board over such a wide translation could be ‘jerky’ due to impact loads on the foil. Since the video is showing a transition (tack), a 1.5 degrees rake angle change is entirely reasonable. 

But that does not explain the AC45F, unless they added indexing systems to them during the refit. From the foils, that looks like the class legal AC45F, and in any case, OR certainly would not have been showing video of any fly-by-wire system on FB in 2016, nearly a year before AC35 - we can rule that out. And of course, class legal AC45Fs have no ‘automated correction system’. 

Occam’s razor would suggest that these edited videos show normal operation of foiling cats, 8 in a row notwithstanding. 

 

OMG!  :lol: Will it never end?

You are completely clueless, but you go on and on and on....

 

This is an AC45 (AC34 vintage) - 001 actually

AC45-Wing-Sailed-Catamaran-Launched-in-A

 

Here are a few more (AC35 vintage).

Take a moment......

1464842012896.jpg

 

This vessel is no more an AC45 than you are. Stop with the bullshit know-nothing defensive posts

Back to the lineup grommet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nav, after all the time you spend on this forum you are not able to make the difference between

- first AC45,

- second:  foiling AC45,

- AC45 T : not here

- third : AC50 but there is not much difference with a T.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its probably my fault for not labeling clearly that it was an AC72. No matter, windsurf boy is on iggy now. 

I did mention AC34 but that's a number higher than 9 and I wrote that in the description so probly no written comprehension from windsurf boy.

Share this post


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

 

OMG!  :lol: Will it never end?

You are completely clueless, but you go on and on and on....

 

This is an AC45 (AC34 vintage) - 001 actually

AC45-Wing-Sailed-Catamaran-Launched-in-A

 

Here are a few more (AC35 vintage).

Take a moment......

1464842012896.jpg

 

This vessel is no more an AC45 than you are. Stop with the bullshit know-nothing defensive posts

Back to the lineup grommet

I said ‘class legal AC45F’. Which you highlighted, and then pretended I said something else. But it gets better - because of course I was referring to the AC 45 video that random culled from FB, and then Barfbag attempted to integrate into his stupid conspiracy theory.

You are possibly the stupidest person I’ve ever encountered on the internet.

:)

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

its probably my fault for not labeling clearly that it was an AC72. No matter, windsurf boy is on iggy now. 

I did mention AC34 but that's a number higher than 9 and I wrote that in the description so probly no written comprehension from windsurf boy.

Of course the AC72 footage of ORs AC72 shows an AC72.

The part of my post that talks about AC45s was in reference to the AC45 footage that randum posted which you then added to your AC34 ‘truther’ narrative. My comment addressed the fact that the AC45 shown - which you claimed exhibited ‘fly by wire’ foil movement -  was most likely a class legal AC45F. Which of course does NOT have fly by wire. 

:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shutsailor is spinning so fast that he's making even less sense.

Fucking funni to watch.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

- third : AC50 but there is not much difference with a T.

 

15 hours ago, barfy said:

its probably my fault for not labeling clearly that it was an AC72.

:lol: @ TC    "  after all the time you spend on this forum you are not able to make the difference between ......."

Falling over each other, the self proclaimed experts

Share this post


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

 

:lol: @ TC    "  after all the time you spend on this forum you are not able to make the difference between ......."

Falling over each other, the self proclaimed experts

Ok. I was wrong, but it make it even worse for you as you were confusing an AC45F with an AC72 :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here we have it.  Proof that the OR AC72 had cruise control installed for ride height.

  • The video shows the lifting pole moving too fast for human control to be doing it.
  • The boat miraculously started foiling in a way previously not seen and started winning
  • The lifting pole has been proven to be solidly connected to the foil box so the foil is moving in the same way.
  • Other video on other OR cats of different sizes show the same foil movements e.g. the video of the 45.
  • They cheated.

I rest my case your Honour.

newsEngin.17482393_012417-gaddy-ba06.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

So here we have it.  Proof that the OR AC72 had cruise control installed for ride height.

  • The video shows the lifting pole moving too fast for human control to be doing it.
  • The boat miraculously started foiling in a way previously not seen and started winning
  • The lifting pole has been proven to be solidly connected to the foil box so the foil is moving in the same way.
  • Other video on other OR cats of different sizes show the same foil movements e.g. the video of the 45.
  • They cheated.

I rest my case your Honour.

newsEngin.17482393_012417-gaddy-ba06.jpg

 

That's quite a summary.

Still haven't heard the other side...guess "pole is flapping in breeze" is gone. 

Left with "how could it be so because so many people would have known they would have come clean by now"

Share this post


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

So here we have it.  Proof that the OR AC72 had cruise control installed for ride height.

  • The video shows the lifting pole moving too fast for human control to be doing it.
  • The boat miraculously started foiling in a way previously not seen and started winning
  • The lifting pole has been proven to be solidly connected to the foil box so the foil is moving in the same way.
  • Other video on other OR cats of different sizes show the same foil movements e.g. the video of the 45.
  • They cheated.

 

In fact we have seen the pole, the foil box, and, IMO, the foil head, moving at the same time.

I also don't think that a human cannot take 3 decisions in a second.

However we cannot prove that they cheated:

It could also be that an internal feedback system was reacting that way to correct the position of the foil. Or a combination of the feed back system correction and a decision from JS.

I guess a longer observation would help.

What is sure is that Indio claim that the MC did not control the system, whether true or not, is not a proof either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the facts speak for themselves.  Doesn't matter about terminology, cheating or used the rules to their advantage, it's all irrelevant.

What has been proven it that they used an auto ride system.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Well, the facts speak for themselves.  Doesn't matter about terminology, cheating or used the rules to their advantage, it's all irrelevant.

What has been proven it that they used an auto ride system.

So, what are your proof that they used an auto ride system ?

Share this post


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

So, what are your proof that they used an auto ride system ?

jiFfM.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG boys and girls . 

Five years after the fact a couple of keyboard detectives  have uncovered a deep dark secret that hundreds of people that were actual involved  in the event and know what they are about couldn't figure out.

What are the odds :)

The real cherry on top of this fantasy sunday is that  the originator of the entire " herbie " concept was quoted in various sailing publications years ago that his theory was taken way out of context and could not have worked in the AC environment anyway .

On the other hand  its probably safer to have these " analysts " safely occupied in their basements on their computers than out in the general public. 

 

 

Share this post


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

jiFfM.jpg

Thanks for your proof, that's what I thought.

BTW random, instead of insulting and posting stupid pictures, why don't you watch more attentively the video posted by barfy ?

Share this post


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

So here we have it.  Proof that the OR AC72 had cruise control installed for ride height.

  • The video shows the lifting pole moving too fast for human control to be doing it.
  • The boat miraculously started foiling in a way previously not seen and started winning
  • The lifting pole has been proven to be solidly connected to the foil box so the foil is moving in the same way.
  • Other video on other OR cats of different sizes show the same foil movements e.g. the video of the 45.
  • They cheated.

I rest my case your Honour.

newsEngin.17482393_012417-gaddy-ba06.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

OMG boys and girls . 

Five years after the fact a couple of keyboard detectives  have uncovered a deep dark secret that hundreds of people that were actual involved  in the event and know what they are about couldn't figure out.

What are the odds :)

The real cherry on top of this fantasy sunday is that  the originator of the entire " herbie " concept was quoted in various sailing publications years ago that his theory was taken way out of context and could not have worked in the AC environment anyway .

On the other hand  its probably safer to have these " analysts " safely occupied in their basements on their computers than out in the general public. 

 

 

So why don't you counter their arguments with any substantiated details rather than your usual BS about the cheater's employees "revealing" what they might know after 5 years as your sole reason why there could not have been any cheating??

What are the odds of you coming up with anything, indeed!! Must be a cultural thing with you lot...look at your El Presidente :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

the entire " herbie " concept was quoted in various sailing publications years ago that his theory was taken way out of context and could not have worked in the AC environment anyway .

have_you_ever_been_laughing_so_hard_you_

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we have an explanation on how the grinders could have created enough energy for 3 movements of a highly loaded foil per second consistently, plus what we can all agree is a very active wing sheet

if herbie had actually been installed into the boat midway through, then how much spare oil must they of had when herbie didn't exist?

honest question here, you guys are pulling out a pretty convincing argument, it's just a few things that i cannot get my head around

Share this post


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

 

That is better and more interesting. Yes the foil is moving but we have no proof is was not legal. Also, we don't hear the noise of the engine as on the AC50 videos.

There is a noise but I think it comes from the wing trimming.

If you want to prove cheating you need to prove that it comes from a automated external feed back.

Share this post


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

can we have an explanation on how the grinders could have created enough energy for 3 movements of a highly loaded foil per second consistently, plus what we can all agree is a very active wing sheet

if herbie had actually been installed into the boat midway through, then how much spare oil must they of had when herbie didn't exist?

honest question here, you guys are pulling out a pretty convincing argument, it's just a few things that i cannot get my head around

To be honest we were told that the beef mode was about wing trimming but I only remember of one video where I could see it after a tack. Which means the beef mode could have been for something else.

I may be wrong though, perhaps posters here can point at vids with regular trimming of the wing upwind ?

If my memory is good we also heard that they were short of pressure during the last races.

Still, my best explantion is that the moves we see in the video are the results of both the internal feed back and the input from JS. But I am no engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you want to prove cheating you need to prove that it come from a automated external feed back. "

Hahahahaaaa  it does prove that.

But the CHEATING label is beginning to be less interesting.  It's a label allocated by rules.

What is clear is that the ride on the OR AC 72 in Race 19 was under the control of a machine, regardless of how it was connected.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Hahahahaaaa  it does prove that.

But the CHEATING label is beginning to be less interesting.  It's a label allocated by rules.

What is clear is that the ride on the OR AC 72 in Race 19 was under the control of a machine, regardless of how it was connected.

But the internal feedback was authorized, and do you hear a machine as with the AC50 ?

Share this post


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

f herbie had actually been installed into the boat midway through, then how much spare oil must they of had when herbie didn't exist?

No one here can cite any numbers about hydraulic capacity, no one can quote the oil consumption of a motor to move the foil.

But what we do have is proof that it was being moved, rapidly and frequently.

It is possible that many small movement at just the right time could consume less than movements triggered by a human.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tornado-Cat said:

But the internal feedback was authorized, and do you hear a machine as with the AC50 ?

Got nothing to do with anything.  Different quality videos from different sources.

The foils are still being moved.  Got anything else shiny for us to look at?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Got nothing to do with anything.  Different quality videos from different sources.

The foils are still being moved.  Got anything else shiny for us to look at?

I am not trying to prove myself right but to have logic argument. Basically, if you want to prove something was wrong you have to prove it comes from an external feed back, you don't even need a machine as per the AC72 rule.

Share this post


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

I am not trying to prove myself right but to have logic argument. Basically, if you want to prove something was wrong you have to prove it comes from an external feed back, you don't even need a machine as per the AC72 rule.

Regardless of the name of the beast, (Herbie or Fredie) what was not happening was JS pushing an up and down button the move the foil 0.5 deg as has been claimed here.  The futility of that can be seen at the top of this page.

So they had to change it.  The boat was totally transformed by the foil controller.

The foil can be shown on the videos to be moved at least three times a second in a very Herbie like way!!!

Funni as shit!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a very good and fact-stuffed piece on the Oracle multi-hull era by Eric Hall in the current Seahorse. I like it when I learn something I didn't previously know.

Thanks for your attention, you may now return to your conspiracy theories.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

There's a very good and fact-stuffed piece on the Oracle multi-hull era by Eric Hall in the current Seahorse. I like it when I learn something I didn't previously know.

Thanks for your attention, you may now return to your conspiracy theories.

 

So what's it say?  I'm too tight to subscribe.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

But the internal feedback was authorized, and do you hear a machine as with the AC50 ?

how so?

 

The operation for (i) (hydraulic valves) ....
shall not receive external input from any source
other than manual input
 
.....and shall be hard wired between the manual inputs and the valve(s) or clutch(es).
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

In fact we have seen the pole, the foil box, and, IMO, the foil head, moving at the same time.

I also don't think that a human cannot take 3 decisions in a second.

However we cannot prove that they cheated:

It could also be that an internal feedback system was reacting that way to correct the position of the foil. Or a combination of the feed back system correction and a decision from JS.

I guess a longer observation would help.

What is sure is that Indio claim that the MC did not control the system, whether true or not, is not a proof either.

I  would think that the internal feedback system would have been working to keep the foil in the same position under varying loads and hydro pressure. 

If that's what we are seeing then it was surely malfunctioning, not what you would expect in the upwind legs of R19 when OR is showing such speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And "beef" mode, thanks TC, was only employed upwind, where ride height was crucial to keep as much vertical component of the foil immersed as possible, without kissing the hull. 

Watching the races, this is where ETNZ could not follow, they get down but suffer from the occasional hull kiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 6:40 AM, random said:

So here we have it.  Proof that the OR AC72 had cruise control installed for ride height.

  • The video shows the lifting pole moving too fast for human control to be doing it.
  • The boat miraculously started foiling in a way previously not seen and started winning
  • The lifting pole has been proven to be solidly connected to the foil box so the foil is moving in the same way.
  • Other video on other OR cats of different sizes show the same foil movements e.g. the video of the 45.
  • They cheated.

I rest my case your Honour.

newsEngin.17482393_012417-gaddy-ba06.jpg

 

Couldn't help it sorry.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

how so?

 

The operation for (i) (hydraulic valves) ....
shall not receive external input from any source
other than manual input
 
.....and shall be hard wired between the manual inputs and the valve(s) or clutch(es).
 
 

1) It depends of your interpretation of external. Is the position of the foil vs the hull external info ? I doubt it.

2) Do we have proof that it was not ?

Share this post


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

I  would think that the internal feedback system would have been working to keep the foil in the same position under varying loads and hydro pressure. 

If that's what we are seeing then it was surely malfunctioning, not what you would expect in the upwind legs of R19 when OR is showing such speed.

I agree with you on that. One explanation would be that the system was correcting a move of the board, but yes, it should work smoother if the intention was to keep the board in the same position vs the hull.

Share this post


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

1) It depends of your interpretation of external. Is the position of the foil vs the hull external info ? I doubt it.

2) Do we have proof that it was not ?

Doesn't fucking matter does it.

The foil is clearly moving automatically regardless of how.  We have proof.

Funni as shit!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let me see if I have this right, halfway thru AC34 Oracle started using infinite pressure magic fooloil, which of course is totally illegal, & had identical twin foil wizards (named "Port" & "Starboard" of course), hidden in their hulls, which is also illegal since I'm sure there is some little rule or another about using magic & sorcery, yep, that's what happened. 

Share this post


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

Well let me see if I have this right, halfway thru AC34 Oracle started using infinite pressure magic fooloil, which of course is totally illegal, & had identical twin foil wizards (named "Port" & "Starboard" of course), hidden in their hulls, which is also illegal since I'm sure there is some little rule or another about using magic & sorcery, yep, that's what happened. 

Seriously? Even though the argument was passionate to say the least, it was relatively educated and informed. Then you come up with this stupid remark? Give yourself an uppercut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites