• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Barnyb

Oracle Team USA 2013

146 posts in this topic

As per popular demand this thread is for OR 2013 in SF where they may / or may have not used played fair!

 

You can bitch moan and do whatever normal SA people do in this thread

 

Oracle Team USA 2013 look back - This thread is to look back

Oracle Team USA - to look forward to BDA 2017

 

The basis of this thread is the vid by Barfy

 

 

 

barfy, on 13 Mar 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:snapback.png

 

A Class Sailor, on 09 Mar 2017 - 3:11 PM, said:snapback.png

I knew the information was out there. Watch the video from Jack Griffin of CupExprience who most respect.



Note that the first thing Jack says "both teams improved so much over the course of the america's cup match". He then provides evidence for this. Note how he points out that both boats were capable of about the same top speed. Although he states that Oracle foiled with more stability, he identifies that the key difference was the way the wing was sheeted. Watch the video and also the race videos. the big difference was Oracle getting up on foils upwind far quicker than ETNZ after a tack. Watching other videos shows that was achieved through the "pumping" of the wing after each tack.

I don't expect "random" or Oracle CEO to give any credibility to the video, but that's because they are trolls.


I did watch Jack's video, whom I respect. But I took something else away from it entirely.
I made a short video to present my analysis.

Clearly there was automated systems in place. The boat wouldn't have reacted to the previous input before the next was made. As good as JS is, it's not believable that he steered tge beast and adjusted the foils at the same time.

Most excellent work Barfy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this thread will ne at the bottom quite soon if people dont start contributing to it. I'll start....

 

LE & RC are a couple of cheating cunts. The crew are cheating cunts too. From kingpost to foil pillar, the filthy fleas should hang thier thriving heads in shame. To the plank with these modern day pirates I say, to the plank.

 

Ah, yeah. I guess that's it for now. Barfey did a good video edit, they cheated, nuf said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 people moaned...like that's a reason to shuffle the discussion offboard.

well done.

 

post-109400-0-88684900-1489485160_thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barfy - i'll take a hit on one who agreed it should move, and to that end. Here is the video, with your full credit of course.

 

A new thread will provide the topic focus. If people care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this thread. My recent post in the OR thread is more suited for here:

 

Grant Dalton and ETNZ would know better than anyone not affiliated with OR if OR used an illegal foil control system during AC34. And Grand Dalton and ETNZ would of shouted from the top of the Transamerica Pyramid if OR was using something illegal, especially during their epic 8 match choke job. Then he would of bitched and complained leading up to the start of the AC35 cycle. Might still be bitching now.

 

The silence of Grant Dalton on this current conspiracy theory proves that there is no conspiracy, IMO.

 

Its time to move on.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barfy - i'll take a hit on one who agreed it should move, and to that end. Here is the video, with your full credit of course.

 

A new thread will provide the topic focus. If people care

and a video reply to why the movement of the lifting pole was used as an indication of foil movement;

  1. background contrast
  2. angle to the mandated front of boat camera
  3. distance from foil fulcrum
  4. proof that both OR and ETNZ attached the pole to the foil case

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

400 views in 48 hours people are at least interested.

 

It is relevant to this cycle. If a punter like me can pull out of old footage possible proof that one team cheated the current match needs to be better protected.

And applied to all teams.

The MC has applied "goodwill" clauses to more parts of the boat now.

There is no scrutiny planned of the boats that win as in F1, one team lauds the fact that they are using F1 designers!

 

There needs to be some checks in place, a simple camera on the foil movements and a head cam on the foil trimmer to show he manually initiates foil trim adjustments would be simple enough to mandate.

 

My racing drone is controlled by a chip that would fit in a sports watch and runs 3 axis gyros at 32k sample rate, flight calculations at 8k, 3 channels of telemetry, and can give rock steady performance at 100kmh in very difficult propwashed air.
The future is wide open for a team to implement tech such as this, ETNZ using tablets for trim for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this thread. My recent post in the OR thread is more suited for here:

 

Grant Dalton and ETNZ would know better than anyone not affiliated with OR if OR used an illegal foil control system during AC34. And Grand Dalton and ETNZ would of shouted from the top of the Transamerica Pyramid if OR was using something illegal, especially during their epic 8 match choke job. Then he would of bitched and complained leading up to the start of the AC35 cycle. Might still be bitching now.

 

The silence of Grant Dalton on this current conspiracy theory proves that there is no conspiracy, IMO.

 

Its time to move on.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Good point and one often mentioned. But not proof of another team's actions.

 

Other reasons for GD's silence could include:

  1. A gag rule?
  2. Trying to line up new sponsors even as the last event finished? Who wants to put money into a rigged event?
  3. Thinking that they could still take the one race needed?

 

There may be other possibilities, one day we may find out. Someone may suggest some others.

But its not finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and to recap where we are in this discussion

 

maxmini, on 14 Mar 2017 - 7:54 PM, said:

barfy, on 14 Mar 2017 - 7:43 PM, said:

surfsailor, on 14 Mar 2017 - 3:45 PM, said:

barfy, on 14 Mar 2017 - 1:05 PM, said:

aucklander, on 14 Mar 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:
Jaysper, I'm not sure I agree with the analysis that if someone believes there has been cheating, it but it was in the past, they should forget it and just move on. Most cheating is exposed by small numbers of individuals chipping away at the established truth, the truth which is largely controlled by those with richest pockets and establishment connections. Lance was exposed by Paul Kimmage, an Irish Journalist, and for many years Kimmage was attacked and pillored in the US and world media for having a vendetta against Armstrong. Many of you will remember the press conferences where Kimmage was singled out and attacked.

I've said before and I'll say it on record, that I don't know if OR cheated in the final - they certainly had form though. I personally am not focussing on the past, and only looking forward to the future, so i have some sympathy for your wanting to, but I don't see any moral failing of people looking to investigate the truth and never give up. Often they will be wrong, but other times they'll be completely correct, expose the truth, and will act as a brake on future behaviours. There are many examples of past sporting hero's who have never been accused of doping, but does anyone, anyone really think that many of the revered and great cyclists/gymnasts/middle distance runners of the past, were not juiced up? Do we really believe every referee was straight in every major game?

I understand the frustration of genuine OR fans on this thread though, who might want to talk predominantly about sailing and progression of their boats. I guess the continued speculation and suspicion is the cost of the the actions the team took in the ACWS of AC34.
Thank you.

I saw something interesting when I was watching old videos as I now have enough bandwidth at home to do so in HD.
I'm not after a jihad, it's in the past. But FFS if I can't bring it up for comment in SA where the F*** can I?
Its not as if half of what is posted here is not irrelevant anyway.
So sorry to all the OR fans about the buzzkill. Maybe move over to the OR Facebook page and have a good chat there.
Should I start a new thread so you can get on with talking shit about your favourite team that was caught once cheating last cycle?
If what you're suggesting is that the main lifting board is mirroring the motion of the lifting pole controlled by some kind of 'auto fly' mechanism, you would need to explain where the hydraulic power is coming from to continuously move that main board. The static load is in excess of 13,000 lbs, plus there will be considerable additional loads due to the lateral (leeway) loads. But 6 of the 8 grinders were driving the wing winch - which is where your conspiracy theory falls flat on it's face.
maybe that was beast mode

Beast mode was supposedly used to keep the wing drum spinning and allowing the trimmer to slip the sheet and grab as needed . At least that was one theory put forth here at one point .

As surfsailor says, high frequency board movements are going to eat hydro, and would provide the trim essential for low-riding upwind. OR was rock steady as commented by many observers and hulls just above skimming for min leeway min hull drag.

So now we have another connection to the high frequency movements even if we don't know how they were initiated, large amounts of hydro and a "beast mode".

ETNZ didn't have this ride height control and had to dip a hull occasionally as Jack's "Foiling upwind" video shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry Hollis, on 14 Mar 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:
I think there might be a rational explanation for the movements of the windward foil of OR.

The bending moment from lateral resistance would be at a maximum at the point where the foil is exiting the hull when the foils are down. There are various ways to deal with the bending moment but given the circumstances of weight and the need to have the foils as thin as possible they have probably made them with a slight taper with the thickest part at the top of the foil.

This means that when the foils are on the windward side they would thinner and a loose fit in the slot and would be free to rattle about thus giving the movements that we see in the video.

 

This is certainly why I would think ETNZ's windward foil was rattling around as mentioned before in Jacks foiling upwind video.

I have no idea why OR's was making the movements in the video about the botched gybe the "aww shit Jimmy" video.

I just use that as proof that the lifting pole can be used to show foil trim movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

One of the many possibilities for the 'shimmering' noted, but not yet posted that I've seen, is that we have seen it before in previous videos of foils. One time it was from OR's first AC45 made to foil on SF Bay, the one that SWS got to be a passenger on, in probably 2012.

 

The eventual consensus back then settled on it being digital artifacts from either the auto-steady software on the camera or from the format conversion during upload to YouTube. It's at least a possibility here and would help explain why both loaded and unloaded sides appear a little shaky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rapid board trim in this video and the one of the 45 are too quick for simple button pressing.

What about the joystick idea though? Looks like that's what Blair Tuke is using in this cup cycle to trim the boards and ETNZ does have Oracles old designer on board. Maybe they were using a joystick (vs buttons) somewhere to control boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just saw this thread. My recent post in the OR thread is more suited for here:

 

Grant Dalton and ETNZ would know better than anyone not affiliated with OR if OR used an illegal foil control system during AC34. And Grand Dalton and ETNZ would of shouted from the top of the Transamerica Pyramid if OR was using something illegal, especially during their epic 8 match choke job. Then he would of bitched and complained leading up to the start of the AC35 cycle. Might still be bitching now.

 

The silence of Grant Dalton on this current conspiracy theory proves that there is no conspiracy, IMO.

 

Its time to move on.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Good point and one often mentioned. But not proof of another team's actions.

 

Other reasons for GD's silence could include:

  1. A gag rule?
  2. Trying to line up new sponsors even as the last event finished? Who wants to put money into a rigged event?
  3. Thinking that they could still take the one race needed?

 

There may be other possibilities, one day we may find out. Someone may suggest some others.

But its not finished.

 

4. Attempting to protest it and being told it's too late as it already passed measurement (for better or worse)... Not much point crying foul if the refs won't allow you to post a protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just saw this thread. My recent post in the OR thread is more suited for here:

 

Grant Dalton and ETNZ would know better than anyone not affiliated with OR if OR used an illegal foil control system during AC34. And Grand Dalton and ETNZ would of shouted from the top of the Transamerica Pyramid if OR was using something illegal, especially during their epic 8 match choke job. Then he would of bitched and complained leading up to the start of the AC35 cycle. Might still be bitching now.

 

The silence of Grant Dalton on this current conspiracy theory proves that there is no conspiracy, IMO.

 

Its time to move on.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Good point and one often mentioned. But not proof of another team's actions.

 

Other reasons for GD's silence could include:

  1. A gag rule?
  2. Trying to line up new sponsors even as the last event finished? Who wants to put money into a rigged event?
  3. Thinking that they could still take the one race needed?

 

There may be other possibilities, one day we may find out. Someone may suggest some others.

But its not finished.

 

4. Attempting to protest it and being told it's too late as it already passed measurement (for better or worse)... Not much point crying foul if the refs won't allow you to post a protest.

 

5. Nothing to protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"LE & RC are a couple of cheating cunts" - Third Reef Grin.

 

Couple of points:

 

1) This is possibly true since I doubt the AC45 incident was perpetrated by only those who were punished.

2) As I've said before, I agree with Hoggie's stance to move the hell on.

 

But agree with this comment or not, I just love it! Hilarious! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GauchoGreg

 

In order to be consistent, I think we must! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

One of the many possibilities for the 'shimmering' noted, but not yet posted that I've seen, is that we have seen it before in previous videos of foils. One time it was from OR's first AC45 made to foil on SF Bay, the one that SWS got to be a passenger on, in probably 2012.

 

The eventual consensus back then settled on it being digital artifacts from either the auto-steady software on the camera or from the format conversion during upload to YouTube. It's at least a possibility here and would help explain why both loaded and unloaded sides appear a little shaky.

 

How can you say with absolute certainty that there was no "Herbie"? You can't, unless you had unfettered access to OR's design and technical resources, and were also intimately involved with their build (and re-build) and subsequent maintenance of USA17 during the latter half of the AC races in San Francisco.

 

I don't buy your reasoning about the shimmering. Please post a link to the video you're referring to so that we can compare the 'shimmering'. If it really was video artefacts, why would the artefacts only effect the foil sections?

 

What I do know is that OR were getting their asses handed to them by ETNZ. Even after BA joined the team, OR lost 2 races. Something else changed, and I can assure you it wasn't the crew change(s) that did it. This implies that their skill sets also didn't drastically improve. Something on the boat changed.

 

I've since moved on from AC34, but the video above posted by barfy raises more definitive proof that some form of automated system(s) was in place on board USA17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

There was a cheating hydraulic circuit which OR publicly posted to the MC: the circuit which I've been posting depicts Component X as a spring which A Class Sailor and many others accept, yet we have had Grant show it in his lecture simulation as a mechanical device to activate the "plunger"-activated directional control valve depicted in the simulation you posted in the OR thread!!

 

Imo, OR (illegally under the Class Rule) used an indexing stepper motor in conjunction with the linear actuator to provide the constant adjustment they achieved over one lay day. If I had to design a retro-fitted cheating circuit, I would have used an indexing stepper motor in the same system configuration depicted in OR's circuit.

 

I have no doubt that Oracle Racing cheated in the AC Match in 2013, using proprietary hydraulic components which they had developed - contrary to the Class Rules at the time. was sufuhcrt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of the debate, I am copying what I said on the other thread.

 

For all the talk, nobody seems to have been able to show the leeward board in the water and moving fore and aft in the same way as either the leeward gantry or the windward board/gantry. Having looked at it very closely, I am pretty certain it does not. What goes on above the water is totally irrelevant and although Terry, a NZer, has put forward a rational explanation for the movement, it doesn't matter because it is what is going on with the foil in the water that counts. On top of that, nobody has yet explained 2 problems with this "cheating" hypothesis. One is the problem of having enough power to keep moving the board that often, particularly seeing the winch is seen constantly spinning some truth to the claims that most of the hydraulic power was going to the winch. The other problem with this hypothesis is that nobody can explain why there is a benefit to moving the foil so quickly. There is a delay between moving a foil and seeing a change in boat attitude in all foilers and the heavier the foiler, the bigger the delay because of inertia. You are trying to get 5900 kgs to move up and down. I am pretty certain that moving the foils that amount and at that frequency would have zero effect on ride height. It's like on a Moth when the wand does small flicks at high speed. You know the flap must be moving in response, but you don't see the pitch of the boat changing because of weight and inertia. It is only when you get a sustained change in wand position and therefore flap position that you get a change in flight attitude.

I believe that board movements of that frequency would have a detrimental effect on performance because they would induce drag. On the Moth, it is the price for the otherwise excellent wand system. On the Oracle AC72, I haven't seen it on the leeward board but even if i did, I would need a lot of convincing it contributed to speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

There was a cheating hydraulic circuit which OR publicly posted to the MC: the circuit which I've been posting depicts Component X as a spring which A Class Sailor and many others accept, yet we have had Grant show it in his lecture simulation as a mechanical device to activate the "plunger"-activated directional control valve depicted in the simulation you posted in the OR thread!!

 

Imo, OR (illegally under the Class Rule) used an indexing stepper motor in conjunction with the linear actuator to provide the constant adjustment they achieved over one lay day. If I had to design a retro-fitted cheating circuit, I would have used an indexing stepper motor in the same system configuration depicted in OR's circuit.

 

I have no doubt that Oracle Racing cheated in the AC Match in 2013, using proprietary hydraulic components which they had developed - contrary to the Class Rules at the time. was sufuhcrt

I believe Indio on this. Nobody else has said anything that contradicts this. GD has moved on as it was an MC failing. Like I said on the other thread, you can't complain when the referee misses the foul.

 

One point I have also raised is that it might be harder for OR to cheat again this time because BA probably knew in 2013 and now he has his own team and is a close mate of JS so might just be on the OR case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of the debate, I am copying what I said on the other thread.

 

For all the talk, nobody seems to have been able to show the leeward board in the water and moving fore and aft in the same way as either the leeward gantry or the windward board/gantry. Having looked at it very closely, I am pretty certain it does not. What goes on above the water is totally irrelevant and although Terry, a NZer, has put forward a rational explanation for the movement, it doesn't matter because it is what is going on with the foil in the water that counts. On top of that, nobody has yet explained 2 problems with this "cheating" hypothesis. One is the problem of having enough power to keep moving the board that often, particularly seeing the winch is seen constantly spinning some truth to the claims that most of the hydraulic power was going to the winch. The other problem with this hypothesis is that nobody can explain why there is a benefit to moving the foil so quickly. There is a delay between moving a foil and seeing a change in boat attitude in all foilers and the heavier the foiler, the bigger the delay because of inertia. You are trying to get 5900 kgs to move up and down. I am pretty certain that moving the foils that amount and at that frequency would have zero effect on ride height. It's like on a Moth when the wand does small flicks at high speed. You know the flap must be moving in response, but you don't see the pitch of the boat changing because of weight and inertia. It is only when you get a sustained change in wand position and therefore flap position that you get a change in flight attitude.

I believe that board movements of that frequency would have a detrimental effect on performance because they would induce drag. On the Moth, it is the price for the otherwise excellent wand system. On the Oracle AC72, I haven't seen it on the leeward board but even if i did, I would need a lot of convincing it contributed to speed.

I believe the adjustments are quite small. The lifting pole/gantry has a lever arm of at least 2m from the fulcrum, the visible part of the board is only half a meter from the fulcrum. I had a look at the the board with only one foot above the water, but due to the contrast with the water I could not bring up enough contrast to see anything.

 

But as my second video shows, when the pole moves the board moves. This goes for both boats, both poles attached to the case.

So the high frequency board movements were used.

 

Why adjust the board trim rapidly? You don't present a compelling reason why not. The amazing stability of the boat skimming, but not slapping hull, are evident in the videos.

 

The "beast mode" is certainly spoken of by the team. Was spinning a winch taking 4 grinders full time toss your guts grinding? Was "most" of the hydro going this way?

 

Or was a lot of the the hydro diverted to the board movements. Which do exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

One of the many possibilities for the 'shimmering' noted, but not yet posted that I've seen, is that we have seen it before in previous videos of foils. One time it was from OR's first AC45 made to foil on SF Bay, the one that SWS got to be a passenger on, in probably 2012.

 

The eventual consensus back then settled on it being digital artifacts from either the auto-steady software on the camera or from the format conversion during upload to YouTube. It's at least a possibility here and would help explain why both loaded and unloaded sides appear a little shaky.

 

 

The board movement is not "shaky". It is "robotic". There is no "shimmering" in the HD footage. I am quite familiar with compression artifacts. The camera is fixed, there is no auto-steady needed. That is why it is such good footage to judge relative motion with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

There was a cheating hydraulic circuit which OR publicly posted to the MC: the circuit which I've been posting depicts Component X as a spring which A Class Sailor and many others accept, yet we have had Grant show it in his lecture simulation as a mechanical device to activate the "plunger"-activated directional control valve depicted in the simulation you posted in the OR thread!!

 

Imo, OR (illegally under the Class Rule) used an indexing stepper motor in conjunction with the linear actuator to provide the constant adjustment they achieved over one lay day. If I had to design a retro-fitted cheating circuit, I would have used an indexing stepper motor in the same system configuration depicted in OR's circuit.

 

I have no doubt that Oracle Racing cheated in the AC Match in 2013, using proprietary hydraulic components which they had developed - contrary to the Class Rules at the time. was sufuhcrt

I believe Indio on this. Nobody else has said anything that contradicts this. GD has moved on as it was an MC failing. Like I said on the other thread, you can't complain when the referee misses the foul.

 

One point I have also raised is that it might be harder for OR to cheat again this time because BA probably knew in 2013 and now he has his own team and is a close mate of JS so might just be on the OR case.

 

I have a real issue with the cheating assumption. There is no doubt that there was cheating going on at Oracle with the AC45, but it is a huge leap from that to the team cheating by using illegal parts and systems. With the AC45, it was pretty clear to me that a few individuals took it on themselves to add a small amount of weight in the wrong place. I also believe that management were very lax with their procedures which is why it was possible for a few to do it undetected. It was very clear that only a few knew about it and I particularly remember Ben Ainslie's comments denouncing what the individuals had done.

 

The problem is that it is a huge leap from the position above to the team systematically cheating by using illegal systems and parts.As has been pointed out, a lot of people would have needed to know. I refuse to believe that out of all of those people who would have needed to know, not one of them had the morals to speak out. i know some of them, the Australian ones, and I am sure some would have spoken out. I could accept that one or 2 of the youngsters might have been influenced, or that one of the senior management would have kept quite, but I do not believe that every single one would have, and all it needed was one and the game was over. What could Oracle have done? Taken them to court for breach of confidentiality? refused to pay them? They would not have got away with that. Anybody speaking out would have been treated as a hero by the wider sailing community. So what somebody needs to do is pursuade me that every single one of those leading sailors lost their integrity. I don't buy that.

 

Even since the cup, there has been nobody from the team even mumbling anything about it, yet there are some rather disgruntled ex employees who would know if there was cheating.

 

As I have said before, the changes they made stack up, based on my own foiling experience. The difference between foiling and not foiling is usually a very small change and the speeds gained from those small changes are incredible. I couldn't foil upwind on my A for a long time, stuck at an upwind speed of, say, 12-14 knots. I changed the angle of my rudder winglets a small amount and now in the right conditions, I can foil upwind and reach speeds of 17-18 knots even if at the moment it is inconsistently. People are looking for significant changes because the speed differences were large. With foiling, that is not the way it works. It is usually small changes that make huge differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the sake of the debate, I am copying what I said on the other thread.

 

For all the talk, nobody seems to have been able to show the leeward board in the water and moving fore and aft in the same way as either the leeward gantry or the windward board/gantry. Having looked at it very closely, I am pretty certain it does not. What goes on above the water is totally irrelevant and although Terry, a NZer, has put forward a rational explanation for the movement, it doesn't matter because it is what is going on with the foil in the water that counts. On top of that, nobody has yet explained 2 problems with this "cheating" hypothesis. One is the problem of having enough power to keep moving the board that often, particularly seeing the winch is seen constantly spinning some truth to the claims that most of the hydraulic power was going to the winch. The other problem with this hypothesis is that nobody can explain why there is a benefit to moving the foil so quickly. There is a delay between moving a foil and seeing a change in boat attitude in all foilers and the heavier the foiler, the bigger the delay because of inertia. You are trying to get 5900 kgs to move up and down. I am pretty certain that moving the foils that amount and at that frequency would have zero effect on ride height. It's like on a Moth when the wand does small flicks at high speed. You know the flap must be moving in response, but you don't see the pitch of the boat changing because of weight and inertia. It is only when you get a sustained change in wand position and therefore flap position that you get a change in flight attitude.

I believe that board movements of that frequency would have a detrimental effect on performance because they would induce drag. On the Moth, it is the price for the otherwise excellent wand system. On the Oracle AC72, I haven't seen it on the leeward board but even if i did, I would need a lot of convincing it contributed to speed.

I believe the adjustments are quite small. The lifting pole/gantry has a lever arm of at least 2m from the fulcrum, the visible part of the board is only half a meter from the fulcrum. I had a look at the the board with only one foot above the water, but due to the contrast with the water I could not bring up enough contrast to see anything.

 

But as my second video shows, when the pole moves the board moves. This goes for both boats, both poles attached to the case.

So the high frequency board movements were used.

 

Why adjust the board trim rapidly? You don't present a compelling reason why not. The amazing stability of the boat skimming, but not slapping hull, are evident in the videos.

 

The "beast mode" is certainly spoken of by the team. Was spinning a winch taking 4 grinders full time toss your guts grinding? Was "most" of the hydro going this way?

 

Or was a lot of the the hydro diverted to the board movements. Which do exist.

 

You say I don't provide a compelling reason why rapid trim doesn't work, but I did. You haven't provided a single explanation of what the rapid trim would do or how it would work.

 

I will repeat what I said. On any foiling boat there is a delay between a foil moving and the ride adjusting. This is because relatively, the foils are operating at fairly low speeds and the boats are heavy compared with the size of the foils. Inertia comes into play. Watch a video of a Moth and pay atention to the wand moves as it slaps the water and is clearly moving. We all know that the flap is moving, but the frequency and amount it moves means the boat doesn't react. If the foil were moving like you suggest, which I do not believe, the periods between each movement are way too short to have any impact on the flight attitude. We are talking about a high percentage of 5900kgs boat weight needing to be moved plus whatever other downward loads are on the foils. Somewhere, somebody suggested 13,000 lbs. Just think for a moment about the forces needed to begin to move that and tell me how a small movement of the foil for a very brief moment in time would achieve that. It makes no sense.

 

On another matter, when the board is up, the top of the gantry is physically attached to the op of the board, bearing load. It would have to move with the board. When the board is down, it is not attached to the board in the same way. As can be seen from the pictures, the board is in the case and the gantry attaches to the cage. There has to be some designed play in the joint. I also do not buy into your claim that because you can only see a little of the foil that is down, you cannot tell if it is moving. If you place a marker say a foot above the bottom of the gantry, when i blow it up on my screen I can still tell there is movement. I claim I cannot see any on the foil in the water.

 

I have no idea what you are seeing but I cannot see how measuring things that are not under load moving around on a boat that is moving at 30 knots tells us anything. But even if you can show the foil moves under load in the water, which I do not believe you can or that it does, it still makes no sense in terms of how foils work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have a real issue with the cheating assumption. There is no doubt that there was cheating going on at Oracle with the AC45, but it is a huge leap from that to the team cheating by using illegal parts and systems. With the AC45, it was pretty clear to me that a few individuals took it on themselves to add a small amount of weight in the wrong place. I also believe that management were very lax with their procedures which is why it was possible for a few to do it undetected. It was very clear that only a few knew about it and I particularly remember Ben Ainslie's comments denouncing what the individuals had done.

 

 

The problem is that it is a huge leap from the position above to the team systematically cheating by using illegal systems and parts.As has been pointed out, a lot of people would have needed to know. I refuse to believe that out of all of those people who would have needed to know, not one of them had the morals to speak out. i know some of them, the Australian ones, and I am sure some would have spoken out. I could accept that one or 2 of the youngsters might have been influenced, or that one of the senior management would have kept quite, but I do not believe that every single one would have, and all it needed was one and the game was over. What could Oracle have done? Taken them to court for breach of confidentiality? refused to pay them? They would not have got away with that. Anybody speaking out would have been treated as a hero by the wider sailing community. So what somebody needs to do is pursuade me that every single one of those leading sailors lost their integrity. I don't buy that.

 

Even since the cup, there has been nobody from the team even mumbling anything about it, yet there are some rather disgruntled ex employees who would know if there was cheating.

 

As I have said before, the changes they made stack up, based on my own foiling experience. The difference between foiling and not foiling is usually a very small change and the speeds gained from those small changes are incredible. I couldn't foil upwind on my A for a long time, stuck at an upwind speed of, say, 12-14 knots. I changed the angle of my rudder winglets a small amount and now in the right conditions, I can foil upwind and reach speeds of 17-18 knots even if at the moment it is inconsistently. People are looking for significant changes because the speed differences were large. With foiling, that is not the way it works. It is usually small changes that make huge differences.

 

 

I agree that there is no evidence that OR cheated but your suggestion that someone would have spoken up if there was cheating is unlikely.

 

The example of the cycling world should make it clear that cheating can go on for years without anyone speaking up. One of Armstrong's team members finally spoke up after he had retired from the sport and he was ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

There was a cheating hydraulic circuit which OR publicly posted to the MC: the circuit which I've been posting depicts Component X as a spring which A Class Sailor and many others accept, yet we have had Grant show it in his lecture simulation as a mechanical device to activate the "plunger"-activated directional control valve depicted in the simulation you posted in the OR thread!!

 

Imo, OR (illegally under the Class Rule) used an indexing stepper motor in conjunction with the linear actuator to provide the constant adjustment they achieved over one lay day. If I had to design a retro-fitted cheating circuit, I would have used an indexing stepper motor in the same system configuration depicted in OR's circuit.

 

I have no doubt that Oracle Racing cheated in the AC Match in 2013, using proprietary hydraulic components which they had developed - contrary to the Class Rules at the time. was sufuhcrt

 

Someone please refresh my memory. My recollection comports with yours that the MC looked at this circuit. More specifically, that ETNZ made some form of protest about it and the MC cleared it, either substantively or procedurally because ETNZ failed to raise a timely protest. Can anyone remind me what happened?

 

Are you saying that OR somehow deceived the MC or that the MC simply made the wrong decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

There was a cheating hydraulic circuit which OR publicly posted to the MC: the circuit which I've been posting depicts Component X as a spring which A Class Sailor and many others accept, yet we have had Grant show it in his lecture simulation as a mechanical device to activate the "plunger"-activated directional control valve depicted in the simulation you posted in the OR thread!!

 

Imo, OR (illegally under the Class Rule) used an indexing stepper motor in conjunction with the linear actuator to provide the constant adjustment they achieved over one lay day. If I had to design a retro-fitted cheating circuit, I would have used an indexing stepper motor in the same system configuration depicted in OR's circuit.

 

I have no doubt that Oracle Racing cheated in the AC Match in 2013, using proprietary hydraulic components which they had developed - contrary to the Class Rules at the time. was sufuhcrt

 

Someone please refresh my memory. My recollection comports with yours that the MC looked at this circuit. More specifically, that ETNZ made some form of protest about it and the MC cleared it, either substantively or procedurally because ETNZ failed to raise a timely protest. Can anyone remind me what happened?

 

Are you saying that OR somehow deceived the MC or that the MC simply made the wrong decision?

 

You are correct on all counts. Interpretation No.49 contained the circuit and posed the following question:

 

"Question: (1) Below is a schematic of a hydraulic arrangement that includes the electrical operation of hydraulic valves. Does this arrangement comply with the Rule 19.2(e)?

post-18089-0-51758800-1377643891_thumb.png

 

MC Answer: 1. Yes, provided the electrically-operated hydraulic valves are commercially available and they have been approved by the Measurement Committee for use via an issued interpretation."

 

As you will note, the MC approved the "electrically-operated hydraulic valves". Yet the circuit depicts the hydraulic valves as manually activated: the only electrical activation taking place is in the DC-powered linear actuator (depicted as the orange line in the Legend at the bottom of the circuit). Connection to the hydraulic valve is clearly depicted as mechanical, via their Component X.

 

Did the MC get conned? I think so. The "electrical operation of hydraulic valves" in OR's question (via the electrically-activated linear actuatot) is NOT the same as direct electrical activation of solenoid-operated hydraulic valves which the MC approved!! It's electrically-operating the valves by proxy. Clever wordsmith craftsmanship by OR? I think so. Perfectly legal, and the linear actuators are commercially available to all teams. BUT...

 

Did the MC make the wrong decision? I believe so. They answered and approved a question which was not asked in PI49, and did not question Component X depicted in Grant's youtube simulation as a mechanical device activating plunger-activated valves. The MC should have determined whether Component X as depicted in Grant's simulation was sufficiently proprietary as to make it illegal under Class Rule, or whether it was commercially available to all teams.

 

Imo, the circuit was deliberately mischievous with a few red herrings (Comp X depicted as a "spring") thrown in to obfuscate. I would have designed the system using servo or proportional control valves to provide more accurate constant position adjustments, but I don't believe they had the time to take out the valves already installed and integrate the valve controls into their control system, so they went with a retro-fit using an indexing stepper motor, manually switched on and forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There was no 'Herbie' but it's a fun-enough thing to indulge in nonetheless.

 

There was a cheating hydraulic circuit which OR publicly posted to the MC: the circuit which I've been posting depicts Component X as a spring which A Class Sailor and many others accept, yet we have had Grant show it in his lecture simulation as a mechanical device to activate the "plunger"-activated directional control valve depicted in the simulation you posted in the OR thread!!

 

Imo, OR (illegally under the Class Rule) used an indexing stepper motor in conjunction with the linear actuator to provide the constant adjustment they achieved over one lay day. If I had to design a retro-fitted cheating circuit, I would have used an indexing stepper motor in the same system configuration depicted in OR's circuit.

 

I have no doubt that Oracle Racing cheated in the AC Match in 2013, using proprietary hydraulic components which they had developed - contrary to the Class Rules at the time. was sufuhcrt

 

Someone please refresh my memory. My recollection comports with yours that the MC looked at this circuit. More specifically, that ETNZ made some form of protest about it and the MC cleared it, either substantively or procedurally because ETNZ failed to raise a timely protest. Can anyone remind me what happened?

 

Are you saying that OR somehow deceived the MC or that the MC simply made the wrong decision?

 

You are correct on all counts. Interpretation No.49 contained the circuit and posed the following question:

 

"Question: (1) Below is a schematic of a hydraulic arrangement that includes the electrical operation of hydraulic valves. Does this arrangement comply with the Rule 19.2(e)?

 

MC Answer: 1. Yes, provided the electrically-operated hydraulic valves are commercially available and they have been approved by the Measurement Committee for use via an issued interpretation."

 

As you will note, the MC approved the "electrically-operated hydraulic valves". Yet the circuit depicts the hydraulic valves as manually activated: the only electrical activation taking place is in the DC-powered linear actuator (depicted as the orange line in the Legend at the bottom of the circuit). Connection to the hydraulic valve is clearly depicted as mechanical, via their Component X.

 

Did the MC get conned? I think so. The "electrical operation of hydraulic valves" in OR's question (via the electrically-activated linear actuatot) is NOT the same as direct electrical activation of solenoid-operated hydraulic valves which the MC approved!! It's electrically-operating the valves by proxy. Clever wordsmith craftsmanship by OR? I think so. Perfectly legal, and the linear actuators are commercially available to all teams. BUT...

 

Did the MC make the wrong decision? I believe so. They answered and approved a question which was not asked in PI49, and did not question Component X depicted in Grant's youtube simulation as a mechanical device activating plunger-activated valves. The MC should have determined whether Component X as depicted in Grant's simulation was sufficiently proprietary as to make it illegal under Class Rule, or whether it was commercially available to all teams.

 

Imo, the circuit was deliberately mischievous with a few red herrings (Comp X depicted as a "spring") thrown in to obfuscate. I would have designed the system using servo or proportional control valves to provide more accurate constant position adjustments, but I don't believe they had the time to take out the valves already installed and integrate the valve controls into their control system, so they went with a retro-fit using an indexing stepper motor, manually switched on and forgotten.

 

Thanks, Indio. You clearly know more about this from an engineering perspective -- impressively so -- than I ever will.

 

But I do know a bit about fraud, proving it, and the legal process. And here there are significant barriers to proving that any fraud occurred. First, and importantly, due process existed in this case. The AC judicial structure (the MC and whatever body issued the interpretive ruling -- I forget the name) had the chance to consider this issue. Oracle provided a schematic, and the AC authorities had the opportunity to kick the tires on it. If they were sufficiently concerned about your concerns (i.e., the true nature of component x, if I understand your concerns correctly), they had the opportunity to push Oracle for further explanation. They didn't, and you can certainly take issue with that. But the important point is that they had the opportunity to do so, which is a far cry from a scenario under which Oracle installed this system on its AC72 without telling anybody about it.

 

Which leads to the second point. People who commit fraud don't advertise it for obvious reasons. Fraud requires intent -- the person perpetrating the fraud has to intend to deceive someone else. How do you prove intent? Often times by conduct (again, because people committing fraud don't admit it openly). Here, the conduct both within Oracle and without does not lead to the conclusion that fraud existed. If I remember correctly -- and I may not, so please correct me -- Oracle explained in greater detail after AC34 and in a public presentation how the above system worked. If you committed fraud, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to the fact that you did. That is not how fraudsters act.

 

Equally telling, and again to my recollection, nobody outside Oracle generally and, more specifically ETNZ complained after the fact. Perhaps GD simply "moved on" as suggested by someone else. But it would be a powerful fund-raising pitch to say that the only reason ETNZ lost the cup was because Oracle cheated. I can't imagine GD failed to play that card if he thought he had it. He doesn't strike me as someone who engages in half-measures and he certainly hasn't had a problem speaking his mind in the past.

 

Put all of that into a blender and what comes out is the conclusion that Oracle didn't cheat. Certainly not from a legal perspective. The matter was adjudicated and resolved. It's done and dusted. The parties who were aggrieved said nothing. You disagreed with the outcome -- I get that and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have been in the unfortunate position of having to explain to clients that the court just didn't see things our way. It sucks, and they and I may go to our graves still believing that we were right. But it doesn't change the fact that the only people whose opinions matter saw it differently. I'm not sure what the utility is in continuing to wage old battles under those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porthos: Thanks for the above insight.

I think the main thing I have concerns about, is that there is no legitimate way that the movement we are seeing in Barflys video can be accounted for.

1) There is no input from Jimmy on the wheel.

 

2) The board positioning system should hold the boards locked in position, until human input dictates a new position.

 

...that is not what we see in the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porthos: Thanks for the above insight.

I think the main thing I have concerns about, is that there is no legitimate way that the movement we are seeing in Barflys video can be accounted for.

1) There is no input from Jimmy on the wheel.

 

2) The board positioning system should hold the boards locked in position, until human input dictates a new position.

 

...that is not what we see in the video.

I have no idea what the videos show. To me, it's a bunch of shit I don't understand moving around.

 

But for (1) and (2) to be correct, would not the system installed on the boat (and used in those videos) have to be something other than what both Oracle and ETNZ presented to the MC and the IJ (finally remembered what the name was)? Because that system (to my understanding) drives off inputs from the helm.

 

I will also say that people will see what they want to see. If you think Oracle are a bunch of pig-fuckers and then see something in a video that doesn't make sense, you are more inclined to believe it is something nefarious. In other words, unexplained movement of the gantry/foil/box/fuckall in a video becomes prima facie "robotic," "computer driven," and cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porthos: Thanks for the above insight.

I think the main thing I have concerns about, is that there is no legitimate way that the movement we are seeing in Barflys video can be accounted for.

1) There is no input from Jimmy on the wheel.

 

2) The board positioning system should hold the boards locked in position, until human input dictates a new position.

 

...that is not what we see in the video.

^this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the clever engineering comments on here, not one of you has gone to the substantive issue. Even if it can be proven that the board when lowered does move in the way that has been suggested, and I have looked time and again and it is not there, nobody has explained how Oracle changed the physics and made that period of ossolation and the amount of change in board angle actually have any effect. I have raised it on 3 occasions and all anybody comes back to is an argument that things above the water are moving so they must be moving below the water. That makes zero attempt to explain how it is of benefit. It is known from other foilers that small regular changes of this kind have absolutely no effect, so can somebody please tackle the issue of what they think is helping Oracle.

 

I note A Class Sailor's comment about small changes to a foiler making big changes to performance and that also happens with Moths. Everybody is looking for some magic bullet, but we can also see from the Jack Griffin video that ETNZ made big strides and foiled upwind yet they made far less changes (did they make any?) compared with Oracle. Were they cheating as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Indio. You clearly know more about this from an engineering perspective -- impressively so -- than I ever will.

 

 

But I do know a bit about fraud, proving it, and the legal process. And here there are significant barriers to proving that any fraud occurred. First, and importantly, due process existed in this case. The AC judicial structure (the MC and whatever body issued the interpretive ruling -- I forget the name) had the chance to consider this issue. Oracle provided a schematic, and the AC authorities had the opportunity to kick the tires on it. If they were sufficiently concerned about your concerns (i.e., the true nature of component x, if I understand your concerns correctly), they had the opportunity to push Oracle for further explanation. They didn't, and you can certainly take issue with that. But the important point is that they had the opportunity to do so, which is a far cry from a scenario under which Oracle installed this system on its AC72 without telling anybody about it.

 

Which leads to the second point. People who commit fraud don't advertise it for obvious reasons. Fraud requires intent -- the person perpetrating the fraud has to intend to deceive someone else. How do you prove intent? Often times by conduct (again, because people committing fraud don't admit it openly). Here, the conduct both within Oracle and without does not lead to the conclusion that fraud existed. If I remember correctly -- and I may not, so please correct me -- Oracle explained in greater detail after AC34 and in a public presentation how the above system worked. If you committed fraud, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to the fact that you did. That is not how fraudsters act.

 

Equally telling, and again to my recollection, nobody outside Oracle generally and, more specifically ETNZ complained after the fact. Perhaps GD simply "moved on" as suggested by someone else. But it would be a powerful fund-raising pitch to say that the only reason ETNZ lost the cup was because Oracle cheated. I can't imagine GD failed to play that card if he thought he had it. He doesn't strike me as someone who engages in half-measures and he certainly hasn't had a problem speaking his mind in the past.

 

Put all of that into a blender and what comes out is the conclusion that Oracle didn't cheat. Certainly not from a legal perspective. The matter was adjudicated and resolved. It's done and dusted. The parties who were aggrieved said nothing. You disagreed with the outcome -- I get that and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have been in the unfortunate position of having to explain to clients that the court just didn't see things our way. It sucks, and they and I may go to our graves still believing that we were right. But it doesn't change the fact that the only people whose opinions matter saw it differently. I'm not sure what the utility is in continuing to wage old battles under those circumstances.

 

Thank you for your considered response from the legal perspective, and I admit that I've been expecting Clean to tap me on the shoulder after receiving a cease-and-desist email from OR's legal reps. Nice to see you again. You and scassani are my favourite legal beagles in ACA B)

 

I admit that I emailed ETNZ to appeal the MC decision on PI49 and subsequent decisions - including the procedural rejection of an ETNZ application - but they may have had more pressing matters to attend to. The failure by omission by the MC enabled OR to get away with a control system which, imo, was illegal under the Class Rules and it's on that basis I accuse them of cheating. Proving them is, as you correctly point out, and entirely different matter. I suspect that there would be 4-5 people max within the OR team who knew about the cheat system, and I'd expect they'd all be tightly NDA'ed. Maybe in time we'll get some info leaking out from within...

 

Your assumption that Grant Dalton would have blabbed to one and all that they lost because of the alleged cheating is a galaxy away from who GD is. He's smart enough to know that any claims of being beaten by cheaters (without solid proof which probably ended up at the bottom of SF harbour within minutes of the last race) would serve no purpose for ETNZ. GD privately might air his suspicions to close confidants, but he accepts that they did not react fast enough to address issues they should have, so he probably blames his own internal systems and personnel. This may be surmised from the departure of some key personnel from the AC34 unsuccessful campaign.

 

I think there is enough circumstantial inconsistencies in the data and technical information available, and in their almost-miraculous upwind foiling abilities to draw a conclusion at variance with yours. And of course they have form in the cheating department...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks, Indio. You clearly know more about this from an engineering perspective -- impressively so -- than I ever will.

 

 

But I do know a bit about fraud, proving it, and the legal process. And here there are significant barriers to proving that any fraud occurred. First, and importantly, due process existed in this case. The AC judicial structure (the MC and whatever body issued the interpretive ruling -- I forget the name) had the chance to consider this issue. Oracle provided a schematic, and the AC authorities had the opportunity to kick the tires on it. If they were sufficiently concerned about your concerns (i.e., the true nature of component x, if I understand your concerns correctly), they had the opportunity to push Oracle for further explanation. They didn't, and you can certainly take issue with that. But the important point is that they had the opportunity to do so, which is a far cry from a scenario under which Oracle installed this system on its AC72 without telling anybody about it.

 

Which leads to the second point. People who commit fraud don't advertise it for obvious reasons. Fraud requires intent -- the person perpetrating the fraud has to intend to deceive someone else. How do you prove intent? Often times by conduct (again, because people committing fraud don't admit it openly). Here, the conduct both within Oracle and without does not lead to the conclusion that fraud existed. If I remember correctly -- and I may not, so please correct me -- Oracle explained in greater detail after AC34 and in a public presentation how the above system worked. If you committed fraud, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to the fact that you did. That is not how fraudsters act.

 

Equally telling, and again to my recollection, nobody outside Oracle generally and, more specifically ETNZ complained after the fact. Perhaps GD simply "moved on" as suggested by someone else. But it would be a powerful fund-raising pitch to say that the only reason ETNZ lost the cup was because Oracle cheated. I can't imagine GD failed to play that card if he thought he had it. He doesn't strike me as someone who engages in half-measures and he certainly hasn't had a problem speaking his mind in the past.

 

Put all of that into a blender and what comes out is the conclusion that Oracle didn't cheat. Certainly not from a legal perspective. The matter was adjudicated and resolved. It's done and dusted. The parties who were aggrieved said nothing. You disagreed with the outcome -- I get that and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have been in the unfortunate position of having to explain to clients that the court just didn't see things our way. It sucks, and they and I may go to our graves still believing that we were right. But it doesn't change the fact that the only people whose opinions matter saw it differently. I'm not sure what the utility is in continuing to wage old battles under those circumstances.

 

Thank you for your considered response from the legal perspective, and I admit that I've been expecting Clean to tap me on the shoulder after receiving a cease-and-desist email from OR's legal reps. Nice to see you again. You and scassani are my favourite legal beagles in ACA B)

 

I admit that I emailed ETNZ to appeal the MC decision on PI49 and subsequent decisions - including the procedural rejection of an ETNZ application - but they may have had more pressing matters to attend to. The failure by omission by the MC enabled OR to get away with a control system which, imo, was illegal under the Class Rules and it's on that basis I accuse them of cheating. Proving them is, as you correctly point out, and entirely different matter. I suspect that there would be 4-5 people max within the OR team who knew about the cheat system, and I'd expect they'd all be tightly NDA'ed. Maybe in time we'll get some info leaking out from within...

 

Your assumption that Grant Dalton would have blabbed to one and all that they lost because of the alleged cheating is a galaxy away from who GD is. He's smart enough to know that any claims of being beaten by cheaters (without solid proof which probably ended up at the bottom of SF harbour within minutes of the last race) would serve no purpose for ETNZ. GD privately might air his suspicions to close confidants, but he accepts that they did not react fast enough to address issues they should have, so he probably blames his own internal systems and personnel. This may be surmised from the departure of some key personnel from the AC34 unsuccessful campaign.

 

I think there is enough circumstantial inconsistencies in the data and technical information available, and in their almost-miraculous upwind foiling abilities to draw a conclusion at variance with yours. And of course they have form in the cheating department...

 

 

Good come back

 

and there is that word again - "miraculous"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks, Indio. You clearly know more about this from an engineering perspective -- impressively so -- than I ever will.

 

 

But I do know a bit about fraud, proving it, and the legal process. And here there are significant barriers to proving that any fraud occurred. First, and importantly, due process existed in this case. The AC judicial structure (the MC and whatever body issued the interpretive ruling -- I forget the name) had the chance to consider this issue. Oracle provided a schematic, and the AC authorities had the opportunity to kick the tires on it. If they were sufficiently concerned about your concerns (i.e., the true nature of component x, if I understand your concerns correctly), they had the opportunity to push Oracle for further explanation. They didn't, and you can certainly take issue with that. But the important point is that they had the opportunity to do so, which is a far cry from a scenario under which Oracle installed this system on its AC72 without telling anybody about it.

 

Which leads to the second point. People who commit fraud don't advertise it for obvious reasons. Fraud requires intent -- the person perpetrating the fraud has to intend to deceive someone else. How do you prove intent? Often times by conduct (again, because people committing fraud don't admit it openly). Here, the conduct both within Oracle and without does not lead to the conclusion that fraud existed. If I remember correctly -- and I may not, so please correct me -- Oracle explained in greater detail after AC34 and in a public presentation how the above system worked. If you committed fraud, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to the fact that you did. That is not how fraudsters act.

 

Equally telling, and again to my recollection, nobody outside Oracle generally and, more specifically ETNZ complained after the fact. Perhaps GD simply "moved on" as suggested by someone else. But it would be a powerful fund-raising pitch to say that the only reason ETNZ lost the cup was because Oracle cheated. I can't imagine GD failed to play that card if he thought he had it. He doesn't strike me as someone who engages in half-measures and he certainly hasn't had a problem speaking his mind in the past.

 

Put all of that into a blender and what comes out is the conclusion that Oracle didn't cheat. Certainly not from a legal perspective. The matter was adjudicated and resolved. It's done and dusted. The parties who were aggrieved said nothing. You disagreed with the outcome -- I get that and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have been in the unfortunate position of having to explain to clients that the court just didn't see things our way. It sucks, and they and I may go to our graves still believing that we were right. But it doesn't change the fact that the only people whose opinions matter saw it differently. I'm not sure what the utility is in continuing to wage old battles under those circumstances.

 

Thank you for your considered response from the legal perspective, and I admit that I've been expecting Clean to tap me on the shoulder after receiving a cease-and-desist email from OR's legal reps. Nice to see you again. You and scassani are my favourite legal beagles in ACA B)

 

I admit that I emailed ETNZ to appeal the MC decision on PI49 and subsequent decisions - including the procedural rejection of an ETNZ application - but they may have had more pressing matters to attend to. The failure by omission by the MC enabled OR to get away with a control system which, imo, was illegal under the Class Rules and it's on that basis I accuse them of cheating. Proving them is, as you correctly point out, and entirely different matter. I suspect that there would be 4-5 people max within the OR team who knew about the cheat system, and I'd expect they'd all be tightly NDA'ed. Maybe in time we'll get some info leaking out from within...

 

Your assumption that Grant Dalton would have blabbed to one and all that they lost because of the alleged cheating is a galaxy away from who GD is. He's smart enough to know that any claims of being beaten by cheaters (without solid proof which probably ended up at the bottom of SF harbour within minutes of the last race) would serve no purpose for ETNZ. GD privately might air his suspicions to close confidants, but he accepts that they did not react fast enough to address issues they should have, so he probably blames his own internal systems and personnel. This may be surmised from the departure of some key personnel from the AC34 unsuccessful campaign.

 

I think there is enough circumstantial inconsistencies in the data and technical information available, and in their almost-miraculous upwind foiling abilities to draw a conclusion at variance with yours. And of course they have form in the cheating department...

 

If anyone gives you any legal shine stateside for expressing your opinion, you have a free lawyer at your disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Months of testing and it wasn't till they were looking down the barrel of defeat that OR finally learnt how to foil manually... Yeh right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and there is that word again - "miraculous"

 

And there we go again. If the improvement by Oracle was "miraculous", why wasn't the improvement by ETNZ equally so? Watch the videos. Look at the speeds. At the beginning of the regatta ETNZ could not foil upwind. By the end they could. Their upwind speed increased substantially. ETNZ didn't make any changes to the boat and still achieved big increases while Oracle made significant changes to the boat, both in terms of gear such as revised rudder winglets and other hydro improvements designed by Paul Beiker and set up changes noted by observers including people who post on this forum, such as trimming the wing very differently. So if ETNZ made big improvements without changes, isn't it reasonable to expect Oracle to make bigger gains with all the changes we know they made?

 

Months of testing and it wasn't till they were looking down the barrel of defeat that OR finally learnt how to foil manually... Yeh right

 

The same happened with ETNZ. They did even more testing than Oracle yet couldn't foil upwind until well into the regatta. Explain that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team_GBR, without delving into the technical side of things, to the naked eye OR discovered stable flight. Compare the first race to the later races, the bear away at the first mark went from hobby horsing to being on rails.

 

It is the AC, things happen behind the scenes that us mere mortals are not privy to or understand. My opinion (which is worth diddly squat) is OR had a "stabilising" system added that made their foiling easier to manage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Months of testing and it wasn't till they were looking down the barrel of defeat that OR finally learnt how to foil manually... Yeh right

 

The same happened with ETNZ. They did even more testing than Oracle yet couldn't foil upwind until well into the regatta. Explain that.

 

No, the same did not happen, it happened the lay day, I saw them training a few hours, and OR began to fly upwind at close to 30 kts. "We broke the code" (LE)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Months of testing and it wasn't till they were looking down the barrel of defeat that OR finally learnt how to foil manually... Yeh right

 

The same happened with ETNZ. They did even more testing than Oracle yet couldn't foil upwind until well into the regatta. Explain that.

 

No, the same did not happen, it happened the lay day, I saw them training a few hours, and OR began to fly upwind at close to 30 kts. "We broke the code" (LE)

 

Are you telling me that the video of ETNZ foiling upwind is fake? Foiling is very binary. You are either foiling or you are not. When you start foiling, speed goes up a great deal. It is a fact that there was a single moment in time that Oracle got foiling upwind and that the same applies to ETNZ. Just like with Oracle, ETNZ started the regatta unable to foil upwind and at some point during the regatta, they learnt how to. Just look at the speed gains made by ETNZ, or are you saying that the speeds shown were faked?

 

There is no relationship between the stability once up on foils to how the boat behaves when not foiling. Fairly small differences can make big differences in speed. In Moth terms, the Mach 2 foils so much better than a Bladerider even though they are based on the same basic concepts. It should come as no surprise that once up on foils going upwind, one of the AC boats foiled significantly more stable than the other because they were using different foils and were sailing the boat differently.

 

I would like to ask once again how people explain ETNZ gaining so much upwind speed and discovering a way to foil upwind during the regatta when they couldn't foil upwind before the regatta. At least Oracle says they had foiled upwind in the weeks leading up to the regatta but didn't believe they could make it work during the racing. ETNZ admitted that they had never foiled upwind. It seems that people think there is nothing strange about ETNZ learning to foil upwind during the regatta but it is strange Oracle did. People accept that ETNZ made their gains without changing their boat, but think that the legal changes made by Oracle, which were significant in terms of foiling could not have made them better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chopping off the bowsprit and associated gear wouldn't have hurt either.

When you can't complete the course in time when the screecher is required - why leave it on. ETNZ should have done the same and the weight distribution change might have helped upwind foiling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there is no evidence that OR cheated but your suggestion that someone would have spoken up if there was cheating is unlikely.

 

The example of the cycling world should make it clear that cheating can go on for years without anyone speaking up. One of Armstrong's team members finally spoke up after he had retired from the sport and he was ignored.

 

Terry

I think that the comparison with Armstrong and the cycling world is very wrong. Cycling was rife with drug abuse and had been acceptable in the Tour de France until the 1950's. Since then, the sport has remained riddled with drugs problems. Most of the greats including the legendary Eddie Merckx used illegal drugs. Between 1996 and 2010 there were 8 different winners of the Tour and 6 of them were caught or admitted to drugs cheating. There was a feeling that the only way to compete against the other cheats was to cheat yourself. In the case of Armstrong, it was another drugs cheat who called him out. In cycling, it is believed that the doping problems went all the way to the top of the sport with leading officials being paid to ignore the cheating.

 

I hope you are not suggesting that there is any parallel in sailing. In 25 years of competitive sailing, the number of people that have been caught seriously cheating in our sport has been very, very low. I believe that there has been a very high level of morality in our sport regarding cheating and this is why I cannot believe that in a team as large as Oracle and with the number of people who would have needed to know, every one of them went from being moral, decent people who wouldn't cheat to being cheats. It does not add up. I personally know some of the Australians on the team, each of them would have needed to know, and what you are saying is that all of them were turned and lost all their honour and integrity. In particular I do not believe that Tom Slingsby or Darren Bundock would cheat or would stay silent.

 

The cheating accusations in regard to board control don't stack up on lots of levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks, Indio. You clearly know more about this from an engineering perspective -- impressively so -- than I ever will.

 

 

But I do know a bit about fraud, proving it, and the legal process. And here there are significant barriers to proving that any fraud occurred. First, and importantly, due process existed in this case. The AC judicial structure (the MC and whatever body issued the interpretive ruling -- I forget the name) had the chance to consider this issue. Oracle provided a schematic, and the AC authorities had the opportunity to kick the tires on it. If they were sufficiently concerned about your concerns (i.e., the true nature of component x, if I understand your concerns correctly), they had the opportunity to push Oracle for further explanation. They didn't, and you can certainly take issue with that. But the important point is that they had the opportunity to do so, which is a far cry from a scenario under which Oracle installed this system on its AC72 without telling anybody about it.

 

Which leads to the second point. People who commit fraud don't advertise it for obvious reasons. Fraud requires intent -- the person perpetrating the fraud has to intend to deceive someone else. How do you prove intent? Often times by conduct (again, because people committing fraud don't admit it openly). Here, the conduct both within Oracle and without does not lead to the conclusion that fraud existed. If I remember correctly -- and I may not, so please correct me -- Oracle explained in greater detail after AC34 and in a public presentation how the above system worked. If you committed fraud, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to the fact that you did. That is not how fraudsters act.

 

Equally telling, and again to my recollection, nobody outside Oracle generally and, more specifically ETNZ complained after the fact. Perhaps GD simply "moved on" as suggested by someone else. But it would be a powerful fund-raising pitch to say that the only reason ETNZ lost the cup was because Oracle cheated. I can't imagine GD failed to play that card if he thought he had it. He doesn't strike me as someone who engages in half-measures and he certainly hasn't had a problem speaking his mind in the past.

 

Put all of that into a blender and what comes out is the conclusion that Oracle didn't cheat. Certainly not from a legal perspective. The matter was adjudicated and resolved. It's done and dusted. The parties who were aggrieved said nothing. You disagreed with the outcome -- I get that and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have been in the unfortunate position of having to explain to clients that the court just didn't see things our way. It sucks, and they and I may go to our graves still believing that we were right. But it doesn't change the fact that the only people whose opinions matter saw it differently. I'm not sure what the utility is in continuing to wage old battles under those circumstances.

 

Thank you for your considered response from the legal perspective, and I admit that I've been expecting Clean to tap me on the shoulder after receiving a cease-and-desist email from OR's legal reps. Nice to see you again. You and scassani are my favourite legal beagles in ACA B)

 

I admit that I emailed ETNZ to appeal the MC decision on PI49 and subsequent decisions - including the procedural rejection of an ETNZ application - but they may have had more pressing matters to attend to. The failure by omission by the MC enabled OR to get away with a control system which, imo, was illegal under the Class Rules and it's on that basis I accuse them of cheating. Proving them is, as you correctly point out, and entirely different matter. I suspect that there would be 4-5 people max within the OR team who knew about the cheat system, and I'd expect they'd all be tightly NDA'ed. Maybe in time we'll get some info leaking out from within...

 

Your assumption that Grant Dalton would have blabbed to one and all that they lost because of the alleged cheating is a galaxy away from who GD is. He's smart enough to know that any claims of being beaten by cheaters (without solid proof which probably ended up at the bottom of SF harbour within minutes of the last race) would serve no purpose for ETNZ. GD privately might air his suspicions to close confidants, but he accepts that they did not react fast enough to address issues they should have, so he probably blames his own internal systems and personnel. This may be surmised from the departure of some key personnel from the AC34 unsuccessful campaign.

 

I think there is enough circumstantial inconsistencies in the data and technical information available, and in their almost-miraculous upwind foiling abilities to draw a conclusion at variance with yours. And of course they have form in the cheating department...

 

If anyone gives you any legal shine stateside for expressing your opinion, you have a free lawyer at your disposal.

 

Haha, thank you porthos. Roll on 26th May - can't wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree that there is no evidence that OR cheated but your suggestion that someone would have spoken up if there was cheating is unlikely.

 

The example of the cycling world should make it clear that cheating can go on for years without anyone speaking up. One of Armstrong's team members finally spoke up after he had retired from the sport and he was ignored.

 

Terry

I think that the comparison with Armstrong and the cycling world is very wrong. Cycling was rife with drug abuse and had been acceptable in the Tour de France until the 1950's. Since then, the sport has remained riddled with drugs problems. Most of the greats including the legendary Eddie Merckx used illegal drugs. Between 1996 and 2010 there were 8 different winners of the Tour and 6 of them were caught or admitted to drugs cheating. There was a feeling that the only way to compete against the other cheats was to cheat yourself. In the case of Armstrong, it was another drugs cheat who called him out. In cycling, it is believed that the doping problems went all the way to the top of the sport with leading officials being paid to ignore the cheating.

 

I hope you are not suggesting that there is any parallel in sailing. In 25 years of competitive sailing, the number of people that have been caught seriously cheating in our sport has been very, very low. I believe that there has been a very high level of morality in our sport regarding cheating and this is why I cannot believe that in a team as large as Oracle and with the number of people who would have needed to know, every one of them went from being moral, decent people who wouldn't cheat to being cheats. It does not add up. I personally know some of the Australians on the team, each of them would have needed to know, and what you are saying is that all of them were turned and lost all their honour and integrity. In particular I do not believe that Tom Slingsby or Darren Bundock would cheat or would stay silent.

 

The cheating accusations in regard to board control don't stack up on lots of levels.

 

 

The comparison with cycling is valid because the people involved are human in both cases.

 

The reason no one spoke up on OR was because they weren't cheating or at least they didn't know they were cheating .. If they had been cheating it is probable that someone would of eventually spoken about it as you say.

 

I am not saying that. I am disputing your reasoning that people would speak up if they were cheating .. the fact that no one did speak up does not prove that they were not cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Months of testing and it wasn't till they were looking down the barrel of defeat that OR finally learnt how to foil manually... Yeh right

 

The same happened with ETNZ. They did even more testing than Oracle yet couldn't foil upwind until well into the regatta. Explain that.

 

No, the same did not happen, it happened the lay day, I saw them training a few hours, and OR began to fly upwind at close to 30 kts. "We broke the code" (LE)

 

Are you telling me that the video of ETNZ foiling upwind is fake? Foiling is very binary. You are either foiling or you are not. When you start foiling, speed goes up a great deal. It is a fact that there was a single moment in time that Oracle got foiling upwind and that the same applies to ETNZ. Just like with Oracle, ETNZ started the regatta unable to foil upwind and at some point during the regatta, they learnt how to. Just look at the speed gains made by ETNZ, or are you saying that the speeds shown were faked?

 

There is no relationship between the stability once up on foils to how the boat behaves when not foiling. Fairly small differences can make big differences in speed. In Moth terms, the Mach 2 foils so much better than a Bladerider even though they are based on the same basic concepts. It should come as no surprise that once up on foils going upwind, one of the AC boats foiled significantly more stable than the other because they were using different foils and were sailing the boat differently.

 

I would like to ask once again how people explain ETNZ gaining so much upwind speed and discovering a way to foil upwind during the regatta when they couldn't foil upwind before the regatta. At least Oracle says they had foiled upwind in the weeks leading up to the regatta but didn't believe they could make it work during the racing. ETNZ admitted that they had never foiled upwind. It seems that people think there is nothing strange about ETNZ learning to foil upwind during the regatta but it is strange Oracle did. People accept that ETNZ made their gains without changing their boat, but think that the legal changes made by Oracle, which were significant in terms of foiling could not have made them better.

 

i know shit about about mothies, but you keep speaking of the wand making many small trim changes that are not visible in boat attitude. This does not help your case.

 

I say again, small high frequency changes in trim must be beneficial to stable flight.

And I say again, JS was not making these trim changes.

 

If someone else was, OR would have pinned a medal on him being the "man behind the foils".

 

instead we heard, "lee helm", spin the main sheet drum with 4 guys developing the hydro for one winch. open the slot. beast mode.

 

ETNZ did the best they could with what they had, but they trimmed low and kissed the water for stability. And were slow. er.

Want more vidy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree that there is no evidence that OR cheated but your suggestion that someone would have spoken up if there was cheating is unlikely.

 

The example of the cycling world should make it clear that cheating can go on for years without anyone speaking up. One of Armstrong's team members finally spoke up after he had retired from the sport and he was ignored.

 

Terry

I think that the comparison with Armstrong and the cycling world is very wrong. Cycling was rife with drug abuse and had been acceptable in the Tour de France until the 1950's. Since then, the sport has remained riddled with drugs problems. Most of the greats including the legendary Eddie Merckx used illegal drugs. Between 1996 and 2010 there were 8 different winners of the Tour and 6 of them were caught or admitted to drugs cheating. There was a feeling that the only way to compete against the other cheats was to cheat yourself. In the case of Armstrong, it was another drugs cheat who called him out. In cycling, it is believed that the doping problems went all the way to the top of the sport with leading officials being paid to ignore the cheating.

 

I hope you are not suggesting that there is any parallel in sailing. In 25 years of competitive sailing, the number of people that have been caught seriously cheating in our sport has been very, very low. I believe that there has been a very high level of morality in our sport regarding cheating and this is why I cannot believe that in a team as large as Oracle and with the number of people who would have needed to know, every one of them went from being moral, decent people who wouldn't cheat to being cheats. It does not add up. I personally know some of the Australians on the team, each of them would have needed to know, and what you are saying is that all of them were turned and lost all their honour and integrity. In particular I do not believe that Tom Slingsby or Darren Bundock would cheat or would stay silent.

 

The cheating accusations in regard to board control don't stack up on lots of levels.

 

lead gate. jobs on day board. one design boats with specific placement of corrector weights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say again, small high frequency changes in trim must be beneficial to stable flight.

What leads you to conclude that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I say again, small high frequency changes in trim must be beneficial to stable flight.

What leads you to conclude that?

 

because:

OR adopted this methodology. and were fast. Why? because upwind hulls just above the water makes best use of the vertical component of the foils to resist leeway. How to keep the system off the water? Don't know but OR achieved this, used more hydro, and micro changed their rake.

 

and the point is, if you accept the fact that OR were trimming the foil rake in this manner,

and JS was not doing the trimming, with his up and down (incremental additive control that was vetted), buttons on the wheel.

and the boat was "miraculously" stable at just above water height,

????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, circular argument. You start with the observation, in your view, that such trimming is being done. Since Oracle is fast, you believe the trimming technique must be fast. You aren't actually developing a counter-argument to Team_GBR's position that such trimming is not effective. My problem with your argumentation is that I think Team_GBR knows a bit about foiling trim. Even if he frequently irritates the hell out of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Thanks, Indio. You clearly know more about this from an engineering perspective -- impressively so -- than I ever will.

 

 

 

 

But I do know a bit about fraud, proving it, and the legal process. And here there are significant barriers to proving that any fraud occurred. First, and importantly, due process existed in this case. The AC judicial structure (the MC and whatever body issued the interpretive ruling -- I forget the name) had the chance to consider this issue. Oracle provided a schematic, and the AC authorities had the opportunity to kick the tires on it. If they were sufficiently concerned about your concerns (i.e., the true nature of component x, if I understand your concerns correctly), they had the opportunity to push Oracle for further explanation. They didn't, and you can certainly take issue with that. But the important point is that they had the opportunity to do so, which is a far cry from a scenario under which Oracle installed this system on its AC72 without telling anybody about it.

 

Which leads to the second point. People who commit fraud don't advertise it for obvious reasons. Fraud requires intent -- the person perpetrating the fraud has to intend to deceive someone else. How do you prove intent? Often times by conduct (again, because people committing fraud don't admit it openly). Here, the conduct both within Oracle and without does not lead to the conclusion that fraud existed. If I remember correctly -- and I may not, so please correct me -- Oracle explained in greater detail after AC34 and in a public presentation how the above system worked. If you committed fraud, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to the fact that you did. That is not how fraudsters act.

 

Equally telling, and again to my recollection, nobody outside Oracle generally and, more specifically ETNZ complained after the fact. Perhaps GD simply "moved on" as suggested by someone else. But it would be a powerful fund-raising pitch to say that the only reason ETNZ lost the cup was because Oracle cheated. I can't imagine GD failed to play that card if he thought he had it. He doesn't strike me as someone who engages in half-measures and he certainly hasn't had a problem speaking his mind in the past.

 

Put all of that into a blender and what comes out is the conclusion that Oracle didn't cheat. Certainly not from a legal perspective. The matter was adjudicated and resolved. It's done and dusted. The parties who were aggrieved said nothing. You disagreed with the outcome -- I get that and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have been in the unfortunate position of having to explain to clients that the court just didn't see things our way. It sucks, and they and I may go to our graves still believing that we were right. But it doesn't change the fact that the only people whose opinions matter saw it differently. I'm not sure what the utility is in continuing to wage old battles under those circumstances.

 

Thank you for your considered response from the legal perspective, and I admit that I've been expecting Clean to tap me on the shoulder after receiving a cease-and-desist email from OR's legal reps. Nice to see you again. You and scassani are my favourite legal beagles in ACA B)

 

I admit that I emailed ETNZ to appeal the MC decision on PI49 and subsequent decisions - including the procedural rejection of an ETNZ application - but they may have had more pressing matters to attend to. The failure by omission by the MC enabled OR to get away with a control system which, imo, was illegal under the Class Rules and it's on that basis I accuse them of cheating. Proving them is, as you correctly point out, and entirely different matter. I suspect that there would be 4-5 people max within the OR team who knew about the cheat system, and I'd expect they'd all be tightly NDA'ed. Maybe in time we'll get some info leaking out from within...

 

Your assumption that Grant Dalton would have blabbed to one and all that they lost because of the alleged cheating is a galaxy away from who GD is. He's smart enough to know that any claims of being beaten by cheaters (without solid proof which probably ended up at the bottom of SF harbour within minutes of the last race) would serve no purpose for ETNZ. GD privately might air his suspicions to close confidants, but he accepts that they did not react fast enough to address issues they should have, so he probably blames his own internal systems and personnel. This may be surmised from the departure of some key personnel from the AC34 unsuccessful campaign.

 

I think there is enough circumstantial inconsistencies in the data and technical information available, and in their almost-miraculous upwind foiling abilities to draw a conclusion at variance with yours. And of course they have form in the cheating department...

If anyone gives you any legal shine stateside for expressing your opinion, you have a free lawyer at your disposal.

Haha, thank you porthos. Roll on 26th May - can't wait.

Thanks to Indio and porthos for bringing informative and respectful posts to this thread. I don't know if they did cheat but I'm open to the possibility unlike the denyers and 'let it go' posters here...I'm betting we have to wait for Dalts book to find out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about foiling, but I do know something about changes in trim in unstable aircraft (such as modern fighters) and fast adjustment is of benefit there. I would be very much surprised if it would not also be of benefit to foiling.

 

However that does not mean that the boats were having computer driven changes.

 

Also I stick with what I said in the other thread- the same movements can be seen to happen to ETNZs windward foil in race 2. So to my mind if this movement is indicative of cheating, then they both did it- and ETNZ did it first. But I am not yet convinced that it is not a manifestation of something else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

porthos that is compelling circumstantial evidence that ETNZ never suspected any underhand dealings in the Match. And I will read the book when GD finally pens it.

 

Again, I am trying to present something I saw recently on an old video as clearly and fact based as possible and ask the "wise old men" on here what they make of it. While presenting my case, (i'm not a lawyer but a post-grad techy), I have responded the best I can to support it. I will do more analysis soon of old ETNZ footage to continue to "chip away" at it and respond to the questions that have been brought up.

 

I think tech sums it up above best in words where I am at now:

 

tech, on 16 Mar 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:
I think the main thing I have concerns about, is that there is no legitimate way that the movement we are seeing in Barflys video can be accounted for.
1) There is no input from Jimmy on the wheel.

2) The board positioning system should hold the boards locked in position, until human input dictates a new position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be very clear about what is actually going on here.

 

Video shows that parts of the board system and one of the boards, when not under any load, move around in an unexplained manner. So far, there has been no evidence that the foil in the water, which is under load, moves the same way. We are expected to simply accept that something under huge loads said to be in excess of 13,000 lbs will move in the same way as something under almost no load at all. What has been seen is taken by some as clear evidence that Oracle Racing cheated. When I say that I have watched the board in the water at as big an enlargement as my 27" screen will allow and I see no evidence of the load bearing foil moving, the reply is that the picture isn't clear enough to tell which at very least concedes that the board might not be moving the same way. When asked how they can produce enough power to move the load bearing board in that manner because it should not be possible, there is no proper explanation. It is also assumed that the only explanation for the movement must be something illegal

 

Those making the accusations fail to address the critical issue of how the alleged board movement would be of benefit. Those who have some clear knowledge of the subject keep saying that the frequency of the movement coupled with the amount of movement would have a detrimental effect on foiling and those claiming it shows cheating have yet to produce a single argument to explain how this movement, if it is happening to the load bearing foil changes the laws of physics and helps stable flight.

 

In summary, it seems that the argument is that something identified above water must be happening to the loaded foil in the water (without any evidence to support) and because it is happening, it must be an advantage and therefore there is cheating. The argument does not stack up. Against that, to believe that there was cheating, you have to believe that there is a huge conspiracy and that not only has the whole of the Oracle Racing team kept quiet about the cheating, every other expert both from with the AC world and those not involved have also kept quiet. Even if i was to accept that everybody at Oracle has been silenced which I do not, I cannot see how or why everybody else would keep quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stable flight achieved with rapid control surface movement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be very clear about what is actually going on here.

 

Video shows that parts of the board system and one of the boards, when not under any load, move around in an unexplained manner. [snip]

video one shows part of the board system under load moving in an unexplained manner

 

video two shows that the lifting pole/gantry moves in concert with the board and makes no assumptions or attempts to explain why the unloaded board is moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video shows that parts of the board system and one of the boards, when not under any load, move around in an unexplained manner.

 

Disagree. Unloaded board movement is probably Skippy decreasing rake by 0.2 degrees before touchdown to match target. Easier to move boards when unloaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

porthos that is compelling circumstantial evidence that ETNZ never suspected any underhand dealings in the Match. And I will read the book when GD finally pens it.

 

Again, I am trying to present something I saw recently on an old video as clearly and fact based as possible and ask the "wise old men" on here what they make of it. While presenting my case, (i'm not a lawyer but a post-grad techy), I have responded the best I can to support it. I will do more analysis soon of old ETNZ footage to continue to "chip away" at it and respond to the questions that have been brought up.

 

I think tech sums it up above best in words where I am at now:

 

tech, on 16 Mar 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

I think the main thing I have concerns about, is that there is no legitimate way that the movement we are seeing in Barflys video can be accounted for.

1) There is no input from Jimmy on the wheel.

2) The board positioning system should hold the boards locked in position, until human input dictates a new position.

Barfy, you have done an admirable job making your case. One of the reasons I love coming here is to learn from people much smarter than I am.

 

That said, you are seeing facts you can't explain -- movement of certain pieces of the boat -- and jumping to a conclusion -- that movement must have been caused by an illegal system (i.e., one with no input from the helm) Tech's post is a good example of that. Which is a very human response, btw. I see it all the time in my line of work. People's experiences, and particularly memories, are partial mosaics. They frequently have some but not all of the pieces, so they fill in the missing pieces and complete the mosaic with "assumed" facts that make the overall picture make sense to them. In other words, our biases and the lenses through which we view the world shape the complete pictures that we see.

 

And, frankly, that is a lot of what is happening here. People who don't like Oracle fill in the missing facts and assume they cheated. But that doesn't mean that's what actually happened. The best you can say at this point is that the question remains open. That's it, nothing else. Is it possible Oracle snowed the MC and IJ and everybody? It is. But in order for that to be true, Oracle must have had a different system on its boat that it showed to the MC (and also the one ETNZ showed to the MC). In other words, Oracle must have deliberately misled a whole bunch of people. That would be one helluva conspiracy. The problem, however, is that there just isn't any other indicia of fraud that you would expect to find had it occurred, as I indicated earlier. Moreover, we've had four years for that fraud to unravel and it hasn't happened. If Oracle have managed to keep that conspiracy quiet all these years, sailing is only the second best thing they do.

 

Certainly some will say "well, Oracle cheated in the past, so they must have now." But that is the easy way out and is a poor substitute for actual fact-finding. In a court of law, you'd never be able to introduce that evidence because it is rank speculation and entirely unreliable. Show me facts and not conclusions.

 

Let me end this post where I began it: your detective work is impressive -- truly. It raises a bunch of interesting questions. But it doesn't answer them yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Video shows that parts of the board system and one of the boards, when not under any load, move around in an unexplained manner.

 

Disagree. Unloaded board movement is probably Skippy decreasing rake by 0.2 degrees before touchdown to match target. Easier to move boards when unloaded.

 

agree with both of you. Video two was the first one I came across showing the foil and the pole moving in concert. This was in rebuttal to comments that the pole movement was not indicative of foil movement in video one.

If there are still those who think that the pole does not move with the foil I shall attempt to reinforce this with more video examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Thank you porthos, your post is well reasoned as usual. And your appraisal of my small bit of work means a lot to me.

 

"That said, you are seeing facts you can't explain -- movement of certain pieces of the boat -- and jumping to a conclusion -- that movement must have been caused by an illegal system (i.e., one with no input from the helm)"

 

I don't jump to this conclusion. I try and tie the movement of a part of the boat that is reasonably controlled by the skipper, to the skipper's hand position on the wheel where the controls were said to be during similar upwind legs with good performance.

 

I ask for other hypothesis that could possibly tie these two observations together.

 

And I would like people to make up their own minds, and rebut my evidence as a means of getting a stronger connection between the two items I try and connect.

 

For instance, no-one has posted that the videos of Jimmy are inconclusive of him not making button movements at the same frequency as the small snippet of video I had available show. So I can conclude that this passes the test of reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stable flight achieved with rapid control surface movement.

 

Which would be great except for 3 problems. The flap is a very small part of the overall wing, maybe 5% of the cord length. The effect of moving that flap is very different from moving the whole wing. You are not comparing the same thing. Next, consider why the flaps are moving like that. It is to counter roll caused by differentials in lift between each wing, as the plane is passing through unstable air and cloud and that the flap movement needs to be considered along with the corresponding movements of the flaps on the other wing. You are arguing that the movement of the foil is countering pitch. It has been shown on the Moth that small, rapid adjustments on the flap do not effect ride height or improve pitch but act to increase drag, thus slowing the boat.

 

You need to be careful when presenting "evidence" that it is relevant and comparable. Aircraft wings, while similar in some areas, work rather differently to foils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stable flight achieved with rapid control surface movement.

 

 

 

 

Firstly, the application is entirely different. An aileron is controlling roll on an aircraft that is flying entirely in air. Foil pitch is controlling the ride height of a boat on the air/water boundary. Aileron are positioned where they exert leverage, foils are not.

 

Secondly, that movement isn't particularly rapid. While on an airliner it is almost certainly being performed by an autopilot, with practice an even moderately skilled human pilot is capable of produces corrections at that rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting foiling and rake control on the other oracle forum right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredibly detailed hydraulic ramming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it would be more effective if it was battery operated...

 

On my iPhone I can't seem to find a way to report it- hopefully it's seen my a moderator soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For instance, no-one has posted that the videos of Jimmy are inconclusive of him not making button movements at the same frequency as the small snippet of video I had available show. So I can conclude that this passes the test of reason.

 

You bear the burden of proof as the party making the claim. Simply because nobody has objected doesn't mean you've offered sufficient proof. In your words, you cannot and should not conclude that your claim passes the test of reason simply because nobody else has offered anything contrary. Edit: I should say more about that to make clear what I mean. I've had cases against my clients dismissed without putting on any evidence of my own simply because the evidence offered by the opposing side is insufficient for a reasonable jury to reach any sort of conclusion one way or the other. In other words, the party making the claim has the burden to show that a given set of events and facts reasonably leads to a particular conclusion. If the evidence first presented does not allow such a reasonable conclusion, the other side doesn't have to say anything. If the evidence first presented has substantial holes in it, the case ends.

 

And there are some holes. For example, what you have posted so far (from what I have seen and I may have missed something, so if I did correct me) is a couple of videos of board movement and a brief video of Jimmy at the helm where he didn't appear to be pushing buttons. Nowhere does it appear that those videos show the exact same period of time. In other words, there is no evidence that the video of Jimmy not pushing buttons lines up with the board movement videos. Maybe he just wasn't pushing buttons at that time. Show me synchronized videos side by side of board movement on the one hand and Jimmy on the other where his hands are clearly in view and there is no way they are providing input into the system. Then you'll have something. Then something (or someone) else must be controlling the boards.

 

You have also shown rapid board movement and concluded that such rapid board movement could not have occurred with human input as it was too fast. At least that is how I took your assertion. Again, correct me if I am mistaken. If that is the case, however, the next question is this: is it possible for a human push a button multiple times in a second? Absolutely. And if he can use both hands (and there are multiple button on the wheel), Jimmy could probably provide input at least six times a second if needed. That is legal conduct that would explain what you are seeing. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it has to be disproven in order to conclude definitively that Jimmy did not provide the input for the board movement from the helm.

 

Finally, and others have raised this point, I have yet to see anything definitive that rapid board movement like that would actually be a benefit. That analysis certainly is above my pay grade. But I have read everything here and have yet to see a proof I can understand that rapid board movement would actually be beneficial. The answer to that, of course, may be that I am too dumb to understand it. But I do not think that a single flap on an airplane wing and a foil under load are the same thing.

 

Those are the holes I see so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you say is true. But this is not a court of law. This is SA. No one here will have proof. The only proof would be to have access to boat immediately after the races.

 

The ETNZ protest was dismissed due to not being on time (within a timeframe).

 

I don't know if Oracle cheated in the final races. I also don't know if they did not. I still don't understand why Oracle was able to leave racing after they lost one race on that day before the midracing time off and their "miraculous" come back. My opinion is that ETNZ made tactical mistake by agreeing to extra day off. They shouldn't have.

 

Easy to say that now. Everyone is Monday morning quarterback.

 

 

For instance, no-one has posted that the videos of Jimmy are inconclusive of him not making button movements at the same frequency as the small snippet of video I had available show. So I can conclude that this passes the test of reason.

You bear the burden of proof as the party making the claim. Simply because nobody has objected doesn't mean you've offered sufficient proof. In your words, you cannot and should not conclude that your claim passes the test of reason simply because nobody else has offered anything contrary. Edit: I should say more about that to make clear what I mean. I've had cases against my clients dismissed without putting on any evidence of my own simply because the evidence offered by the opposing side is insufficient for a reasonable jury to reach any sort of conclusion one way or the other. In other words, the party making the claim has the burden to show that a given set of events and facts reasonably leads to a particular conclusion. If the evidence first presented does not allow such a reasonable conclusion, the other side doesn't have to say anything. If the evidence first presented has substantial holes in it, the case ends.

 

And there are some holes. For example, what you have posted so far (from what I have seen and I may have missed something, so if I did correct me) is a couple of videos of board movement and a brief video of Jimmy at the helm where he didn't appear to be pushing buttons. Nowhere does it appear that those videos show the exact same period of time. In other words, there is no evidence that the video of Jimmy not pushing buttons lines up with the board movement videos. Maybe he just wasn't pushing buttons at that time. Show me synchronized videos side by side of board movement on the one hand and Jimmy on the other where his hands are clearly in view and there is no way they are providing input into the system. Then you'll have something. Then something (or someone) else must be controlling the boards.

 

You have also shown rapid board movement and concluded that such rapid board movement could not have occurred with human input as it was too fast. At least that is how I took your assertion. Again, correct me if I am mistaken. If that is the case, however, the next question is this: is it possible for a human push a button multiple times in a second? Absolutely. And if he can use both hands (and there are multiple button on the wheel), Jimmy could probably provide input at least six times a second if needed. That is legal conduct that would explain what you are seeing. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it has to be disproven in order to conclude definitively that Jimmy did not provide the input for the board movement from the helm.

 

Finally, and others have raised this point, I have yet to see anything definitive that rapid board movement like that would actually be a benefit. That analysis certainly is above my pay grade. But I have read everything here and have yet to see a proof I can understand that rapid board movement would actually be beneficial. The answer to that, of course, may be that I am too dumb to understand it. But I do not think that a single flap on an airplane wing and a foil under load are the same thing.

 

Those are the holes I see so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barfy tells us the videos he presents show movement. He explains what he sees and the video makes available for anyone to watch with him. But the explanation he offers has to do with Oracle Team USA’s insight to how the Measurement Committee looks over a boat when it is submitted for measurement. OTUSA knows committee members look this way and that. The committee will act to give themselves a clear view of what is to be seen behind a panel that seals something against salt water and hides the same thing from eyes that haven’t the inclination to be perceptive. This knowledge puts OTUSA in a positon to locate and design a way to induce movement on the water OTUSA knows the Measurement Committee, by reason of what the committee knows to look for, and how they go about looking, are sure to miss when nothing is moving. The committee members will not think to look here. And if they do, the committee members haven’t the knowledge to say the mechanism they watch while it is still, works to induce flutter on the water. If we are to watch the video and say we see what Barfy tells us is happening we must say Oracle Team USA knows what they are doing while the foil flaps. The foil is not loose on its hinges. It is not a gate in the wind. Something really is happening here. What is happening in the few moments captured on video must be a sort of thing OTUSA can design, build and use, comfortable in the knowledge OTUSA’s work does not yield a clue the committee members might follow when nothing is happening.

 

What is at issue here is the need for a clue. OTUSA knows the workings of the foil and they are not talking. This fact gives us a good reason to say our need for a clue is obvious. That the need is not obvious becomes easy to see when we ask what in the video is not self-explanatory. Is the fluttering we see a clue to some mechanism inside? Does the mechanism Barfy posits in place of randomness set us on the trail to a nefarious act by OTUSA? This is a clue within a clue. Rather than fight my way free of this shroud I’ll stick with the question that has us infer or deduce there is more to the flutter than can be seen in the videos. Porthos’ comment on his clients making sense of what they tell him they did or what they say was done to them comes in here. The portion they tell Porthos that is something Porthos knows the client would know and the portion they tell him that shows how things have to be for them to get the “I know…” part right meld in an account of how things are. Barfy will not rest at watching the video. He cannot watch and say, “How about that?” What leads him on is only partly explained by saying Barfy thinks hard for the sort of mechanism his knowledge of engineering will tell him works in exactly the way he sees the flutter. That step has Barfy follow through on “How about that?” What comes of his quest is more like the conversations Porthos has with clients than Barfy could know. Barfy hits on a melding of mechanism and illegality which, had he stopped at what studies of engineering taught him, would have Barfy conclude something else is at work here. OTUSA being silent all these years is not the same as OTUSA saying no more than they said in reply to the Measurements Committees questions that day in San Francisco. Engineering does not show us a design by which we are led to stray from what it does tell us to what we construct from whole cloth. Or, to be fair to Barfy, what seems just another instance of illegal behavior, coming as it does from a team and a club that never owned up to modifying what all competitors, teams and yacht clubs knew is a one-design competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When compared with rapid movements of an elevator, using rapid rotations of the main lifting surface to generate rapid and small changes in pitch would be slow. If you had an elevator to play with, why would you? But if you don't have an elevator (or consider it impossible to hide a new control system there) what can you do ?

 

Similarly, If you don't have ailerons on your main foil (or consider it impossible to hide a new control system there)....

 

Not that long prior to all this ETNZ figured out how to use adjustments in rake of the main lifting surface to control pitch, sidestepping the no elevator rule that was intended to prevent foiling.

 

Maybe rapid movements are slow, but faster than not foiling.

 

Porthos - joining dots is fun though, right.? Thanks again Barfly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barfy tells us the videos he presents show movement. He explains what he sees and the video makes available for anyone to watch with him. But the explanation he offers has to do with Oracle Team USA’s insight to how the Measurement Committee looks over a boat when it is submitted for measurement. OTUSA knows committee members look this way and that. The committee will act to give themselves a clear view of what is to be seen behind a panel that seals something against salt water and hides the same thing from eyes that haven’t the inclination to be perceptive. This knowledge puts OTUSA in a positon to locate and design a way to induce movement on the water OTUSA knows the Measurement Committee, by reason of what the committee knows to look for, and how they go about looking, are sure to miss when nothing is moving. The committee members will not think to look here. And if they do, the committee members haven’t the knowledge to say the mechanism they watch while it is still, works to induce flutter on the water. If we are to watch the video and say we see what Barfy tells us is happening we must say Oracle Team USA knows what they are doing while the foil flaps. The foil is not loose on its hinges. It is not a gate in the wind. Something really is happening here. What is happening in the few moments captured on video must be a sort of thing OTUSA can design, build and use, comfortable in the knowledge OTUSA’s work does not yield a clue the committee members might follow when nothing is happening.

 

What is at issue here is the need for a clue. OTUSA knows the workings of the foil and they are not talking. This fact gives us a good reason to say our need for a clue is obvious. That the need is not obvious becomes easy to see when we ask what in the video is not self-explanatory. Is the fluttering we see a clue to some mechanism inside? Does the mechanism Barfy posits in place of randomness set us on the trail to a nefarious act by OTUSA? This is a clue within a clue. Rather than fight my way free of this shroud I’ll stick with the question that has us infer or deduce there is more to the flutter than can be seen in the videos. Porthos’ comment on his clients making sense of what they tell him they did or what they say was done to them comes in here. The portion they tell Porthos that is something Porthos knows the client would know and the portion they tell him that shows how things have to be for them to get the “I know…” part right meld in an account of how things are. Barfy will not rest at watching the video. He cannot watch and say, “How about that?” What leads him on is only partly explained by saying Barfy thinks hard for the sort of mechanism his knowledge of engineering will tell him works in exactly the way he sees the flutter. That step has Barfy follow through on “How about that?” What comes of his quest is more like the conversations Porthos has with clients than Barfy could know. Barfy hits on a melding of mechanism and illegality which, had he stopped at what studies of engineering taught him, would have Barfy conclude something else is at work here. OTUSA being silent all these years is not the same as OTUSA saying no more than they said in reply to the Measurements Committees questions that day in San Francisco. Engineering does not show us a design by which we are led to stray from what it does tell us to what we construct from whole cloth. Or, to be fair to Barfy, what seems just another instance of illegal behavior, coming as it does from a team and a club that never owned up to modifying what all competitors, teams and yacht clubs knew is a one-design competition.

Thank you for chiming in, scassani B).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this thread. My recent post in the OR thread is more suited for here:

 

Grant Dalton and ETNZ would know better than anyone not affiliated with OR if OR used an illegal foil control system during AC34. And Grand Dalton and ETNZ would of shouted from the top of the Transamerica Pyramid if OR was using something illegal, especially during their epic 8 match choke job. Then he would of bitched and complained leading up to the start of the AC35 cycle. Might still be bitching now.

 

The silence of Grant Dalton on this current conspiracy theory proves that there is no conspiracy, IMO.

 

Its time to move on.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

You don't know Grant.

Actions speak louder than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barfy tells us the videos he presents show movement. He explains what he sees and the video makes available for anyone to watch with him. But the explanation he offers has to do with Oracle Team USAs insight to how the Measurement Committee looks over a boat when it is submitted for measurement. OTUSA knows committee members look this way and that. The committee will act to give themselves a clear view of what is to be seen behind a panel that seals something against salt water and hides the same thing from eyes that havent the inclination to be perceptive. This knowledge puts OTUSA in a positon to locate and design a way to induce movement on the water OTUSA knows the Measurement Committee, by reason of what the committee knows to look for, and how they go about looking, are sure to miss when nothing is moving. The committee members will not think to look here. And if they do, the committee members havent the knowledge to say the mechanism they watch while it is still, works to induce flutter on the water. If we are to watch the video and say we see what Barfy tells us is happening we must say Oracle Team USA knows what they are doing while the foil flaps. The foil is not loose on its hinges. It is not a gate in the wind. Something really is happening here. What is happening in the few moments captured on video must be a sort of thing OTUSA can design, build and use, comfortable in the knowledge OTUSAs work does not yield a clue the committee members might follow when nothing is happening.

 

What is at issue here is the need for a clue. OTUSA knows the workings of the foil and they are not talking. This fact gives us a good reason to say our need for a clue is obvious. That the need is not obvious becomes easy to see when we ask what in the video is not self-explanatory. Is the fluttering we see a clue to some mechanism inside? Does the mechanism Barfy posits in place of randomness set us on the trail to a nefarious act by OTUSA? This is a clue within a clue. Rather than fight my way free of this shroud Ill stick with the question that has us infer or deduce there is more to the flutter than can be seen in the videos. Porthos comment on his clients making sense of what they tell him they did or what they say was done to them comes in here. The portion they tell Porthos that is something Porthos knows the client would know and the portion they tell him that shows how things have to be for them to get the I know part right meld in an account of how things are. Barfy will not rest at watching the video. He cannot watch and say, How about that? What leads him on is only partly explained by saying Barfy thinks hard for the sort of mechanism his knowledge of engineering will tell him works in exactly the way he sees the flutter. That step has Barfy follow through on How about that? What comes of his quest is more like the conversations Porthos has with clients than Barfy could know. Barfy hits on a melding of mechanism and illegality which, had he stopped at what studies of engineering taught him, would have Barfy conclude something else is at work here. OTUSA being silent all these years is not the same as OTUSA saying no more than they said in reply to the Measurements Committees questions that day in San Francisco. Engineering does not show us a design by which we are led to stray from what it does tell us to what we construct from whole cloth. Or, to be fair to Barfy, what seems just another instance of illegal behavior, coming as it does from a team and a club that never owned up to modifying what all competitors, teams and yacht clubs knew is a one-design competition.

Very well written thoughts there Sir. A considered and well walked through structure of judgement on Barfey's clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barfy tells us the videos he presents show movement. He explains what he sees and the video makes available for anyone to watch with him. But the explanation he offers has to do with Oracle Team USA’s insight to how the Measurement Committee looks over a boat when it is submitted for measurement. OTUSA knows committee members look this way and that. The committee will act to give themselves a clear view of what is to be seen behind a panel that seals something against salt water and hides the same thing from eyes that haven’t the inclination to be perceptive. This knowledge puts OTUSA in a positon to locate and design a way to induce movement on the water OTUSA knows the Measurement Committee, by reason of what the committee knows to look for, and how they go about looking, are sure to miss when nothing is moving. The committee members will not think to look here. And if they do, the committee members haven’t the knowledge to say the mechanism they watch while it is still, works to induce flutter on the water. If we are to watch the video and say we see what Barfy tells us is happening we must say Oracle Team USA knows what they are doing while the foil flaps. The foil is not loose on its hinges. It is not a gate in the wind. Something really is happening here. What is happening in the few moments captured on video must be a sort of thing OTUSA can design, build and use, comfortable in the knowledge OTUSA’s work does not yield a clue the committee members might follow when nothing is happening.

 

What is at issue here is the need for a clue. OTUSA knows the workings of the foil and they are not talking. This fact gives us a good reason to say our need for a clue is obvious. That the need is not obvious becomes easy to see when we ask what in the video is not self-explanatory. Is the fluttering we see a clue to some mechanism inside? Does the mechanism Barfy posits in place of randomness set us on the trail to a nefarious act by OTUSA? This is a clue within a clue. Rather than fight my way free of this shroud I’ll stick with the question that has us infer or deduce there is more to the flutter than can be seen in the videos. Porthos’ comment on his clients making sense of what they tell him they did or what they say was done to them comes in here. The portion they tell Porthos that is something Porthos knows the client would know and the portion they tell him that shows how things have to be for them to get the “I know…” part right meld in an account of how things are. Barfy will not rest at watching the video. He cannot watch and say, “How about that?” What leads him on is only partly explained by saying Barfy thinks hard for the sort of mechanism his knowledge of engineering will tell him works in exactly the way he sees the flutter. That step has Barfy follow through on “How about that?” What comes of his quest is more like the conversations Porthos has with clients than Barfy could know. Barfy hits on a melding of mechanism and illegality which, had he stopped at what studies of engineering taught him, would have Barfy conclude something else is at work here. OTUSA being silent all these years is not the same as OTUSA saying no more than they said in reply to the Measurements Committees questions that day in San Francisco. Engineering does not show us a design by which we are led to stray from what it does tell us to what we construct from whole cloth. Or, to be fair to Barfy, what seems just another instance of illegal behavior, coming as it does from a team and a club that never owned up to modifying what all competitors, teams and yacht clubs knew is a one-design competition.

i was hoping for a considered response to my case,

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barfy tells us the videos he presents show movement. He explains what he sees and the video makes available for anyone to watch with him. But the explanation he offers has to do with Oracle Team USA’s insight to how the Measurement Committee looks over a boat when it is submitted for measurement. OTUSA knows committee members look this way and that. The committee will act to give themselves a clear view of what is to be seen behind a panel that seals something against salt water and hides the same thing from eyes that haven’t the inclination to be perceptive. This knowledge puts OTUSA in a positon to locate and design a way to induce movement on the water OTUSA knows the Measurement Committee, by reason of what the committee knows to look for, and how they go about looking, are sure to miss when nothing is moving. The committee members will not think to look here. And if they do, the committee members haven’t the knowledge to say the mechanism they watch while it is still, works to induce flutter on the water. If we are to watch the video and say we see what Barfy tells us is happening we must say Oracle Team USA knows what they are doing while the foil flaps. The foil is not loose on its hinges. It is not a gate in the wind. Something really is happening here. What is happening in the few moments captured on video must be a sort of thing OTUSA can design, build and use, comfortable in the knowledge OTUSA’s work does not yield a clue the committee members might follow when nothing is happening.

 

What is at issue here is the need for a clue. OTUSA knows the workings of the foil and they are not talking. This fact gives us a good reason to say our need for a clue is obvious. That the need is not obvious becomes easy to see when we ask what in the video is not self-explanatory. Is the fluttering we see a clue to some mechanism inside? Does the mechanism Barfy posits in place of randomness set us on the trail to a nefarious act by OTUSA? This is a clue within a clue. Rather than fight my way free of this shroud I’ll stick with the question that has us infer or deduce there is more to the flutter than can be seen in the videos. Porthos’ comment on his clients making sense of what they tell him they did or what they say was done to them comes in here. The portion they tell Porthos that is something Porthos knows the client would know and the portion they tell him that shows how things have to be for them to get the “I know…” part right meld in an account of how things are. Barfy will not rest at watching the video. He cannot watch and say, “How about that?” What leads him on is only partly explained by saying Barfy thinks hard for the sort of mechanism his knowledge of engineering will tell him works in exactly the way he sees the flutter. That step has Barfy follow through on “How about that?” What comes of his quest is more like the conversations Porthos has with clients than Barfy could know. Barfy hits on a melding of mechanism and illegality which, had he stopped at what studies of engineering taught him, would have Barfy conclude something else is at work here. OTUSA being silent all these years is not the same as OTUSA saying no more than they said in reply to the Measurements Committees questions that day in San Francisco. Engineering does not show us a design by which we are led to stray from what it does tell us to what we construct from whole cloth. Or, to be fair to Barfy, what seems just another instance of illegal behavior, coming as it does from a team and a club that never owned up to modifying what all competitors, teams and yacht clubs knew is a one-design competition.

I think you will find it was OTUSA that blew the whistle when they found out within the team and then weeded the wrong doers out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Barfy tells us the videos he presents show movement. He explains what he sees and the video makes available for anyone to watch with him. But the explanation he offers has to do with Oracle Team USA’s insight to how the Measurement Committee looks over a boat when it is submitted for measurement. OTUSA knows committee members look this way and that. The committee will act to give themselves a clear view of what is to be seen behind a panel that seals something against salt water and hides the same thing from eyes that haven’t the inclination to be perceptive. This knowledge puts OTUSA in a positon to locate and design a way to induce movement on the water OTUSA knows the Measurement Committee, by reason of what the committee knows to look for, and how they go about looking, are sure to miss when nothing is moving. The committee members will not think to look here. And if they do, the committee members haven’t the knowledge to say the mechanism they watch while it is still, works to induce flutter on the water. If we are to watch the video and say we see what Barfy tells us is happening we must say Oracle Team USA knows what they are doing while the foil flaps. The foil is not loose on its hinges. It is not a gate in the wind. Something really is happening here. What is happening in the few moments captured on video must be a sort of thing OTUSA can design, build and use, comfortable in the knowledge OTUSA’s work does not yield a clue the committee members might follow when nothing is happening.

 

What is at issue here is the need for a clue. OTUSA knows the workings of the foil and they are not talking. This fact gives us a good reason to say our need for a clue is obvious. That the need is not obvious becomes easy to see when we ask what in the video is not self-explanatory. Is the fluttering we see a clue to some mechanism inside? Does the mechanism Barfy posits in place of randomness set us on the trail to a nefarious act by OTUSA? This is a clue within a clue. Rather than fight my way free of this shroud I’ll stick with the question that has us infer or deduce there is more to the flutter than can be seen in the videos. Porthos’ comment on his clients making sense of what they tell him they did or what they say was done to them comes in here. The portion they tell Porthos that is something Porthos knows the client would know and the portion they tell him that shows how things have to be for them to get the “I know…” part right meld in an account of how things are. Barfy will not rest at watching the video. He cannot watch and say, “How about that?” What leads him on is only partly explained by saying Barfy thinks hard for the sort of mechanism his knowledge of engineering will tell him works in exactly the way he sees the flutter. That step has Barfy follow through on “How about that?” What comes of his quest is more like the conversations Porthos has with clients than Barfy could know. Barfy hits on a melding of mechanism and illegality which, had he stopped at what studies of engineering taught him, would have Barfy conclude something else is at work here. OTUSA being silent all these years is not the same as OTUSA saying no more than they said in reply to the Measurements Committees questions that day in San Francisco. Engineering does not show us a design by which we are led to stray from what it does tell us to what we construct from whole cloth. Or, to be fair to Barfy, what seems just another instance of illegal behavior, coming as it does from a team and a club that never owned up to modifying what all competitors, teams and yacht clubs knew is a one-design competition.

I think you will find it was OTUSA that blew the whistle when they found out within the team and then weeded the wrong doers out.

 

no, i think they had given the boats to the red bull kids and someone blew the whistle on them.

and throwing two sailors under the bus, one of which protested that it was not just him, was not "weeding the wrong doers out". and testimony by "sailor x" didn't result in any weeding.

just the facts cuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you will find it was OTUSA that blew the whistle when they found out within the team and then weeded the wrong doers out.

 

LOL!! Nice try at revisionist history...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Barfy tells us the videos he presents show movement. He explains what he sees and the video makes available for anyone to watch with him. But the explanation he offers has to do with Oracle Team USA’s insight to how the Measurement Committee looks over a boat when it is submitted for measurement. OTUSA knows committee members look this way and that. The committee will act to give themselves a clear view of what is to be seen behind a panel that seals something against salt water and hides the same thing from eyes that haven’t the inclination to be perceptive. This knowledge puts OTUSA in a positon to locate and design a way to induce movement on the water OTUSA knows the Measurement Committee, by reason of what the committee knows to look for, and how they go about looking, are sure to miss when nothing is moving. The committee members will not think to look here. And if they do, the committee members haven’t the knowledge to say the mechanism they watch while it is still, works to induce flutter on the water. If we are to watch the video and say we see what Barfy tells us is happening we must say Oracle Team USA knows what they are doing while the foil flaps. The foil is not loose on its hinges. It is not a gate in the wind. Something really is happening here. What is happening in the few moments captured on video must be a sort of thing OTUSA can design, build and use, comfortable in the knowledge OTUSA’s work does not yield a clue the committee members might follow when nothing is happening.

 

What is at issue here is the need for a clue. OTUSA knows the workings of the foil and they are not talking. This fact gives us a good reason to say our need for a clue is obvious. That the need is not obvious becomes easy to see when we ask what in the video is not self-explanatory. Is the fluttering we see a clue to some mechanism inside? Does the mechanism Barfy posits in place of randomness set us on the trail to a nefarious act by OTUSA? This is a clue within a clue. Rather than fight my way free of this shroud I’ll stick with the question that has us infer or deduce there is more to the flutter than can be seen in the videos. Porthos’ comment on his clients making sense of what they tell him they did or what they say was done to them comes in here. The portion they tell Porthos that is something Porthos knows the client would know and the portion they tell him that shows how things have to be for them to get the “I know…” part right meld in an account of how things are. Barfy will not rest at watching the video. He cannot watch and say, “How about that?” What leads him on is only partly explained by saying Barfy thinks hard for the sort of mechanism his knowledge of engineering will tell him works in exactly the way he sees the flutter. That step has Barfy follow through on “How about that?” What comes of his quest is more like the conversations Porthos has with clients than Barfy could know. Barfy hits on a melding of mechanism and illegality which, had he stopped at what studies of engineering taught him, would have Barfy conclude something else is at work here. OTUSA being silent all these years is not the same as OTUSA saying no more than they said in reply to the Measurements Committees questions that day in San Francisco. Engineering does not show us a design by which we are led to stray from what it does tell us to what we construct from whole cloth. Or, to be fair to Barfy, what seems just another instance of illegal behavior, coming as it does from a team and a club that never owned up to modifying what all competitors, teams and yacht clubs knew is a one-design competition.

I think you will find it was OTUSA that blew the whistle when they found out within the team and then weeded the wrong doers out.

 

It's utterly absurd to think that a few highly experienced professionals within the team would go rogue, and take it on themselves to make those modifications without instruction, and without the full knowledge of the sailing and management leadership. To believe so suggests you think the team were disorganised, chaotic and had no management and leadership structure. They had that in spades, OR were and remain a decision making and execution machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's really quite unbelievable that a couple of guys would randomly decide that melting some lead and adjusting boats was a good idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's utterly absurd to think that a few highly experienced professionals within the team would go rogue, and take it on themselves to make those modifications without instruction, and without the full knowledge of the sailing and management leadership. To believe so suggests you think the team were disorganised, chaotic and had no management and leadership structure. They had that in spades, OR were and remain a decision making and execution machine.

 

 

I have always believed that the placement f the lead was deliberate and done by a small group of people without the knowledge of the team's management. It was fairly well known that weight forward had a benefit, so they didn't need input from the design team on that one and the people involved were trusted to get on with their job list and weren't supervised. There was also no process in place to have their work checked. It was very easy for them to do whatever they wanted. That is nothing to do with chaos or poor management. That is to do with trusting your team to do their job

 

You make a good case that Oracle Racing had strong management. I agree and this is why I believe the management and team in general did not know. If they had known, they would have removed the evidence. To not have done so would suggest a disorganised team with no management or leadership. I also believe that it is significant that Oracle found the lead in the second boat when they were under no pressure or obligation to check it and it is also significant that their 3rd boat did not have any issues. It points to an opportunistic situation, because if it was under team orders, why not the 3rd boat as well? I also consider the very makeshift was it was done and the differences between how it was done on each of the boats to also indicate it wasn't planned. For such a well organised team, this was poorly organised and executed.

 

It was cheating. I believe that the people involved got off lightly because I think they are scum. As a sport, we rely on integrity and when sailors don't have that, we are stuffed. This is why I also support A Class Sailor's view. For Oracle to have cheated with the foil control system, too many world class sailors who have the highest reputations would have needed to have become corrupt. I cannot believe that every single one of them was bought off. If this did happen, the whole integrity of our sport is now in doubt and you cannot trust a single person on any team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that the conspiracy theorists have missed is that one of Orace racing's leading hydraulics systems guys now is at ETNZ. He would have know about any illegal system. Does this mean that ETNZ has gone after a cheat in order to improve their own boat? I believe that ETNZ have a it of integrity and they would not have gone anywhere near somebody who they thought might have been involved with cheating and illegal systems. This says to me very clearly that ETNZ did not believe there was anything wrong with the Oracle system. If the conspiracy theories are right, why would Oracle have let him leave? Once gone, there is no leverage over him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that the conspiracy theorists have missed is that one of Orace racing's leading hydraulics systems guys now is at ETNZ. He would have know about any illegal system. Does this mean that ETNZ has gone after a cheat in order to improve their own boat? I believe that ETNZ have a it of integrity and they would not have gone anywhere near somebody who they thought might have been involved with cheating and illegal systems. This says to me very clearly that ETNZ did not believe there was anything wrong with the Oracle system. If the conspiracy theories are right, why would Oracle have let him leave? Once gone, there is no leverage over him.

 

Agreed and in order for such a system to be developed and installed It would take more than one individual to complete the work .

 

Once installed and operational such a system would be known by many of the sail and shore crew several which by now and no longer employed or connected in any way to the Oracle program.

 

To think that the head designer and those various sailors and assorted minions who no longer are on the OR payroll have not even indirectly have brought forth one shred of " proof " , if there was any to begin with , is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ro!, on 08 Mar 2017 - 4:53 PM, said:

You and about two others are the only ones here who believe that the guys that went under the bus were the only ones involved...de ridder was paid to take the fall, he's spits bro in law for fucks sake..the boat captains, engineers, drivers and trimmers all were in on it...

 

 

^THis is the alternative picture, and has just as many facts to back it up as yours MM and GBR. And with a gag order, threats of legal prosecution with unlimited pockets from a benefactor who is quite used to playing this game in the corporate world.

Have you never heard of a NDA? With LE lawyers ready to ruin you if you don't play?

 

As scassani implies, the clue within the clue may swing most folks to ro!'s POV, the whole team was complicit during the match, and during the 45's.

 

Oh, but Stingy says they are nice guys when he met them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ro!, on 08 Mar 2017 - 4:53 PM, said:

You and about two others are the only ones here who believe that the guys that went under the bus were the only ones involved...de ridder was paid to take the fall, he's spits bro in law for fucks sake..the boat captains, engineers, drivers and trimmers all were in on it...

 

 

^THis is the alternative picture, and has just as many facts to back it up as yours MM and GBR. And with a gag order, threats of legal prosecution with unlimited pockets from a benefactor who is quite used to playing this game in the corporate world.

Have you never heard of a NDA? With LE lawyers ready to ruin you if you don't play?

 

As scassani implies, the clue within the clue may swing most folks to ro!'s POV, the whole team was complicit during the match, and during the 45's.

 

Oh, but Stingy says they are nice guys when he met them.

de Ridder JS's brother-in-Law? where did you pull that one from. Now the whole team was in on the Herbie! Tinfoil hats much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ro!, on 08 Mar 2017 - 4:53 PM, said:

You and about two others are the only ones here who believe that the guys that went under the bus were the only ones involved...de ridder was paid to take the fall, he's spits bro in law for fucks sake..the boat captains, engineers, drivers and trimmers all were in on it...

 

 

^THis is the alternative picture, and has just as many facts to back it up as yours MM and GBR. And with a gag order, threats of legal prosecution with unlimited pockets from a benefactor who is quite used to playing this game in the corporate world.

Have you never heard of a NDA? With LE lawyers ready to ruin you if you don't play?

 

As scassani implies, the clue within the clue may swing most folks to ro!'s POV, the whole team was complicit during the match, and during the 45's.

 

Oh, but Stingy says they are nice guys when he met them.

Do you really think that a NDA has kept everyone that would be in the know from not letting the cat out of the bag in some quiet back table at the pub after a few to many cocktails ?

 

If you truly believe that you don't know sailors :)

 

This is beginning to sound a lot like we faked going to the moon but with less material to,work with .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Something that the conspiracy theorists have missed is that one of Orace racing's leading hydraulics systems guys now is at ETNZ. He would have know about any illegal system. Does this mean that ETNZ has gone after a cheat in order to improve their own boat? I believe that ETNZ have a it of integrity and they would not have gone anywhere near somebody who they thought might have been involved with cheating and illegal systems. This says to me very clearly that ETNZ did not believe there was anything wrong with the Oracle system. If the conspiracy theories are right, why would Oracle have let him leave? Once gone, there is no leverage over him.

 

Agreed and in order for such a system to be developed and installed It would take more than one individual to complete the work .

 

Once installed and operational such a system would be known by many of the sail and shore crew several which by now and no longer employed or connected in any way to the Oracle program.

 

To think that the head designer and those various sailors and assorted minions who no longer are on the OR payroll have not even indirectly have brought forth one shred of " proof " , if there was any to begin with , is ludicrous.

 

Thanks guys. Nice to see a trail of sanity interspersed with the WAG conspiracy theorists here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US court, March 18

 

- Barfy: I saw a yank killing a Kiwi

 

- Porthos: You have no proof, no intent. Without intent there is no crime

 

- Barfy: I have a video and the Kiwi is dead

 

- Porthos: You have no proof, the video does not show it

 

- Barfy: But the head is separated from the body and there are 3 holes in the head

 

- Porhos: You have no proof the Kiwi is dead, it could be a photoshopped video

 

- Barfy: The Kiwi also has 3 holes in the head.

 

- Porhos: You did not show the other side of the head, it could be a make up. You have the burden of the proof

 

- Barfy: Well, the gun was smoking, I have it on the video

 

- Porthos: So what ? You did not established the link between the smoke and the gun, even if it was, it could be the a cigar. I don't know much about the guns, it is above my payroll, but there is no link between.

 

- Barfy: there was nobody else around, only the Yank can have killed him

 

- Porthos: I don't think you assertion is a reasonable one Barfy, you were there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US court, March 18

 

- Barfy: I saw a yank killing a Kiwi

 

- Porthos: You have no proof, no intent. Without intent there is no crime

 

- Barfy: I have a video and the Kiwi is dead

 

- Porthos: You have no proof, the video does not show it

 

- Barfy: But the head is separated from the body and there are 3 holes in the head

 

- Porhos: You have no proof the Kiwi is dead, it could be a photoshopped video

 

- Barfy: The Kiwi also has 3 holes in the head.

 

- Porhos: You did not show the other side of the head, it could be a make up. You have the burden of the proof

 

- Barfy: Well, the gun was smoking, I have it on the video

 

- Porthos: So what ? You did not established the link between the smoke and the gun, even if it was, it could be the a cigar. I don't know much about the guns, it is above my payroll, but there is no link between.

 

- Barfy: there was nobody else around, only the Yank can have killed him

 

- Porthos: your assertion is not reasonable Barfy, you were there.

Barry did it with the candle stick :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you really think that a NDA has kept everyone that would be in the know from not letting the cat out of the bag in some quiet back table at the pub after a few to many cocktails ?

 

If you truly believe that you don't know sailors :)

 

This is beginning to sound a lot like we faked going to the moon but with less material to,work with .

 

 

It says more about your ethics when you advance the proposition that those on NDAs, based on your "experience", would willingly breach such NDAs. You really must try harder!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you really think that a NDA has kept everyone that would be in the know from not letting the cat out of the bag in some quiet back table at the pub after a few to many cocktails ?

 

If you truly believe that you don't know sailors :)

 

This is beginning to sound a lot like we faked going to the moon but with less material to,work with .

 

 

It says more about your ethics when you advance the proposition that those on NDAs, based on your "experience", would willingly breach such NDAs. You really must try harder!!

 

Attack the messenger not the message , you are down to grasping at straws.

 

Everyone is working under the assumption that there even was a NDA for everyone on the team and they are also assuming that they are still in effect YEARS after the event .

 

There has not been even a glimmer of a actual fact from ANYONE with any inside knowledge or actual skin in the game, think Grant Dalton for one , in all this time

 

Nothing in the press , nothing on any of the sailing forums other than this one and even then its less than 4 or 5 die hards as far as I have seen .

 

The main man , the one that would have been in charge of this great disgrace that you have dreamed up now works for ETNZ.

 

You are of the opinion that once a cheat always a cheat , lets see how you spin this one ?

 

Even other NZ fans have asked that you stop embarrassing them even if you don't care about how it makes you look personally.

 

A smart man would drop the cross , end the pain .

post-11911-0-01665400-1489903558_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Do you really think that a NDA has kept everyone that would be in the know from not letting the cat out of the bag in some quiet back table at the pub after a few to many cocktails ?

 

If you truly believe that you don't know sailors :)

 

This is beginning to sound a lot like we faked going to the moon but with less material to,work with .

 

 

It says more about your ethics when you advance the proposition that those on NDAs, based on your "experience", would willingly breach such NDAs. You really must try harder!!

 

Attack the messenger not the message , you are down to grasping at straws.

 

Everyone is working under the assumption that there even was a NDA for everyone on the team and they are also assuming that they are still in effect YEARS after the event .

 

There has not been even a glimmer of a actual fact from ANYONE with any inside knowledge or actual skin in the game, think Grant Dalton for one , in all this time

 

Nothing in the press , nothing on any of the sailing forums other than this one and even then its less than 4 or 5 die hards as far as I have seen .

 

The main man , the one that would have been in charge of this great disgrace that you have dreamed up now works for ETNZ.

 

You are of the opinion that once a cheat always a cheat , lets see how you spin this one ?

 

Even other NZ fans have asked that you stop embarrassing them even if you don't care about how it makes you look personally.

 

A smart man would drop the cross , end the pain .

 

Hahaha! You're the one grasping at straws using Dalton as the man with knowledge whose "silence" validates your weak claims that OR didn't cheat - without attempting to argue against the cheating circuits and the 2 completely different versions of the foil control system they have presented! Your childish naivety in believing that Dalton or anyone else with knowledge will have opened up by now about what they know betrays a simplistic view of the commercial world realities you purport to be fully conversant with.

You continue to live in denial, now claiming that the "main man" who was "in charge" of OR's cheat circuit and implementation was now working for ETNZ, as if this somehow nullified any NDA he is under as part of any confidential settlement from OR upon his exit. You further show your naivety by not believing that NDA's cannot survive multiple years...

 

Keep trying...someone at OR will toss you a flotation aid so you don't drown in a sea of denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Do you really think that a NDA has kept everyone that would be in the know from not letting the cat out of the bag in some quiet back table at the pub after a few to many cocktails ?

 

If you truly believe that you don't know sailors :)

 

This is beginning to sound a lot like we faked going to the moon but with less material to,work with .

 

 

It says more about your ethics when you advance the proposition that those on NDAs, based on your "experience", would willingly breach such NDAs. You really must try harder!!

 

Attack the messenger not the message , you are down to grasping at straws.

 

Everyone is working under the assumption that there even was a NDA for everyone on the team and they are also assuming that they are still in effect YEARS after the event .

 

There has not been even a glimmer of a actual fact from ANYONE with any inside knowledge or actual skin in the game, think Grant Dalton for one , in all this time

 

Nothing in the press , nothing on any of the sailing forums other than this one and even then its less than 4 or 5 die hards as far as I have seen .

 

The main man , the one that would have been in charge of this great disgrace that you have dreamed up now works for ETNZ.

 

You are of the opinion that once a cheat always a cheat , lets see how you spin this one ?

 

Even other NZ fans have asked that you stop embarrassing them even if you don't care about how it makes you look personally.

 

A smart man would drop the cross , end the pain .

 

Hahaha! You're the one grasping at straws using Dalton as the man with knowledge whose "silence" validates your weak claims that OR didn't cheat - without attempting to argue against the cheating circuits and the 2 completely different versions of the foil control system they have presented! Your childish naivety in believing that Dalton or anyone else with knowledge will have opened up by now about what they know betrays a simplistic view of the commercial world realities you purport to be fully conversant with.

You continue to live in denial, now claiming that the "main man" who was "in charge" of OR's cheat circuit and implementation was now working for ETNZ, as if this somehow nullified any NDA he is under as part of any confidential settlement from OR upon his exit. You further show your naivety by not believing that NDA's cannot survive multiple years...

 

Keep trying...someone at OR will toss you a flotation aid so you don't drown in a sea of denial.

 

 

 

Based on your characterization of OR your team has hired the head " cheater ".

 

Live that one down :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think that a NDA has kept everyone that would be in the know from not letting the cat out of the bag in some quiet back table at the pub after a few to many cocktails ?

 

If you truly believe that you don't know sailors :)

 

This is beginning to sound a lot like we faked going to the moon but with less material to,work with .

 

 

It says more about your ethics when you advance the proposition that those on NDAs, based on your "experience", would willingly breach such NDAs. You really must try harder!!

 

Attack the messenger not the message , you are down to grasping at straws.

 

Everyone is working under the assumption that there even was a NDA for everyone on the team and they are also assuming that they are still in effect YEARS after the event .

 

There has not been even a glimmer of a actual fact from ANYONE with any inside knowledge or actual skin in the game, think Grant Dalton for one , in all this time

 

Nothing in the press , nothing on any of the sailing forums other than this one and even then its less than 4 or 5 die hards as far as I have seen .

 

The main man , the one that would have been in charge of this great disgrace that you have dreamed up now works for ETNZ.

 

You are of the opinion that once a cheat always a cheat , lets see how you spin this one ?

 

Even other NZ fans have asked that you stop embarrassing them even if you don't care about how it makes you look personally.

 

A smart man would drop the cross , end the pain .

 

Hahaha! You're the one grasping at straws using Dalton as the man with knowledge whose "silence" validates your weak claims that OR didn't cheat - without attempting to argue against the cheating circuits and the 2 completely different versions of the foil control system they have presented! Your childish naivety in believing that Dalton or anyone else with knowledge will have opened up by now about what they know betrays a simplistic view of the commercial world realities you purport to be fully conversant with.

You continue to live in denial, now claiming that the "main man" who was "in charge" of OR's cheat circuit and implementation was now working for ETNZ, as if this somehow nullified any NDA he is under as part of any confidential settlement from OR upon his exit. You further show your naivety by not believing that NDA's cannot survive multiple years...

 

Keep trying...someone at OR will toss you a flotation aid so you don't drown in a sea of denial.

 

 

 

Based on your characterization of OR your team has hired the head " cheater ".

 

Live that one down :)

 

Oracle Racinbg - the ONLY AC team convicted of cheating! Don't know how you can defend that, without compromising your own ethics. Otoh, you've already shown your lack of integrity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think that a NDA has kept everyone that would be in the know from not letting the cat out of the bag in some quiet back table at the pub after a few to many cocktails ?

 

If you truly believe that you don't know sailors :)

 

This is beginning to sound a lot like we faked going to the moon but with less material to,work with .

 

 

It says more about your ethics when you advance the proposition that those on NDAs, based on your "experience", would willingly breach such NDAs. You really must try harder!!

 

Attack the messenger not the message , you are down to grasping at straws.

 

Everyone is working under the assumption that there even was a NDA for everyone on the team and they are also assuming that they are still in effect YEARS after the event .

 

There has not been even a glimmer of a actual fact from ANYONE with any inside knowledge or actual skin in the game, think Grant Dalton for one , in all this time

 

Nothing in the press , nothing on any of the sailing forums other than this one and even then its less than 4 or 5 die hards as far as I have seen .

 

The main man , the one that would have been in charge of this great disgrace that you have dreamed up now works for ETNZ.

 

You are of the opinion that once a cheat always a cheat , lets see how you spin this one ?

 

Even other NZ fans have asked that you stop embarrassing them even if you don't care about how it makes you look personally.

 

A smart man would drop the cross , end the pain .

 

Hahaha! You're the one grasping at straws using Dalton as the man with knowledge whose "silence" validates your weak claims that OR didn't cheat - without attempting to argue against the cheating circuits and the 2 completely different versions of the foil control system they have presented! Your childish naivety in believing that Dalton or anyone else with knowledge will have opened up by now about what they know betrays a simplistic view of the commercial world realities you purport to be fully conversant with.

You continue to live in denial, now claiming that the "main man" who was "in charge" of OR's cheat circuit and implementation was now working for ETNZ, as if this somehow nullified any NDA he is under as part of any confidential settlement from OR upon his exit. You further show your naivety by not believing that NDA's cannot survive multiple years...

 

Keep trying...someone at OR will toss you a flotation aid so you don't drown in a sea of denial.

 

 

 

Based on your characterization of OR your team has hired the head " cheater ".

 

Live that one down :)

 

Oracle Racinbg - the ONLY AC team convicted of cheating! Don't know how you can defend that, without compromising your own ethics. Otoh, you've already shown your lack of integrity...

 

Never denied it.

 

Busted for 5lbs of lead in the feeder series before AC 34 guilty as charged .

 

Couple of guys sent packing .

 

Paid a fine , lost a couple of points which only made for the " greatest comeback in the history of sport ".

 

AC 34 itself was exciting and nothing since has ever surfaced to prove it was not on the up and up .

 

Most everyone with the exception of a few on here have grown out of it even apparently Team NZ as they have hired the one guy that would have been at the center of any of your claims and from of all places Oracle Racing.

 

Go figure :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you really think that a NDA has kept everyone that would be in the know from not letting the cat out of the bag in some quiet back table at the pub after a few to many cocktails ?

 

If you truly believe that you don't know sailors :)

 

This is beginning to sound a lot like we faked going to the moon but with less material to,work with .

 

 

It says more about your ethics when you advance the proposition that those on NDAs, based on your "experience", would willingly breach such NDAs. You really must try harder!!

 

No, it says more about your ethics because you are saying you would keep quiet about cheating because of a contract. Shameful. No wonder you come up with wild conspiracies about cheating if that is your view and how you would act. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites