• 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.
josselin

Guillaume Verdier interview

94 posts in this topic

HI All Here is an interview in the french local press of Guillaume Verdier naval Architect for ETNZ 

http://www.letelegramme.fr/voile/coupe-de-l-america-verdier-on-peut-dessiner-de-chouettes-monocoques-06-07-2017-11586427.php#closePopUp

 

 Sorry I do not have time to do a full translation. But Basically

  • first he details how they fine tuned their foil design
  • he confirms that arriving late in Bermuda was not an issue
  • He explains that their boat dominated as it was very fine tuned for the meteo conditions they had
  • About the french team he acknowledge they progressed a lot but were burning a lot of energy with their system hence the stability issues
  • He is likely to stay with ETNZ, and they would be happy to keep him
  • About the cyclist he mentioned that it was not his idea but in the long run event if they do not develop more power the position is much better and in the manouevre they can give "shots" of power.
  • Having cyclist was good as they could control things with their hands too
  • Monohull is possible
  • He worked on different alternatives and some monohull design can be great.
  • He would feel keeping an open box rule around the AC50 woudl be in his own opinion good. It was a shame that AC72 disapeared. according to him 60/65 feet is good lenght
  • 60feet monohull foiling like Imoca and Volvo?? he says no, 60/65 for Multihull
  • He does not know when kiwi will announce new boat maybe 2 months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article!

Maybe I lost a bit in the Google translate but seems to come across well :)

Good that he is confident that he'll stay with ETNZ :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also did not make any reference or thanks to the LOrd of Fail and his special design theories.......... Quelle Surprise!

Share this post


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

HI All Here is an interview in the french local press of Guillaume Verdier naval Architect for ETNZ 

http://www.letelegramme.fr/voile/coupe-de-l-america-verdier-on-peut-dessiner-de-chouettes-monocoques-06-07-2017-11586427.php#closePopUp

 

 Sorry I do not have time to do a full translation. But Basically

  • first he details how they fine tuned their foil design
  • he confirms that arriving late in Bermuda was not an issue
  • He explains that their boat dominated as it was very fine tuned for the meteo conditions they had
  • About the french team he acknowledge they progressed a lot but were burning a lot of energy with their system hence the stability issues
  • He is likely to stay with ETNZ, and they would be happy to keep him
  • About the cyclist he mentioned that it was not his idea but in the long run event if they do not develop more power the position is much better and in the manouevre they can give "shots" of power.
  • Having cyclist was good as they could control things with their hands too
  • Monohull is possible
  • He worked on different alternatives and some monohull design can be great.
  • He would feel keeping an open box rule around the AC50 woudl be in his own opinion good. It was a shame that AC72 disapeared. according to him 60/65 feet is good lenght
  • 60feet monohull foiling like Imoca and Volvo?? he says no, 60/65 for Multihull
  • He does not know when kiwi will announce new boat maybe 2 months

Thank you for the article...and good news that he wants to stay with ETNZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it says a lot about the team environment that they have guys like Verdier & Bernasconi immediately stating to their own domestic media that they expect & will be happy to stay with ETNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most interesting interview, if Kiwis want nationality rules it should not only apply to sailors but also to designers.

Share this post


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

Most interesting interview, if Kiwis want nationality rules it should not only apply to sailors but also to designers.

Yes I agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But then I think nationality rules are simply unworkable anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Yes I agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But then I think nationality rules are simply unworkable anyway.

No, we could have very strong teams from: UK, France, Italy, Sweden, TNZ, Australia, USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Suddenly strong? Very strong!?

What was holding the UK, the French, the Svvedisch, the Ozzies and the Seppos back this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kiwi/french/aussie ingenuity in a team that fostered it

Share this post


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

No, we could have very strong teams from: UK, France, Italy, Sweden, TNZ, Australia, USA

I'm not talking about being unworkable because countries couldn't field a team. I mean how do you meaningfully enforce it?

IYou can buy citizenship pretty easily if you're rich or have "special talents".

What's more, if you have a 60% nationality requirement you can easily stack your team with locals who do all the menial work.

Could have 15 kiwi designers that design the brooms, wing cradles and camo in steering wheel. Rest of designers can be foreigners. 

Share this post


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

^ Suddenly strong? Very strong!?

What was holding the UK, the French, the Svvedisch, the Ozzies and the Seppos back this time?

Some of the best designers from those respective countries working for TNZ, or spread around the other teams perhaps?

or not being gifted two years worth of tech and development by the Italians?

you do wonder should Prada have stayed the course would they be the ones with the cup? Clearly no one else had the same system as they had developed, would that have proved the difference?

where would TNZ have been without the assistance?

Share this post


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

Some of the best designers from those respective countries working for TNZ, or spread around the other teams perhaps?

or not being gifted two years worth of tech and development by the Italians?

you do wonder should Prada have stayed the course would they be the ones with the cup? Clearly no one else had the same system as they had developed, would that have proved the difference?

where would TNZ have been without the assistance?

Prada had the early head start and were far advanced of anyone in almost all respects when the AC62 got shitcanned.  Whether ETNZ would have developed the same system in a suitable amount of time given the financial and organizational restraints they had during 2014-15?  Unfuckinglikely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prefuckingcisely!

the poor me poor me narrative from TNZ  needs to be given a rest. 

what they gave up/traded for the help is the real question.

your interview with glen he stated the huge research that was done into jib less sailing, the only team that had done that on any significant level was Prada, photos and vids exist to back it up,

the same boat with the same pods for data then turns up still in its silver wrapping as the TNZ test boat... but hey the hardcore would havevyou believe they did it all on their lonesome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nationality rule should be for sailors only. Looking at designers and locale of manufacture just opens up a boatload of bureaucratic nonsense that is easily undermined. 

50% nationally sourced manufacturer? By what standard? Weight of boat? % of individual components? Does that apply to carbon fiber raw material sources from China and manufacturered in Japan? Winch handle injection molded in UK counts as a component for a UK team while the entire hull was made in Quimper?

Even nationality rules will fall victim to smart logistics if the person is important enough. Say Softbank really really wants a sailor from Australia who is a great tactician and his buddy helmsman. Just get them Japanese passports. Ever seen the Japanese rugby team play internationally?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Ever seen the Japanese rugby team play internationally?  

Yes of course, fewer foreign born players than say 'England', so your point was??

It's tricky...

But perhaps anyone who proposes a nationality 'rule' for the AC, should state from which sport they would 'borrow' their rule, then we could look at the effectiveness.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep it's called residency rules... 3 years and your in, here is your ticket 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Prada had the early head start and were far advanced of anyone in almost all respects when the AC62 got shitcanned.  Whether ETNZ would have developed the same system in a suitable amount of time given the financial and organizational restraints they had during 2014-15?  Unfuckinglikely!

Noooo...... Spinbot stated clearly (many times!) that they were just posing, they had spent no money, had done no research, that they were bums, barely a team, Euro-trash, a rabble camping on the beach, that they had been naively stupid to democratise the COR role and had gotten what they deserved - and we were all lucky to be rid of them and their inflated sense of sportsmanship and 'honour'!

Did you miss the memo or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

Prefuckingcisely!

the poor me poor me narrative from TNZ  needs to be given a rest. 

what they gave up/traded for the help is the real question.

your interview with glen he stated the huge research that was done into jib less sailing, the only team that had done that on any significant level was Prada, photos and vids exist to back it up,

the same boat with the same pods for data then turns up still in its silver wrapping as the TNZ test boat... but hey the hardcore would havevyou believe they did it all on their lonesome. 

Ya it's not like Glen had a major head start in sailing foiling Unirig catamarans. It isn't like he is the 9 time World Champion on A-Cats or anything. And besides how much does it cost to test leaving the jib at the dock? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ennywun keer to diskuss sumthing intresting abowt the GV peess ?

Posstewring toddlerz - sheesh. Sumtymz this playss just suks.

 

Share this post


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

Most interesting interview, if Kiwis want nationality rules it should not only apply to sailors but also to designers.

He who holds the gold makes the rules..All ETNZ and LR have to produce and present is an AC36 which does not disadvantage any potential challenger and serves up a level and fair opportunity for any team to succeed.

This cry of applying any nationality qualification to include designers seems to be driven and motivated by a desire and/or belief that it would somehow disadvantage ETNZ. It would seem that success breeds and cultivates the green-eyed monster even in those who claim to have supported ETNZ in AC35...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, nav said:

Noooo...... Spinbot stated clearly (many times!) that they were just posing, they had spent no money, had done no research, that they were bums, barely a team, Euro-trash, a rabble camping on the beach, that they had been naively stupid to democratise the COR role and had gotten what they deserved - and we were all lucky to be rid of them and their inflated sense of sportsmanship and 'honour'!

Did you miss the memo or what?

Speak for yourself, jackass.

We all watched them gear up in Cagliari, way out ahead and two-boat testing.

Did think P$B pulling out was a dumb move but that's a different subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ sure :lol:

 

20/20 hindsight has kicked in

....or have you lost the talking points you were instructed to repeat back then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome interview. The most interesting take aways for me:

"There was also this particular break, this double break. It was a bit like a chamfer in the diagonal which was very long. On Oracle, they had much radiated this diagonal. And this diagonal has the peculiarity of making the boat very unstable but it maximizes lift."

"There were very different profiles according to the zones of the foil. We did not see it because everything was black. But as we had a very sophisticated stability control system, we were able to sail in the foil that was going well, we always pierced the same place, at the same altitude." 

So GV saying that ETNZ had the least stable foils, which in turn gives a glimpse into just how sophisticated their electronic stability control system really was. Looking more and more to me like the real breakthrough (beyond separating flight control from driving) was the successful implementation of a legal 'herbie' that capitalized on a weakness in the rule regarding human control of foil (and possibly wing, although I don't think anywhere near as much if at all) surfaces.
 

Share this post


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

Awesome interview. The most interesting take aways for me:

"There was also this particular break, this double break. It was a bit like a chamfer in the diagonal which was very long. On Oracle, they had much radiated this diagonal. And this diagonal has the peculiarity of making the boat very unstable but it maximizes lift."

"There were very different profiles according to the zones of the foil. We did not see it because everything was black. But as we had a very sophisticated stability control system, we were able to sail in the foil that was going well, we always pierced the same place, at the same altitude." 

So GV saying that ETNZ had the least stable foils, which in turn gives a glimpse into just how sophisticated their electronic stability control system really was. Looking more and more to me like the real breakthrough (beyond separating flight control from driving) was the successful implementation of a legal 'herbie' that capitalized on a weakness in the rule regarding human control of foil (and possibly wing, although I don't think anywhere near as much if at all) surfaces.
 

I suggested the exact same thing and it provoked about 30 irate, foaming at the mouth Kiwi responses.

Run and duck :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Actually what people objected to were your insinuations of cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: keep spinning it....

 

When the AC62 rule first came out the change from the AC72 rule in regards to 'electronic control' was highlighted by myself and others. This area was opened up (for whatever reason) and was clearly there to be taken advantage of....

To suggest 'weakness in the rule' is disingenuous. This was a deliberate change, clear for the last 2 1/2 years?  - but it seems the 'wrong people' paid attention.

Share this post


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

^ Actually what people objected to were your insinuations of cheating.

'Rule cheaters' aka 'taking advantage of loopholes' that are often left open by poor wording in those rules, with a bit of a gamble taken on if the Measurement Committee will accept your reasoning, are an AC rich tradition. It must surely happen in all kinds of other development Classes too.

LR may or may not have been ETNZ's inspiration for going Full Herbie Autopilot (snaerk thinks the LR version was only as a machine learning system, and he may be right) but ETNZ is who actually went all-in.

Clean was pretty insightful on this and a few other points, in his pre-ramble. The autopilot was a very Big Deal, GD has said it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one paid attention,  with exception of the one team that quit and then gifted what they knew 

Share this post


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

No one paid attention,  with exception of the one team that quit after being bent over and rogered senseless and then gifted what they knew.

FIFY

Share this post


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

'Rule cheaters' aka 'taking advantage of loopholes' that are often left open by poor wording in those rules, with a bit of a gamble taken on if the Measurement Committee will accept your reasoning, are an AC rich tradition. It must surely happen in all kinds of other development Classes too.

LR may or may not have been ETNZ's inspiration for going Full Herbie Autopilot (snaerk thinks the LR version was only as a machine learning system, and he may be right) but ETNZ is who actually went all-in.

Clean was pretty insightful on this and a few other points, in his pre-ramble. The autopilot was a very Big Deal, GD has said it too.

If you throw the word cheating into a context where a boat (including the component you are specifically talking about) has been checked and confirmed to comply, I really do think you come off appearing disingenuous or at very least inviting attack.

Even Indio doesn't take this stance over Herbie. His argument is (right or wrong) seems to be that it was never properly checked.

Next time choose the words more carefully. Calling them sneaky little bastards for finding a loophole in the rules is probably a much better approach.

Share this post


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

FIFY

Yeah, Luna Rossa and ETNZ got the shaft.

The only reason ETNZ continued is because if they ever miss a single cup cycle, it will be curtains permanently.

Share this post


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

.. Calling them sneaky little bastards for finding a loophole in the rules is probably a much better approach.

Okay, that works too.

Monnduster revelled in the same, argued emotionally about how that loophole should, as was, considered to be that wide open due not to spirit and intent but, as he said, to horrendous language written by the 'arrogant' people he detests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may come to light that TNZ got shafted by Prada hardest of all in return for the pilot 

Share this post


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

Okay, that works too.

Monnduster revelled in the same, argued emotionally about how that loophole should, as was, considered to be that wide open due not to spirit and intent but, as he said, to horrendous language written by the 'arrogant' people he detests.

link?

Share this post


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

'Rule cheaters' aka 'taking advantage of loopholes' that are often left open by poor wording in those rules, with a bit of a gamble taken on if the Measurement Committee will accept your reasoning, are an AC rich tradition. It must surely happen in all kinds of other development Classes too.

LR may or may not have been ETNZ's inspiration for going Full Herbie Autopilot (snaerk thinks the LR version was only as a machine learning system, and he may be right) but ETNZ is who actually went all-in.

Clean was pretty insightful on this and a few other points, in his pre-ramble. The autopilot was a very Big Deal, GD has said it too.

Thanks Stingray!  Glad it added something to the pile.  I really, really wish he'd given me two hours, 25 minutes went by in a flash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

link?

He posted it here somewhere. Same guy (you know who he is) that went AWOL from AC35 over, as IM put it when pressed, some 'personality issues' he apparently had going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's a kook, but he's a smart kook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

he's a kook, but he's a smart kook

agreed, but with capital K's

search for 'canonical'; or for 'arrogance' which he ascribed to the rule writers, who best as I recall included well minded people like M&M among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

It may come to light that TNZ got shafted by Prada hardest of all in return for the pilot 

I don't think they will have gotten the shafts but I reckon they will have chosen the type of boat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

he's a kook, but he's a smart kook

With some new Silicon Valley gig, which may be why he left. Everyone was leery of the guy. ncs is among those who may be willing to share private insights and concerns about that kook even with you, if ncs even cares any longer about it; he almost started a thread over the subject but maybe the arguments went ETNZ's way in the end so he then quietly let it go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

he's a kook, but he's a smart kook

"kook" is not a nice word to use around spinbot as he's very sensitive about things like that:lol:!! But if you want a story, try asking Fatso Murray why the "smart kook" up and left - it might have something to do with not getting paid for all the extra hours he was putting in for the Measurement committee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'm lost in translation, throw me a rope, don't know what you're talking about, or about who you're talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jorge said:

Ok I'm lost in translation, throw me a rope, don't know what you're talking about, or about who you're talking about

If the guy wanted to post under his own name then he would. Was involved as a Measurer but had some 'issues' as has been evidenced in plenty of places - even here by his own pointed language.

Water under the bridge.

Share this post


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

 

This cry of applying any nationality qualification to include designers seems to be driven and motivated by a desire and/or belief that it would somehow disadvantage ETNZ. It would seem that success breeds and cultivates the green-eyed monster even in those who claim to have supported ETNZ in AC35...

Indio, I am not driven or motivated to disadvantage TNZ.

It has been frustrating that see french teams lacking money to be competitive and watch french architects design OR 17 in AC33, help other teams in AC34, and now Guillaume Verdier designing TNZ foil while they struggle to stay stable.

This lack of money could be compensated with designer talent, but you know better than I do it is wishful thinking, TNZ will not apply nationality rules to designers if it hurts them as they now control the game. And it's part of the AC.

Share this post


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

TNZ will not apply nationality rules to designers if it hurts them as they now control the game. And it's part of the AC.

What is this statement based on other than personal bias and unfounded supposition?

Can you suggest a workable way that nationality of designers can be enforced? If not, then it's irrelevant what TNZ's position is. Having said that, if ETNZ implement a nationality rule for sailors then I am convinced they would do the same for the design team (if one was workable). Personally I don't think a design team nationality rule is workable.

In any event I would not expect any nationality rule to require 100% from country of origin so a few key men like Bernasconi and Verdier would probably be able to remain at ETNZ (if they want to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, KoW said:

What is this statement based on other than personal bias and unfounded supposition?

Can you suggest a workable way that nationality of designers can be enforced? If not, then it's irrelevant what TNZ's position is. Having said that, if ETNZ implement a nationality rule for sailors then I am convinced they would do the same for the design team (if one was workable). Personally I don't think a design team nationality rule is workable.

In any event I would not expect any nationality rule to require 100% from country of origin so a few key men like Bernasconi and Verdier would probably be able to remain at ETNZ (if they want to).

First, stop being paranoiac and think TNZ is attacked when it is not the case. The only personnal bias I have, and you should know that, is that I have been supporting kiwis during last years.

Second, why could you enforce nationality rules for sailors and not from from designers ? are they different kind of humans ?

As far as the 100%, who said that ?

Share this post


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

a few korekshinz:
Sur Oracle, ils avaient beaucoup rayonné cette diagonale.

"On Oracle, they had much radiated this diagonal"
 not radiated, but (in contekst) soffenned into a kerv

 

Mais on peut faire des monocoques chouettes: 
duz not meen "we can make owl monohulls", chouette meenz grate or nifty

 

"Qu'il n'y ait plus de bouts, je trouve ça plutôt bien."
Google: "That there are no more ends, I find it rather good"
"bouts" in this contekst iz sailing vernakyooler for ropes or lines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Thanks. We rely on you for textual clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O and theez :

Les Américains ont navigué dans du vent fort et ils ne se sont peut-être pas assez entraînés dans le petit temps.

The Americans sailed in strong winds and they may not have trained enough in the short time.

"petit temps" iz nuthing to do with tym, it meenz "light airz"

Ne (le) trouve(rie)z (vous) pas dommage de mettre les AC50 à la poubelle ?
Do not find damage to put the AC50 in the trash? 

actewally:
Wood yoo not find it sad if the AC50 wer put owt with the trash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of the better foil control was having 1 guy on it at all times? That is a major change even before considering input cues from the computer. The ability to work the wing and foils from both sides and beyond that many if not most aspects from all stations is also big.

Actually thinking about the autopilot implementation. That is an old old old system. In 1965 NASA introduced such a thing for the Gemini landings. [video]
Major style deduction for ETNZ though. Not using an 8 ball is just not acceptable! Now we have that Herbie discussion again... :D [I still think Pete should have answered Herbie to Cleans question who he wants to sail against...]

Share this post


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

Actually thinking about the autopilot implementation. That is an old old old system. In 1965 NASA introduced such a thing for the Gemini landings. [video]
 

Beautiful video, thanks! So circumventing the Rule meant going back to 50 yrs old technology in this particular aspect ...

Share this post


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

a few korekshinz:
Sur Oracle, ils avaient beaucoup rayonné cette diagonale.

"On Oracle, they had much radiated this diagonal"
 not radiated, but (in contekst) soffenned into a kerv

 

Mais on peut faire des monocoques chouettes: 
duz not meen "we can make owl monohulls", chouette meenz grate or nifty

 

"Qu'il n'y ait plus de bouts, je trouve ça plutôt bien."
Google: "That there are no more ends, I find it rather good"
"bouts" in this contekst iz sailing vernakyooler for ropes or lines

Tou kompraon biain franssé.

Share this post


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

a few korekshinz:
Sur Oracle, ils avaient beaucoup rayonné cette diagonale.

"On Oracle, they had much radiated this diagonal"
 not radiated, but (in contekst) soffenned into a kerv

 

There was also this particular break, this double break. It was a bit like a chamfer in the diagonal which was very long

This, and the comments on OR's foils are perhaps the most interesting bits. I found that shape particularly intriguing, I don't remember seeing it on previous designs. Can be well seen in stills from Jason's recent vid:

595fc78f7e785_ETNZfoils73ebd4c24.jpg.37d67b2dc5f3889d63fba9c273e2b897.jpg595fc79448e92_ETNZfoilsd4b3e.jpg.225911dd684f7045777c75a310021aa5.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, snaerk said:

a few korekshinz:
Sur Oracle, ils avaient beaucoup rayonné cette diagonale.

"On Oracle, they had much radiated this diagonal"
 not radiated, but (in contekst) soffenned into a kerv

Yes, radiused might be a closer translation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Xlot said:

Beautiful video, thanks! So circumventing the Rule meant going back to 50 yrs old technology in this particular aspect ...

And remember kids, this is rocket science.

Share this post


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

How much of the better foil control was having 1 guy on it at all times? That is a major change even before considering input cues from the computer. The ability to work the wing and foils from both sides and beyond that many if not most aspects from all stations is also big.

Actually thinking about the autopilot implementation. That is an old old old system. In 1965 NASA introduced such a thing for the Gemini landings. [video]
Major style deduction for ETNZ though. Not using an 8 ball is just not acceptable! Now we have that Herbie discussion again... :D [I still think Pete should have answered Herbie to Cleans question who he wants to sail against...]

Cool video! Who knows, Blair may have seen a very similar sight given all the thought put into that original 8-ball interface design.

What I'd love to know is how much actually happened, and how far into the future, when a screen-touch was accepted. The possibilities are likewise 'out there and beyond' what the poor Gemini pilots had available. Did you see that analog abacus? Lmao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One can imagine everything, it is open. New Zealanders have made me work on some tracks but I have no right to talk about it. 

That'd be a fun design conversation to evesdrop on.

Also, almost first thing he alluded to the "Oracle got the forecast wrong" story which hasn't gotten as much play as I reckon it could. Likewise GA on the podcast talking about NZ training in light conditions in AKL being an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a French native does not help me to understand what GV mentionned about the diagonale???

Thank you Marlowe for your remark, humour is always good for health.

So in order to help Sneark in his textuel clarity role, I would suggest one translation solution

In french : temps means both time and weather

so "petit temps" does not translate into little time, but rather into light breeze.

Anyone can explain what this diagonal issue is? 

It should be mentionned that if ETNZ has a very low stability foil package,

it was not that obvious when watching them on the water, was it !!!

Happy Sunday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2017 at 8:52 AM, JALhazmat said:

No one paid attention,  with exception of the one team that quit and then gifted what they knew 

The interpretation was open for all to see the direction of "manual" control systems perhaps a year and a half ago? (Indio?)

It would have been mad to put all the eggs in this basket if the result of the IR didn't go down as it did.

Share this post


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

It should be mentionned that if ETNZ has a very low stability foil package,

it was not that obvious when watching them on the water, was it !!!

Which I thought was the point of the control system and the extra oil produced to power a system to allow unstable low drag foils to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2017 at 7:17 AM, eurochild said:

That'd be a fun design conversation to evesdrop on.

Also, almost first thing he alluded to the "Oracle got the forecast wrong" story which hasn't gotten as much play as I reckon it could. Likewise GA on the podcast talking about NZ training in light conditions in AKL being an advantage.

That's what sounds incredible for me... They were training there for almost a year or more and they designed a boat for a higher wind range ??? WTF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jorge said:

That's what sounds incredible for me... They were training there for almost a year or more and they designed a boat for a higher wind range ??? WTF

I don't think it was a lack of understanding local weather. Even before getting to Bermuda any standard sailing meteorologist would be able to tell the team with reasonable confidence what sort of conditions the bay will have. Oracle's design wasn't particularly bad in the light, the difficulty I think has to do without these boats needing more adjustments in the light and no team other than the Kiwis could make that much power to constantly tweak for the light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the GV interview,

"Let's say that in Bermuda, we had the foils that went well in that wind force. It would seem that Oracle made foils that had holes in some wind forces, especially in 8-10 knots." and "I also believe that we sailed in a slice of wind that suited us well."

Which is just as I'd been posting well before the GV interview. The conditions that suddenly turned light, within just a few days of Race 1, became an obvious factor. 

Hopefully if we are moving on with a NextGen AC50 then even ETNZ will press for less foil restrictions, better controls, flaps allowed, whatever can make the foils more range-capable, less specialized. It could have been 'ourselves' that had been caught out, had the conditions instead gone back to what the Semi Finals saw, 15 and above.

In the PB and BT 45-minute Veitch interview, they like others at ETNZ have done, took caller questions and refuted that they were much faster than OR even in the Match conditions.

 

Share this post


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

what the Semi Finals saw, 15 and above.

You still haven't re-watched that 2nd ETNZ vs OR-JPN roundrobin race then <_<

Share this post


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

You still haven't re-watched that 2nd ETNZ vs OR-JPN roundrobin race then <_<

There was a Qualifiers RR race Friday June 2 between ETNZ and SBTJ where the wind range was about 14 to 16 knots but.. What is your point?

We have a whole lot of evidence that ETNZ was a click faster than OR in 8-10 knots during the Match, is mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that in the conditions where you posit an Orifice advantage Orifice B with a near identical boat got smoked.

 

The biggest speed differences were in the stronger wind bits where ETNZ was doing 31.x upwind with a bunch over 32 & at least matching Orifice B for angle, high 30s downwind & some insane deep angles in pressure.

Share this post


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

My point is that in the conditions where you posit an Orifice advantage Orifice B with a near identical boat got smoked.

 

The biggest speed differences were in the stronger wind bits where ETNZ was doing 31.x upwind with a bunch over 32 & at least matching Orifice B for angle, high 30s downwind & some insane deep angles in pressure.

Different boats, different foils, different sailors, different technique, I don't think SBTJ during the RR's is a good comparison to OR in the Match. Even ETNZ, which was one team, evolved anyway during the month.

Am I arguing that ETNZ would have been slow in wind a couple clicks stronger? No! But I think even you would agree the racing would have been more competitive, since GV among others have pointed to ETNZ having an advantage specifically in 8-10. He is their chief foil designer!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can´t believe you're still  talking about this. Water under the bridge, it's over.

Share this post


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

Can´t believe you're still  talking about this. Water under the bridge, it's over.

It's not okay to discuss some pertinent parts of the GV interview? Parts the he uses to help explain how ETNZ dominated? Okay, then... :D What the hell else do we have to yak about?

Okay, here's one, dates: We've heard 2021 bandied about, does anyone have a sense if that means early 2021, or late 2021, winter-months mid-2021 seemingly unlikely?

Share this post


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

The interpretation was open for all to see the direction of "manual" control systems perhaps a year and a half ago? (Indio?)

It would have been mad to put all the eggs in this basket if the result of the IR didn't go down as it did.

With the benefits of having witnessed ETNZ's superb control system in action, it's now apparent that most of the detailed and searching Class Interpretations dating back to February 2015 were requested by ETNZ. But even as late as October-November 2016, there were very detailed CI's being requested by (I'm suggesting) ETNZ, including

ACC Interpretation No 060.pdf

ACC Interpretation No 072.pdf

Share this post


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

That's what sounds incredible for me... They were training there for almost a year or more and they designed a boat for a higher wind range ??? WTF

Because it looked great and fast on video when they were racing themselves for a year and a bit in BDA:lol: - we know this because the OR-Xerox sycophants like spinbot were telling us all along how blazingly fast 17 was! But they were nice touristy videos - Bermuda Tourism Board would have been very happy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Herbio had a useful answer to anything about dates then I'd be very surprised, but interested to see it repeated by someone less delusional please?

IMG_1676.PNG.3945856637b4803df8f2fcabb044ee35.PNG

 

Share this post


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

From the GV interview,

"Let's say that in Bermuda, we had the foils that went well in that wind force. It would seem that Oracle made foils that had holes in some wind forces, especially in 8-10 knots." and "I also believe that we sailed in a slice of wind that suited us well."

It would seem ridiculous that Oracle would have a hole over some of the most likely range to be expected. If this is true and they didn't bother to overlap their foil performance as would be expected then they deserved to be trounced. However it is unlikely that they were that stupid. They did what the Kiwis did previously and had foils they could control with what they had available. The Kiwis did what Oracle did previously and when for unstable but fast foils and had to create a system to control them. 

Share this post


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

If Herbio had a useful answer to anything about dates then I'd be very surprised, but interested to see it repeated by someone less delusional?

IMG_1676.PNG.3945856637b4803df8f2fcabb044ee35.PNG

 

Come on, leave him alone. We all need our own little drum to beat on, whether it makes us out of step or not.

Share this post


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

If Herbio had a useful answer to anything about dates then I'd be very surprised, but interested to see it repeated by someone less delusional please?

nword.jpeg.a4cc4faebdba5b72061210e2abee6f17.jpeg

 

 

:lol: You just can't help yourself spinbot - you just can't wait to read my next instalment. Btw, I know you'll un-ignore this post 

Share this post


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

It would seem ridiculous that Oracle would have a hole over some of the most likely range to be expected. If this is true and they didn't bother to overlap their foil performance as would be expected then they deserved to be trounced. However it is unlikely that they were that stupid. They did what the Kiwis did previously and had foils they could control with what they had available. The Kiwis did what Oracle did previously and when for unstable but fast foils and had to create a system to control them. 

I don't think they had holes in their foil wind ranges.

To me it makes far more sense that they tried to achieve much the same thing as ETNZ did, but just sucked at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Oracle guessed wrong about what Windspeed and therefore Boatspeed range to optimize their limited foil quivers for. In Holroyd's excellent 'The Art of the Foil' video from months ago he spoke of the very-early gambles everyone had to take. Oracle guessed wrong, they basically sucked at boat handling as a result especially from having to make extra, downspeed, maneouvers to try make something happen off the shifts. But..

NZ had a far better division of tasks, didn't make the f'k ups Oracle did in start box OCS's, didn't make inexcusable OB's, and basically they completely outsailed them tactically too. Boatspeed in the light was a big, big factor - partly through luck at aiming for there - but it was obviously not all of what ETNZ did better overall. 

'Driving Miss Daisy' was a brilliant, early observation by the Rugby guy. 'You don't control an airplane with a rope' by GA (the Clean interview) was the other great AC35 line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see this getting the sweet spot wrong. The wind limit was 6 knots. The expected wind forecast was for low wind. So either Oracle had a foil that was optimised for 6-7 and nowhere as good at 8-10, or they did a DL and didn't have a light wind foil. Then they would then have a foil that was optimised for 11-25. No sensible team would have left 8-10 out of the sweet spot for one set of foils. Oracle may be a lot of things but they are not stupid. The may have been complacent but they would not have left a bloody great hole in their armory over the most likely wind range they would race in.

They just got out developed and out thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a boatspeed 'curve' that the foil configurations were best optimized to, and yes it was an early gamble. ETNZ's foils were, exactly as GV said, better suited to the bottom end of the range. The Polars demonstrate it.

In the possible mid or upper ranges, it may very well have been a different story but even GV doesn't know, none of us do because it got so light.

Foils need to be allowed to be less boatspeed-specific, if competitiveness matters in this next Cup. A more open foil and foils-control rule could help, a lot.

Share this post


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

There was a boatspeed 'curve' that the foil configurations were best optimized to, and yes it was an early gamble. ETNZ's foils were, exactly as GV said, better suited to the bottom end of the range. The Polars demonstrate it.

In the possible mid or upper ranges, it may very well have been a different story but even GV doesn't know, none of us do because it got so light.

Foils need to be allowed to be less boatspeed-specific, if competitiveness matters in this next Cup. A more open foil and foils-control rule could help, a lot.

I still don't think Oracle got the wind prediction wrong.

Even Ken Read said multiple times in the match that the everyone knew years in advance what the wind speed was likely to be.

To me, a much simpler explanation is that they simply weren't as good at foil design as ETNZ.

Otherwise, you would need to say that all the other syndicates got the wind prediction wrong because their foils were ALL a lot slower than ETNZ's foils in light air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boat weight  distribution, foil depth and rake control, and wing control and twist contributing to righting moment would all be other significant contributing factors to light air speed which ETNZ seen to have nailed better than their opponents.

To me Etnz's foils worked better because they were controlled better -without Tuke's dedicated foil trimming I don't think Etnz's foils would've been that much better than the other teams.

Share this post


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

I still don't think Oracle got the wind prediction wrong.

Even Ken Read said multiple times in the match that the everyone knew years in advance what the wind speed was likely to be.

To me, a much simpler explanation is that they simply weren't as good at foil design as ETNZ.

Otherwise, you would need to say that all the other syndicates got the wind prediction wrong because their foils were ALL a lot slower than ETNZ's foils in light air.

This.

It's funny the mentality of some. Instead of basking in the glory of their team having done a better job, they want to attack Oracle for getting their wind predictions wrong. You have to have a particularly warped mind to go down that track. There were no secrets in the wind data. Every team knew there was a chance of lighter winds and will have designed some of their foils accordingly. I believe that ETNZ did a better job of foil design and control in all conditions, so why not celebrate that instead of attacking another team? 

Share this post


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

This.

It's funny the mentality of some. Instead of basking in the glory of their team having done a better job, they want to attack Oracle for getting their wind predictions wrong. You have to have a particularly warped mind to go down that track. There were no secrets in the wind data. Every team knew there was a chance of lighter winds and will have designed some of their foils accordingly. I believe that ETNZ did a better job of foil design and control in all conditions, so why not celebrate that instead of attacking another team? 

I don't think its attack, just different opinion.

I think mine has more reason to it, but its still just an opinion.

Share this post


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

I just don't see this getting the sweet spot wrong. The wind limit was 6 knots. The expected wind forecast was for low wind. So either Oracle had a foil that was optimised for 6-7 and nowhere as good at 8-10, or they did a DL and didn't have a light wind foil. Then they would then have a foil that was optimised for 11-25. No sensible team would have left 8-10 out of the sweet spot for one set of foils. Oracle may be a lot of things but they are not stupid. The may have been complacent but they would not have left a bloody great hole in their armory over the most likely wind range they would race in.

They just got out developed and out thought.

OR-Xerox had Doug Lord on retainer :lol:

Share this post


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

OR-Xerox had Doug Lord on retainer :lol:

Haven't heard much from him so maybe Russ had a gag order in the contract, thank Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sur Oracle, ils avaient beaucoup rayonné cette diagonale."

"On Oracle they has much radiused this diagonal", whick means the used a curve instead of at straight foil.

I am still not sure that the "instability" applies to TNZ or OR.

If it applies to TNZ is proves that the advantage they had was the algorithm software they had on the tablet coupled with the human hability to xerox it on the boat.

Share this post


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

It could have been 'ourselves' that had been caught out, had the conditions instead gone back to what the Semi Finals saw, 15 and above.

Me: **shows Orifice B team getting smashed in 15+**

Spinbot: Uh I meant 10-12 might have been closer

 

:wub:

 

 

Share this post


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

With the benefits of having witnessed ETNZ's superb control system in action, it's now apparent that most of the detailed and searching Class Interpretations dating back to February 2015 were requested by ETNZ. But even as late as October-November 2016, there were very detailed CI's being requested by (I'm suggesting) ETNZ, including

ACC Interpretation No 060.pdf

ACC Interpretation No 072.pdf

#72 about crew manually intermediating electronic control systems seems pretty relevant. I like question (g) about passing the control voltage _through_ the crew.

You'd have to wonder if they were just having a laugh with one or two of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yes certainly relevant, fundamental you could even say :D

 

The 4 interpretations above (and more) have been released, still more as WIP - teams asking and getting answers to some pretty critical questions

 

snip...

 

Ok, this one is pretty funny, but gets to the point about auto/semi-auto/computer/manual control fundamental stuff for this class :o

 

I won't quote it because the graphics are good and won't copy

https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDozOTI5ZWExZjA5YmE4OTc3

 

**Answer is that the sailors are now redundant except as touch screen touchers and oil pumps - "You're fired, someone get me 6 Orungutans and a crate of bananas."

 

 

This one is heading in the same direction but the 'solutions' are not as sophisticated

https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDo2ZDI4YjVjYTA5ZDdmM2Y5

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and a few days later...

 

^ At least someone is willing to be informed about how this AC will be won and lost.

 

Nice photo - I said it was amusing..

 

 

So now it comes down to touching a screen attached to the front of, but electronically isolated from, a tablet!

 

When the tablet cursor moves and blinks - touch that spot, boom, foils/rudders/wing(?) move into computer calculated optimum positions according to sensor generated data.

 

'Manual input' - that could be done by any 3 year old...so sad [/DT]

 

 

again, see 'System 3' here https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDozOTI5ZWExZjA5YmE4OTc3

 

another teams 'solutions' here https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDo2ZDI4YjVjYTA5ZDdmM2Y5

 

 

Some thought the inclusion of the phrase initiated by manual input somehow precluded algorithms from taking over, but I've been saying for some time that there was deliberately more 'space' within the rule this time to allow far more 'automated' set-ups than OTUSA used in AC34 - but I did not conceive of it getting to this ridiculous point.

 

Or beyond!? These are just test balloons to some extent and tell teams what they can and cannot develop further....the recent OTUSA PR has made it quite clear that tablets were already aboard and doing most or all of the navigation and probably offering 'suggestions' for performance optimisation - obviously just the starting point....can everyone catch up?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now