pacice

Foiling Monohull - what would it look like?

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

The ETNZ system was a legal work around for a rule that was not intended to permit computer controlled flight. They exploited a loophole in the rule, just like in AC34 where they got their boat foiling. That’s just part of the game, and always has been. 

One interesting point is that new rules typically favor challengers for the simple reason that the defender has a vested interest in the rule working the way it is supposed to (example: it is unimaginable that OR would’ve - on their own-  showed up with a foiling boat when their rule was intended to prevent that) whereas the challengers have every interest in finding a gray/area weakness and exploiting it. 

I’m pretty sure most teams (not sure about France) used fly by wire systems during development - but they couldn’t translate that to their class legal racing configurations (I’ve no doubt the data was there, but you can’t watch a screen AND drive, and twist grips on a constantly moving wheel are no match for a slider on fixed mount).For me, the interesting question is which came first - the control system or the cyclors? Or were they developed in parallel? 

 

I think its clear these all developed in parallel - the need and payoff for the cyclors was partly due to having dedicated flight control, and good oil. If system 3 was also ruled illegal they may have stuck with cyclors, but with much less benefit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did the cyclors come from LR? Because the narrative (which may be BS) is that the fly by wire tech came from Italy. Or did the original AC62s have enough crew that LR could’ve used that tech without cyclors? And then ETNZ further innovation (cyclors) was able to bring it to the 50s?

Either way - great solution to controlled flight, I expect to see trickle down into other foiling classes with 2 or more crew.

Share this post


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

So did the cyclors come from LR? Because the narrative (which may be BS) is that the fly by wire tech came from Italy. Or did the original AC62s have enough crew that LR could’ve used that tech without cyclors? And then ETNZ further innovation (cyclors) was able to bring it to the 50s?

Either way - great solution to controlled flight, I expect to see trickle down into other foiling classes with 2 or more crew.

Yeah see perhaps now you can see why I regard such 'narrative' as BS. There's so much insinuation on this board that it starts to form a 'story' that people accept as having some truth. What's the old saying about telling a lie enough times? ;-)

IMHO that "the fly-by-wire tech came from LR" is simply people (not saying you) wanting to diminish ETNZ's accomplishments because it makes them feel less shit about ETNZ winning... Perhaps there was  the offer and availing of whatever IP LR had learned about foil control systems (this could be an infinite number of things), but from what I've seen, the cyclors + dedicated flyer control system were clearly cooked up in Auckland. Sadly, the result of the relationship between LR and ETNZ now means anyone can point to anything ETNZ did/does and say 'yeah that came from LR'. To which the debate would be endless and fruitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I got that from multiple reliable sources - even the article I posted mentions it. There is no question that LR shared IP with ETNZ, we just don’t know exactly what, and prob never will - except that it wasn’t the wing control, which makes fly by wire a very reasonable assumption. No one is ‘lying’ except a few people making baseless accusations about the 2013 match. 

I don’t see any of this as ‘diminishing’ ETNZs win, just as I don’t see ETNZ arriving at foiling first in AC34 (which as I’ve noted elsewhere would’ve been politically impossible for OR) somehow diminishing OR’s victory.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think GD said, way back in the Clean interview, that they were leaning towards banning autopilot software in the new boat - because ETNZ would have too big a head start.

Share this post


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

Wow... that's how you've been quoting things like this to date? yikes!

Because both the question, and GDs answer say nothing of the sort...

The question related to fly-by-wire control interfaces, not autopilot (you know the difference right)? And GD said that they were well ahead (which they were) and that in general sticking with AC50s would keep everyone's iteration advancing, making it harder for new entrants. The words 'banning' never passed his lips! He did say there needs to be a balance of technology, but building of their existing systems makes it harder for new teams.

Share this post


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

Wow... that's how you've been quoting things like this to date? yikes!

Because both the question, and GDs answer say nothing of the sort...

The question related to fly-by-wire control interfaces, not autopilot (you know the difference right)? And GD said that they were well ahead (which they were) and that in general sticking with AC50s would keep everyone's iteration advancing, making it harder for new entrants. The words 'banning' never passed his lips! He did say there needs to be a balance of technology, but building of their existing systems makes it harder for new teams.

I gave you the damn link for in case I had misremembered how he’d put it. 

Somewhere earlier in there he talks specifically about ‘simulated, automatic pilots’ (said it almost exactly that way)

edit, listen at 00:26:15

And I paraphrased it well enough, dipshit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Its a combo, there needs to be an element of it but not an uncontrollable element of it...that would scare a team away"

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, WetHog said:

"Its a combo, there needs to be an element of it but not an uncontrollable element of it...that would scare a team away"

WetHog  :ph34r:

Bingo, cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LR definitely transferred their autopilot learning from the AC62 before the withdrew. Was at that stage called project "Marco" which formed the beginings of what became the  project "Polo" at ETNZ.

9 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Yeah see perhaps now you can see why I regard such 'narrative' as BS. There's so much insinuation on this board that it starts to form a 'story' that people accept as having some truth. What's the old saying about telling a lie enough times? ;-)

IMHO that "the fly-by-wire tech came from LR" is simply people (not saying you) wanting to diminish ETNZ's accomplishments because it makes them feel less shit about ETNZ winning... Perhaps there was  the offer and availing of whatever IP LR had learned about foil control systems (this could be an infinite number of things), but from what I've seen, the cyclors + dedicated flyer control system were clearly cooked up in Auckland. Sadly, the result of the relationship between LR and ETNZ now means anyone can point to anything ETNZ did/does and say 'yeah that came from LR'. To which the debate would be endless and fruitless.

 

Share this post


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

it is unimaginable that OR would’ve - on their own-  showed up with a foiling boat when their rule was intended to prevent that

Orifice left it open by allowing for horizontal foils in the rule, if they really wanted to ban foiling they could have easily prevented it by a very small change to the board rules.

They just thought they would have an advantage with a semi-foiling setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. They had a specific vision for the cup - 72’ wingsail cats - because they like cats, and they like wingsails. Foiling was not part of that vision, but ETNZ found a loophole and it was game on. I’m stoked they did - the foiling AC72s were awesome, and resulted (IMO) in the most exciting cup match in my lifetime - but the rule was certainly not ‘left open’ intentionally.

 

Share this post


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

None of them. Obviously all of the boat systems were approved by the MC, just like AC34. Which English word that i wrote was too difficult for you to understand?

Here's an explanation of ETNZ's flight control system, since you still apparently don't 'get it':

"Interestingly, these foils were controlled not by the helmsman, as was the case with the rest of the fleet, but via a touch-screen device managed by Burling’s longtime 49er crew, Blair Tuke. According to reports, New Zealand’s partnership with the Italian Luna Rossa syndicate in 2013 led to the development of Tuke’s control unit: a software-driven autopilot of sorts, that revealed the angle of the foil for any given moment. Tuke only had to match this with his fingers to direct the foils to the correct articulation and produce the super-stable flight that allowed Burling to throw the boat around with confidence in the pre-start and around the course—that and focus on things like speed and tactics."

https://www.sailmagazine.com/racing/teamwork-lack-of-fear-proved-team-new-zealand-unstoppable-in-ac35

been busy, and this has been debated..but

the separation of ride control and the combining of helmsman/tactician was something that no other team followed up on. it wasn't as simple as using a loophole, which i think is a bit disingenuous. Everyone saw the interpretation of "manual control", it was discussed by a few (actually only two) of us here that were following along at the time, as being quite a game changer. No-one foresaw what a game changer the cyclors hands free state would be when added to the control system that had been approved.

you do remember poor jimmy in ac34 not being able to look around when foiling upwind as he was concentrating so much on incredibly stable ride height pressing his wheel buttons to control foil rake.

get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sadly, the result of the relationship between LR and ETNZ now means anyone can point to anything ETNZ did/does and say 'yeah that came from LR'

1 hour ago, frankie said:

LR definitely transferred their autopilot learning from the AC62 before the withdrew. Was at that stage called project "Marco" which formed the beginings of what became the  project "Polo" at ETNZ.

 

1st post arrival just proved my point!

Share this post


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

been busy, and this has been debated..but

the separation of ride control and the combining of helmsman/tactician was something that no other team followed up on. it wasn't as simple as using a loophole, which i think is a bit disingenuous. Everyone saw the interpretation of "manual control", it was discussed by a few (actually only two) of us here that were following along at the time, as being quite a game changer. No-one foresaw what a game changer the cyclors hands free state would be when added to the control system that had been approved.

you do remember poor jimmy in ac34 not being able to look around when foiling upwind as he was concentrating so much on incredibly stable ride height pressing his wheel buttons to control foil rake.

get it?

^ Two quick comments:

1) Of course the ETNZ system in AC 35 exploited a loophole. Read the AC 50 rule - the wording makes the intent very clear.

2) You didn’t watch AC34 if that’s what you think happened. Jimmy was steering, not pushing buttons - there was very little adjustment of the foils once they were up and going, as there was simply not enough available hydraulic power. Beast mode in particular used much of the hydro to trim the wing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. a clear interpretation of what constitutes "manual control" is not a loophole.

2. oh ,  OR used surface piercing foils that auto adjusted ride height thru lee coupling whilst the foils were only showing 1 foot and the tip was 1 meter below the surface. the hydro use in ac34 was well documented and the grinders were totally supporting the flapping wing. 

edit: your quick comment didn't realize that we/i were talking ac34 clearly

 

 

yeahright.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hahahaha...still bitterly trying to relitigate AC34 in 2018 - 5 years after the fact -  because you still don't know how a lifting gantry works, and have no idea what 'leeway coupling' means. Awesome.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

awesome you talk about an AC 72 that holds ride height without any rake control, just steer the boat and all the rest will take care of itself.

if that tech exists pray tell why TF no-one has recreated the miracle.

and do educate me about lifting gantrys please with one example of how it is loosely afixed to the foil box. Please.

just 

one

fact

in all your shit talk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ OR's AC72 didn't 'hold ride height without any rake control' any more than ETNZ's did. They both flew with relatively crude adjustment systems - OR's was slightly better because it was indexed to 0.5 degree AoA increments. That coarse increment would totally preclude fly by wire - mind you, it's a moot point because neither of the boats in AC34 had the hydro to do that anyway.

The function of the lifting gantry has been explained ad nauseam - but the main point is that when a foil is deployed (down), the slender carbon gantry is unloaded and being buffeted by nearly 50 kts of turbulent apparent wind. The gantry is not rigidly fixed to the foil box because - due to the curve in the foil - it needs to move as the foil is raised or lowered so that the loads remain axial. But let's say - for the sake of this pointless 5 year long 'discussion' - that the gantry was rigidly fixed to the foil box. You could simulate the behavior by taking the top half of a windsurf mast in your car, getting up to around 55mph and then extending 6 feet of the mast out the window horizontally while holding the end that's still inside the car. That should give you a decent approximation of the the dynamics in play on an AC72 going 40 plus knots on SF bay, and how a slender carbon cylinder would be affected by them. Good luck!

:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

^ OR's AC72 didn't 'hold ride height without any rake control' any more than ETNZ's did. They both flew with relatively crude adjustment systems - OR's was slightly better because it was indexed to 0.5 degree AoA increments. That coarse increment would totally preclude fly by wire - mind you, it's a moot point because neither of the boats in AC34 had the hydro to do that anyway.

The function of the lifting gantry has been explained ad nauseam - but the main point is that when a foil is deployed (down), the slender carbon gantry is unloaded and being buffeted by nearly 50 kts of turbulent apparent wind. The gantry is not rigidly fixed to the foil box because - due to the curve in the foil - it needs to move as the foil is raised or lowered so that the loads remain axial. But let's say - for the sake of this pointless 5 year long 'discussion' - that the gantry was rigidly fixed to the foil box. You could simulate the behavior by taking the top half of a windsurf mast in your car, getting up to around 55mph and then extending 6 feet of the mast out the window horizontally while holding the end that's still inside the car. That should give you a decent approximation of the the dynamics in play on an AC72 going 40 plus knots on SF bay, and how a slender carbon cylinder would be affected by them. Good luck!

:)

Given you are most likely to have said mast at hand, could you go for a drive in the morning and bring some footage back? :D

Share this post


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

awesome you talk about an AC 72 that holds ride height without any rake control, just steer the boat and all the rest will take care of itself.

if that tech exists pray tell why TF no-one has recreated the miracle.

Every single boat in AC 35 foiled nearly 100% around the course - a REAL 'miracle' - and 5 out of 6 managed to do that controlling flight from the wheel. Neither OR or ETNZ got anywhere close to that in AC34 - they never even pulled off a foiling tack.

Or did you mean other than those 5 examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rh2600 said:

Given you are most likely to have said mast at hand, could you go for a drive in the morning and bring some footage back? :D

Hahahaha...but no. Barfy is going to need to do his own um 'science'. I'm sure the forum will be a better place for it!

Share this post


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

Given you are most likely to have said mast at hand, could you go for a drive in the morning and bring some footage back? :D

I always have my mast at hand 

Share this post


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

I always have my mast at hand 

I'm always extending mine 6ft outside the car window!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/03/2018 at 11:14 PM, surfsailor said:

Yep - those things will be way off the water (out of the gradient) and seeing massive apparent wind, so they will be generating serious horsepower even at deck level. HP = big pressure differentials between the windward and leeward sides, so end-plating would be of huge benefit.

Just an assumption,

The control of the top of the main sail should meet 2 objectives:

1-Minimize induced drag when it is necessary (mostly light wind when the lift distribution along the main sail is more or less elliptical) in this situation a little end-plate at the top should be beneficial as long as the boat is not pitching all the time in the waves like a classic keel monohull.

2-Above this minimum wind condition, the end-plate system can help to achieve a negative lift at the top in order to comply with a bell-shaped lift distribution which is the best trade-off when overpowered (it is the second objectives of the end-plate system).

It is just a week-end assumption.

Regards

Erwan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Burling excited with progress on new America's Cup boat

Peter Burling predicts the radical new America's Cup boat will be difficult to sail but he's inspired by the challenge of helping develop the systems to master that.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/101920123/peter-burling-excited-with-progress-on-new-americas-cup-boat

 

Share this post


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

No. They had a specific vision for the cup - 72’ wingsail cats

I was slightly misremembering the rule but it explicitly allowed:

Quote

9.3 The maximum dimension of any daggerboard shall be 7.000 m in any direction, measured along a straight line.

9.4 The lowest load-transferring bearing shall not translate relative to the hull.
9.5 A daggerboard shall not translate longitudinally more than 0.020 m within the bearing referred to in 9.4 above.

ie it was explicitly intended to allow DoGzilla style semi-foiling C/J foils with rake control in an excessively loose way that allowed ETNZ to drive a great big flying tractor through.

If they wanted to make a displacement cat 9.3 could have easily been written to require straight boards without significant vertical lift & 9.4/5 could have easily denied any rake control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yes, absolutely - about 50-70% of the weight was going to be supported by the foils. All of the cats with C and J foils have rake controls - I don’t think they intentionally wrote the rule in a loose way. Here’s an interview with Pete Melvin, who’s firm wrote the rule and later worked for ETNZ:

http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-pete-melvin-foils-multihulls-13146.php

 

Share this post


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

^ OR's AC72 didn't 'hold ride height without any rake control' any more than ETNZ's did. They both flew with relatively crude adjustment systems - OR's was slightly better because it was indexed to 0.5 degree AoA increments. That coarse increment would totally preclude fly by wire - mind you, it's a moot point because neither of the boats in AC34 had the hydro to do that anyway.

The function of the lifting gantry has been explained ad nauseam - but the main point is that when a foil is deployed (down), the slender carbon gantry is unloaded and being buffeted by nearly 50 kts of turbulent apparent wind. The gantry is not rigidly fixed to the foil box because - due to the curve in the foil - it needs to move as the foil is raised or lowered so that the loads remain axial. But let's say - for the sake of this pointless 5 year long 'discussion' - that the gantry was rigidly fixed to the foil box. You could simulate the behavior by taking the top half of a windsurf mast in your car, getting up to around 55mph and then extending 6 feet of the mast out the window horizontally while holding the end that's still inside the car. That should give you a decent approximation of the the dynamics in play on an AC72 going 40 plus knots on SF bay, and how a slender carbon cylinder would be affected by them. Good luck!

:)

you did talk about a windsurf mast!!! WTF. 

I don't want to insult your knowledge of carbon fibre structures by suggesting that a lifting gantry and a windsurf masts have different design parameters and quite possibly different structures.

Here is a video showing the flex of a windsurf mast that is designed to flex from a locked off camera.

If you want to lift a huge AC72 foil that weighs, and i'm guessing here, a half ton, you would design a gantry that doesn't flex.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Everything flexes - but we were talking about the effects of nearly 50 knot turbulent airflow on the unloaded gantry in your video, not structural design. The experiment I suggested - sticking 6 ft of a windsurfing mast out your car window at 55 mph - is a decent approximation of that: same fluid, same speed, external geometry (shape) close enough for horse shoes.

Plus I’m sure any GoPro footage would be welcomed by many on this forum - go get ‘em!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best guess could be using a trivial drag formula ie:

lenght 6 feet=3m 

diameter=0.05 m

55mph=25m/s

Aerodynamic area =3x0.05=0.15 sqm

Drag coef =1

Windsurf mast drag = 0.5*0.15*25*25*1= 46.875 Newtons

Just a proxy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Thats the basic drag - but there was also a lot of turbulence because the flow hitting the gantry crossed the entire AC72 platform first. The idea of my simplistic experiment was that the car’s wake would approximate that.

Either way, I’m looking forward to barfy’s GoPro video, I hope he sets the camera up in such a way that we can see his facial expression!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we know more ETNZ's autopilot foil trimming system, to me it seems obvious that it violates the intent of the manual controls systems.  Manually tracing or turning some device in unison to a computer optimized track is not utilizing any sort of sailing skills.  For all practical purposes the computer controlled the foils, not the sailor.  He just was playing a game of pong!  It is like claiming someone is a master painter when they just paint by the numbers or chess master when they just follow the moves dictated by Watson.  It was very clever, but smarmy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO any reasonable reading of ‘manual input’ implied the sailor making the decisions, meaning ‘brain input’ decisions by sailors instead of by GD’s ‘fully auto-pilot’ software was intended too.

Share this post


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

Now that we know more ETNZ's autopilot foil trimming system, to me it seems obvious that it violates the intent of the manual controls systems.  Manually tracing or turning some device in unison to a computer optimized track is not utilizing any sort of sailing skills.  For all practical purposes the computer controlled the foils, not the sailor.  He just was playing a game of pong!  It is like claiming someone is a master painter when they just paint by the numbers or chess master when they just follow the moves dictated by Watson.  It was very clever, but smarmy.

The MC approved the system - that's all you need to know.

Now...

59fb6db893250_Transfertosomeone.jpg.2ee8060d3d6ea673d42bbd340f1d53d2.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The MC approved the system - that's all you need to know.

Wise words, which also apply to OR's AC72.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

IMO any reasonable reading of ‘manual input’ implied the sailor making the decisions, meaning ‘brain input’ decisions by sailors instead of by GD’s ‘fully auto-pilot’ software was intended too.

Reasonableness is in the eye of the measurer. ;-)

While the ETNZ system may have been at the extreme of "manual input", it would take very careful wording to allow conventional instruments that are used in decision making but not allow "follow the bouncing ball" type systems. It seems from other discussions (and I really don't want to start them again here) that all that was required was an air gap between the device displaying data and the sailor–operated device making the adjustment. That seems to be an easily enforceable rule, anything more complex might accidentally include things like tell-tales and wind instruments.

Who hasn't adjusted a sheet or helm based on whether the windward or leeward jib luff tell–tales break up/down? It's equivalent to the argument that bungie cord is "stored energy" (no, no, don't start that one again either, it's just an example of a contentious issue that nit pickers love to pick at).

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Wise words, which also apply to OR's AC72.

Except the MC did NOT approve the cheater's control system, regardless of how many times you try to spin it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/03/2018 at 2:25 PM, surfsailor said:

^ Yes, absolutely - about 50-70% of the weight was going to be supported by the foils. All of the cats with C and J foils have rake controls - I don’t think they intentionally wrote the rule in a loose way. Here’s an interview with Pete Melvin, who’s firm wrote the rule and later worked for ETNZ:

Dude.

Remember you're supposed to be proving " their rule was intended to prevent that" ie full foiling.

I'm the one proving the rule was intentionally loose to enable semi-foiling and in a way that basically outright encouraged going for full foiling ie by allowing significant vertical lift & pitch control.

Thank you for furthering my part of the argument :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Of course they were going for semi-foiling - that was the state of the art at the time, and OR was very invested in having a state of the art wingsail cat. There’s a world of difference between semi and 100% foiling - the latter wasn’t happening on big cats in 2011 (or whenever exactly that rule was written) and conflating the two is disingenuous at best. The fact that OR boat one required massive redesign to fly, and Artemis boat one never flew at all shows how different 100% is from any partial foiling paradigm. 

 

Share this post


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

Except the MC did NOT approve the cheater's control system, regardless of how many times you try to spin it.

Except you’re wrong - both boats were measured and approved. Every component of OR’s system was approved. The design was approved. 

So there’s that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

mic-drop-2boom.jpg

  I'm probably going to regret getting amongst all this crazy, but yup dropped the Mike big time.

Can't have it both ways. Either the boat is "righteous" once the MC signs off or it ain't.

If the MC erred in signing off either ETNZs AC50 or Orifices AC72, then thems the breaks. The referees made a call and you live with it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Except you’re wrong - both boats were measured and approved. Every component of OR’s system was approved. The design was approved. 

So there’s that.

Post your source or documents confirming where the MC specifically approved the  the cheater's control system or the individual components including the linear actuator. Otherwise, run along...

Share this post


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

Post your source or documents confirming where the MC specifically approved the  the cheater's control system or the individual components including the linear actuator. Otherwise, run along...

Sure - just as soon as you post your source or documents confirming where the MC specifically approved  ETNZ's fly-by-wire system, including electronic components, and of course the many actuators (both electronic and hydraulic) that controlled not only the boards but the wing as well.

In the meantime, pls take your whingeing about AC34 to some thread that is not relevant to AC36.

Thanks.

Share this post


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

Sure - just as soon as you post your source or documents confirming where the MC specifically approved  ETNZ's fly-by-wire system, including electronic components, and of course the many actuators (both electronic and hydraulic) that controlled not only the boards but the wing as well.

In the meantime, pls take your whingeing about AC34 to some thread that is not relevant to AC36.

Thanks.

AC35 Measurement certificates are available here

http://noticeboard.acracemgt.com/home/ac-class/measurement-certificates

AC34 noticeboard is no longer online, but there will be measurement certificates for the boats there, as well as appeals and relevant responses from MC. They may still be lying as attachments in some of these older threads.

Share this post


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

Here at least is the Jury Notice at the heart of the debate JN120

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=237512

 

Quote

OBSERVATION 23. The Jury made the observation that, based on ETNZ’s own submission and the Responses and oral argument heard to date, the Jury would not have been likely to have upheld ETNZ’s claim that the MC had exceeded its jurisdiction.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ LOL. Another dumbass conspiracy theory bites the dust, 5 years after the event - thanks to information that was available in 2013. 

Can we get back to AC36 now?

Share this post


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

Sure - just as soon as you post your source or documents confirming where the MC specifically approved  ETNZ's fly-by-wire system, including electronic components, and of course the many actuators (both electronic and hydraulic) that controlled not only the boards but the wing as well.

In the meantime, pls take your whingeing about AC34 to some thread that is not relevant to AC36.

Thanks.

So nothing huh?? Just as I figured -  all mouth and nothing else.

Here are the appropriate docs re. AC35 - knock yourself out. Hopefully these will keep you occupied for a while to save us all from your unfounded BS claims.

ACC Interpretation No 070-1.pdf

ACC Interpretation No 072.pdf

ACC Interpretation No 043 (4).pdf

ACC Interpretation No 081 (1).pdf

ACC Interpretation No 060.pdf

ACC Interpretation No 069.pdf

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Indio said:

Here are the appropriate docs re. AC35 -

 

And what has that to do with how the AC36 foiling mono hull will look like ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Indio said:

So nothing huh?? Just as I figured -  all mouth and nothing else.

Here are the appropriate docs re. AC35 - knock yourself out. Hopefully these will keep you occupied for a while to save us all from your unfounded BS claims.

You are the one making unfounded claims - over and over, like a broken record, with NOTHING to back it up. Here you are, still going 5 years after the fact, in a thread about foiling monohulls that has nothing to do with AC34.

Let's review what the jury said about ETNZ's protest:

OBSERVATION 23. The Jury made the observation that, based on ETNZ’s own submission and the Responses and oral argument heard to date, the Jury would not have been likely to have upheld ETNZ’s claim that the MC had exceeded its jurisdiction.

Now let's get back to AC36.

Share this post


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

You are the one making unfounded claims - over and over, like a broken record, with NOTHING to back it up. Here you are, still going 5 years after the fact, in a thread about foiling monohulls that has nothing to do with AC34.

Let's review what the jury said about ETNZ's protest:

OBSERVATION 23. The Jury made the observation that, based on ETNZ’s own submission and the Responses and oral argument heard to date, the Jury would not have been likely to have upheld ETNZ’s claim that the MC had exceeded its jurisdiction.

Now let's get back to AC36.

To be fair and accurate Surf and Hog, the part in red is specifically about ETNZ's jurisdiction claim, which is just one small part of the application - which became increasingly messy as you read through the record (ETNZ allegedly trying to use another more recent PI in order to get back within the 14 day appeal window etc).

Quote

14. PI 49, issued on 8th August 2013, showed a hydraulic system acting on a ‘pivoting part’ without specifying what that part was. While the part was not specified it was still reasonable to deduce that the pivoting part could have been one of the items 3 listed in CR 19.1, namely ‘rigging, wing, soft sails, rudders and daggerboards.’ PI 49 also clearly showed a system that included mechanical feedback.

15. PI 52 addressed questions about ‘Component X’ that fitted between the actuator and the hydraulic valve shown in PI 49. However, the presence, absence or details of Component X did not have any material effect on whether PI 49 clearly showed a mechanical feedback system or the function of the system shown.

This shows that PI49 included mechanical feedback (not allowed right?), but that ETNZ left their appeal to late, and so used PI 52 which detailed another part of the system 'component-x' to try and re-litigate the mechanical feedback, which was not effected by component-x so was not able to be re-reviewed in PI 52 or any associated appeal. See why its messy?

To be fair and accurate you'd also need to conclude that this statement in red is so conditional on ('heard to date' and 'unlikely') that it is no more emphatic than the ongoing debate still taking place amongst those that continue to litigate. Your own assertion that this is 'case closed' is precisely what precipitates the debate, so can't we just agree it was a mess that was never really gotten to the bottom of to the satisfaction of at least one the parties involved? Which isn't to say OTUSA cheated.

EDIT - Actually "case closed" is totally accurate and fair... I'm wrong in that statement. I guess I mean whether natural justice was served to all parties.

giphy.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You are the one making unfounded claims - over and over, like a broken record, with NOTHING to back it up. Here you are, still going 5 years after the fact, in a thread about foiling monohulls that has nothing to do with AC34.

Let's review what the jury said about ETNZ's protest:

OBSERVATION 23. The Jury made the observation that, based on ETNZ’s own submission and the Responses and oral argument heard to date, the Jury would not have been likely to have upheld ETNZ’s claim that the MC had exceeded its jurisdiction.

Now let's get back to AC36.

Another typically trumpian evasion when you have nothing of substance to back up your BS - must be a cultural thing with you lot!!

1: You claimed the MC approved the cheater's control system in AC34*, and when challenged to provide documented Interpretations to back your claim, you offer nothing except to quote the IJ sidebar comment in JN120.pdf on ETNZ's specific application against PI54 - nothing to do with a non-existent "approval" as you claim. In fact, even the IJ recognised the illegal mechanical feedback system in the cheater's circuit but they weren't asked to rule on it :lol:

2: You then contorted yourself and asked for documents that the MC approved ETNZ's control system in AC35 - in response to which I posted 6 sets of documents.

You're all mouth and no substance, a common characteristic you share with your fellow deniers. You haven't put up, so I'd SHFU if I were you...

And AC36 will be the fairest and best edition in 20 years, especially if the cheaters and their cronies stay the fuck away from Auckland :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More thread drift

SEATTLE (NEWS 8) - The Seattle Harbor Police Department confirmed to News 8 that there was a whale sighting in a Seattle Lake Monday, after photos surfaced on social media.FE499A3B-20AE-4444-8ED1-799861461B66.thumb.jpeg.dd153fc5248a739283bd092a25f27140.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That otter swam by me just now outside my dining room and the news report was, like other stuff around here, #fakenews :) Hey, at least the otter is drifting around too. I’ve never actually seen one that close before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Another typically trumpian evasion when you have nothing of substance to back up your BS - must be a cultural thing with you lot!!

1: You claimed the MC approved the cheater's control system in AC34*, and when challenged to provide documented Interpretations to back your claim, you offer nothing except to quote the IJ sidebar comment in JN120.pdf on ETNZ's specific application against PI54 - nothing to do with a non-existent "approval" as you claim. In fact, even the IJ recognised the illegal mechanical feedback system in the cheater's circuit but they weren't asked to rule on it :lol:

2: You then contorted yourself and asked for documents that the MC approved ETNZ's control system in AC35 - in response to which I posted 6 sets of documents.

You're all mouth and no substance, a common characteristic you share with your fellow deniers. You haven't put up, so I'd SHFU if I were you...

And AC36 will be the fairest and best edition in 20 years, especially if the cheaters and their cronies stay the fuck away from Auckland :lol:

You are trying to use a very limited definition of what "MC approved" is. There are 2 ways in which the MC could approve anything on the boat. You only suggest there is one way, by issuing an interpretation. The other way of doing so is to issue a measurement certificate. In doing so, the MC is stating that everything on the boat complies. To illustrate this, please show us an interpretation that says the ETNZ AC72 platform complies. You cannot, but we know it complied because a certificate was issued. The same applies for the 101 different systems on these boats that were never subjected to a request for interpretation.

This comes back to your original statement. The MC approved the system on the OR AC72 because if they didn't, they would not have issued a certificate.

 

Share this post


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

To be fair and accurate Surf and Hog, the part in red is specifically about ETNZ's jurisdiction claim, which is just one small part of the application - which became increasingly messy as you read through the record (ETNZ allegedly trying to use another more recent PI in order to get back within the 14 day appeal window etc).

This shows that PI49 included mechanical feedback (not allowed right?), but that ETNZ left their appeal to late, and so used PI 52 which detailed another part of the system 'component-x' to try and re-litigate the mechanical feedback, which was not effected by component-x so was not able to be re-reviewed in PI 52 or any associated appeal. See why its messy?

To be fair and accurate you'd also need to conclude that this statement in red is so conditional on ('heard to date' and 'unlikely') that it is no more emphatic than the ongoing debate still taking place amongst those that continue to litigate. Your own assertion that this is 'case closed' is precisely what precipitates the debate, so can't we just agree it was a mess that was never really gotten to the bottom of to the satisfaction of at least one the parties involved? Which isn't to say OTUSA cheated.

EDIT - Actually "case closed" is totally accurate and fair... I'm wrong in that statement. I guess I mean whether natural justice was served to all parties.

 

^ That’s flat wrong - the section highlighted in red is specific to the substance of ETNZ’s claims about OR’s system. The mechanical feedback was internal to the system - there was no external feedback. It is important to understand that Indio is completely clueless about hydraulics and control systems - he literally didn’t know what an actuator was just a month ago.  

Let’s talk about AC36.

Share this post


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

^ Of course they were going for semi-foiling - that was the state of the art at the time, and OR was very invested in having a state of the art wingsail cat.

Again, show me where the rule makes any serious attempt to prevent full foiling like you claimed it did.

This is a 'half-pregnant' argument.

16 hours ago, surfsailor said:

The fact that OR boat one required massive redesign to fly, and Artemis boat one never flew at all shows how different 100% is from any partial foiling paradigm.

The groupthink & lack of vision that Orifice/Juan Alphabet suffered is in no way proof that the rule was intended to prevent full foiling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That ‘lack of vision’ won OR the cup in 2013. So there’s that. In any case, you can get a pretty good idea of what type of boat the rule was intended to provide by looking at the boat OR - who laid out the objectives for the rule - built. You can pretend that OR intended the rule to to be broad enough to allow 100% foiling, but that’s simply not the case.

This time around, ETNZ will be faced with trying to realize their (and LR’s) vision for the boat without leaving any loopholes. As a team, they have been exceptional at finding loopholes in other people’s rules, so I’m guessing that’s a big part of why they are keeping the process internal rather than outsourcing to an independent third party. 

Share this post


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

^ That’s flat wrong - the section highlighted in red is specific to the substance of ETNZ’s claims about OR’s system. 

WRONG!! ETNZ's application dismissed by the IJ was in direct response to the MC's PI_54.pdf response to ETNZ's follow-up to the MC's response in PI_52.pdf

You really need to get your mum to help with your comprehension limitations!!

The mechanical feedback was internal to the system - there was no external feedback

Oh FFS - the mechanical feedback the IJ identified was the linear actuator system. It was an external feedback system!!

It is important to understand that Indio is completely clueless about hydraulics and control systems - he literally didn’t know what an actuator was just a month ago.

Another trumpian BS claim without substance. You referred to a hydraulic directional valve spool moved by a solenoid as an "actuator" - never heard anyone else call it that :lol:. Only a self-styled surfer who calls himself a "sailor" would make such a claim...

You have nothing to back up any of your bullshit.Run along now junior while the adults converse..:lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You are reading the ruling wrong, you have no idea what you are talking about regarding actuators, and you’re posting in the wrong thread. 

Fail x 1000

Share this post


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

^ You are reading the ruling wrong, you have no idea what you are talking about regarding actuators, and you’re posting in the wrong thread. 

Fail x 1000

At least you can spell "fail" - must be used to seeing it on your school reports!!B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ No - both of my kids are straight A students. Hey - I’ve got an idea: let’s talk about foiling monohulls in the foiling monohull thread. 

:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

At least you can spell "fail" - must be used to seeing it on your school reports!!B)

What a little prick you make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You can pretend that OR intended the rule to to be broad enough to allow 100% foiling

Thats not my claim at all.

My claim (since early trials of Galloping Gertie) is Orifice intended it to give themsevles an advantage with semi-foiling tech developed in the DoGzilla campaign but because of their groupthink/lack of vision failed to realise that the bits which enabled this were excessively open and effectively invited flying a tractor through them, not some minor technicality but fundamentally how the rule was written.

 

I agree ETNZ has made life hard for themselves (and Council for building bases) with the JC75 being a config that will be challenging to get to work at all let alone write a rule to enable close, spectator friendly competition between campaigns with a wide range of funding.

I've always preferred a more conventional ~60foot cat or a freeing up of AC50 rule. (also would have made for easier/cheaper bases)

I do think they have the right idea with one-designing major structural/control system bits with freedom in surface design vs the AC50 with its one-design surfaces & largely invisible structure/control system freedom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I do think they have the right idea with one-designing major structural/control system bits with freedom in surface design vs the AC50 with its one-design surfaces & largely invisible structure/control system freedom.

The only problem with this is that they have one chance to get the one-design elements right, and even with the design tools available then thats a pretty big ask on something like this when it potentially affects the entire 'fleet'.   Time is short already.

Share this post


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

Thats not my claim at all.

My claim (since early trials of Galloping Gertie) is Orifice intended it to give themsevles an advantage with semi-foiling tech developed in the DoGzilla campaign but because of their groupthink/lack of vision failed to realise that the bits which enabled this were excessively open and effectively invited flying a tractor through them, not some minor technicality but fundamentally how the rule was written.

 

Groupthink was certainly a factor in AC35 - only one team went for fly by wire, which in retrospect seems crazy  - but I don’t think that was the case in AC34. OR came late to foiling, but still managed to leapfrog past ETNZ despite completely destroying their first boat (losing months) and having serious flaws in their modeling that kept them from seriously looking at a low/fast upwind mode until halfway thru the regatta. Even with their advantage in wing technology, it takes an amazing team - from top to bottom - to pull that off. 

AC 36 has huge cooked-in advantages for ETNZ and LR that easily equal OR’s wing IT going into ac 34. I totally agree that making the key mechanical systems (especially the EV foil controls) one design makes sense, but I’m not sure how much the freedom of surface design is going to help teams that aren’t deeply involved in the concept development - they’re going to be playing catch up from day one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2018 at 4:26 PM, surfsailor said:

^ Everything flexes - but we were talking about the effects of nearly 50 knot turbulent airflow on the unloaded gantry in your video, not structural design. The experiment I suggested - sticking 6 ft of a windsurfing mast out your car window at 55 mph - is a decent approximation of that: same fluid, same speed, external geometry (shape) close enough for horse shoes.

Plus I’m sure any GoPro footage would be welcomed by many on this forum - go get ‘em!

 

you do sidestep my point about the design parameters of a windsurf mast, the only thing you know shit about, compared to a lifting gantry. 

take a look, is the gantry tapered?

Do you actually every post proof, video or pictures?

or just troll the fuck out of everything

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's a question

the rigid wing sail has been ruled out of the JC75 for what i can see, two reasons

the rigid sail is less applicable and similar to the rest of the sailing community, i fully understand that

and also to save costs of lifting the wing out with a mast after every sail in the boat

but answer me this

will these new boats not be lifted out after each sail and taken inside for modifications and to get out of the weather anyway?

i cannot imagine them keeping the boat on slings outside when this is being done, so they would probably be bunging the hull inside which would mean no mast up

and how exactly will they be taking the mast down if not by use of crane?

maybe just easier crane work??

Share this post


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

it takes an amazing team - from top to bottom - to pull that off. 

Sure but its nothing to do with the fact they didn't realise the semi-foiling rules did nothing to stop full foiling which we are arguing over.

Share this post


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

Sure but its nothing to do with the fact they didn't realise the semi-foiling rules did nothing to stop full foiling which we are arguing over.

Hindsight is 20/20. Is it possible to move on?

Share this post


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

here's a question

the rigid wing sail has been ruled out of the JC75 for what i can see, two reasons

the rigid sail is less applicable and similar to the rest of the sailing community, i fully understand that

and also to save costs of lifting the wing out with a mast after every sail in the boat

but answer me this

will these new boats not be lifted out after each sail and taken inside for modifications and to get out of the weather anyway?

i cannot imagine them keeping the boat on slings outside when this is being done, so they would probably be bunging the hull inside which would mean no mast up

and how exactly will they be taking the mast down if not by use of crane?

maybe just easier crane work??

My understanding is the rigs will stay in the boats, and - supposedly - the boats will stay in the water with their spider legs down. But yeah - you’d think they’d haul them every night regardless, and that anything you’d gain by not having to deal with wings would be lost having to deal with the giant winged apoendages. . 

Share this post


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

you do sidestep my point about the design parameters of a windsurf mast, the only thing you know shit about, compared to a lifting gantry. 

take a look, is the gantry tapered?

Do you actually every post proof, video or pictures?

or just troll the fuck out of everything

Sure, dude. All we’re talking about is how slender carbon appendages behave in a turbulent 50 kt environment in reference to your video of an unloaded lifting gantry. Take your ac34 conspiracy crap to the OR thread or just let it go - it’s complete bs.

Share this post


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

My understanding is the rigs will stay in the boats, and - supposedly - the boats will stay in the water with their spider legs down. But yeah - you’d think they’d haul them every night regardless, and that anything you’d gain by not having to deal with wings would be lost having to deal with the giant winged apoendages. . 

Well done for missing the point. Lift the boat out when you want to  is very different from never being able to leave the rigged boat unattended for a second, always needing to be head to wind etc etc

Lift out onto a very tall cradle to clean, upgrade, repair:D as often as required, but leave it sitting at the dock between practice sessions, overnight etc etc

...and lift out = crane driver + a couple extras, not the everyman and his dog ballet we had before

Geddit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That makes sense, but how stable are those things really going to be even with just a big D section mast?Are they really going to leave them in the water overnight? IMO the move away from the wings started out emotional, and ended up necessary due to to static instability of the new ‘monohull’ platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be wrong again then.....in your guesses as to why COR/D are trying to get away from rigid wings

As to how much they'll heel at the dock if it blows a bit, are you suggesting you know more about this than Mr Bernasconi? :lol:

Haul it if you're worried.....

0/3

Share this post


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

To be fair and accurate Surf and Hog, the part in red is specifically about ETNZ's jurisdiction claim, which is just one small part of the application - which became increasingly messy as you read through the record (ETNZ allegedly trying to use another more recent PI in order to get back within the 14 day appeal window etc).

This shows that PI49 included mechanical feedback (not allowed right?), but that ETNZ left their appeal to late, and so used PI 52 which detailed another part of the system 'component-x' to try and re-litigate the mechanical feedback, which was not effected by component-x so was not able to be re-reviewed in PI 52 or any associated appeal. See why its messy?

To be fair and accurate you'd also need to conclude that this statement in red is so conditional on ('heard to date' and 'unlikely') that it is no more emphatic than the ongoing debate still taking place amongst those that continue to litigate. Your own assertion that this is 'case closed' is precisely what precipitates the debate, so can't we just agree it was a mess that was never really gotten to the bottom of to the satisfaction of at least one the parties involved? Which isn't to say OTUSA cheated.

EDIT - Actually "case closed" is totally accurate and fair... I'm wrong in that statement. I guess I mean whether natural justice was served to all parties.

giphy.gif

Well done sir

Share this post


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

Well done for missing the point. Lift the boat out when you want to  is very different from never being able to leave the rigged boat unattended for a second, always needing to be head to wind etc etc

Lift out onto a very tall cradle to clean, upgrade, repair:D as often as required, but leave it sitting at the dock between practice sessions, overnight etc etc

...and lift out = crane driver + a couple extras, not the everyman and his dog ballet we had before

Geddit?

ok, that does sound pretty fair

although did they not have some of the ac45's for the ACWS on moorings free to swing head to wind?

i guess that they were far less complex and moorings wouldn't be ideal for a million+ dollar boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites