• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
MidPack

So were ETNZ cyclors a factor or neutral

Recommended Posts

It sounded like an advantage to me, and I noticed the ETNZ cyclors seemed to be below peak HR at times while the conventional grinders on other boats seemed to be at or near peak more often. But just a laymans guess. What was the verdict, was the cyclor grinder setup among the (many) competitive advantages ETNZ brought to the AC, or was it more of a push/neutral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept was a game-changer by virtue of everything that flowed from it: higher potential power giving the design team and Ashby the ability to push the envelope of foil design and wing control; one less accumulator leading to lightest boat in the fleet; hands-free "cyclors" enabling Tuke to actively trim the foils and one other guy to partially handle the controls during maneuvers, lower windage etc etc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This. I think changing the flight control paradigm - on all the other boats, the helm was flying the boat - was the biggest factor, but the hydraulic wing control (only possible with additional hydro) meant that the wing control system could be electronically integrated with the flight control system. Humans still had to work the Xboxs, but the sharing of information between the two (wing and foil trim) had to be a huge advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was massive because it freed hands up to control the boat, offered more hydro for wing control and more hydro to adjust the foils more frequently which then meant they could use less draggy foils.

It wasn't the innovation that made them go faster but it was the innovation that enabled them to use all the other innovations that DID allow them to go faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling to think of any downside of cyclors.

  1. Legs stronger than arms = more direct effort or lower physical effort 
  2. Better aero
  3. Leaves hands free

Was there any upside to trad. grinders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was big and as noted above made other things possible that the conventional grinders could not do. No good in a 12m, but excellent for this application.

Share this post


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

It was massive because it freed hands up to control the boat, offered more hydro for wing control and more hydro to adjust the foils more frequently which then meant they could use less draggy foils.

It wasn't the innovation that made them go faster but it was the innovation that enabled them to use all the other innovations that DID allow them to go faster.

It'll be interesting to see on the next ETNZ boat how much the 'Artificial Intelligence' gets deployed again. While there may be 'traditional' grinders moving things directly instead of through accumulators and using their arms instead of legs to do so, they could still have their eyes on AI-provided targets on X-Boxes in front of them.

Share this post


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

I'm struggling to think of any downside of cyclors.

  1. Legs stronger than arms = more direct effort or lower physical effort 
  2. Better aero
  3. Leaves hands free

Was there any upside to trad. grinders?

Before the AC started, diff teams explored it. Theoretically hand grinders can get from one side of the boat to the other faster. 

 

What the analysis didn't correctly predict was one cyclor can essentially power the wing trimming/foil adjustment temporarily and the entire crew aren't pushed to the limit.  

I think ETNZ could have probably sailed fairy well with one grinder off the boat. The other teams would run into immediate problems after the second mark. 

Share this post


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

This one has probably been discussed but given the above, will we see non-cycle grinding again? (Except for minor winches or if explicitly outlawed...)

GD has confirmed cyclors are out.

Share this post


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

It sounded like an advantage to me, and I noticed the ETNZ cyclors seemed to be below peak HR at times while the conventional grinders on other boats seemed to be at or near peak more often. But just a laymans guess. What was the verdict, was the cyclor grinder setup among the (many) competitive advantages ETNZ brought to the AC, or was it more of a push/neutral?

Without the hydraulic power on tap from the cyclors, the ETNZ control system would not have been as effective as it was. You can have the smartest most responsive control system on the planet, but if the power is not there to move actuators when needed, you might as well have a system like Groupama had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Sailbydate

His previous comments on the topic I'd interpreted more to mean that stored power is going away so the dynamics will change.

e.g. This story which could be read either way.

America's Cup: Cyclors set to be banned from next event, says Grant Dalton

but if it literally means cyclors as such are banned (presumably this has been confirmed elsewhere) then I guess we wait to see it crop up more outside the AC.

Share this post


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

Thanks @Sailbydate

His previous comments on the topic I'd interpreted more to mean that stored power is going away so the dynamics will change.

e.g. This story which could be read either way.

America's Cup: Cyclors set to be banned from next event, says Grant Dalton

but if it literally means cyclors as such are banned (presumably this has been confirmed elsewhere) then I guess we wait to see it crop up more outside the AC.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't stumbled across it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, it aint gonna crop up outside the AC.  The 12's did it in what the 70's??  The tech has been there forever and no one (besides TNZ) has done a thing to pursue it.  How many classes allow for stored power or even need it??  Groupama? (i think) had a bike on deck at one point, but that was only to raise and lower sails in solo trim.  No way any class is going to go that direction.  Plus, How many people actually want to just pedal on a sailboat??  Hey John, come out on a wed night, No you can't touch any strings, just put your head down and pedal, I got the rest...  Retarded.

Share this post


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

It was massive because it freed hands up to control the boat, offered more hydro for wing control and more hydro to adjust the foils more frequently which then meant they could use less draggy foils.

It wasn't the innovation that made them go faster but it was the innovation that enabled them to use all the other innovations that DID allow them to go faster.

^ This. It's almost like a perfect storm - the early decision to go with cyclors opened up a host of other possibilities, starting with having a dedicated crew member fly the boat rather than the helmsman, and ETNZ just built from there. They made almost no bad decisions, certainly none of consequence beyond the apparent blip in their control software that made the first reach sketchy in the trials.

Interestingly enough, OR benefited from a similar (although nowhere near as innovative) 'perfect storm' in AC34. While ETNZ was figuring out foils, they were busy developing a super slippery platform that probably had 20% or more less aero drag than ETNZ. If you look at both teams, boat two was not that different from boat one, ETNZ's second boat only moved slightly in the direction of OR's, there was a reason why it was called the 'tractor'. So when OR finally did get their foiling together, they leapfrogged ETNZ literally overnight.

Share this post


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

^ This. It's almost like a perfect storm - the early decision to go with cyclors opened up a host of other possibilities, starting with having a dedicated crew member fly the boat rather than the helmsman, and ETNZ just built from there. They made almost no bad decisions, certainly none of consequence beyond the apparent blip in their control software that made the first reach sketchy in the trials.

Interestingly enough, OR benefited from a similar (although nowhere near as innovative) 'perfect storm' in AC34. While ETNZ was figuring out foils, they were busy developing a super slippery platform that probably had 20% or more less aero drag than ETNZ. If you look at both teams, boat two was not that different from boat one, ETNZ's second boat only moved slightly in the direction of OR's, there was a reason why it was called the 'tractor'. So when OR finally did get their foiling together, they leapfrogged ETNZ literally overnight.

You can blame that on the clusterfuck that was 2003.

When Bernasconi came out and literally said that a breakage or two was ok as long as the boat is fast, that was a HUGE cultural shift for the team.

Share this post


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

Before the AC started, diff teams explored it. Theoretically hand grinders can get from one side of the boat to the other faster. 

 

What the analysis didn't correctly predict was one cyclor can essentially power the wing trimming/foil adjustment temporarily and the entire crew aren't pushed to the limit.  

I think ETNZ could have probably sailed fairy well with one grinder off the boat. The other teams would run into immediate problems after the second mark. 

Pretty easy to change sides if your not actually needed immediately on the other side. :D

This to me was actually one of the bigger under estimated improvements the cyclors brought, the fact half the team could move over while the boat was completely powered by the remaining guys, then swap control to the other side and the other guys come across, the required juice never stops flowing the whole way through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benefits of cycling, strictly speaking, are difficult if not impossible to quantify as there is no control boat against which to make the comparison. As with all the boats, the techniques used to sail them were based on their capabilities, in terms of pumps, actuators, control systems and boat handling strategies. The whole affair is so finely tuned that it's difficult to know precisely the value of any given component even though it's easy to see the benefit of the entire solution.

That said, here's my thoughts based on everything I saw. While the percentage values might be controversial and debated endlessly, I believe the rank ordering is correct.

  1. 50% more flow
  2. 25% psych - do not discount the importance of this
  3. 15% more bandwidth due to free hands
  4. 10% aerodynamics

 

Share this post


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

So when OR finally did get their foiling together, they leapfrogged ETNZ literally overnight.

a57d79d6b56e1388202c46094ada8d3f60b38e78

Share this post


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

^ This. It's almost like a perfect storm - the early decision to go with cyclors opened up a host of other possibilities, starting with having a dedicated crew member fly the boat rather than the helmsman, and ETNZ just built from there. They made almost no bad decisions, certainly none of consequence beyond the apparent blip in their control software that made the first reach sketchy in the trials.

Interestingly enough, OR benefited from a similar (although nowhere near as innovative) 'perfect storm' in AC34. While ETNZ was figuring out foils, they were busy developing a super slippery platform that probably had 20% or more less aero drag than ETNZ. If you look at both teams, boat two was not that different from boat one, ETNZ's second boat only moved slightly in the direction of OR's, there was a reason why it was called the 'tractor'. So when OR finally did get their foiling together, they leapfrogged ETNZ literally overnight.

changing the wind limits the boats were designed for helped a lot. The slippery bows that OR had would have slipped into the mine. 

I know, i know what yur gonna say, Dalts was for lower limits in 34, but he was for lower limits in 35 as well way before it became apparent that the boats were a "holy fuck hang on" in 24kt.

And this man sailed Club Med around the world, not in inclosed waters, not a greenhorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ OR was always for higher wind limits - that's when they were fastest - and ETNZ, despite their whining about rule changes - was against them in the end because that's when the (relatively) poor aero of the 'tractor' was the biggest liability - at the top of the wind range.

In AC 35, ETNZ knew they had the edge in the light stuff with their less stable foils/better control system set up, but as we saw, that gamble could become a liability at the top of the windrange.

So in both cases, both teams were motivated purely by self interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Let's take that again...with less of a historical make-over

ETNZ was against a late rule change initiated out of self-interest by OTUSA/IM/ACRM (to lower the limit)

ETNZ was against an even later rule change suggested out of self-interest by OTUSA/JS/RC (to raise the limit)

 

The second just being a childishly clumsy attempt to gain back some of the face lost in the first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So basically, ETNZ was FOR the higher wind limits before they were AGAINST them. The only thing 'childishly clumsy' is your pathetic attempt to pretend ETNZ was motivated by anything other than self interest. Ever.

Share this post


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

^ It's like people denying climate science - you kind of need to keep it real, or their ignorance infects the forum like herpes.

 

Well i for one dont buy the climate change science as being sacrosanct so possibly a bad example.

Beyond the fact that the stats show that the climate has actually cooled for the last 2 decades, the issue I have is that the proponents of climate change use abuse to shut down the discussion to prevent their argument being challenged. 

As soon as I noticed them comparing the opposing view to Nazis by calling them climate change "deniers", I knew that they weren't worth listening to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ What non scientists denying climate science have in common with Nazis is ignorance - they both subscribe to views that have zero scientific or factual basis, and cling to their false narratives like OCD troll-bots, regardless of how many times those narratives are clearly shown to be complete bullshit. So of course they get 'abused'. Honestly, I think most of 'em are just doing it for the attention.

 

Share this post


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

^ OR was always for higher wind limits - that's when they were fastest - and ETNZ, despite their whining about rule changes - was against them in the end because that's when the (relatively) poor aero of the 'tractor' was the biggest liability - at the top of the wind range.

In AC 35, ETNZ knew they had the edge in the light stuff with their less stable foils/better control system set up, but as we saw, that gamble could become a liability at the top of the windrange.

So in both cases, both teams were motivated purely by self interest.

 

Really...

They were leading at the top mark both times racing was cancelled due to high wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I guess ETNZ should've gone for the higher wind limits OR wanted, then.  I'm sure that - in your mind - that decision was someone else's 'fault' just like all the others. Hope they at least had a nice lunch at Fisherman's wharf during that critical layday!  LOL

But seriously, ETNZ started with a huge speed advantage, but it was less in high wind. I can assure you that they weren't opposed to raising the limit because they were concerned about the safety of OR's skinnier boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I thought about before I learned that the then current shape of AC was going to be gunny sacked was would any team in the next go take cyclors & lay them down recombinant style for even better windage? in the same breath I might have added maybe not, might have slowed things down too much in maneuvers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- ENTZ had so much more fluid available, they were never concerned about haivng to wait for a tack/gybe (as evidenced by others going off course without fluid). In addition, the crews hands were freed up to fully 'keep the dot in the middle', thereby fully freeing up the driver to turn anytime and not be concerned himself with keeping the foils jsut right. Everything else just fell into place.

Share this post


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

One thing I thought about before I learned that the then current shape of AC was going to be gunny sacked was would any team in the next go take cyclors & lay them down recombinant style for even better windage? in the same breath I might have added maybe not, might have slowed things down too much in maneuvers.

ETNZ tested that but it took up too much space, took too long in maneuvers to get in position and the thought that the reduced windage actually hurt them - they lost the cooling 'breeze' from being in the wind flow.

 

Plus PB had to be out in the wind regardless, the "smooth" shape of the cyclors likely ended up reducing the windage of PB

Share this post


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

^ I'm thinking PB's driving skills more than offset his personal windage!

I think the difference between Burling and Spithill is that Burling's windage WENT AROUND his head, whereas Spithill's windage largely CAME OUT OF his head :D

Share this post


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

I think the difference between Burling and Spithill is that Burling's windage WENT AROUND his head, whereas Spithill's windage largely CAME OUT OF his head :D

Nasty, but humorous nonetheless...

Share this post


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

Nasty, but humorous nonetheless...

Meh, I don't like Jimmy and his ilk who constantly trash talk - which is why I'm not a 100% fan of Dalton (more like 50%).

But this wasn't meant to be nasty, just funny.

Share this post


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

TNZ won thanks to their foil and their control system, the cyclors were an hoax.

Please keep posting and proving what a dumbass you are:lol:

Share this post


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

Thanks for your explanation. What about your DoG match, is challenger P$B's boat in sight ? :lol:

I rest my case. Keep posting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2017 at 0:49 AM, MidPack said:

Thanks for the link, I hadn't stumbled across it.

NP. And I'll stick to my interpretation ;-) Thanks Herald for the misleading title.

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