Jump to content


Oracle Team USA 2013


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#101 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:40 AM

 

Just to be clear, the cheating is dishonest behavior and under those circumstances, breaking an NDA is not dishonest.

Is this your considered legal opinion?!?!LOL...You've signed a confidential settlement exit contract with your employer under which they will pay you (for argument's sake) $1,000,000 in exchange for which you readily agree not to divulge anything you know to any other party, under penalty of forfeiture of the $1,000,000 PLUS specified damages in multiple of zeros after the $ sign. You now claim that it is your legal opinion that breaking an NDA is perfectly acceptable to you after willingly signing the contract??

 

You have some very selective morality in your life. It's all very well mouthing off on ACA about what you would do until it's your $$$ and potential liberty on the line...

 

You show your total ignorance by invoking whistleblower legislation again proving just how dangerous a little knowledge is....



#102 Old Stumpy

Old Stumpy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Location:Bay of Islands

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:18 AM

 

 

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

 

Live that one down :)

 

 

I'm not disputing this, just curious to know who you're referring to. I know Carsten Mueller was involved in ORTUSA hydraulics last cycle and is a key player in the ETNZ camp right now. Was he involved in the "cheating"?

 

(Full disclosure - I'm an ETNZ supporter sans conspiracy theories)



#103 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,252 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:41 AM

Based on your characterization of OR your team has hired the head " cheater ".
 
Live that one down :)

 
I'm not disputing this, just curious to know who you're referring to. I know Carsten Mueller was involved in ORTUSA hydraulics last cycle and is a key player in the ETNZ camp right now. Was he involved in the "cheating"?
 
(Full disclosure - I'm an ETNZ supporter sans conspiracy theories)

I do not think he was as I do not think there was any cheating going on which has been claimed by one or two individuals on here.

The point being made is that if there was any cheating then Carsten would certainly been in the thick of it .

Indio has dodged the question six times and counting so far . He claims that OR cheated but if that were true then this fine gentleman and more recently NZ employee would have had a major role in the treachery and Indio will never admit to that which pretty much makes his crusade a lost cause .

Neither Carsten nor Oracle has been found guilty by anyone that counts .

#104 Filthy Phill

Filthy Phill

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:West

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:31 AM

Maybe he is at entnz because he didn't like what he saw (or didn't get to see) at otusa...

#105 Third Reef Grin

Third Reef Grin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Auckland you knobsack
  • Interests:Sailing, getting ready to go sailing, working on the yacht, looking for a bigger yacht. Supporting ETNZ and hating spinbots.

Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:16 AM

No neck, (GD) knows full well what went on now with AC34. He's the first one to admit the AC is a war mascorading as a sport. Barfy's editing of the video was not doctored to show anything that wasn't there.
The potty talk and arguing here has proven that there's passion on both sides. Passion however, is no substitute for evidence, and clearly there's both physical and circumstantial evidence to fuel the fire in our bellies. It is very well possible that the rules were not followed, that equipment on OR's 72 was not legitimate according to the rules and that the entire team may not have been aware of any foul play. The truth may not be allowed to see the light of day or, it already has and blind fans and supporters are fogging the situation and are misting doubt on all of us. There's a question here in all this; if all evidence showed that OR did indeed 'cheat' to win AC34, would the fans and supporters still blindly stand by the team and insist that because OR got away with it they should keep The Cup? In any case, too much time and money has past and been spent on AC35 to change the immediate future.
This AC round is set to be an exquisite event. Given that nothing goes wrong in the lead up, as we saw today with Bar hitting the dock, or other unfortunate events, we may be in for some racing where sailing matters, and if all is fair, a deserving winner emerges.

To conclude. When something is too good to be true, it usually isn't. Ergo, the comeback OR performed in AC34 was so amazing, so incredible, so fantastic, so outrageous that only a blind retarded fool of a imbecile with one testicle, no shame, no self respect nor moral Compass could stand truthfully before the world an cry victory!

#106 Old Stumpy

Old Stumpy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Location:Bay of Islands

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:40 AM

 

 

Based on your characterization of OR your team has hired the head " cheater ".
 
Live that one down :)

 
I'm not disputing this, just curious to know who you're referring to. I know Carsten Mueller was involved in ORTUSA hydraulics last cycle and is a key player in the ETNZ camp right now. Was he involved in the "cheating"?
 
(Full disclosure - I'm an ETNZ supporter sans conspiracy theories)

I do not think he was as I do not think there was any cheating going on which has been claimed by one or two individuals on here.

The point being made is that if there was any cheating then Carsten would certainly been in the thick of it .

Indio has dodged the question six times and counting so far . He claims that OR cheated but if that were true then this fine gentleman and more recently NZ employee would have had a major role in the treachery and Indio will never admit to that which pretty much makes his crusade a lost cause .

Neither Carsten nor Oracle has been found guilty by anyone that counts .

 

 

 

So if these fantastical cheating allegations being levelled by some of my countrymen (if indeed they really hold a NZ passport) are true. Then the ex-Oracle employee(s) now working for ETNZ will have filled them in on everything.

 

Would that not put the the power squarely in the ETNZ camp? Oracle would have the most to lose from this arrangement.



#107 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,018 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:26 AM

 

 

 

Based on your characterization of OR your team has hired the head " cheater ".
 
Live that one down :)

 
I'm not disputing this, just curious to know who you're referring to. I know Carsten Mueller was involved in ORTUSA hydraulics last cycle and is a key player in the ETNZ camp right now. Was he involved in the "cheating"?
 
(Full disclosure - I'm an ETNZ supporter sans conspiracy theories)

I do not think he was as I do not think there was any cheating going on which has been claimed by one or two individuals on here.

The point being made is that if there was any cheating then Carsten would certainly been in the thick of it .

Indio has dodged the question six times and counting so far . He claims that OR cheated but if that were true then this fine gentleman and more recently NZ employee would have had a major role in the treachery and Indio will never admit to that which pretty much makes his crusade a lost cause .

Neither Carsten nor Oracle has been found guilty by anyone that counts .

 

 

 

So if these fantastical cheating allegations being levelled by some of my countrymen (if indeed they really hold a NZ passport) are true. Then the ex-Oracle employee(s) now working for ETNZ will have filled them in on everything.

 

Would that not put the the power squarely in the ETNZ camp? Oracle would have the most to lose from this arrangement.

 

 

You can only write the history, when you hold the cup.



#108 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:14 PM

 

US court, March 18

 

- Barfy: I saw a yank killing a Kiwi

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

no intent??? what about larry's big fat bonus? what about win the race? what world do you not live in where disabled athletes hold their piss until it hurts like shit so they can win?

 

No proof? I don't have proof they cheated, but i sure as F**** did not "photoshop" the vid i ripped from Jack Griffin. It wasn't just a "gate blowing in the wind" as scassani so eloquently puts it. Why don't you rebut his reply?

Want more video? Ya? Na?

 

Your biggest rebuttal being there were so many of them they couldn't have installed a system that was right outside what the MC was aware of? Better try harder

 

TC is not giving you a hard time, Barfy -- he's trying to give me one.  Trying.



#109 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,888 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:04 PM

:)



#110 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:41 PM

The AC Class Measurement Notice No.2 is a very interesting document whose existence suggests that the Measurement Committee (MC) have learned from their mistakes of AC34, caused largely by the lack of expert technical resources to evaluate interpretation submissions received. Some of the specific requirements under this Notice which, imo, completely narrows or removes the opportunity for cheating, include:

 

-Assemblies and/or components that cannot be inspected because they are unmarked, proprietary, potted, etc. shall not be used in rake control systems allowed by Rule 15.3 or in other control systems allowed by Rule 15.2 unless and until the Competitor has satisfied the Measurement Committee that they are Rule compliant. (This would have compelled OR to prove the legality of their foil control system in PI49).

 

-Declarations that name specific components and/or assemblies and assert that the item(s) named have not been altered, modified, enhanced or in any way changed from the documentation that describes them. (Might have saved us all the the embarrassment of being asked to believe one of the 2 completely different foil control systems they've presented - so far!)

 

-c) For the purposes of clarification, any aspect of any element of a 15.2 or 15.3 system that in any way senses any physical or environmental phenomena, including but not limited to those that detect or measure voltage, current, sound, light, orientation, magnetic fields, flow, pressure, distance, speed, acceleration and/or rotation in any manner shall be considered to be an input or feedback device.

 

And lest there is any lingering doubt about the real intentions in this Notice, the Personal Declarations by team members removes the maximi-stingray attempts to blame individuals rather than the team.

Required Declarations
Each member of a Competitors design, build, maintenance and sailing team(s) shall sign a Declaration, witnessed by a member of the Measurement Committee, stating that they:
 Have read, understand and are familiar with the America’s Cup Class Rule and its associated Interpretations as they apply to their individual role; and
 State without reservation that their contributions comply with the Rule and its associated Interpretations; and
 Believe to the best of their knowledge that the AC Class Yacht(s) with which their team will compete complies with the Rule and its associated Interpretations; and
 Agree to notify the Measurement Committee in writing or via e-mail within twenty-four (24) hours of any occurence that in any way affects the integrity of these Declarations.

 

I applaud the MC for acknowledging that they could have done better in AC34, and now appear determined to be proactive in policing the Class Rules.



#111 Old Stumpy

Old Stumpy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Location:Bay of Islands

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:51 PM

^ Thanks for that, very interesting.



#112 Nutta

Nutta

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ
  • Interests:Technology, motorsport, fishing, photography, boats and all things that float.

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:13 PM

It certainly would gave avoided any doubt in AC34. To be applauded as you say...

#113 Team_GBR

Team_GBR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Location:The Medal Race

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:35 PM

 

 

Just to be clear, the cheating is dishonest behavior and under those circumstances, breaking an NDA is not dishonest.

Is this your considered legal opinion?!?!LOL...You've signed a confidential settlement exit contract with your employer under which they will pay you (for argument's sake) $1,000,000 in exchange for which you readily agree not to divulge anything you know to any other party, under penalty of forfeiture of the $1,000,000 PLUS specified damages in multiple of zeros after the $ sign. You now claim that it is your legal opinion that breaking an NDA is perfectly acceptable to you after willingly signing the contract??

 

You have some very selective morality in your life. It's all very well mouthing off on ACA about what you would do until it's your $$$ and potential liberty on the line...

 

You show your total ignorance by invoking whistleblower legislation again proving just how dangerous a little knowledge is....

 

I believe that you are completely wrong on this. The employment contracts and NDA's between Oracle and their staff were made under US law and it is my belief that under US law, it is illegal to to use an NDA to stop whistleblowing. I know for absolute certainty that companies have been fined by the SEC for attempting to silence whistleblowers using contracts of employment and NDA's.  Maybe Porthos can confirm this the position on this.



#114 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:45 PM

 

 

 

Just to be clear, the cheating is dishonest behavior and under those circumstances, breaking an NDA is not dishonest.

Is this your considered legal opinion?!?!LOL...You've signed a confidential settlement exit contract with your employer under which they will pay you (for argument's sake) $1,000,000 in exchange for which you readily agree not to divulge anything you know to any other party, under penalty of forfeiture of the $1,000,000 PLUS specified damages in multiple of zeros after the $ sign. You now claim that it is your legal opinion that breaking an NDA is perfectly acceptable to you after willingly signing the contract??

 

You have some very selective morality in your life. It's all very well mouthing off on ACA about what you would do until it's your $$$ and potential liberty on the line...

 

You show your total ignorance by invoking whistleblower legislation again proving just how dangerous a little knowledge is....

 

I believe that you are completely wrong on this. The employment contracts and NDA's between Oracle and their staff were made under US law and it is my belief that under US law, it is illegal to to use an NDA to stop whistleblowing. I know for absolute certainty that companies have been fined by the SEC for attempting to silence whistleblowers using contracts of employment and NDA's.  Maybe Porthos can confirm this the position on this.

 

You are correct that under US law (federal and state) a signatory to a non-disclosure agreement may disclose wrongdoing to law enforcement, a court, or regulating agency without violating the NDA.  In other words, the law carves out an exception to every NDA for disclosing wrongful conduct to the appropriate authorities. Most NDA's include such language (allowing that disclosure) because it will be enforced anyway.  Moreover, under whistleblower statutes, the employer cannot take any adverse employment action against an employee (such as firing them, docking pay, downgrading their job, etc.) for reporting employer wrongdoing to the appropriate authorities.

 

That in all likelihood has no applicability here. If a former Oracle employee has an NDA, he or she would not have protection for disclosing any wrongdoing by Oracle to a competitor.  The one possible exception would be if an Oracle employee (former or current) disclosed wrongdoing to the sailing body that had jurisdiction over the event.  That gets a little more complicated but I don't think anyone is claiming that happened here. 

 

A broader issue is at work here, and that is the notion that contracts are somehow "ethical".  They are not.  Contracts are merely a way of structuring a relationship between two or more parties.  Drafted properly, all parties know what will happen in the relationship if a given even occurs. In Indio's example, if an employer paid an employee an amount of money to sign an NDA, the contract should also identify what would happen in the event that the employee discloses information contrary to the NDA restrictions.  Typically, the employee has to give the money back, must cease any further disclosures,  and may be responsible for any damages the employer sustains as a result of the disclosure.

 

Parties to a contract may choose for many reasons to engage in certain conduct that under a contract carries a penalty.  For example, an employer may choose to fire an employee that has a contract and in so doing be forced to pay the severance mandated by the contract because the company believes it is in its best long-term interests to do so.  Similarly, an employee may choose to disclose something that is prohibited by the NDA in his or her contract and accept the penalties for doing so.  Perhaps the employee believes it is in his or her best interests to do so (say, by gaining employment with a competitor or being able to take clients to a new employer).  Certainly, the ex-employee may feel obligated to disclose wrongdoing to his new employer so as to clear his conscience,  If that were the case, however, I would counsel the employee to provide the information to the appropriate authority rather than to a competitor.

 

But there is nothing "unethical" about breaking a contract.  Happens all the time for legitimate reasons. Those reasons may carry with them certain consequences, but there is nothing metaphysical about it.



#115 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,946 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:41 PM

The AC Class Measurement Notice No.2 is a very interesting document whose existence suggests that the Measurement Committee (MC) have learned from their mistakes of AC34, caused largely by the lack of expert technical resources to evaluate interpretation submissions received. Some of the specific requirements under this Notice which, imo, completely narrows or removes the opportunity for cheating, include:   .........

 

      ...........  I applaud the MC for acknowledging that they could have done better in AC34, and now appear determined to be proactive in policing the Class Rules.

 

McAlpine's entire Notice, published last September is worth a read.  His committee might have been searching for answers last time but they appear to have their bases well covered for this go-around.



#116 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:41 AM

 

The AC Class Measurement Notice No.2 is a very interesting document whose existence suggests that the Measurement Committee (MC) have learned from their mistakes of AC34, caused largely by the lack of expert technical resources to evaluate interpretation submissions received. Some of the specific requirements under this Notice which, imo, completely narrows or removes the opportunity for cheating, include:   .........

 

      ...........  I applaud the MC for acknowledging that they could have done better in AC34, and now appear determined to be proactive in policing the Class Rules.

 

McAlpine's entire Notice, published last September is worth a read.  His committee might have been searching for answers last time but they appear to have their bases well covered for this go-around.

 

I quite like their tactic of putting the onus on the teams to describe how their control systems work within the Class Rule, effectively requiring them to self-police. Makes it so much easier for the MC to check whether the system operates as described, and ruling accordingly.



#117 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:17 AM

 

 

The AC Class Measurement Notice No.2 is a very interesting document whose existence suggests that the Measurement Committee (MC) have learned from their mistakes of AC34, caused largely by the lack of expert technical resources to evaluate interpretation submissions received. Some of the specific requirements under this Notice which, imo, completely narrows or removes the opportunity for cheating, include:   .........

 

      ...........  I applaud the MC for acknowledging that they could have done better in AC34, and now appear determined to be proactive in policing the Class Rules.

 

McAlpine's entire Notice, published last September is worth a read.  His committee might have been searching for answers last time but they appear to have their bases well covered for this go-around.

 

I quite like their tactic of putting the onus on the teams to describe how their control systems work within the Class Rule, effectively requiring them to self-police. Makes it so much easier for the MC to check whether the system operates as described, and ruling accordingly.

 

Everyone except you knows how the OR control system worked, and has for years. Each push of the button on the wheel moved the foil .5 degrees. Two pushes, for example, would move it 1 degree. This was possible, because the valve was mounted on the foil casing, and was able to sense - via a small 'wand' (really more of a prod) - when it was in the correct position relative to the hull, and shut itself off.

 

Very clever, and very legal.



#118 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:35 AM

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear, the cheating is dishonest behavior and under those circumstances, breaking an NDA is not dishonest.

Is this your considered legal opinion?!?!LOL...You've signed a confidential settlement exit contract with your employer under which they will pay you (for argument's sake) $1,000,000 in exchange for which you readily agree not to divulge anything you know to any other party, under penalty of forfeiture of the $1,000,000 PLUS specified damages in multiple of zeros after the $ sign. You now claim that it is your legal opinion that breaking an NDA is perfectly acceptable to you after willingly signing the contract??

 

You have some very selective morality in your life. It's all very well mouthing off on ACA about what you would do until it's your $$$ and potential liberty on the line...

 

You show your total ignorance by invoking whistleblower legislation again proving just how dangerous a little knowledge is....

 

I believe that you are completely wrong on this. The employment contracts and NDA's between Oracle and their staff were made under US law and it is my belief that under US law, it is illegal to to use an NDA to stop whistleblowing. I know for absolute certainty that companies have been fined by the SEC for attempting to silence whistleblowers using contracts of employment and NDA's.  Maybe Porthos can confirm this the position on this.

 

You are correct that under US law (federal and state) a signatory to a non-disclosure agreement may disclose wrongdoing to law enforcement, a court, or regulating agency without violating the NDA.  In other words, the law carves out an exception to every NDA for disclosing wrongful conduct to the appropriate authorities. Most NDA's include such language (allowing that disclosure) because it will be enforced anyway.  Moreover, under whistleblower statutes, the employer cannot take any adverse employment action against an employee (such as firing them, docking pay, downgrading their job, etc.) for reporting employer wrongdoing to the appropriate authorities.

 

That in all likelihood has no applicability here. If a former Oracle employee has an NDA, he or she would not have protection for disclosing any wrongdoing by Oracle to a competitor.  The one possible exception would be if an Oracle employee (former or current) disclosed wrongdoing to the sailing body that had jurisdiction over the event.  That gets a little more complicated but I don't think anyone is claiming that happened here. 

 

A broader issue is at work here, and that is the notion that contracts are somehow "ethical".  They are not.  Contracts are merely a way of structuring a relationship between two or more parties.  Drafted properly, all parties know what will happen in the relationship if a given even occurs. In Indio's example, if an employer paid an employee an amount of money to sign an NDA, the contract should also identify what would happen in the event that the employee discloses information contrary to the NDA restrictions.  Typically, the employee has to give the money back, must cease any further disclosures,  and may be responsible for any damages the employer sustains as a result of the disclosure.

 

Parties to a contract may choose for many reasons to engage in certain conduct that under a contract carries a penalty.  For example, an employer may choose to fire an employee that has a contract and in so doing be forced to pay the severance mandated by the contract because the company believes it is in its best long-term interests to do so.  Similarly, an employee may choose to disclose something that is prohibited by the NDA in his or her contract and accept the penalties for doing so.  Perhaps the employee believes it is in his or her best interests to do so (say, by gaining employment with a competitor or being able to take clients to a new employer).  Certainly, the ex-employee may feel obligated to disclose wrongdoing to his new employer so as to clear his conscience,  If that were the case, however, I would counsel the employee to provide the information to the appropriate authority rather than to a competitor.

 

But there is nothing "unethical" about breaking a contract.  Happens all the time for legitimate reasons. Those reasons may carry with them certain consequences, but there is nothing metaphysical about it.

 

Any kind of illegal 'autofly' system that induced high frequency foil movement would require a massive amount that was simply not available. Never mind the fact that high frequency foil movement would result in the antithesis of stable flight.

 

So these conspiracy theories rely on the entire OR team concealing not only an illegal computer control system, but a huge power source, all in the interest of doing something that would produce the opposite effect to what is being claimed. Making the likelihood of someone coming forward very, uh, slim.



#119 Team_GBR

Team_GBR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Location:The Medal Race

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:41 AM

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear, the cheating is dishonest behavior and under those circumstances, breaking an NDA is not dishonest.

Is this your considered legal opinion?!?!LOL...You've signed a confidential settlement exit contract with your employer under which they will pay you (for argument's sake) $1,000,000 in exchange for which you readily agree not to divulge anything you know to any other party, under penalty of forfeiture of the $1,000,000 PLUS specified damages in multiple of zeros after the $ sign. You now claim that it is your legal opinion that breaking an NDA is perfectly acceptable to you after willingly signing the contract??

 

You have some very selective morality in your life. It's all very well mouthing off on ACA about what you would do until it's your $$$ and potential liberty on the line...

 

You show your total ignorance by invoking whistleblower legislation again proving just how dangerous a little knowledge is....

 

I believe that you are completely wrong on this. The employment contracts and NDA's between Oracle and their staff were made under US law and it is my belief that under US law, it is illegal to to use an NDA to stop whistleblowing. I know for absolute certainty that companies have been fined by the SEC for attempting to silence whistleblowers using contracts of employment and NDA's.  Maybe Porthos can confirm this the position on this.

 

You are correct that under US law (federal and state) a signatory to a non-disclosure agreement may disclose wrongdoing to law enforcement, a court, or regulating agency without violating the NDA.  In other words, the law carves out an exception to every NDA for disclosing wrongful conduct to the appropriate authorities. Most NDA's include such language (allowing that disclosure) because it will be enforced anyway.  Moreover, under whistleblower statutes, the employer cannot take any adverse employment action against an employee (such as firing them, docking pay, downgrading their job, etc.) for reporting employer wrongdoing to the appropriate authorities.

 

That in all likelihood has no applicability here. If a former Oracle employee has an NDA, he or she would not have protection for disclosing any wrongdoing by Oracle to a competitor.  The one possible exception would be if an Oracle employee (former or current) disclosed wrongdoing to the sailing body that had jurisdiction over the event.  That gets a little more complicated but I don't think anyone is claiming that happened here. 

 

A broader issue is at work here, and that is the notion that contracts are somehow "ethical".  They are not.  Contracts are merely a way of structuring a relationship between two or more parties.  Drafted properly, all parties know what will happen in the relationship if a given even occurs. In Indio's example, if an employer paid an employee an amount of money to sign an NDA, the contract should also identify what would happen in the event that the employee discloses information contrary to the NDA restrictions.  Typically, the employee has to give the money back, must cease any further disclosures,  and may be responsible for any damages the employer sustains as a result of the disclosure.

 

Parties to a contract may choose for many reasons to engage in certain conduct that under a contract carries a penalty.  For example, an employer may choose to fire an employee that has a contract and in so doing be forced to pay the severance mandated by the contract because the company believes it is in its best long-term interests to do so.  Similarly, an employee may choose to disclose something that is prohibited by the NDA in his or her contract and accept the penalties for doing so.  Perhaps the employee believes it is in his or her best interests to do so (say, by gaining employment with a competitor or being able to take clients to a new employer).  Certainly, the ex-employee may feel obligated to disclose wrongdoing to his new employer so as to clear his conscience,  If that were the case, however, I would counsel the employee to provide the information to the appropriate authority rather than to a competitor.

 

But there is nothing "unethical" about breaking a contract.  Happens all the time for legitimate reasons. Those reasons may carry with them certain consequences, but there is nothing metaphysical about it.

 

porthos

 

Thank you for clarifying what I was pretty certain of but was hedging my bets. My argument is simple. If a team member of Oracle had seen some form of cheating, he or she could have reported it to the event authority (jury) and in doing so, not only would they not be in breach of contract or a NDA, but Oracle couldn't take retaliatory action. I agree with you that contracts and NDA's would prevent a team member saying anything to their opposition even if it was about cheating, but that is not what I have ever suggested. I have only ever considered a whistleblower going to the international jury or measurement committee for the event

 

I also agree that ethics don't come into contracts, but the way people behave while under contract is a case of ethics and morals. I simply refuse to believe that with the large number of people who would have known that Oracle was cheating if they had used the sort of thing being suggested, not one of them was prepared to do the right thing. While we could agrue about the morals and ethics of one or 2 individuals, overall, Oracle employed some of the most respected names in the sport. I cannot accept. that every single one of them is a knowing cheat, which is what we are being asked to believe.



#120 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:41 AM

 

I quite like their tactic of putting the onus on the teams to describe how their control systems work within the Class Rule, effectively requiring them to self-police. Makes it so much easier for the MC to check whether the system operates as described, and ruling accordingly.

 

 

Everyone except you knows how the OR control system worked, and has for years. Each push of the button on the wheel moved the foil .5 degrees. Two pushes, for example, would move it 1 degree. This was possible, because the valve was mounted on the foil casing, and was able to sense - via a small 'wand' (really more of a prod) - when it was in the correct position relative to the hull, and shut itself off.

 

Very clever, and very legal.

 

Oh really?? So the magical "wand" was providing positional feedback to the control valve to "shut itself off". You do realise that any positional feedback - mechanical or electronic - was prohibited under the  AC34 Class Rule, as still is under AC35 Class Rule?? So you're referring to the Jack Griffin story of 28 November 2013 - how do you reconcile that with the Grant simulation presentation of more recent vintage??

 

Any kind of illegal 'autofly' system that induced high frequency foil movement would require a massive amount that was simply not available. Never mind the fact that high frequency foil movement would result in the antithesis of stable flight.

Actually, it's quite easy to implement a dynamic system to constantly adjust the foils, with the power available from the grinders. Could have been done with Moog servo valves - except the MC list of approved valves did not include any.

 

So these conspiracy theories rely on the entire OR team concealing not only an illegal computer control system, but a huge power source, all in the interest of doing something that would produce the opposite effect to what is being claimed. Making the likelihood of someone coming forward very, uh, slim.

Not really. I would suggest a maximum of 4-6 people within OR were involved, including Jimmy and one or 2 of his afterguard (I don't believe Ben Ainslie was involved). Using an indexing stepper motor to accurately achieve the 0.5-degree incremental positioning requires no fancy computer and can be switched from the wheel buttons..

 

Designing and installing a cheat system was/is not complicated at all. It just required a meeting of like-minds and key management sign-off, with sufficient separation for plausible deniability.



#121 Team_GBR

Team_GBR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Location:The Medal Race

Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:08 AM

I note that the for all the continued accusations, there is little attempt to come back to the real questions and instead, there is a game of circumstantial evidence being used to justify conclusions that don't actually stack up. Maybe somebody would actually answer the real questions

  • Please provide any evidence that the foil under load and in the water moves the way it s being claimed. So far, all that can be shown to be moving are things above the water and under no load. It is claimed by those who want to "prove" cheating that the picture isn't clear enough to see if the foil in the water is moving, while I claim it is clear enough to see no hint of movement. Show us the foil moving
  • Please explain where the power comes from and to move the whole foil at that speed and frequency.
  • Please explain how moving the whole foil in the range shown over the time period measured can provide a hydrodynamic advantage.
  • Even if we accept that the foil does move the way stated which I do not, please show us evidence that is happening due to something illegal. 

I will state my position

  1. I cannot see the starboard foil that is lowered moving in the way that some suggest it must be moving
  2. I believe from all I know about foils that the movement suggested would be detrimental to performance and reduce the ability of the boat to foil. As the rake changes, the whole foil is moved back and forward n the water. It's not like it is pivoting around some point within the section. This movement causes all sorts of issues around flow which does not stabilise in the timescales before the next alleged movement. The constant movement in those time frames would lead to less lift and more drag.
  3. The hydraulic system simply cannot generate enough power to enable such movements. We are talking about moving a foil that is said to have been under 13,000 lbs of load.


#122 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,070 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:01 AM

Indio, like with your other silly arguments the one about 'two versions' with one being 'the Jack Griffin story of 28 November 2013' is pointless. They changed the system over time, as gets well illustrated in the Battle of the Boats video. And again, the clever stopper was installed about 6 weeks before Race 1 but they still found themselves down 8-1. It had nothing to do with how they eventually got faster upwind. The whole 'Herbia' mania was ridiculous and mercifully for themselves, most sane people have moved on.

#123 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:06 AM

  1. The hydraulic system simply cannot generate enough power to enable such movements. We are talking about moving a foil that is said to have been under 13,000 lbs of load.

Your ignorance knows no bounds!! A 2.5" hydraulic cylinder operating @ the maximum permissible pressure of 5000psi will provide 24,500 lbs of force, reduced to 20,800 lbs at 85% efficiency.



#124 barfy

barfy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:13 AM

 

I note that the for all the continued accusations, there is little attempt to come back to the real questions and instead, there is a game of circumstantial evidence being used to justify conclusions that don't actually stack up. Maybe somebody would actually answer the real questions

  • Please provide any evidence that the foil under load and in the water moves the way it s being claimed. So far, all that can be shown to be moving are things above the water and under no load. It is claimed by those who want to "prove" cheating that the picture isn't clear enough to see if the foil in the water is moving, while I claim it is clear enough to see no hint of movement. Show us the foil moving

one...more ...time...

 

I have shown that the pole moves while the foil is under load V1.

https://www.youtube....CzlahhYWo4&t=5s

 

I have shown that the pole is attached to the board casing and moves along with it. The foil is clearly moving, so Is The Pole.

https://www.youtube....h?v=LdWVD1-SvEQ

 

I have told you many times that the lever arm is too short to show the foil moving when only .5m of the foil is visible. The lever arm of the top of the pole is over 2m. The adjustments are small, perhaps 0.5 of a degree. Do you know what a lever is?

 

Why can you not accept that the pole is attached to the board casing?

 

I am not a hydraulics expert that can say the energy required to move the board in this manner is not possible (beast mode?)

Are you?



#125 Third Reef Grin

Third Reef Grin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Auckland you knobsack
  • Interests:Sailing, getting ready to go sailing, working on the yacht, looking for a bigger yacht. Supporting ETNZ and hating spinbots.

Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:34 PM

<p>

 
I note that the for all the continued accusations, there is little attempt to come back to the real questions and instead, there is a game of circumstantial evidence being used to justify conclusions that don't actually stack up. Maybe somebody would actually answer the real questions

  • Please provide any evidence that the foil under load and in the water moves the way it s being claimed. So far, all that can be shown to be moving are things above the water and under no load. It is claimed by those who want to "prove" cheating that the picture isn't clear enough to see if the foil in the water is moving, while I claim it is clear enough to see no hint of movement. Show us the foil moving
one...more ...time...
 
I have shown that the pole moves while the foil is under load V1.
https://www.youtube....CzlahhYWo4&t=5s
 
I have shown that the pole is attached to the board casing and moves along with it. The foil is clearly moving, so Is The Pole.
https://www.youtube....h?v=LdWVD1-SvEQ
 
I have told you many times that the lever arm is too short to show the foil moving when only .5m of the foil is visible. The lever arm of the top of the pole is over 2m. The adjustments are small, perhaps 0.5 of a degree. Do you know what a lever is?
 
Why can you not accept that the pole is attached to the board casing?
 
I am not a hydraulics expert that can say the energy required to move the board in this manner is not possible (beast mode?)
Are you?


I am.

#126 Team_GBR

Team_GBR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Location:The Medal Race

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:28 PM

 

 

I note that the for all the continued accusations, there is little attempt to come back to the real questions and instead, there is a game of circumstantial evidence being used to justify conclusions that don't actually stack up. Maybe somebody would actually answer the real questions

  • Please provide any evidence that the foil under load and in the water moves the way it s being claimed. So far, all that can be shown to be moving are things above the water and under no load. It is claimed by those who want to "prove" cheating that the picture isn't clear enough to see if the foil in the water is moving, while I claim it is clear enough to see no hint of movement. Show us the foil moving

one...more ...time...

 

I have shown that the pole moves while the foil is under load V1.

https://www.youtube....CzlahhYWo4&t=5s

 

I have shown that the pole is attached to the board casing and moves along with it. The foil is clearly moving, so Is The Pole.

https://www.youtube....h?v=LdWVD1-SvEQ

 

I have told you many times that the lever arm is too short to show the foil moving when only .5m of the foil is visible. The lever arm of the top of the pole is over 2m. The adjustments are small, perhaps 0.5 of a degree. Do you know what a lever is?

 

Why can you not accept that the pole is attached to the board casing?

 

I am not a hydraulics expert that can say the energy required to move the board in this manner is not possible (beast mode?)

Are you?

 

There are 2 things I disagree with. The gantry is not attached with a solid joint, so showing it moving does not prove the board is moving and i also disagree that you cannot see enough of the board to know if it is moving. When you blow it up on a big screen, you get zero hint of movement, never mind in time with the gantry. You should see something suspicious, even if you cannot be sure what it is, but there is nothing.

 

This still avoids the big issues. Time and again, people with some knowledge are saying the same thing, that the movement being alleged is detrimental to foiling. You are accusing Oracle of moving the board in a way that would slow them down and reduce the chances of foiling. It makes no sense.



#127 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:15 PM

Indio, like with your other silly arguments the one about 'two versions' with one being 'the Jack Griffin story of 28 November 2013' is pointless. They changed the system over time, as gets well illustrated in the Battle of the Boats video. And again, the clever stopper was installed about 6 weeks before Race 1 but they still found themselves down 8-1. It had nothing to do with how they eventually got faster upwind. The whole 'Herbia' mania was ridiculous and mercifully for themselves, most sane people have moved on.

Oh, really?? So on 28th November 2013, 2 months after AC34 concluded, OR through Jack Griffin supposedly released photos and schematics of their foil control system. And then they showed a different one in the IPENZ presentations in May, 2014. So which one is it - did Griffin lie? 



#128 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,070 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:19 PM

Oops, missed that it was Nov of 13 not 12.

Shrug, who cares, it was not what lead to their very-late upwind speed gains.

#129 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:44 PM

Oops, missed that it was Nov of 13 not 12.

Shrug, who cares, it was not what lead to their very-late upwind speed gains.

They cheated, that's how.



#130 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:33 PM

 

 

I note that the for all the continued accusations, there is little attempt to come back to the real questions and instead, there is a game of circumstantial evidence being used to justify conclusions that don't actually stack up. Maybe somebody would actually answer the real questions

  • Please provide any evidence that the foil under load and in the water moves the way it s being claimed. So far, all that can be shown to be moving are things above the water and under no load. It is claimed by those who want to "prove" cheating that the picture isn't clear enough to see if the foil in the water is moving, while I claim it is clear enough to see no hint of movement. Show us the foil moving

one...more ...time...

 

I have shown that the pole moves while the foil is under load V1.

https://www.youtube....CzlahhYWo4&t=5s

 

YEP

 

I have shown that the pole is attached to the board casing and moves along with it. The foil is clearly moving, so Is The Pole.

https://www.youtube....h?v=LdWVD1-SvEQ

 

NOPE. YOU'VE SHOWN NOTHING OF THE KIND. THEY BOTH MOVE ON THE UNLOADED SIDE, BUT THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF A RIGID CONNECTION.

 

I have told you many times that the lever arm is too short to show the foil moving when only .5m of the foil is visible. The lever arm of the top of the pole is over 2m. The adjustments are small, perhaps 0.5 of a degree. Do you know what a lever is?

 

0.5 DEGREES WITH A LEVER ARM OF 2 METERS WOULD TRANSLATE TO 17.45 MM - THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD SEE THAT IN GRAINY GOPRO FOOTAGE. WHAT YOU SHOW IN YOUR VIDEO WOULD BE MORE LIKE +/- 1-2 DEGREES.

 

Why can you not accept that the pole is attached to the board casing?

 

THE GANTRY IS ATTACHED - BUT NOT RIGIDLY.

 

I am not a hydraulics expert that can say the energy required to move the board in this manner is not possible (beast mode?)

Are you?

 

THE HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH FREQUENCY MOVEMENT OF A SUBMERGED FOIL TRAVELLING THROUGH A VISCOUS FLUID (WATER) AT 30 PLUS KNOTS WHILE SUPPORTING A 13,000 LB BOAT ARE WELL BEYOND THE CAPABILITY OF A FEW GRINDERS. NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT - WHEN FOILING UPWIND, WHEN ALL THIS 'CHEATING' SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED - THE WING WAS BEING TRIMMED SO MUCH THAT YOU GUYS ALSO ACCUSED OR OF 'PUMPING' - WHICH ALSO REQUIRES TREMENDOUS HP AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

 



#131 Team_GBR

Team_GBR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Location:The Medal Race

Posted 22 March 2017 - 10:13 PM

 

  1. The hydraulic system simply cannot generate enough power to enable such movements. We are talking about moving a foil that is said to have been under 13,000 lbs of load.

Your ignorance knows no bounds!! A 2.5" hydraulic cylinder operating @ the maximum permissible pressure of 5000psi will provide 24,500 lbs of force, reduced to 20,800 lbs at 85% efficiency.

 

Can you please tell us how much power is needed in order to keep that operating at the frequency that the video is said to show?



#132 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 22 March 2017 - 10:17 PM

 

 

  1. The hydraulic system simply cannot generate enough power to enable such movements. We are talking about moving a foil that is said to have been under 13,000 lbs of load.

Your ignorance knows no bounds!! A 2.5" hydraulic cylinder operating @ the maximum permissible pressure of 5000psi will provide 24,500 lbs of force, reduced to 20,800 lbs at 85% efficiency.

 

Can you please tell us how much power is needed in order to keep that operating at the frequency that the video is said to show?

 

Dude, his paranoid ignorance knows no bounds - he was projecting when he used that term. Short answer: no.

Thank the baby jesus he has his own thread now.



#133 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,252 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 11:56 PM

I quite like their tactic of putting the onus on the teams to describe how their control systems work within the Class Rule, effectively requiring them to self-police. Makes it so much easier for the MC to check whether the system operates as described, and ruling accordingly.

Everyone except you knows how the OR control system worked, and has for years. Each push of the button on the wheel moved the foil .5 degrees. Two pushes, for example, would move it 1 degree. This was possible, because the valve was mounted on the foil casing, and was able to sense - via a small 'wand' (really more of a prod) - when it was in the correct position relative to the hull, and shut itself off.
 
Very clever, and very legal.
Oh really?? So the magical "wand" was providing positional feedback to the control valve to "shut itself off". You do realise that any positional feedback - mechanical or electronic - was prohibited under the  AC34 Class Rule, as still is under AC35 Class Rule?? So you're referring to the Jack Griffin story of 28 November 2013 - how do you reconcile that with the Grant simulation presentation of more recent vintage??
 

Any kind of illegal 'autofly' system that induced high frequency foil movement would require a massive amount that was simply not available. Never mind the fact that high frequency foil movement would result in the antithesis of stable flight.

Actually, it's quite easy to implement a dynamic system to constantly adjust the foils, with the power available from the grinders. Could have been done with Moog servo valves - except the MC list of approved valves did not include any.
 

So these conspiracy theories rely on the entire OR team concealing not only an illegal computer control system, but a huge power source, all in the interest of doing something that would produce the opposite effect to what is being claimed. Making the likelihood of someone coming forward very, uh, slim.

Not really. I would suggest a maximum of 4-6 people within OR were involved, including Jimmy and one or 2 of his afterguard (I don't believe Ben Ainslie was involved). Using an indexing stepper motor to accurately achieve the 0.5-degree incremental positioning requires no fancy computer and can be switched from the wheel buttons..
 
Designing and installing a cheat system was/is not complicated at all. It just required a meeting of like-minds and key management sign-off, with sufficient separation for plausible deniability.
I've missed some of the fun but to catch up you are claiming that Jimmy Spithill currently the most successful Americas Cup skipper and Carsten Muller a main man in the Oracle hydraulics program most recently employed by Team New Zealand as well as other scoundrels were cheating ? And this was a few years ago and you are the only one that figured this out ? It's not really a surprise that even your own countrymen are embarassed by your crusade .

This man does not deserve to be tainted by your ignorance .

Attached Files



#134 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,045 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted Yesterday, 05:05 AM

 

 

 

I quite like their tactic of putting the onus on the teams to describe how their control systems work within the Class Rule, effectively requiring them to self-police. Makes it so much easier for the MC to check whether the system operates as described, and ruling accordingly.

Everyone except you knows how the OR control system worked, and has for years. Each push of the button on the wheel moved the foil .5 degrees. Two pushes, for example, would move it 1 degree. This was possible, because the valve was mounted on the foil casing, and was able to sense - via a small 'wand' (really more of a prod) - when it was in the correct position relative to the hull, and shut itself off.
 
Very clever, and very legal.
Oh really?? So the magical "wand" was providing positional feedback to the control valve to "shut itself off". You do realise that any positional feedback - mechanical or electronic - was prohibited under the  AC34 Class Rule, as still is under AC35 Class Rule?? So you're referring to the Jack Griffin story of 28 November 2013 - how do you reconcile that with the Grant simulation presentation of more recent vintage??
 

Any kind of illegal 'autofly' system that induced high frequency foil movement would require a massive amount that was simply not available. Never mind the fact that high frequency foil movement would result in the antithesis of stable flight.

Actually, it's quite easy to implement a dynamic system to constantly adjust the foils, with the power available from the grinders. Could have been done with Moog servo valves - except the MC list of approved valves did not include any.
 

So these conspiracy theories rely on the entire OR team concealing not only an illegal computer control system, but a huge power source, all in the interest of doing something that would produce the opposite effect to what is being claimed. Making the likelihood of someone coming forward very, uh, slim.

Not really. I would suggest a maximum of 4-6 people within OR were involved, including Jimmy and one or 2 of his afterguard (I don't believe Ben Ainslie was involved). Using an indexing stepper motor to accurately achieve the 0.5-degree incremental positioning requires no fancy computer and can be switched from the wheel buttons..
 
Designing and installing a cheat system was/is not complicated at all. It just required a meeting of like-minds and key management sign-off, with sufficient separation for plausible deniability.
I've missed some of the fun but to catch up you are claiming that Jimmy Spithill currently the most successful Americas Cup skipper and Carsten Muller a main man in the Oracle hydraulics program most recently employed by Team New Zealand as well as other scoundrels were cheating ? And this was a few years ago and you are the only one that figured this out ? It's not really a surprise that even your own countrymen are embarassed by your crusade .

This man does not deserve to be tainted by your ignorance .

 

You're the moron trying to "taint" him LOL!! Jimmy would certainly have been aware of the cheating (in both ACWS & AC34) and probably actively involved.



#135 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,252 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:52 PM

 

 

 

I quite like their tactic of putting the onus on the teams to describe how their control systems work within the Class Rule, effectively requiring them to self-police. Makes it so much easier for the MC to check whether the system operates as described, and ruling accordingly.

Everyone except you knows how the OR control system worked, and has for years. Each push of the button on the wheel moved the foil .5 degrees. Two pushes, for example, would move it 1 degree. This was possible, because the valve was mounted on the foil casing, and was able to sense - via a small 'wand' (really more of a prod) - when it was in the correct position relative to the hull, and shut itself off.
 
Very clever, and very legal.
Oh really?? So the magical "wand" was providing positional feedback to the control valve to "shut itself off". You do realise that any positional feedback - mechanical or electronic - was prohibited under the  AC34 Class Rule, as still is under AC35 Class Rule?? So you're referring to the Jack Griffin story of 28 November 2013 - how do you reconcile that with the Grant simulation presentation of more recent vintage??
 

Any kind of illegal 'autofly' system that induced high frequency foil movement would require a massive amount that was simply not available. Never mind the fact that high frequency foil movement would result in the antithesis of stable flight.

Actually, it's quite easy to implement a dynamic system to constantly adjust the foils, with the power available from the grinders. Could have been done with Moog servo valves - except the MC list of approved valves did not include any.
 

So these conspiracy theories rely on the entire OR team concealing not only an illegal computer control system, but a huge power source, all in the interest of doing something that would produce the opposite effect to what is being claimed. Making the likelihood of someone coming forward very, uh, slim.

Not really. I would suggest a maximum of 4-6 people within OR were involved, including Jimmy and one or 2 of his afterguard (I don't believe Ben Ainslie was involved). Using an indexing stepper motor to accurately achieve the 0.5-degree incremental positioning requires no fancy computer and can be switched from the wheel buttons..
 
Designing and installing a cheat system was/is not complicated at all. It just required a meeting of like-minds and key management sign-off, with sufficient separation for plausible deniability.
I've missed some of the fun but to catch up you are claiming that Jimmy Spithill currently the most successful Americas Cup skipper and Carsten Muller a main man in the Oracle hydraulics program most recently employed by Team New Zealand as well as other scoundrels were cheating ? And this was a few years ago and you are the only one that figured this out ? It's not really a surprise that even your own countrymen are embarassed by your crusade .

This man does not deserve to be tainted by your ignorance .
 
You're the moron trying to "taint" him LOL!! Jimmy would certainly have been aware of the cheating (in both ACWS & AC34) and probably actively involved.

And yet ETNZ then hires the main man of the " cheating " hydraulic departnent ?

Not much of a NZ fan are you ?

I don't think they would do such a thing but if OR did as you fantacise then that would have to be true .

We know you can't have it both ways .

#136 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,542 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:50 PM

^ This 'niggle' of yours is childish



#137 Team_GBR

Team_GBR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Location:The Medal Race

Posted Today, 12:34 AM

And still no attempt to explain how the alleged board movements help foiling. So much is being claimed I am expecting some sort of warp field that changes the laws of physics, or should that just by hydrodynamics. At the moment all we have is claimed movements for which the only explanation has to be cheating. Why would they cheat to go slower and make foiling harder? 



#138 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,252 posts

Posted Today, 12:53 AM

^ This 'niggle' of yours is childish

I agree with you .

The entire concept is childish .

If NZ and grant in particular thought that there was any actual cheating involved in AC 34 you can bet the house on two things .

The first is they would not be quiet about it not then and especially this long after the fact .

Secondly they certainly would not have then hired the guy that would have been in the thick of the " cheat " .

I only bring it up when Indio starts his rants as he can not answer either fact .

Then we have the recent video " evidence " which shows rapid movment of the foils by some magical force.

As has been stated previously this rapid movement would only work to slow the boat down in several different ways so perhaps OR was " cheating " to keep it close appearance wise for the fans ?

If he wants to keep dredging up the past , " greatest sports comeback of all time " and all that that's fine by me .

I would think as do most NZ fans that focusing on the future would be time better spent .




4 user(s) are reading this topic

2 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users