Jump to content


maxmini

Member Since 25 Jun 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 04:54 AM
**---

Posts I've Made

In Topic: ACWS New York - May 6, 7, 8 2016

Yesterday, 05:40 AM

Lambourgini, F1!?
 
Daggerboard Rigger?
 
...whatever
 
http://nypost.com/20...-coming-to-nyc/


Hiking straps , carbon fiber sails so,they don't have to be replaced ?

Who did they dig up to write that piece of shit propaganda flyer ?

In Topic: Don't call it a Comeback

29 April 2016 - 06:52 AM

All so logic that I find it strange that OR was sailing their boat "as a mono" before the match, moreover, Lost in Translation saw OR foiling upwind a few weeks before.

They readily admit they were upwind foiling before the match, and using beast mode. However, they felt there were 2 issues with it, which is why they weren't using it. First, it took too much effort. While it was very fast for short periods, it totally stuffed the crew and there was a belief it would mean they weren't able to sail the rest of the race to the max. The other thing OR revealed was the belief that they were faster than ETNZ upwind but slower downhill. Just before the event, the remoded the boat to improve downhill performance, at the loss of upwind speed.
 
They toyed with upwind foiling but never seriously considered using it in the races because the computer models predicted better VMG on a higher heading. This article has a lot of dopey errors, but is pretty accurate about the software and wing trim. It also really shows how the top sailor's input and intuitive understanding nearly always trumps the computer, simply because the models are - by necessity - so complex as to easily yield wrong answers which at the same time seem rock solid and compelling. It's like gee, we spent 5 million bucks on this analysis, it must be right!
"Back at the Oracle base, Mr. Ozanne said he had found the flaw in the computer model. To get going fast enough upwind to get on the foils, the yacht initially had to sail at an angle that would force it to cover more water—something the computer wasn't programmed to allow. When Mr. Ozanne input the wider angles into the software, the computer had recalculated the speed and showed the boat could sail faster that way, confirming what the sailors had found."http://www.wsj.com/a...312803907849782
Yes, I remember that article giving the OTUSA version.
 
So OR models would be purely theoric and not based on hard data ? I am pretty skeptic about that part.
 
And why does no "official" version mention the "pumping" that we can see and hear on one video ?
 
Models are based on theory, yes - that's why they are called 'models'. These are then corroborated/validated with real world data, and tuned up and so forth - there's an ongoing feedback loop between theory/experiment etc - that's how they found the mistake in the models. That and repeatedly getting their asses kicked by ETNZ in the early races.
I think a big reason 'pumping' was not mentioned in any 'official' versions is that you would need to be an imbecile to believe that 6 or 7 guys could effectively 'pump' - in any accepted usage of that term as it applies to sailing - the 131 ft wing on a 72' cat that weighed 13,000 lbs.

^
What he said , especially the second part .

In Topic: Don't call it a Comeback

27 April 2016 - 03:29 AM

^^ Well known ?

So what is your explanation of the sudden speed, the modification of the foils ? the new rake ? the slots in the wing ? the herbie allowing precise foiling upwind ? the beast mode ? the new tacking technique ? their "allowed" pumping ? part of those ? all together ? something else ?

 

And now, do you think that OR is going to tell us the truth ? or that any other team will tell us their analysis before the next AC ? :D

 

Well, in fact it seems that you know it all  :blink:

 

 

D all of the above with the exception of the non existent Herbie which I think the last two believers in that fantasy  are on this forum  :) 

 

There is also one glaring fact that the negative nellies  seem to conveniently overlook . OR was losing and made no real gains until they swapped out the most important guy on the whole damn boat as far as speed goes, the wing trimmer.

 

Now I know acknowledging that little fact would make it really hard to keep the conspiracies going but no one is taking any of this seriously anyway .

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming .

 

Did OR or did they not break a rule that doesn't exist ?

 

You really cant make this stuff up, carry on LOL 


In Topic: Don't call it a Comeback

26 April 2016 - 04:43 PM

Come on, what would GM know anyway ;)
 
They were simply faster in a straight line for one thing...
Improvement* lead to speed gains which combined with the stability gained from the 'hands-free' foil control system, lead to the possibilty of foiling tacks. which lead to more tactical options etc etc
 
*pick any one of the 167 'definitive' mods this has been attributed too

 
 
That's right .
 
GM probably doesn't even ready SA , what could he possibly know ?
Max, do you seriously believe any AC team when they tell us the secrets of a winning solution, being from their team or another one ? :D
You need more AC experience, I'm afraid.

Secrets ? Hell no but reiterating something already obvious or otherwise well known , yes .

In Topic: Don't call it a Comeback

25 April 2016 - 09:51 PM

Come on, what would GM know anyway ;)

 

They were simply faster in a straight line for one thing...

Improvement* lead to speed gains which combined with the stability gained from the 'hands-free' foil control system, lead to the possibilty of foiling tacks. which lead to more tactical options etc etc

 

*pick any one of the 167 'definitive' mods this has been attributed too

 

 

That's right .

 

GM probably doesn't even ready SA , what could he possibly know ?