I would love to know more about the automated component of "automated mechanical feedback system" you claim was used and exactly what it did that was against the rules?
The real bone of contention here is that a system which restricts the board movement to 0.5 degree increments is no longer a system controlled completely by "manual" input. ETNZ took the rule at face value, and had a guy pushing buttons to control the boards. Oracle somehow got an automated mechanical feedback system past the measurers.
The relevant section of the rule is included below. It clearly specifies manual input only to the valve. Oracle's system has automated feedback from the daggerboard controlling the valve, which by definition is not a form of manual control. One could argue this input is not "external", but it is clearly external to the valve.
(from http://www.cupinfo.c...-a14-052413.pdf page 22) :
(stored power is ok)
for electrical operation of
hydraulic valves. These operations s
hall only provide the input for the
position of the valve;
drive clutches in winch systems.
The valves and drive clutches referred to in (i) and (ii) above, shall be commercially
available and Competitors shall have had these approved by the Measurement
ommittee for use via an issued interpretation.
The operation for (i) and (ii) above, shall not receive external input from any source
other than manual input. Any data acquisition system, associated sensors or
electronics shall be physically separate and completely isolated from any electrical
n referred to in (i) and (ii) with the exception of the voltage supply. The
manual input may latch the valve(s) or clutch(es), operate multiple valves or
clutches, and /or provide variable position. Valves and clutches may be operated
from multiple manual
These systems may be hard wired directly between the manual inputs and shall be
hard wired between the manual inputs and the valve(s) or clutch(es). Wiring shall be
clearly identifiable. Electrical energy used for this shall only be stored in bat
including small capacitors.
Seems you have inside info that no one else has seen.
Mounting the valve on the daggerboard case means that the valve turns off automatically after a certain amount of board movement. This is not manual, it is automatic, it is illegal, and it is illustrated in the photo at the top of this thread.
I think whoever said the Etnz system had automated incremental movement should support that statement.
I am sorry but I think you are trying to make an interpretation that simply isn't there. The systems are linked and closed loop, so one push of the button does a number of things. It is totally manual. There is no external input. The valve is totally controlled by the pressing of the button and associated parts of the system.
The weakness in that interpretation lies in the phrase "and associated parts of the system". The rule uses no such definition or terminology.
It is disingenuous at best and specious at worst to define a system which manually opens, but does not manually close, a valve as being a manual valve control.
Honestly I am surprised anyone would attempt to defend the legality of Oracle's system given the wording of the Rule. Saying the "systems" are "linked and closed loop" is of no special relevance, as such terms aren't even mentioned, let alone defined, in the Rule.
The larger point here is that either the measurers, the jurors or both were not very rigorous or capable in applying the rule.
Nav - just saw your post. I think there are specific interpretations permitting electromechanical actuators in the Rule. So the wiring to the actuator from the switch should both open and close the valve. In this case it opens, but does not close the valve.
Perhaps all this discussion points to the difficulty in writing rules which adequately regulate these systems.