Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Agreed. If its a shit system, its shit for everyone. Everyone is in the same boat (excuse the pun), so either Ineos has modified the system and their mods aren't working, or their engineers just aren't coping as well as the other teams engineers.

Either way, it comes down to their own team - again.

Oddly enough in most of the world, if one car of a model goes wrong, it doesn't mean that all the others do. There is even the concept of a "Friday Car" which has lots of problems. Is it different in NZ so that if one breaks they all do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 20.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's pissing down outside and yes, we are back to Level 3. To all those moaning and bitching about it and calling the PM childish names, get a grip, we are the luckiest people in the world right

Yes, quite light but I didn't see all the afternoon's sailing, can only comment on later in the day, when Britannia 2 was running a #1 jib and foiling around no problem. They look quite quick at times

They towed out around 11am and the breeze was light and puffy to start with. Foiled down the Channel and headed out to the Bays. The breeze started to build around midday and they got some long runs i

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Agreed. If its a shit system, its shit for everyone. Everyone is in the same boat (excuse the pun), so either Ineos has modified the system and their mods aren't working, or their engineers just aren't coping as well as the other teams engineers.

Either way, it comes down to their own team - again.

The highlighted bit by me above raises an important question; are any of the teams allowed to change any of the one-design parts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, enigmatically2 said:

Oddly enough in most of the world, if one car of a model goes wrong, it doesn't mean that all the others do. There is even the concept of a "Friday Car" which has lots of problems. Is it different in NZ so that if one breaks they all do?

No, but if there is a faulty part in one of the models, the rest are recalled. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Only for safety issues. Not for reliability.

Or should the FCS have been recalled?

Are we sure it needs to be? Easy to pin an excuse on something that you didn't build. I'm sure ETNZ would be willing to send over a few engineers to INEOS to check correct installation? Something tells Me Ainslie wouldn't be so keen on that idea.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Only for safety issues. Not for reliability.

Or should the FCS have been recalled?

What? Where do you hail from? Because I've totally had warranty recall notices for reliability items that the manufacturer decided better to fix as a customer service/brand loyalty/reliability thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Are we sure it needs to be? Easy to pin an excuse on something that you didn't build. I'm sure ETNZ would be willing to send over a few engineers to INEOS to check correct installation? Something tells Me Ainslie wouldn't be so keen on that idea.

Surely ETNZ should arrange for the 3rd party supplier to go to fix the Ineos boat, because we are told ETNZ didn't build it, but they did contract it. Which is essentially what Ben is asking for

 

And Miffy, if that is the case, why hasn't ETNZ done such a recall?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Surely ETNZ should arrange for the 3rd party supplier to go to fix the Ineos boat, because we are told ETNZ didn't build it, but they did contract it. Which is essentially what Ben is asking for

 

And Miffy, if that is the case, why hasn't ETNZ done such a recall?

Shrug because it isn't a consumer product and I take Ben Ainsley's complaints with a grain of salt. The other teams demurred when given the opportunity to join his complaint. And if there's anything consistent re AC campaigns - is shit stirrers always shit stir & Ben Ainsley has trouble with team building/integration work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Miffy said:

Shrug because it isn't a consumer product and I take Ben Ainsley's complaints with a grain of salt. The other teams demurred when given the opportunity to join his complaint. And if there's anything consistent re AC campaigns - is shit stirrers always shit stir & Ben Ainsley has trouble with team building/integration work.

But that's my point, other teams may not have had a problem. May be hardware, may be software, but without the software INEOS can't tell, and there is no evidence that the FCS engineers have visited, tested and confirmed there is no problem either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows at this point - if the issue is the software side & it isn't the component associated with the OD elements and teams are supposed to write their own code for control systems and tinker with inputs based on data from the sensors - why would anyone else make the software for them. I just don't know if anyone in public domain has that information. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Surely ETNZ should arrange for the 3rd party supplier to go to fix the Ineos boat, because we are told ETNZ didn't build it, but they did contract it. Which is essentially what Ben is asking for

 

And Miffy, if that is the case, why hasn't ETNZ done such a recall?

Another solution could be for all the teams to have and embedded engineer from the company that builds them to help with integration and fixes and maintenance schedule ect., just like F1 engine suppliers do with customer teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Oddly enough in most of the world, if one car of a model goes wrong, it doesn't mean that all the others do. There is even the concept of a "Friday Car" which has lots of problems. Is it different in NZ so that if one breaks they all do?

Look I am NOT going to espouse the merits of these boats cos I think they are shit.

However, comparing a "Friday Car" to the FCS is a completely false equivalency.

People who own Friday cars don't have the resources to inspect and potentially rectify any problems on a daily basis.

If INEOS receieved "Friday Foils", they could (and should) have done whatever is necessary to rectify the problem and bring the FCS into spec.

If INEO are being shot in the foot with a poor quality FCS when other teams are not, then it can only be INEOS are pointing the gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wardy89 said:

Another solution could be for all the teams to have and embedded engineer from the company that builds them to help with integration and fixes and maintenance schedule ect., just like F1 engine suppliers do with customer teams.

And that doesn't solve underlying integration/systems work at the team. 

For example, you could have a Mercedes engine and end up like Williams or have a Renault or Honda engine and perform like Red Bull. I just don't think anyone has enough information to determine where the breakdown is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Miffy said:

. I just don't think anyone has enough information to determine where the breakdown is. 

No, I agree. But as INEOS are saying its the one design bit then ETNZ should be moving heaven and hell to get that sorted OR prove that it is not. I don't see any evidence of that effort

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

lol suppose there's hydraulic actuators and cylinders and pumps and the reliability is improved by minimizing pressure spikes and also pulsating fluids - and all the mechanical engineers and software guys on the other teams have figured that out and made the software run that way & there's one dumb team with poor systems integration work who can't figure it out - whose problem is that? I just don't get it - Inoes is funded by a Brexit billionaire, figure it out like everyone else because it seems like one party is whining. I just don't think there's enough information yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple. Some have been after the software for a while, today gave Ben a worldwide audience to ask for it in front of - but he needs to make the case that there are no other domestic mechanical issues before the software can possibly be to blame or provide any relief.

Don't forget the other issues aboard Fraka2 today and get sucked into a one issue mind-set.

But given all that it sounds to me like it would make sense to put a small expert group together to consider options for FCS reliability improvements - before it ends in tears :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Miffy said:

lol suppose there's hydraulic actuators and cylinders and pumps and the reliability is improved by minimizing pressure spikes and also pulsating fluids - and all the mechanical engineers and software guys on the other teams have figured that out and made the software run that way & there's one dumb team with poor systems integration work who can't figure it out - whose problem is that? I just don't get it - Inoes is funded by a Brexit billionaire, figure it out like everyone else because it seems like one party is whining. I just don't think there's enough information yet.

Ineos struggling to pump oil? The irony...

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Miffy said:

And that doesn't solve underlying integration/systems work at the team. 

For example, you could have a Mercedes engine and end up like Williams or have a Renault or Honda engine and perform like Red Bull. I just don't think anyone has enough information to determine where the breakdown is. 

No but what it does is enable the team to effectively debug their system and identify if the issue are on their side or the FCS supplied parts side. 

Yes you could preform like Williams with the Mercedes engine, but the role of the integrated Power unit engineer is not to help the team with aerodynamics and performance but is instead there to insure the power unit is installed and running correctly. That is what i am suggesting having a embedded engineer for all the teams to insure that their FCS systems are installed correctly to spec and functioning properly. 

and you are correct that we dont really have enough information!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wardy89 said:

Yes you could preform like Williams with the Mercedes engine, but the role of the integrated Power unit engineer is not to help the team with aerodynamics and performance but is instead there to insure the power unit is installed and running correctly.

They're actually there to ensure it is to spec - if the team wants to run the PU at high levels to compensate for aerodynamic problems, or ignore cooling issues at their own peril - it is the team's decision. It is too complicated to be able to diagnose remotely without more information. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

But that's my point, other teams may not have had a problem. May be hardware, may be software, but without the software INEOS can't tell, and there is no evidence that the FCS engineers have visited, tested and confirmed there is no problem either.

For the AC35 FCS ETNZ used Beckhoff sensors and controllers onboardEtherCAT-linked modules controlled by special version of embedded Windows developed by Beckhoff. They also had a CANBus system for valve actuation and human interface input. Now I have no inside knowledge of the AC36 system but it seems probable they're using the same kit again because their FCS band is back together: Ryan, Vito, Stefano, Carsten etc. 

My guess is ETNZ sends an FCS binary firmware update to the teams which they download to their Beckhoff IPC. Seems unlikely the original source code is distributed or even openly reviewed by the other teams. Across my four campaigns source code review, even for mission critical code, was not SOP or even asked for. 

But with these systems post-mortem fault diagnosis is problematic due to insufficient logging: hard to know the exact state of everything with millisecond precision because their logging system is not designed capturing the state of hundreds of channels at 1KHz and not all critical signals are even recorded. For example, if a FCS valve is stuck open or closed was it caused by a logic fault in the software, EMI in a sensor signal, a bit of unflushed metal caught in the valve, a valve controller MOSFET temporarily in thermal shutdown mode, human input device error, human mistake, etc? Often hard to tell which. Or none of the above. 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably said before but then you have to read 5 pages.
Two races with 1500 meters appart allmost immediately ruled out two teams for a chance to win.
Between ETNZ and American Magic, in these conditions : this was the finish and ETNZ fell from his foils more often.
To be continued....
382829142_ETNzAmericanMagicfirstracefinish.thumb.PNG.dad76aea16da918080054a4d64e2d94e.PNG

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

For the AC35 FCS ETNZ used Beckhoff sensors and controllers onboardEtherCAT-linked modules controlled by special version of embedded Windows developed by Beckhoff. They also had a CANBus system for valve actuation and human interface input. Now I have no inside knowledge of the AC36 system but it seems probable they're using the same kit again because their FCS band is back together: Ryan, Vito, Stefano, Carsten etc. 

My guess is ETNZ sends an FCS binary firmware update to the teams which they download to their Beckhoff IPC. Seems unlikely the original source code is distributed or even openly reviewed by the other teams. Across my four campaigns source code review, even for mission critical code, was not SOP or even asked for. 

But with these systems post-mortem fault diagnosis is problematic due to insufficient logging: hard to know the exact state of everything with millisecond precision because their logging system is not designed capturing the state of hundreds of channels at 1KHz and not all critical signals are even recorded. For example, if a FCS valve is stuck open or closed was it caused by a logic fault in the software, EMI in a sensor signal, a bit of unflushed metal caught in the valve, a valve controller MOSFET temporarily in thermal shutdown mode, human input device error, human mistake, etc? Often hard to tell which. Or none of the above. 

Thanks, great post. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

Ask any olympic sailer how identical one design gear is and come back to us.. 

Are you suggesting that ETNZ's FCS suppliers took an inventory of the components they were sending out to the teams, and sent INEOS crap gear TWICE? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, enigmatically2 said:

Oh hell, we aren't going to restart the argument about a boat being faster but losing again are we? Only in reverse this time

Especially if those speeds weren't even in the same race. Anyone have a link to that data, please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Windskip said:

Anyone have a link to that data, please?

This! 
 

SBD posted a couple of nice screenshots, but in the last two AC’s a set of race data was made freely available after each day. They also streamed it live, ARL even provided an app to be able to receive that stream, was very cool. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, atwinda said:

Are you suggesting that ETNZ's FCS suppliers took an inventory of the components they were sending out to the teams, and sent INEOS crap gear TWICE? 

Even though they overheated tow control units, that doesn’t mean those were the problem. The issue is most likely elsewhere in the system and they probably didn’t have time to change that out. 

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

Are you suggesting that ETNZ's FCS suppliers took an inventory of the components they were sending out to the teams, and sent INEOS crap gear TWICE? 

No, there are tolerances with any one design part, the idea that everything is precisely identical is a farce.

What does happen and chews up huge budget for Olympic sailers is going through boat after boat and mast after mast, foil etc to find the best one. 
 

All I am suggesting is that one design is not the last word in repeatable perfection 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 December 2020

POINTS TO NOTE ON THE FOIL CANT SYSTEM (FCS) USED BY ALL COMPETING TEAMS

SHARE
 
m4451_crop169014_1024x576_proportional_1

The foil cant system (FCS) is a one design supplied component designed and developed by ACE for all competitors. It has been used since the inception of this class.

- All teams are responsible for the installation, ongoing maintenance and operating procedures of their own systems.

- All teams are provided with full operating and maintenance instructions and programs to ensure effective and reliable performance.

- For the past few months there is a weekly coordinated call between all teams every Friday in an open and transparent environment to discuss the system and address any developments collectively.

- The maintenance and start up schedule that has been developed is a comprehensive schedule that is shared and in possession of all teams.

- In Emirates Team New Zealand’s experience if all maintenance and start up procedures are followed correctly; the system operates as designed.

- Emirates Team New Zealand has no access system to ensure these procedures are followed by any of the teams.

- In answer to INEOS TEAM UK’s suggestion that they only received a software update at 12pm yesterday.
o This is completely incorrect and inaccurate.
o The last software update was delivered to all teams last Friday following extensive consultation with all teams. Not midday yesterday.

- As far as The Defender is aware INEOS TEAM UK’s Foil Cant System is fully operational.

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

No, there are tolerances with any one design part, the idea that everything is precisely identical is a farce.

What does happen and chews up huge budget for Olympic sailers is going through boat after boat and mast after mast, foil etc to find the best one. 
 

All I am suggesting is that one design is not the last word in repeatable perfection 

Why is the problem team specific? Did INEOS design and install their own system/software and now that it's not functioning Ben wants all the teams to help them sort it out?

But how the fuck do you spend three years to get to this point? 

After yesterdays gong show Ben has lost any psychological advantage he had with his petulant child, sculling 'it's not fair' attitude in the presser, pretty clear he's under pressure and fragile. They have about 3-weeks to get competitive, take out Xmas/New Year downtime and it's probably closer to 2-weeks. They're simply gone, now who will stand up and take the bullet(s).

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

100% with you on the myth of Dean NOT losing them the cup.

the designers and senior staff that kept their jobs but never took responsibility 

I even suspect Barker of holding in at the forelast leg.
To give the impression it was not a decided game but they have to prolong this theatre for a least half a year.
This cup is already a failure as sportevent.

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

Even though they overheated tow control units, that doesn’t mean those were the problem. The issue is most likely elsewhere in the system and they probably didn’t have time to change that out. 

 

1 hour ago, JALhazmat said:

No, there are tolerances with any one design part, the idea that everything is precisely identical is a farce.

What does happen and chews up huge budget for Olympic sailers is going through boat after boat and mast after mast, foil etc to find the best one. 
 

All I am suggesting is that one design is not the last word in repeatable perfection 

 

The "TWICE" was more about the FCS issues dating back to B1, and the implication was that it's unlikely they received bad FCS both times.

They have been crying wolf for a long time. If there is an actual issue, then the other teams have figured something out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, atwinda said:

The "TWICE" was more about the FCS issues dating back to B1, and the implication was that it's unlikely they received bad FCS both times.

They have been crying wolf for a long time. If there is an actual issue, then the other teams have figured something out.

I think their problem lies within their own-developed and -designed ECC system. They need to go back and decompile their code and logic ladders and start again before the Prada Cup, but it goes without saying that they need competent engineers to do that in the first place! And time...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Oh hell, we aren't going to restart the argument about a boat being faster but losing again are we? Only in reverse this time

Pretty handy in 18knots true, eh? Fuuuuck.

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

I think their problem lies within their own-developed and -designed ECC system. They need to go back and decompile their code and logic ladders and start again before the Prada Cup, but it goes without saying that they need competent engineers to do that in the first place! And time...

That is preciously my point. I don't think it's the OD supplied components at all.

@JALhazmat Comparing 8 production FCS systems (and spares) to 4 teams is worlds away from the number of OD parts delivered to Olympic teams. Not to mention, I would imagine it's much easier to get consistent parts when they are CNC machined vs a couple of minimum wage employees higher than a kite from the epoxy laying up nacra hulls. I'm not saying the parts aren't built to tolerances, but I am saying I'd bet the tolerances are very narrow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the system has API’s advertised to work in certain ways, but they sometimes aren’t performing as advertised and they don’t return good-enough diagnostics in response. Without the source code, you can’t tell wth is actually happening. 
 

The FCS being so absolutely critical to these boats, let’s hope a resolution can be found. The ETNZ statement is disappointing, being ‘offensive’ instead of ‘accommodating,’ yikes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jaysper said:

...

If INEO are being shot in the foot with a poor quality FCS when other teams are not, then it can only be INEOS are pointing the gun.

Gladwell reported...

After suffering some control breakdown issues before the start, the US team sped away to a 15sec lead at Mark 1, increasing to 17 secs at the bottom of Leg 2.

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

Maybe the system has API’s advertised to work in certain ways, but they sometimes aren’t performing as advertised and they don’t return good-enough diagnostics in response. Without the source code, you can’t tell wth is actually happening. 

I think something along these lines is likely. FCS has to accept input from the individual team's controls- whether that's as simple as "Up" or "Down", I don't know, but given the complexity of these boats that seems unlikely.

INEOS being one of two teams to launch a smaller scale trail boat- they must have had to develop their own version of the FCS for that. I wonder if they made some macro-level control design decisions based on how their internal small scale FCS worked, and they are having some issues apply lessons learned there to the OD FCS...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, atwinda said:

I think something along these lines is likely. FCS has to accept input from the individual team's controls- whether that's as simple as "Up" or "Down", I don't know, but given the complexity of these boats that seems unlikely.

Agreed. It could also be that the Ineos system is relying on API’s in a way that is different to how other teams are doing it, making their usage case unique. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, atwinda said:

I think something along these lines is likely. FCS has to accept input from the individual team's controls- whether that's as simple as "Up" or "Down", I don't know, but given the complexity of these boats that seems unlikely.

INEOS being one of two teams to launch a smaller scale trail boat- they must have had to develop their own version of the FCS for that. I wonder if they made some macro-level control design decisions based on how their internal small scale FCS worked, and they are having some issues apply lessons learned there to the OD FCS...

It could be something as simple as a timing mismatch (for example) in the ECC sending a signal to a ratchet-type lock holding the arm in place (rather than relying on a hydraulic lock, which leaks) to release the arm, causing the lock-up and  the motor keeps pumping 'til the batteries overheated and shut down.

The lithium batteries that "closed down completely" are German-made Torqeedo 48V/5000Wh units - Torqeedo didn't come down in the last shower!!

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

 

 

The "TWICE" was more about the FCS issues dating back to B1, and the implication was that it's unlikely they received bad FCS both times.

They have been crying wolf for a long time. If there is an actual issue, then the other teams have figured something out.

No argument here. I thought you were referring to the two controllers they cooked yesterday. I think the FCS is a little dodgy, which makes sense for a first gen system. It seems like Ineos ignored the problem, thinking a fix was coming. The other 3 teams figured out how to deal with it. 

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

Ask any olympic sailer how identical one design gear is and come back to us.. 

Tell me about it!

We had 10 masts of the same batch once and they all tested different. Tip of the iceberg - welcome to one design.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

Agreed. It could also be that the Ineos system is relying on API’s in a way that is different to how other teams are doing it, making their usage case unique. 

Whatever it is AM said they have three full-time people working on it so it's no minor issue.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chesirecat said:

Whatever it is AM said they have three full-time people working on it so it's no minor issue.

The way I interpreted what was said was that it was a full time job optimizing the foil systems and getting it to work - but I didn’t get any hint that it was a collective problem to resolve but more like “it’s part of the class challenge”

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

The way I interpreted what was said was that it was a full time job optimizing the foil systems and getting it to work - but I didn’t get any hint that it was a collective problem to resolve but more like “it’s part of the class challenge”

You took that wrong.  Also, right after the first race on day 2, when LR was asked about what happen to AM (when they almost capsized) he automatically mentioned the problems with the can't system that they all have been having.

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

You took that wrong.  Also, right after the first race on day 2, when LR was asked about what happen to AM (when they almost capsized) he automatically mentioned the problems with the can't system that they all have been having.

They also said it worked fine after that. So they would need to check. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All these mainsail control components don't appear to be nearly as advanced on the challengers right?? Looked like a primary (center) and dual secondary hydraulic rams although I'm no expert.

Attached one pic of Ben's "outhaul" setup. Looks basic comparitively. 

Screenshot_20201218-025227.png

Screenshot_20201218-025141.png

Screenshot_20201218-025129.png

Screenshot_20201218-030327.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ It was interesting to watch them disassemble the clew thingys during the interview. Just after these pics a couple of long pins or rods came out. Tis a complex setup. TR's traveller makes a huge groaning sound when moved, also other strange sounds during manoeuvers. In contrast LR traveller is silent whilst moving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

^^^^ It was interesting to watch them disassemble the clew thingys during the interview. Just after these pics a couple of long pins or rods came out. Tis a complex setup. TR's traveller makes a huge groaning sound when moved, also other strange sounds during manoeuvers. In contrast LR traveller is silent whilst moving.

What's the sound of magnets anyway?

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

What's the sound of magnets anyway?

Pull a couple of neodymiums from an old hard drive. Take said magnets to your groin region and place either side of testicles. Now tell me about the sound you make. 

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

Pull a couple of neodymiums from an old hard drive. Take said magnets to your groin region and place either side of testicles. Now tell me about the sound you make. 

Oh....yes, YES. Mmmmm....yeah. Fuck.

Whoops. Wrong channel. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 5:35 PM, Miffy said:

Shrug because it isn't a consumer product and I take Ben Ainsley's complaints with a grain of salt. The other teams demurred when given the opportunity to join his complaint. And if there's anything consistent re AC campaigns - is shit stirrers always shit stir & Ben Ainsley has trouble with team building/integration work.

Well your post did not age well.....My Brit boat is still slow so you can have a go.

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

Well your post did not age well.....My Brit boat is still slow so you can have a go.

? I don’t get your meaning. Other boats including Ineos are going around the race track fine. We had a good race between the Americans and the Italians. 

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

If thay ar not grandstanding,  Ineos need to mayk theer allegayshunz to Arbitrayshun, not to meedya.

Hint: doo not doo a Joolyarnie.

Cum armd with evidents.

You couldn't script the times Ben says...fuuck. And he isn't that good an actor.

I've mulled the "act" over but doesn't seem right

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 9:05 PM, FinnFish said:

Why is the problem team specific? Did INEOS design and install their own system/software and now that it's not functioning Ben wants all the teams to help them sort it out?

But how the fuck do you spend three years to get to this point? 

After yesterdays gong show Ben has lost any psychological advantage he had with his petulant child, sculling 'it's not fair' attitude in the presser, pretty clear he's under pressure and fragile. They have about 3-weeks to get competitive, take out Xmas/New Year downtime and it's probably closer to 2-weeks. They're simply gone, now who will stand up and take the bullet(s).

Calm down. It is only a race or game....

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

still trying to figure out the answer to the question: 

Had one boat carried code one in the last race and stayed foiling, could they have completed the whole course in less time than that race took?

According to Jimmy, doubtful. Up on the foils quicker, but too much drag and likely slower around the track than with a J1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:
1 hour ago, breezie said:

still trying to figure out the answer to the question: 

Had one boat carried code one in the last race and stayed foiling, could they have completed the whole course in less time than that race took?

According to Jimmy, doubtful. Up on the foils quicker, but too much drag and likely slower around the track than with a J1.

CZ’s are a lot slower tacking/gibing (getting it around the forestay) as well, which means greater speed loss each time.

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

According to Jimmy, doubtful. Up on the foils quicker, but too much drag and likely slower around the track than with a J1.

but thats not the point  (or the question I am posing)  "faster around the track" is great   BUT does it make up for the time spent not going around the track!

I really think Jimmy's answer was off the cuff NOT the result of any considered analysis.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, breezie said:

but thats not the point  (or the question I am posing)  "faster around the track" is great   BUT does it make up for the time spent not going around the track!

I really think Jimmy's answer was off the cuff NOT the result of any considered analysis.

Faster around the track would mean lower time to get from the start to the finish. It's great to never fall off the foils, or to be able to get back up on the foils, and then you might be able to make some gains at that part of the race, but if you are slower overall than the other boat, you are not going to win the whole race.

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

Maurice Chevalier has done another of his excellent set of drawings/plans, this one of Te Rehutai  :
 

 

Regret having to reprimand you, but it’s François Chevalier (Maurice was a famous chansonnier). And it’s Luna Rossa, BTW - rosa’s pink :) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2020 at 2:57 AM, usa318 said:

All these mainsail control components don't appear to be nearly as advanced on the challengers right?? Looked like a primary (center) and dual secondary hydraulic rams although I'm no expert.

Attached one pic of Ben's "outhaul" setup. Looks basic comparitively. 

Screenshot_20201218-025227.png

Screenshot_20201218-025141.png

Screenshot_20201218-025129.png

 

 

Center pictures show a track hung on the internal foot with the mainsheet attached to it like a boomless 1990s beach cat (PIC 1) , so not super innovative in the end, but different, yes. Thanks for posting these, another part of the puzzle. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XPRO said:

 

Center pictures show a track hung on the internal foot with the mainsheet attached to it like a boomless 1990s beach cat (PIC 1) , so not super innovative in the end, but different, yes. Thanks for posting these, another part of the puzzle. 

That’s the visible part. I doubt we will ever find out what’s between the two membranes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 8:59 PM, breezie said:

anyone still trying to argue that the boat with a code zero would not have won that last race?

Terry Hutchison said the Code Zero is basically worthless and that it would not have helped.  He said you can get up in lighter wind better with the code zero, but it has so much drag that you will never win.  He said you have to learn to up with get up with the large jib.

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

Terry Hutchison said the Code Zero is basically worthless and that it would not have helped.  He said you can get up in lighter wind better with the code zero, but it has so much drag that you will never win.  He said you have to learn to up with get up with the large jib.

With all due respect to Terry's superior sailing ability, IMO teams may now re-assess the use of bowsprit tacked jibs. Especially if both competitors are using them (at the bottom of the wind range) all I can see is advantage, despite the known drag. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites