Jump to content

FCS troubles - seems karma IS a bitch


Recommended Posts

 

 

Aren’t the guys who feasted on LR/Persico’s foil arm problems oddly silent now? I mean fine as long as it’s kicking BA while he’s down, but when Patriot loses a race?

I have a feeling LR intends to exploit this: when Checco Bruni was asked if he had seen the Patriot incident he suddenly lost his English, mumbling something about “software”

And as the Italian commentator noted, the FCS is supposed to be a mature product, shat’s the point of weekly get-togethers and software updates NOW?

 

@weta27picture, of course

E1996203-979C-48BF-848E-80C79B8F0BEA.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, buckdouger said:

Interesting comment about AMs issue from Goodison, that FCS didn't work initially but they have a second button that moved it. 

This suggests too me that their problem was upstream from the FCS black box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

This suggests too me that their problem was upstream from the FCS black box.

That's certainly one logical hypothesis, however I wonder how many inputs the FCS has, such as up/down signals for varying degrees of movement, rates, etc. It could be that the preferred input was not having a desirable effect but a secondary type of input such as a lower rate of speed raise for maintenance purposes as a hypothetical example, did work. 

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

That's certainly one logical hypothesis, however I wonder how many inputs the FCS has, such as up/down signals for varying degrees of movement, rates, etc. It could be that the preferred input was not having a desirable effect but a secondary type of input such as a lower rate of speed raise for maintenance purposes as a hypothetical example, did work. 

Everything I've seen and heard indicates it's purely an up/down system - the rates etc are controlled onboard the FCS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coupla additional (obvious) considerations:

- if this happened again in the Prada Cup or, god forbid, in the Cup itself, a huge amount of fecal matter would impinge on the proverbial ventilator - I’m not talking about sailing blogs, it would be disrepute in the MSM - forget subtleties, protocols and AP - who built the thing? ETNZ, the Defender. Herbie would pale in comparison

- since, by ETNZ’s own admission, the FCS has no event/fault logger, what’s to stop an unscrupulous Challenger from faking another fault?

The remedy is equally obvious: ETNZ should do as LR did for the foil arms and eat crow, urgently summon experts from the other teams, open up the system including the source code and reach a collective acceptance

Predictably, this is exactly what ETNZ are refusing to do, with their (yet again) tone deaf statement

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Xlot said:

The remedy is equally obvious: ETNZ should do as LR did for the foil arms and eat crow, urgently summon experts from the other teams, open up the system including the source code and reach a collective acceptance.

This action only becomes a remedy at the point of collective acceptance.

What happens if you don't manage to get it?

What happens if one team that is way behind the others feels unwilling to accept?

What happens if even after collective acceptance a team still has a failure?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh3000 said:

This action only becomes a remedy at the point of collective acceptance.

What happens if you don't manage to get it?

What happens if one team that is way behind the others feels unwilling to accept?

What happens if even after collective acceptance a team still has a failure?

They file lawsuit after lawsuit, refuse the results of an election, then refuse to hand over the presidency... err..... cup.

Sorry, what were we talking about?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, erdb said:

No, that's not true. Only the raised position is fixed. Sailing position can be changed with a limited frequency of adjustments.

Here are the rules:

24172099_cantrules.thumb.JPG.aafe49294e398ccdbea01bbb84c92af5.JPG

 

3 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Given @erdbs note, it appears this might be determined by the teams interface

 

Right: overheating on the second tack of the first race of the day

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to admit, it's pretty weird how the rule is written - "subject to physical limitations". Basically what it says is that you can play with as much as you want until it breaks. I'm sure they try to adjust it as much as possible taking it very close to its limits. Maybe it would be better to limit the frequency of adjustments in the 1D software to a level that's comfortably in a safe range for the hydraulics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grrr... said:

They file lawsuit after lawsuit, refuse the results of an election, then refuse to hand over the presidency... err..... cup.

Sorry, what were we talking about?

That’s never happened before in the Americas Cup! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, erdb said:

Maybe it would be better to limit the frequency of adjustments in the 1D software to a level that's comfortably in a safe range for the hydraulics

Alternatively let the professional hydraulic mechanical and systems integration electrical engineers put on their big boy pants and figure it out. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Miffy said:

Alternatively let the professional hydraulic mechanical and systems integration electrical engineers put on their big boy pants and figure it out. 

For an OD component as important as this, maybe next time there should be a crew of specialist engineers from whoever supplied it to maintain the dang thing, across the teams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe - but then you run into issues re compliance-freedom of execution when someone wants to try something new and not to original intended spec and what the integration team’s responsibilities are. 

Like if I bought a Karver lock and NKE wind instrument and expect them to come take care of it for me while I use it something it was never intended for. 
 

There’s a push pull trade off between freedom of implementation vs OD parity compliance. I don’t pretend to know where the line should be drawn. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty obvious why they're not handing over the source code. If they did it would be tempting for the other teams to fiddle with it. ETNZ would then have to employ "code inspectors" to go over each line on each of the teams - fuck that. Much easier to supply it and ensure compliance.

The most obvious explanation for Ineos ongoing troubles is either poor installation or maintenance. Everything else about their campaign has been a shit show, so why wouldn't their FCS implementation be any different?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

For an OD component as important as this, maybe next time there should be a crew of specialist engineers from whoever supplied it to maintain the dang thing, across the teams. 

Like a sort of VOR boat shop? Forget it. Too much at stake for that sort of cooperation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are some teams which are having problems, but others which are not, doesn't this indicate that some teams simply built/set up their boats incorrectly? If you're given a OD part, wouldn't it be logical to build the boat around the performance and limitations of that OD part, instead of complaining when you cook the thing?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One step ACE could do, if INEOS insist on seeing the software for the FCS, is allow some closed room viewing sessions. Thats were they let team engineers view the source on a laptop owned by ACE, and review it, but not take the source with them. Why would this solve anything? If they truely just want to know why a black box is behaving a certain way they can review the code and/or any tests it have, observe and ask questions without having the ability to modify it and thus taking the FCS out of one design. The problem still exists that then when INEOS then turns round and says "this is wrong its a bug" it might not be agreed by other competitors its a bug, but it rules out any foul play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On Italian TV prior to today’s races, the Persico guy was saying FCS’s problems are twofold: in terms of hardware, valves jam with the tiniest of impurities. The FCS itself overheats and shuts down

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JonRowe said:

One step ACE could do, if INEOS insist on seeing the software for the FCS, is allow some closed room viewing sessions. Thats were they let team engineers view the source on a laptop owned by ACE, and review it, but not take the source with them. Why would this solve anything? If they truely just want to know why a black box is behaving a certain way they can review the code and/or any tests it have, observe and ask questions without having the ability to modify it and thus taking the FCS out of one design. The problem still exists that then when INEOS then turns round and says "this is wrong its a bug" it might not be agreed by other competitors its a bug, but it rules out any foul play.

I don’t think the other challengers care enough to keep Ineos around. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Miffy said:

I don’t think the other challengers care enough to keep Ineos around. 

There we (sadly) agree, if only INEOS has trouble why would LR (as COR) press the defender about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The unspoken reality is the challengers are collaborating but not really shared interests here - they’ll find ways to make their FCS reliable and hydraulics reliable. They’ll share what they need. But if they make steps and makes it perfect? There’s no incentive to share it with a competition. It is after all another team - they’ll politely say get fucked Brexit. 

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

There we (sadly) agree, if only INEOS has trouble why would LR (as COR) press the defender about it. 

You're all getting sucked in by Sir Ben's blame game: it is NOT the FCS that's at fault, but their own developed ECC which is the heart of their control system. All on-boat signalling and switching of the FCS, HCC, electrical actuators, etc. are managed and controlled by the ECC. What we should learn from the "problems" the 3 Challengers are having is they have not learned much about ETNZ's control system from AC35 - which shoots down the claim by NH "experts" that ETNZ's AC50 controls were an LR development! When they claim they need the software so they can "diagnose their problems", what they mean is they want to see how ETNZ's ECC Control System works - and ETNZ are quite rightly telling them to take a hike!!

The FCS is easily the simplest switching system aboard the AC75s:

1: apply power to solenoid a on the directional control hydraulic valve, the rams extend and lower the arm. Stop the power supply to the solenoid, the valve spool returns to neutral and rams stop;

2: apply power to solenoid b, the rams retract and raise the arm: stop the power supply, ram stops.

Where I believe they've got problems is the integration of the simple FCS controls into their ECC and automating the process with other interdependent switching operations from the hundreds of sensors aboard. Eg. I think they're using electrically-switched rachet-type locking mechanisms to physically hold the arms in place rather than relying on hydraulic lock - the seals in the rams will leak, letting the arm drop mm by mm. They would need to link switching the rachet lock to switching the relevant solenoid - if the timing is out, shit happens. The fact that a PCB failed and a replacement one cooked points to an electrical problem elsewhere - confirmed by the batteries shutting down.

I can help them with their problems, but why should I help the opposition?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this week showed that the FCS is not regatta ready.

Things can be pretty flawless in practice, but don’t hang on in competition.

Blame Covid 19 for eliminating the chances to find this out with enough time to fix it according to plan.

As it is, the quality of the America’s Cup racing is in jeopardy, and needs to be fixed.

America’s Cup Management should intervene and get all teams working on solving their common problem.

pronto

SHC  

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Indio said:

You're all getting sucked in by Sir Ben's blame game: it is NOT the FCS that's at fault, but their own developed ECC which is the heart of their control system. All on-boat signalling and switching of the FCS, HCC, electrical actuators, etc. are managed and controlled by the ECC. What we should learn from the "problems" the 3 Challengers are having is they have not learned much about ETNZ's control system from AC35 - which shoots down the claim by NH "experts" that ETNZ's AC50 controls were an LR development! When they claim they need the software so they can "diagnose their problems", what they mean is they want to see how ETNZ's ECC Control System works - and ETNZ are quite rightly telling them to take a hike!!

The FCS is easily the simplest switching system aboard the AC75s:

1: apply power to solenoid a on the directional control hydraulic valve, the rams extend and lower the arm. Stop the power supply to the solenoid, the valve spool returns to neutral and rams stop;

2: apply power to solenoid b, the rams retract and raise the arm: stop the power supply, ram stops.

Where I believe they've got problems is the integration of the simple FCS controls into their ECC and automating the process with other interdependent switching operations from the hundreds of sensors aboard. Eg. I think they're using electrically-switched rachet-type locking mechanisms to physically hold the arms in place rather than relying on hydraulic lock - the seals in the rams will leak, letting the arm drop mm by mm. They would need to link switching the rachet lock to switching the relevant solenoid - if the timing is out, shit happens. The fact that a PCB failed and a replacement one cooked points to an electrical problem elsewhere - confirmed by the batteries shutting down.

I can help them with their problems, but why should I help the opposition?

Your reply sounds solid to the non-initiated. But you make it sound as if the FCS is almost an electromechanical device - why then is everybody - BA, JS, Bruni complaining about the software?

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

Your reply sounds solid to the non-initiated. But you make it sound as if the FCS is almost an electromechanical device - why then is everybody - BA, JS, Bruni complaining about the software?

It’s a great question

The normal bottom-feeder Kiwis on this forum are foaming at the mouth again, because BA dared to point out the obvious and in doing so criticized (gasp!) ETNZ. 
 

Ernesto B gave as his first reason for not entering AC36 the fact that the FCS was too critical to be left in control of the Defender. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indio is always spouting technical shit like he is an expert.  He is not, he just regurgitates stuff he has found on the interweb.  Dont suck up to him, it only encourages him.  Let him get back to his golf, he is not, or never has been, a sailor.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Indio said:

I think they're using electrically-switched rachet-type locking mechanisms to physically hold the arms in place rather than relying on hydraulic lock - the seals in the rams will leak, letting the arm drop mm by mm. 

 

That would explain the " redundancy" system I have heard of on two of the boats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is what i think is happening

the guidelines for the FCS state that in down mode there is a area where LOW FREQUENCY movements can be made     in other words all teams know from the start that the FCS can be over stressed in this way.  As well as this the load on the FCS during any movement depends on the foil flap at that time. in other words if your foil is trying to dive while you making a fine upward adjustment this will further load the system .   AND setting aside all that some foils will be harder to drag up and down than others.

The FCS is not intended to be foolproof it is clearly understood that it has limits    getting what a team wants from the FCS without overloading it is a pert of the sailing contest. Thats why it is a supplied part!  All the teams are working out how to get the most out of the FCS as supplied.  some are more successful than others ....end of story!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Indio said:

The FCS is easily the simplest switching system aboard the AC75s:

Are you for reals?

For those who are interested in some of the technical aspects of the real FCS 'black box' (not the simple version that Indio speaks about on INEOS), here are some images:

  1. Beckhoff PLC. Pay attention to the amount of digital and analogue I/O here. This is for the numerous sensors (position, pressure and temperature etc.) and driving valves.
  2. Accumulator/reservoir arrangement. Note the very nice manifold block at the base of the carbon fibre accumulator - housing quite a number of valves and pressure sensors.
  3. Power unit. DC motor with water cooling, CAN-based motor controller, and hydraulic pump in the background.

It's a pretty complex system. Not the most complex of everything on the boats, but it's up there. The demands on it are pretty high. There are certainly some smarts in the software, but they're completely independent of the rest of the boat systems (i.e. ECC), as this is a 'black box' unit.

1.thumb.png.d69505be8dc6ebb55d72dc243c13fc89.png

2.png.c46efa4a4574b051148ff93570e510d0.png

3.thumb.png.6942983b08a668fe9e9e781e4677edf8.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In this very moment, on Italian TV while waiting for the start of the second race(?) they had on the phone Gianni Cariboni:: he definitely crucified the FCS, saying it was the result of certain original and unilateral choices and unripe ongoing development, which is absurd. He’s sure the system will have to be modified in the future

There you have it from the horse’s mouth ...

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Xlot said:

In this very moment, on Italian TV while waiting for the start of the second race(?) they had on the phone Gianni Cariboni:: he definitely crucified the FCS, saying it was the result of certain original and unilateral choices and unripe ongoing development, which is absurd. He’s sure the system will have to be modified in the future

There you have it from the horse’s mouth ...

 

Obviously a whiner as TNZ has figured it out  -  (sarcasm) 

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

Well here is what i think is happening

the guidelines for the FCS state that in down mode there is a area where LOW FREQUENCY movements can be made     in other words all teams know from the start that the FCS can be over stressed in this way.  As well as this the load on the FCS during any movement depends on the foil flap at that time. in other words if your foil is trying to dive while you making a fine upward adjustment this will further load the system .   AND setting aside all that some foils will be harder to drag up and down than others.

The FCS is not intended to be foolproof it is clearly understood that it has limits    getting what a team wants from the FCS without overloading it is a pert of the sailing contest. Thats why it is a supplied part!  All the teams are working out how to get the most out of the FCS as supplied.  some are more successful than others ....end of story!

The question then has to be asked as to whether the FCS was designed with the NZ foils in mind. Straying to far from these brings operational problems.

This thing should have been bullet proof or come with foil design limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gissie said:

The question then has to be asked as to whether the FCS was designed with the NZ foils in mind. Straying to far from these brings operational problems.

This thing should have been bullet proof or come with foil design limits.

Obviously not

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

Are you for reals?

For those who are interested in some of the technical aspects of the real FCS 'black box' (not the simple version that Indio speaks about on INEOS), here are some images:

  1. Beckhoff PLC. Pay attention to the amount of digital and analogue I/O here. This is for the numerous sensors (position, pressure and temperature etc.) and driving valves.
  2. Accumulator/reservoir arrangement. Note the very nice manifold block at the base of the carbon fibre accumulator - housing quite a number of valves and pressure sensors.
  3. Power unit. DC motor with water cooling, CAN-based motor controller, and hydraulic pump in the background.

It's a pretty complex system. Not the most complex of everything on the boats, but it's up there. The demands on it are pretty high. There are certainly some smarts in the software, but they're completely independent of the rest of the boat systems (i.e. ECC), as this is a 'black box' unit.

1.thumb.png.d69505be8dc6ebb55d72dc243c13fc89.png

As I speculated elsewhere the kit in this photo is the same as ETNZ's AC35 system but with electric motors pumping oil instead of cyclors. It uses CANBus for user input, valve control or both as was done in AC35. Gianni Cariboni's remark, particularly "certain original and unilateral choices" is suggestive. The AC35 FCS didn't use proportional hydraulic valves like Cariboni sells. Instead, ETNZ found a far less expensive 24VDC solenoid (on-off) valve performs like a proportional, shuttled valve when PWM'd at a voltage several times higher than it's rated DC voltage as long as it doesn't get too hot. Listen closely to the onboard audio: hear a 30-50 Hz hammering sound of the solenoids being switched when big things move? These solenoids draw 2A at 24VDC. And class, what happens when you switch square wave current in a unshielded conductor?  You make a broad-spectrum EMI-generating antenna. Anyone know what happens in a carbon fibre boat when lots of unshielded wires generating EMI from square wave harmonics are laid around in it? I'll give you a hint: carbon fibre is electrically conductive especially when wetted with sea water...

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xlot said:

In this very moment, on Italian TV while waiting for the start of the second race(?) they had on the phone Gianni Cariboni:: he definitely crucified the FCS, saying it was the result of certain original and unilateral choices and unripe ongoing development, which is absurd. He’s sure the system will have to be modified in the future

There you have it from the horse’s mouth ...

 

Great work for the Italian TV channel.. when is Mr Persico coming on to talk foil arms engineering?

You can't make this shit up...

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ncs said:

As I speculated elsewhere the kit in this photo is the same as ETNZ's AC35 system but with electric motors pumping oil instead of cyclors. It uses CANBus for user input, valve control or both as was done in AC35. Gianni Cariboni's remark, particularly "certain original and unilateral choices" is suggestive. The AC35 FCS didn't use proportional hydraulic valves like Cariboni sells. Instead, ETNZ found a far less expensive 24VDC solenoid (on-off) valve performs like a proportional, shuttled valve when PWM'd at a voltage several times higher than it's rated DC voltage as long as it doesn't get too hot. Listen closely to the onboard audio: hear a 30-50 Hz hammering sound of the solenoids being switched when big things move? These solenoids draw 2A at 24VDC. And class, what happens when you switch square wave current in a unshielded conductor?  You make a broad-spectrum EMI-generating antenna. Anyone know what happens in a carbon fibre boat when lots of unshielded wires generating EMI from square wave harmonics are laid around in it? I'll give you a hint: carbon fibre is electrically conductive especially when wetted with sea water...

So...they are broadcasting long wave signals and jamming the submarines communication signals?

They are fucking with the whales by broadcasting alien whalesong like that Star Trek movie?

Please, correct answer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 5:21 PM, Xlot said:

On Italian TV prior to today’s races, the Persico guy was saying FCS’s problems are twofold: in terms of hardware, valves jam with the tiniest of impurities. The FCS itself overheats and shuts down

Not quite related but I've been in situations with helicopter turbine engines where the chip picks up micro impurities in the oil needing a controlled (land at earliest opportunity) shutdown. An engine on one machine had ongoing issues, sometimes false positives, sometimes actual contamination, eventually needing the turbine to be replaced at no small cost and a long walk out from the landing point.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, barfy said:

So...they are broadcasting long wave signals and jamming the submarines communication signals?

They are fucking with the whales by broadcasting alien whalesong like that Star Trek movie?

Please, correct answer?

The carbon fibre hull turns into an EMI generator throughout it's length that can cause issues for onboard equipment and cabling such as low voltage and low current signals for position sensors, low voltage switches etc unless special precautions are taken by the boat's sparky. And because shielding weighs, AC sparkies tend to prefer light, unshielded cables. So system faults could be caused by spurious electromagnetic noise but are attributed to software instead. 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ncs said:

The carbon fibre hull turns into an EMI generator throughout it's length that can cause issues for onboard equipment and cabling such as low voltage and low current signals for position sensors, low voltage switches etc unless special precautions are taken by the boat's sparky. And because shielding weighs, AC sparkies tend to prefer light, unshielded cables. So system faults could be caused by spurious electromagnetic noise but are attributed to software instead. 

Thank you teacher :)

Maybe etnz's past preference for fiber optic communication systems has served them well..Again.

Edit: not sarcastic, thanks for sharing knowledge here

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, barfy said:

Maybe etnz's past preference for fiber optic communication systems has served them well..Again.

But alas, ETNZ hasn't used EMI-proof and water-friendly fibre optics for comms since 2013, probably never will again. CANBus has been onboard since 2015. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me there was quite a few meters of fiber optic in AC 35 boat. But perhaps for imbedded sensors rather than communication protocols. 

So having identified emi as a potential issue,.do you think any teams are on top of shielding?

Perhaps a tin foil layer in helmets? :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, barfy said:

Seems to me there was quite a few meters of fiber optic in AC 35 boat. But perhaps for imbedded sensors rather than communication protocols. 

So having identified emi as a potential issue,.do you think any teams are on top of shielding?

Perhaps a tin foil layer in helmets? :)

Love that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 4:21 AM, Xlot said:

On Italian TV prior to today’s races, the Persico guy was saying FCS’s problems are twofold: in terms of hardware, valves jam with the tiniest of impurities. The FCS itself overheats and shuts down

Nope can’t be true, kiwi boat is fine etc.. 

intrerestingly though that fits with the comments from AM (Campbell I think) about filtration  and Ben’s comments about overheating 

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

Nope can’t be true, kiwi boat is fine etc.. 

intrerestingly though that fits with the comments from AM (Campbell I think) about filtration  and Ben’s comments about overheating 

So it seems there are problems with the FCS. However, two points:

 

1. The speed problems INEOS are having seemingly have fuck all to do with the FCS.

2. The other teams seem capable of keeping the FCS (fairly) reliable.

 

So for Ben to get on the stage and have a weapons grade whinge like this is kinda pathetic.

He is a great sailor but seems a very poor person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 agreed ( with the caveat if it isn’t working properly it’s not going to help matters) 

2 when your blowing that cash I would want better than fairly reliable from a supplied part 

3 history is littered with them, youcould argue that every top level sports man or women has a less edifying side to their make up 

Burling might go back home and drown kittens for all we know ? 

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

1 agreed ( with the caveat if it isn’t working properly it’s not going to help matters) 

2 when your blowing that cash I would want better than fairly reliable from a supplied part 

3 history is littered with them, youcould argue that every top level sports man or women has a less edifying side to their make up 

Burling might go back home and drown kittens for all we know ? 

LOL! Burling is perhaps the least exciting sports person in the world, so at least drowning kittens would make a dent in that.

I make no secret of thinking this class rule is shit. I also don't think that ANY of the parts should have been 1D or supplied.

However, Ben is doing his best to make himself look a prize cock by whinging like this.

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

Was the splashdown by ETNZ in the first race against Ineos (12:04 in the highlights) related to the FCS? 

Ohhh, you think this too? It looked to me like the foil didn't lift when it was supposed to - hence too much lift on the new gybe and a splash.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, OldWoodenShip said:

Beckhoff PLC. Pay attention to the amount of digital and analogue I/O here.

Y'see I look at that and the first words in my mind are "fucking complicated". And "fucking complicated" and yachts rarely go together well.

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

ETNZ found a far less expensive 24VDC solenoid (on-off) valve performs like a proportional, shuttled valve when PWM'd at a voltage several times higher than it's rated DC voltage as long as it doesn't get too hot.

Oh Jesus, they didn't?

I found myself pondering why ETNZ's traveller makes a kinda farty noise as it moves back and forth - and wondered if they were dithering a valve for some reason. I wonder if it works out as being more efficient - as in a "partially open" valve wastes a lot of power generating vortices and what have you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Xlot said:

Your reply sounds solid to the non-initiated. But you make it sound as if the FCS is almost an electromechanical device - why then is everybody - BA, JS, Bruni complaining about the software?

Because they are sailor and not software engineer.. How many time do you call a bug, when in fact you don't know how to use a software..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RantyDave said:

I found myself pondering why ETNZ's traveller makes a kinda farty noise as it moves back and forth - and wondered if they were dithering a valve for some reason. I wonder if it works out as being more efficient - as in a "partially open" valve wastes a lot of power generating vortices and what have you.

Yeah, IIRC hydraulic efficiency was the primary objective. There's continuous flow through proportional valves even when "closed". Normally that power loss is acceptable in industrial applications where the oil is pumped by a motor but not for a pedal-powered system. 

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

are they allowed any PID control loops or is it all just dumb valving?

Haven't read the class rule but I would expect all valves, including those trim tabs for pitch control on the rudder, are controlled by electrical or mechanical human input devices or hard logic provided by the PLC, position sensors, limit switches etc. 

Heat dissipation from the pump motors, motor drivers, valve drivers and control electronics is particularly challenging when also striving to reduce weight and protect from ingress. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 4:21 AM, Xlot said:

On Italian TV prior to today’s races, the Persico guy was saying FCS’s problems are twofold: in terms of hardware, valves jam with the tiniest of impurities. The FCS itself overheats and shuts down

That tally’s with the AM guy saying they were having issues with oil filtration as part of their maintenance 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ncs said:

As I speculated elsewhere the kit in this photo is the same as ETNZ's AC35 system but with electric motors pumping oil instead of cyclors. It uses CANBus for user input, valve control or both as was done in AC35. Gianni Cariboni's remark, particularly "certain original and unilateral choices" is suggestive. The AC35 FCS didn't use proportional hydraulic valves like Cariboni sells. Instead, ETNZ found a far less expensive 24VDC solenoid (on-off) valve performs like a proportional, shuttled valve when PWM'd at a voltage several times higher than it's rated DC voltage as long as it doesn't get too hot. Listen closely to the onboard audio: hear a 30-50 Hz hammering sound of the solenoids being switched when big things move? These solenoids draw 2A at 24VDC. And class, what happens when you switch square wave current in a unshielded conductor?  You make a broad-spectrum EMI-generating antenna. Anyone know what happens in a carbon fibre boat when lots of unshielded wires generating EMI from square wave harmonics are laid around in it? I'll give you a hint: carbon fibre is electrically conductive especially when wetted with sea water...

So do I have this right: Out of austerity and necessity, the Kiwis (to their credit) redneck engineered an FCS that requires nearly overcooking some cheaper solenoids by running more juice through them than their design contemplated, leading to a system that will work under the right conditions but is temperamental. And the Kiwis are making all the other teams use this temperamental system for the first time that the Kiwis had previously mastered, even though less temperamental but more expensive parts exist that would do the same thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Great work for the Italian TV channel.. when is Mr Persico coming on to talk foil arms engineering?

You can't make this shit up...

rh3000, you are one of the most vocal in this thread, as you always have been on the subject, and as if you had some stake in it.

However it is important to refresh the memories, you first blamed Persico for the failed arm, criticized the Italians every time they were telling something,  then said the new arm would not be heavier even though you had to recognize it was after the rule was published, then said it would not impact AC75 sailing abilities. (Not sure if the extra kgs are one of the reason they don't fly  in the expected low end conditions though). Now you and buddies claim that teams are the only one responsible for supplied parts

Basically you have been all wrong from the beginning on the subject, what credibility do you have about the arm and the fcs ?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, porthos said:

So do I have this right: Out of austerity and necessity, the Kiwis (to their credit) redneck engineered an FCS that requires nearly overcooking some cheaper solenoids by running more juice through them than their design contemplated, leading to a system that will work under the right conditions but is temperamental. And the Kiwis are making all the other teams use this temperamental system for the first time that the Kiwis had previously mastered, even though less temperamental but more expensive parts exist that would do the same thing.

That's my understanding but I lack firsthand knowledge of the current FCS internals. The previous setup served well with low weight, low cost and high efficiency but required somewhat complicated electronics for voltage boosting and current modulation. New, complex systems can have multiple factors contributing to a system failure; not always clear what went wrong and when because not all potentially relevant information is recorded. Not clear if proportional valves would be less temperamental if oil contamination is an ongoing issue for multiple teams. 

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

That's my understanding but I lack firsthand knowledge of the current FCS internals. The previous setup served well with low weight, low cost and high efficiency but required somewhat complicated electronics for voltage boosting and current modulation. New, complex systems can have multiple factors contributing to a system failure; not always clear what went wrong and when because not all potentially relevant information is recorded. Not clear if proportional valves would be less temperamental if oil contamination is an ongoing issue for multiple teams. 

Thanks for sharing your knowledge -- I appreciate it. Certainly one of the rights a defender has earned is the right to choose the field of battle, and this story, if true, sounds like another instance where the defender is using its experience to its advantage and requiring the challengers to play catch up and match ingenuities. If that is the case, then the Kiwis did not gift this system to the challengers magnanimously, but rather knew it might create a struggle which would only be to the advantage of the defender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nroose said:

 The equipment in SailGP is much less complicated and much lower load in the same conditions. And they have made more of them. And the entire thing is OD.

Good point - anybody know what FCS they’ve got?

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

They were reading the rule and counting on the thing f’ing working as advertised. 
 

The recent and aggressive ETNZ response to the allegations suggests a sensitivity to how potentially big this problem is. There is BIG money riding on it..

 

8 hours ago, barfy said:

Here we go..will be four years of spinboy spewing about aggressive response, and top speed, and unusual weather

 

Why shouldn’t he? I said this has the potential to eclipse Herbie, by far

 

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

 the Kiwis did not gift this system to the challengers magnanimously, but rather knew it might create a struggle which would only be to the advantage of the defender.

You're projecting sinister intent where there is none. I dismiss your contention outright. The FCS was developed in a very short time frame, which is the reason it's not as refined as it should be.

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

You're projecting sinister intent where there is none. I dismiss your contention outright. The FCS was developed in a very short time frame, which is the reason it's not as refined as it should be.

There is nothing sinister about it. Good on the Kiwis for making some thing work and challenging the others to catch up. 

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

Certainly one of the rights a defender has earned is the right to choose the field of battle, and this story, if true, sounds like another instance where the defender is using its experience to its advantage and requiring the challengers to play catch up and match ingenuities. If that is the case, then the Kiwis did not gift this system to the challengers magnanimously, but rather knew it might create a struggle which would only be to the advantage of the defender.

Nah, I don't think that's the case here. The spirit is to reduce the FCS R&D costs across the board. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A one design component forced on all players should not be glitchy or failure prone.   Hopefully this one-design system is fixed and makes it through without forcing a loss to any team at a critical moment.  If it does create an incident I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers get involved.  A shit ton of money, gigantic carbon footprints and egos are at stake.

I really don't care who wins this freak show.  There sure would be a lot less finger pointing if each competitor was responsible for the design and build of their own system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

You're projecting sinister intent where there is none. I dismiss your contention outright. The FCS was developed in a very short time frame, which is the reason it's not as refined as it should be.

No sinister intent, agree - but the “unilateral” in Gianni Cariboni’s comment is damning (as in “told ya”)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, porthos said:

Good on the Kiwis for making some thing work and challenging the others to catch up. 

That's not how we do things in NZ. We did not create the FCS one design to have an advantage over the Challengers. Has the FCS got issues? Sure, but it's for the reasons I stated, not for some nefarious scheme to get one over the others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ncs said:

Nah, I don't think that's the case here. The spirit is to reduce the FCS R&D costs across the board. 

Seems like an odd place to achieve savings given everything else (like coming up with an entirely new class of boat), but that's above my paygrade. Either way, these incredibly well-funded challengers ought to be able to figure out how to make this by all reports temperamental system work. 

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

the “unilateral” in Gianni Cariboni’s comment is damning (as in “told ya”)

We're all experts in hind site. It was developed expeditiously, which I believe is the main, if not sole reason there are some teething issues. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, porthos said:

Seems like an odd place to achieve savings given everything else (like coming up with an entirely new class of boat), but that's above my paygrade. Either way, these incredibly well-funded challengers ought to be able to figure out how to make this by all reports temperamental system work. 

The goal of an AC team is to design, build and sail expensive, short-lived yachts, not produce world-class, flawless hydromechatronics. Apply Hanlon's Razor here. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites