Jump to content

FCS troubles - seems karma IS a bitch


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

I would have hoped your time in pergatory would have done you some good, but instead you have returned as fucked in the head as when you left.

1. Most vocal in this thread? Factually wrong. Typical lies from you. Wrong again, learn to read

2. Persico were responsible for the failed foil arm. Everyone knows this, even you do, so why try and confuse the uninitatied? Wrong as demonstrated tens of time by Xlot.

3. My joke about us having debated the impact on flight speed might even be in vein if the new design turned out to have no weight change in the boat overall same was exactly that, a observation to try and defuse a cantankerous conversation. That you keep trying to use it as an argument shows the level of bad faith you bring to this forum. Good to see that you hide how wrong you were with a joke :)

4. As PB already demonstrated, these boats do fly at the wind limit, they don't when the limits slip below it. So again, more bad faith arguments from you. Again wrong, learn to read what I said

Again, you've come back for this? To argue with posters here enjoying and discussing the racing and teams? I came for the races, why do you think it's about you ? 

Perhaps we should refresh everyone's memory about you?

  • You claimed these boats would be dangerous and pitchpole. I guess you are disapointed we haven't had any dangerous incidents. You said the contrary and you were wrong, they all capsized, I hope they do the best in strong conditions though because they are spectacular
  • You openly state you support no teams or nations in this cup: I like fast boats, still did not get that ?
  • You've stated regularly that you are here simply to troll others: Speaking about yourself ?

I'll do us all a favour and skip your COVID conspiracy nonesnese, but worth noting all of what you posted and insulted others over has proven to be 100% total bunk. Not the thread here.

Do us all  me a favour... No 

Yes, rh 3000 times wrong.

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

Whataboutism immediately denotes a weak dialectic. That said, roles in the foil arm story have been clarified so many times, that I’m reluctantly obliged to label you as thick: the structural and layup design of the foil arms was carried out by LR’s engineers, Persico had nothing to do with it - in fact, they were reluctant to take on the job as they rightly foresaw they’d be the ones who got blamed should anything go wrong

I'll happily stand corrected on the clarification you provide :-)

For the 'uninitiated' here is a good account of the story, including videos (I remember one was redacted to remove references to some of the principle organisations).

https://www.sail-world.com/news/217742/Americas-Cup-Foil-Arm-explodes-in-test--Video#:~:text=The first test of the,build of the carbon arm.

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

Uh, the races have sorta shown that it is a performance component. If what ncs suggests is correct that this system was a bit of a less-expensive workaround, certainly some of the teams would no doubt prefer to pay more for a less temperamental system rather than figure out how to use it as currently configured. Just a guess, but based on the language coming from some of the teams, probably a decent one.

I think I see your mistake.

These teams might have no trouble doing something better, but it wasn't built for them!

It was put in the Protocol to remove one bit of the puzzle - that might otherwise deter lesser resourced teams from taking part.

 

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

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. 

But surely, this wouldn’t/shouldn’t be a factor on AC75s, where indeed you have a motor and batteries instead of cyclors, no?

 

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

I think I see your mistake.

These teams might have no trouble doing something better, but it wasn't built for them!

It was put in the Protocol to remove one bit of the puzzle - that might otherwise deter lesser resourced teams from taking part.

 

Fair point.

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

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

Ha, ha. Or, at the very least, pull wings off flies. Anyone that talented must have character flaws, right? ;-)

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

But surely, this wouldn’t/shouldn’t be a factor on AC75s, where indeed you have a motor and batteries instead of cyclors, no?

Agreed but if the existing valve control kit worked then just reuse it and move on, right? The new pump motor & battery storage introduces new technical challenges to be resolved. 

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

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. 

Why would they need proportional control over the foil arms? Aren't the mechanics of the system "go up a bit", "go down a bit", "go all the way up", "go down to preset" ? All at the same speed?

I can see where main control would benefit from rate of change, but I'm not seeing it in the foil arms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 12:42 AM, crashtack said:

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?

So who has not had problems with it?

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

Why would they need proportional control over the foil arms? Aren't the mechanics of the system "go up a bit", "go down a bit", "go all the way up", "go down to preset" ? All at the same speed?

I can see where main control would benefit from rate of change, but I'm not seeing it in the foil arms.

Soft start / soft stop would be preferred over on/off for large loads and smoother velocity control. 

37 minutes ago, dullers said:

So who has not had problems with it?

Has AM made comment yet? Max and Ben have. 

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

Why would they need proportional control over the foil arms? Aren't the mechanics of the system "go up a bit", "go down a bit", "go all the way up", "go down to preset" ? All at the same speed?

I can see where main control would benefit from rate of change, but I'm not seeing it in the foil arms.

Half a century ago (ouch) I was the proverbial bumblebee ignoring the concept of minimum pressure drop across a flow control valve - but the system worked all the same! Evidently, there is a guardian angel for rookie engineers ...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ncs said:

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..

I think you have mixed a few theories here and come up with an implausible hypothesis for the INEOS Foil Cant issues.  For a start they aren't Carbon Fibre Boats - they are made of composite material.  IF there were large amounts of unshielded EMI generation occurring then ETNZ who appear to have the most number of computer driven visual displays would be having the most issues.  

In my opinion the issues INEOS were having on day 1 of the regatta are related to the interface between the one design system and integration into their own customised onboard systems.

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

Why would they need proportional control over the foil arms? Aren't the mechanics of the system "go up a bit", "go down a bit", "go all the way up", "go down to preset" ? All at the same speed?

I can see where main control would benefit from rate of change, but I'm not seeing it in the foil arms.

Proportional control valves not allowed anyway - CR22.6(d).

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, trt131 said:

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.

I think Indio is full of shit for the most part but the only “sailors” who can speak on this subject without looking stuff up on the internet are not commenting on this site.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

In my opinion the issues INEOS were having on day 1 of the regatta are related to the interface between the one design system and integration into their own customised onboard systems.

I agree with you on that.

The EMI musings are probably inconsequential but I've seen firsthand sensitive electronics work perfectly on the bench for months then suffer bit errors every second when installed on a composite boat with double-digit EMI between the hull and battery earth. 

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

I agree with you on that.

The EMI musings are probably inconsequential but I've seen firsthand sensitive electronics work perfectly on the bench for months then suffer bit errors every second when installed on a composite boat with double-digit EMI between the hull and battery earth. 

Sure but the guys designing this stuff for these boats didn't come down in the last shower. Well I hope not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Indio said:

Proportional control valves not allowed anyway - CR22.6(d).

NCS and I are discussing the possible cons of driving an on/off valve with increased voltage and PWM to achieve the same thing. He reckons the FCS uses this technique.

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

Wonder who wrote that in the Rule and why ... B)

 

Hmm, the plot thickens. Why would they rule out proportional valves for non-FCS use?

I haven't read the CR. @Indio What onboard systems does 22.6(d) refer to? 

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

Nice find, thanks. 

I think that to say that the 50hz hum from the travelers of the boats is proof that the FCS is being driven in this manner is a leap. As a supplied component, I would think that if etnz wanted to use proportional valves in the FCS, they could. 

Edit : we crossedcrossed posts there :rolleyes:

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

Hmm, the plot thickens. Why would they rule out proportional valves for non-FCS use?

I haven't read the CR. @Indio What onboard systems does 22.6(d) refer to? 

None specifically - just a general ban on the use of PCVs and Variable Displacement Pumps

22.6 For the avoidance of doubt, the following types of components are prohibited as they are capable of using
feedback from the yacht state and are not listed within the permitted exceptions of Rules 22.5 (d) and
22.5 (e):
(a) external pilot-operated sequence valves;
(b) external pilot-operated counter balance valves;
(c) external pilot-operated pressure relief valves;
(d) valves that use internal feedback to control flow rate in proportion to an electrical input;
(e) hydraulic devices with more than two ports that provide logic between:
(i) different control functions;
(ii) different hydraulic actuators of the same control function;
(iii) different actuator chambers of the same hydraulic actuator; and
(iv) different pressure supply lines; and
(f) variable displacement pumps that change their characteristics automatically in response to pressure,
unless that automation is achieved using only those devices that are permitted by Rules 22.5 (d) and
22.5 (e).

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

None specifically - just a general ban on the use of PCVs and Variable Displacement Pumps

Nice, thanks. Humans required in the control loop by eliminating potential programmable or closed-loop hydraulic control tricks. 

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

Nice, thanks. Humans required in the control loop by eliminating potential programmable or closed-loop hydraulic control tricks. 

Yes. I thought it was smart to require human-only control of the foil arms. As is the banning of the use of electrically-switched mechanical locks in an indexing positioning  scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Indio said:

22.6 For the avoidance of doubt, the following types of components are prohibited as they are capable of using
feedback from the yacht state and are not listed within the permitted exceptions of Rules 22.5 (d) and
22.5 (e):

This was more or less the same for AC35. Whilst it does preclude the use of pressure-compensated flow control devices, there's nothing that says you can't use a 'plain vanilla' proportional valve here. The intent of these rules has always been to ensure that a feedback control loop cannot be formed, and the rules about how the crew information system receives data (via a delay) go a step further in an attempt to prevent 'follow the dot' systems such as those employed by several of the teams in AC35.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

One thing becomes very clear watching those misshapen slugs struggle and fail to get back up foiling after a touch down:  The argument for catamarans couldn't be more eloquently illustrated.  

I think a better argument for a high end non-foiling monohull.  No powered hydraulics or electronic controls.  Sail changes for different breezes, etc

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

Uh, the races have sorta shown that it is a performance component. If what ncs suggests is correct that this system was a bit of a less-expensive workaround, certainly some of the teams would no doubt prefer to pay more for a less temperamental system rather than figure out how to use it as currently configured. Just a guess, but based on the language coming from some of the teams, probably a decent one.

One would think they wouldn't mind paying a bit more to ensure excellent installation, implementation, maintenance and operation of the current system then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Left Shift said:

One thing becomes very clear watching those misshapen slugs struggle and fail to get back up foiling after a touch down:  The argument for catamarans couldn't be more eloquently illustrated.  

Rather get rid of the stadium racing and go where the breeze is. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to supply a key piece of equipment, it better be perfect.  Any flaws taint your defense effort.

 

No intent needed.  You supply shit parts, you own it.

 

Open it up and let team fend for themselves.  Only team that would object to that is the team who built this gear.

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

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.

https://youtu.be/XevjFVrYMvw?t=3556

Here is the timestamp of the splashdown from the onboard cam (you may have to use VPN to view). Looks like ETNZ has had some troubles with the FCS themselves.....

10 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I think you have mixed a few theories here and come up with an implausible hypothesis for the INEOS Foil Cant issues.  For a start they aren't Carbon Fibre Boats - they are made of composite material.  IF there were large amounts of unshielded EMI generation occurring then ETNZ who appear to have the most number of computer driven visual displays would be having the most issues.  

Technically they are carbon fiber reinforced plastic (composite)

From Boeing:  Fiber-reinforced plastics are corrosion resistant, but plastics reinforced with carbon fibers can induce galvanic corrosion in attached aluminum structure.

Even if the carbon fiber is suspended in epoxy the fibers can still conduct electricity....

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

Rather get rid of the stadium racing and go where the breeze is. 

Better for us remote viewers Rennie, but not for the locals.

I think stadium racing is worth the extra pain so the live spectators are more engaged.

Big problem with Auckland 8s that the harbour just isn't as suited to it as the great sound.

Bermuda was an amazing venue.

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

Better for us remote viewers Rennie, but not for the locals.

I think stadium racing is worth the extra pain so the live spectators are more engaged.

Big problem with Auckland 8s that the harbour just isn't as suited to it as the great sound.

Bermuda was an amazing venue.

Didn't Bermuda have problems with wind?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DayTripper said:

Didn't Bermuda have problems with wind?

Yeah of course, all venues do.

But the difference is that Auckland has a bunch of courses all over the place.

Contrast this with Bermuda that had one location where they could set the course regardless of direction.

Much better venue IMO.

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

This was more or less the same for AC35. Whilst it does preclude the use of pressure-compensated flow control devices, there's nothing that says you can't use a 'plain vanilla' proportional valve here. The intent of these rules has always been to ensure that a feedback control loop cannot be formed, and the rules about how the crew information system receives data (via a delay) go a step further in an attempt to prevent 'follow the dot' systems such as those employed by several of the teams in AC35.

:lol: Short list!

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

Rather get rid of the stadium racing and go where the breeze is. 

And have some lay days planned. Full schedule 4 days with no lays is asking for trouble. I hope the gp circus gets just one lay day in their shows

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

Better for us remote viewers Rennie, but not for the locals.

I think stadium racing is worth the extra pain so the live spectators are more engaged.

Big problem with Auckland 8s that the harbour just isn't as suited to it as the great sound.

Bermuda was an amazing venue.

I am absolutely not against stadium racing, when being on shore it's the best. I was only throwing this into the discussion, because the other post sounded as if using cats is the only option when the wind fails a regatta. It is not. 

9 minutes ago, barfy said:

And have some lay days planned. Full schedule 4 days with no lays is asking for trouble. I hope the gp circus gets just one lay day in their shows

100% agree. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DayTripper said:

One would think they wouldn't mind paying a bit more to ensure excellent installation, implementation, maintenance and operation of the current system then.

Sounds like most teams have, which rather negates the benefits of using a less-expensive system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jaysper said:

Better for us remote viewers Rennie, but not for the locals.

I think stadium racing is worth the extra pain so the live spectators are more engaged.

Big problem with Auckland 8s that the harbour just isn't as suited to it as the great sound.

Bermuda was an amazing venue.

San Francisco was an amazing venue.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2020 at 1:30 AM, sailman said:

I think a better argument for a high end non-foiling monohull.  No powered hydraulics or electronic controls.  Sail changes for different breezes, etc

With spinnakers and all the dramas they provide. I miss non foiling monohulls.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2020 at 9:11 AM, jaysper said:

Better for us remote viewers Rennie, but not for the locals.

I think stadium racing is worth the extra pain so the live spectators are more engaged.

Big problem with Auckland 8s that the harbour just isn't as suited to it as the great sound.

Bermuda was an amazing venue.

I have watched an Americas cup in Auckland and it is a great venue. I was on my boat  which is the best way but If we are honest sailing races do not lend themselves as a spectator support. It is best watched on the screen.  Even when it is a spectator venue only a few can get close enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NZL3481 said:

There's no shortage of 5kt shitboxes floating around England for you to enjoy...

You dont have to troll everything i post you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...