Whenever a high value decision is based upon computer simulation - whether that be AC75 manoeuvre simulation, financial modelling or epidemiology studies - it is essential that the decision maker (Ben in this case) understands the scope, limitations, simplifications and assumptions behind that model so that he can understand the validity of the answers the simulation produces. Ideally there is documentation describing the phenomena included and the maths used to represent that, so that it can be agreed before modelling commences that the model will be fit for purpose. This is even more important in cases like this where it is not possible to validate the model with real world data until it is too late.That sounds fair - I can't say I was following this mcuh until Xmas. As an Engineer, you have to be very careful with any sort of analysis or simulator prediction, even in this day and age. Or maybe prticularly in this day and age given its prevalence due to availability of computing power. I guess it sounds that in the absence of much "real" validation data, he had to just go with the sims stuff - his discomfort with this probably improves his judgement to my mind.
I think that you have to give designers free reign else they will come up with stuff that is derivative. But equally its good to be able to hold them to account with evidence from real world testing.
Either Ineos’ simulations were not valid or the design team did not have the imagination to improve on what they came up with. The Prada mainsail system is neat but for £150m you hope the idea of a boomless setup at least occurred to Ineos.
Last edited by a moderator: