Lessons learned from Oracle Team USA loss of AC35

[d2ba]

What do you think the key reasons were for Oracle Team USA loss of AC35 --some of my thoughts

1: Venue choice (Distraction) maybe should have defended in SF again

2: IT issues

3: Design 

4: Defender sailing in Round Robin (Distraction)

5: History on teams side of defending (Over confident after 9-8 win in SF)

6: 5 day break  -too long 

 

[Sailbydate]

What do you think the key reasons were for Oracle Team USA loss of AC35 --some of my thoughts

1: Venue choice (Distraction) maybe should have defended in SF again

2: IT issues

3: Design 

4: Defender sailing in Round Robin (Distraction)

5: History on teams side of defending (Over confident after 9-8 win in SF)

6: 5 day break  -too long 

Did you deliberately leave out poor tactics and driving?

 

[~Stingray~~]

More tactical mistakes made by Oracle than ETNZ, some of it exacerbated by being a tick off in speed both up and downwind in the light and needing to try splits, some of those dbl-jibes laying them out flat-dead in the water.

Race 6, in a little better breeze, they pulled out a win but it was still a very tight race.

 

[~Stingray~~]

 

[jaysper]

With regards design, I think they just got complacent and figured "we've got this".

Perhaps this was because they figured that they had locked down the class so tightly with the one design elements that there was no real scope for their competitors to surprise them?

Certainly they appeared to take a well worn set of design concepts and refine the living shit out of them.

 

[KoW]

I dont know, but i do wonder if there was too much reliance on aerospace, it and hydraulic experts and not enough input from sailors and boat designers?

 

[~Stingray~~]

I dont know, but i do wonder if there was too much reliance on aerospace, it and hydraulic experts and not enough input from sailors and boat designers?

If they had taken the autopilot 'throw the ball' rules loophole that ETNZ did, then their aerospace technology access may have proved impossible to beat - even with JS triggering it from the helm. As it was, maybe the design was ~too~ sailor-centric, compared to ETNZ's.

 

[like]

I'd speculate that they fell into a trap of group thinking and were vulnerable to the highly innovative, independent, risk taking ETNZ. The group of syndicates bound themselves in the pre-nuptial agreement, designed similar boats, raced and trained together and congratulated each other on how well they were going. They became complacent about the lone wolf threat - until it was too late - and did not realise they had been out thought and out designed.

Using the ETNZ analogy of throwing the ball and chasing it, it looks to me as if OTUSA simply didn't throw the ball as far when first thinking about their aspirations for the boat. This was particularly apparent in the sailing control systems they settled on, that simply did not allow them the control that ETNZ designed in from the start.

From the outset I think ETNZ asked themselves " in an ideal world, and in the conditions we are likely to find in Bermuda, what would a winning boat have to do?" The answer would likely have included - it must foil 100% of the time in light conditions, it must have highest VMG up and downwind, it has to accelerate fast and it has to be really fast on all points of sail..... Those basic principles drove all the design decisions including the need for lots of power - therefore cyclors - and the play station control systems. 

OTUSA were beaten by the decisions they made three years ago and by being lulled into complacency from group thinking.

 

[~Stingray~~]

Just a half knot of average VMG the other way around at these speeds, either up or down, and they still might have won. Both boats were extremely fast, it's not like any ~huge~ mistakes were made by either team.

It's perfectly possible that in anything above 12 knots, which was prevalent until just a few days before the Match started, Oracle's speed would have just killed ETNZ.

 

[KoW]

^agreed... But the end result was 8-1 and there is definitely merit in trying to dissect what each team did differently and how it impacted the outcome.

Why couldn't Oracle find that extra half a knot? Were they really hoping for greater than 12 knots and if so why? What had been the weather trends in the sound for the last 6 years? Etc etc.

The challenge is separating the idle speculation from the facts and identifying which of the differences between the boats and teams actually improved or hindered performance on the water.  

 

[~Stingray~~]

I think ETNZ's foil design had better range. Holroyd spoke in video and audio interviews about how teams were going to have to gamble on the sweet spots to aim at, seems to me it's an area where ETNZ's bets paid off better than OR's bets did. 

I posted the numbers somewhere, the Avg Windspeed dropped in a pretty short period during the month, from 15.5 (SemiFinals) to 12.5 (Finals) to 9.5 (!) in the Match. That's a huge shift, 9.5 would not have been the safest of bets to optimize on; but ETNZ's Whompers were the better-suited when it did happen.

 

[Tropical Madness]

In this case, defender needed about 1kn more VMG

 

[Costro]

Just a half knot of average VMG the other way around at these speeds, either up or down, and they still might have won. Both boats were extremely fast, it's not like any ~huge~ mistakes were made by either team.

It's perfectly possible that in anything above 12 knots, which was prevalent until just a few days before the Match started, Oracle's speed would have just killed ETNZ.

What stinger? 

Mate, you have given up on reality eh. Look at those first two times that OR and ETNZ meet in the round robins. It was in those wind conditions of which you speak and yet OR were in no way faster at any point of sail. OR only won through NZ mistakes. 

Come back to reality bro. 

 

[~Stingray~~]

What stinger? 

Mate, you have given up on reality eh. Look at those first two times that OR and ETNZ meet in the round robins. It was in those wind conditions of which you speak and yet OR were in no way faster at any point of sail. OR only won through NZ mistakes. 

Come back to reality bro. 

Yes, speeds were very evenly matched in those conditions. May also have been, had the weather during the Match been back up there.

Impossible to know, but 9.5 was for sure close to the lowest possible edge.

 

[jaysper]

What stinger? 

Mate, you have given up on reality eh. Look at those first two times that OR and ETNZ meet in the round robins. It was in those wind conditions of which you speak and yet OR were in no way faster at any point of sail. OR only won through NZ mistakes. 

Come back to reality bro. 

I will restate my long held assertion that ETNZ were sandbagging their arses off, which means that Orifice were on a hiding to nothing regardless.

They simply took a "safe" option to boat design and got thumped because of it.

 

[Costro]

Yes, this. 

Even with all the sand on board, ETNZ seemed to be able to climb into OR at will. When behind, kept it close. Faster boat in all conditions. Nuf said. 

 

[trig42]

I would like to have seen a 12kn+ day in the match.

I suspect ETNZ would have still beaten them (and they would have been relieved at not having to risk their breaking batwings).

OR would have been nervous of a heavier air day I suspect after all the stripping down of the boat they undertook during the 5 day panic.

 

[Miffy]

Kiwis had a better concept from bow to stern. Took a huge leap of faith such that if they showed up in Bermuda and were off pace, it was over. Oracle wrote the rules such that they're unable to innovate their way out of it despite having resources, can't buy more time or have an inventory of existing options. Counted on being able to keep pace with teams invited into Bermuda, and probably got too complacent beating all the other teams in pre-starts for over a year. 

Oracle took a calculated approach and evolved from San Francisco. After action report probably said we have better resources and engineers, so if we can narrow scope of development we can win especially if we have more time to evaluate. So their approach? Box rule. Invite teams to come. Participate with challengers and fund more development teams. 

Kiwis were up against a wall and due to bitter experience, didn't play ball. 

 

[~Stingray~~]

trig42 ^ 'all the stripping down of the boat' also suggests they'd been betting on a couple knots more breeze.

With 5 Challengers, the odds were decent that one of them would be better, in whatever conditions eventuated.