Team NYYC

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
9,130
2,324
PNW
everyone had the same interpretation regards manual control, 
Bzzzzt. It was protested and the Jury ruled in ETNZ’s favor. GD said later they could have done the complex thought processes without the the computer doing it for them, if they’d lost the decision, but they did get away with driving a massive train derailment onto a new set of rails to a new destination. 

 

rh3000

Super Anarchist
3,693
1,725
Auckland, New Zealand
Bzzzzt. It was protested and the Jury ruled in ETNZ’s favor. GD said later they could have done the complex thought processes without the the computer doing it for them, if they’d lost the decision, but they did get away with driving a massive train derailment onto a new set of rails to a new destination. 
Protested? Interpretation was ruled on by MC and found to be compliant well in advance of any racing... hence barfy saying everyone had [seen?] the same interpretation 

 

Indio

Super Anarchist
10,970
884
Auckland
Protested? Interpretation was ruled on by MC and found to be compliant well in advance of any racing... hence barfy saying everyone had [seen?] the same interpretation 
Don't waste your time on revisionist stinger - he probably believes slavery never happened in the US.

 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
9,130
2,324
PNW
Okay, ‘challenged’ or whatever the term. Yes, it was well ahead of the racing.Point is, nobody else had interpreted the intent of the Rule in that way, that it would allow a ‘Herbie.’ 

 

barfy

Super Anarchist
4,690
1,188
one of the largest IT firms in the world who” ... Who believed, like everyone else did, that the intent of the Rule was for sailors to think for themselves instead of for them to simply make a finger follow a dot created by a computer.. a computer of any kind! 
So stingers, again, read the request for interpretation, look at the date.

And tell us why the IT firm decided to believe something else.

And provide a link regards "everybody else" who did not believe the interpretation.

Or tell us you are bullshitting a bit in your own subtle revisionist manner.

20190916_141444.jpg

 

NZL3481

NZL3481
1,531
327
Don't waste your time on revisionist stinger - he probably believes slavery never happened in the US.
It still exists - It's called an internship. You can be any colour these days and have to work 6-12 months for free to embark in your chosen career...

 

The_Alchemist

Super Anarchist
2,625
1,428
USA
Are you familiar with the Kiwi concept of 'number 8 wire'? Or the inverse corollary of 'all the gear, no idea'.

You'd be amazed at what ETNZ had onboard their AC50 in terms of computer systems and many would have scoffed at it - yet it embarrassed one of the largest IT firms in the world who in the end couldn't even deliver a decent time/distance calculator.

You are worrying about the tools and not the technique ;-)

Consider what John Britten did with wire and a hot glue gun :)
yea, and a crude hexadecimal computer, with much less power than a calculator, got Apollo to the moon.

The point is that the same company owns, markets and supports both sets of software.  There has to be a reason why most all of the aeronautical and automotive firms use Catia and are willing to pay the extra price.  From my earlier post, it looks like SolidWorks (the one that they dump the Rhino file into) is very good for building parts and components where Catia is better for building a complete product (i.e sailboat, car, airplane, etc...).    

 

Boybland

Super Anarchist
2,904
387
Morioka, Japan
It was asked to be interpreted and decided to be legal, there were no challenges or protests or any other such things, just measurement clarifications. 

These questions are asked of the measurement committee endlessly in any America's Cup lead up phase (I'm sure there have already been a few asked this time round as well), most often by the team utilizing the technology to ensure they can't be challenged or protested later.

There were dozens such intepretations released prior to both AC34 and AC35 because they were  both new classes of yacht, even with most of the yacht being one design last time!

 

Indio

Super Anarchist
10,970
884
Auckland
It was asked to be interpreted and decided to be legal, there were no challenges or protests or any other such things, just measurement clarifications. 

These questions are asked of the measurement committee endlessly in any America's Cup lead up phase (I'm sure there have already been a few asked this time round as well), most often by the team utilizing the technology to ensure they can't be challenged or protested later.

There were dozens such intepretations released prior to both AC34 and AC35 because they were  both new classes of yacht, even with most of the yacht being one design last time!
Interesting that there are no interpretation decisions published yet. Maybe all teams are playing it close to their chests now and not asking for fear of alerting the competition to their technical direction something which the competition could have done in AC35. I don't believe B1's have to be substantially CR-compliant yet, at least until they are measured and certified before Cagliari.

 

buckdouger

Anarchist
654
246
yea, and a crude hexadecimal computer, with much less power than a calculator, got Apollo to the moon.

The point is that the same company owns, markets and supports both sets of software.  There has to be a reason why most all of the aeronautical and automotive firms use Catia and are willing to pay the extra price.  From my earlier post, it looks like SolidWorks (the one that they dump the Rhino file into) is very good for building parts and components where Catia is better for building a complete product (i.e sailboat, car, airplane, etc...).    
I have no experience with CATIA, but I can comment on a couple of things wrt SolidWorks based on extensive use for developing complex surfaces for CFD analysis leading to loads for FEA and ultimately composite part design. 

1. SW surface modelling can be quite flaky and unstable

2. SW surface modeling can be somewhat hard to control, and parameterize

3. SW modelling based on coordinates or equation driven curves requires some foresight and maybe macros to make the workflow simple to substantially edit the parts, e.g. to iterate

4. That all being said, you can model just about anything in SolidWorks

5. They are a PITA with license maintenance and version control 

6. Assemblies can bog down quite powerful computers when they get large, but provisions exist to manage this by holding limited data for some parts in memory

7. I have seen whole megawatt scale wind turbines as SW models, with thousands of parts and numerous subassemblies

 

Boybland

Super Anarchist
2,904
387
Morioka, Japan
Interesting that there are no interpretation decisions published yet. Maybe all teams are playing it close to their chests now and not asking for fear of alerting the competition to their technical direction something which the competition could have done in AC35. I don't believe B1's have to be substantially CR-compliant yet, at least until they are measured and certified before Cagliari.
Yeah I also find this interesting, people must have asked something right? What is the process and timeframes for publication?

Would anybody protest a none compliant boat in a none AC race? Surely you would let someone with dubious design go as far as possible with it before raining on their parade?

 

Indio

Super Anarchist
10,970
884
Auckland
Yeah I also find this interesting, people must have asked something right? What is the process and timeframes for publication?

Would anybody protest a none compliant boat in a none AC race? Surely you would let someone with dubious design go as far as possible with it before raining on their parade?
Common sense says that core structures like the hull must be CR-compliant certified, while the rest can be non-compliant as part of the experimentation, development and testing programmes. The MC will certify the boats for CR compliance before the first official event in Cagliari.

 

NZL3481

NZL3481
1,531
327
Yeah I also find this interesting, people must have asked something right? What is the process and timeframes for publication?

Would anybody protest a none compliant boat in a none AC race? Surely you would let someone with dubious design go as far as possible with it before raining on their parade?
Ask some people that once worked at Oracle how it worked out for them?

 

NZL3481

NZL3481
1,531
327
Common sense says that core structures like the hull must be CR-compliant certified, while the rest can be non-compliant as part of the experimentation, development and testing programmes. The MC will certify the boats for CR compliance before the first official event in Cagliari.
I'd be thinking they'd get measured a few weeks before they get sent to the Med to give themselves some time to fix up what the measurer may not be happy with, re-measure and ship...

 

Boybland

Super Anarchist
2,904
387
Morioka, Japan
Ask some people that once worked at Oracle how it worked out for them?
Deliberate cheating is slightly different than an innovative design that may or may not be compliant though.

The bowsprit nonsense for TNZ back in the day comes to mind, they ahd been using it all regatta, no one protested until it was too late to change / train for the new setup, losing that protest pretty much put them out of the regatta even though they had used it many times already in the same series.

 
Top