There was no SAS

ProaSailor

dreaming my life away...
6,105
790
Oregon
Now that sure did shut em up. At some point down the road, all will be revealed. Or else you are about to get a job offer from the Aussies, Chinese, Koreans, Swedes, Brits . . .

TOG
Don't mistake lack of response with agreement!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.


Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

squally

Member
383
0
Pure speculation, no basis in fact: Of course!

Six bars of available "control" pressure makes much more sense. There's also no need to gather information from an "outer" source, like a gyroscope. All that is needed is the hydraulic pressure from the "weight" side of the foil, clearly available as master cylinder pressure, input to "component X." Boatspeed would help.
There is nothing in the schematic to suggest that hydraulic "master cylinder" pressure or boat speed were used as inputs to "component-X", only foil trunk angle and the linear actuator.

re: "actively controlled" the angle of the daggerboard case with reserve hydraulic pressure - the rules don't allow "significant work" by the hydraulic accumulator.

Here's the schematic again, from here: http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PI_52.pdf

sas-1.png
But what if there were multiple (at least two) hydro cylinders, one for upwind and one for downwind. And they were specifically designed for inputs based on extensive computer programming over the course of the last few months and even during the races. Adjustable shocks that were dialed in before the launch by the installation of the preferred shocks for the day and then just prior to the races fine tuned to match a range of conditions? And within that broader range the sailors had the ability to select two or more modes....
The schematic shown is quite possibly very misleading into the actual operation of the system. For instance it is likely that the pivot is offset one way or the other so the board isnt as balanced as it appears (or maybe it is actually balanced at 10deg AOA and not as drawn), I also wouldnt be surprised if the system did not just operate in a 2D plane as shown so the lateral load characteristics of the foil could be incorporated to control the ride height in some way.

Maybe the little servos mentioned were actually to alter valving/damping in component X......
Is this not the schematic of the Orbital Anti Gravity Device, it looks familiar ?

 

bob202

Anarchist
525
26
Take what Coutts says with a dose of salt.
I would definitely take what he says with a dose of salt... but how about the race officials or jurists who inspected the boat ever day, compared the actual boat to approved schematics, and are the only folks legally allowed to interpret the rules? I don't think we have to rely entirely on Coutt's honesty when he reports that the foil control system was routinely inspected and approved as within the rules by independent race officials. I am pretty sure that happened.
You may have misread me. I wasn't suggesting anything illegal was on boat - I seem to have more faith than most here in the MC's ability to do its job. What I doubted was people taking Coutts' comments as to mean definitively that there was no special piece of kit which aided their improvement - which is not what he said at all. He denied that had an automatic control system but he didn't say anywhere that they didn't already have some other piece of special (legal) kit. He even seemed to imply that they did a couple of times when he talked about how the numbers weren't making sense with their general upwind disadvantage initially and that they made some not insignificant changes to the boat to try and get the numbers they thought they would (most of which I imagine entailed weight re-dist).

Insofar as the MC goes in their job - I think they had already been made to look lacking in the ACWS cheating saga so would have been particularly diligent with these boats. Again, another comment Coutts made isn't as complete as it reads - he said the boats were measured before and immediately after each race which is completely untrue. They could be measured before and after each race - which is not nearly the same thing. Oracle were issued something like 6 or 7 new measurement certificates in a 19-odd day period so they were making changes significant enough to warrant new certificates (in addition to any spot checks they may/may not have done).

 
Last edited by a moderator:

floater

Super Duper Anarchist
4,933
795
quivira regnum
^

My surmise is that the "special piece of kit" - related to the diagram above (and protest) is all that stood between Oracle and total downwind domination by ETNZ due to their successful flying jibe.

Oracle sorted out the flybe just in time - and immediately before the final.

However, the rebalanced, powered up platform - along with successful upwind performance - was all about race time intervention. RC pulled an 11th hour rabbit out of the hat.

Perhaps they used the same tools for both solutions - seems likely.

 
Did Paul Wiggans make this stuff up out of thin air or was he fed a line by somebody else? They way he has written his piece suggests that he is not the originator of the story. I still maintain that the misinformation re the SAS could have originated from Oracle. If it did well good on them for creating a bullshit masterpiece.

Maybe one day we will find out who made this stuff up.

 

Brian Weslake

Super Anarchist
1,510
0
Why don't you connect to him on Facebook and ask him? My guess is that he is just a geeky Kiwi conspiracy theorist with enough engineering knowledge for his ideas to sound plausible to the uneducated. Doesn't make it anything but wishful thinking though

 
The reason peoploe are upset by the "Little Herbie" allegation is that the yaw damper is NOT a simple piece of kit and never was, even when it was introduced on the B-47 bomber (NOT the Boeing 747!). It takes inputs from a rate gyro to control the rudder, which clearly makes it illegal in the AC. The system described by Oracle has no such inputs, it reacts solely to board position. The system may perform the same function as a yaw damper, but in a completely different (and legal) manner.

If you want to point to a legal weak spot in that diagram, it is the electrical interconnect between the push-buttons and the linear actuator. It is easy enough to slip a fly-by-wire autopilot between the buttons and the actuator, and remove it afterwards. The black box might even be there all the time, labelled as a datalogger. Not saying that Oracle has done this, but perhaps electrical signalling should be forbidden when the contenders include rumour-mongering sore losers as the kiwis (as a nation, not the team) have shown themselves to be.

 

BalticBandit

Super Anarchist
11,114
2
Oracle's tip ventilated, yes, which we know "passively" controls ride height. But the loss of lift with height during ventilation is not as linear a function of height as it is for a J-board. Hence the complexity in the control system. (It also tends to cost more energy to control a "more" nonlinear system). It makes sense to ventilate going downwind, you don't mind the leeway. You rarely, rarely, ever saw them ventilate upwind. And when they did they went sideways fast, it was a mistake. So were the crashes downwind, notice those took place during very rapid changes in force provided by the board (centripetal "tipping" acceleration). Clearly, Jimi's out there mashing buttons, but there's a system installed from day 1, that got tweaked for the comeback, and that had his back on over-under shooting his target ride height.
Ventilating upwind was a mistake for both boards, but that's not what caused the leeway. Leeway was caused by too little immersion of the lateral lifting surface. In fact tip ventilation would REDUCE leeway since that meant the part of the dihedral lifting to leeward had its lift reduced.

One of the things not noticed I think here is that between UPWIND mode and Downind mode, OTUSAs board was significantly more canted, thus giving more dihedral and hence stability. And what a system like this would allow is a fast but smooth transition between the two.

Remember the infamous "crash off the foils during a gybe" near the leeward mark in one of the earlier races that showed clearly that the old foil got pulled up too soon? Since this was gybing to go into the mark, I wonder if what happened was that Jimmy hit the wrong button, not that he hit it at the wrong time. IE he was looking to hit the "Upwind Mode" button and instead hit the "board up" button.

But as pointed out, this is just a control with some hydraulic dampning in it.

 
Why don't you connect to him on Facebook and ask him? My guess is that he is just a geeky Kiwi conspiracy theorist with enough engineering knowledge for his ideas to sound plausible to the uneducated. Doesn't make it anything but wishful thinking though
Way ahead of you mate. Have asked the question lets see if we get a response.

There are other ways of finding out how this rumour started.

 

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,693
1,132
Rome
Dalts mentions in the radio interview afterwards that the frequency of movement of the boards evident in race videos had changed and they knew they couldn't keep up....these would have been during the finals.
Would you still have that link / specific reference, please?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

C. Spackler

Member
463
58
Boat
It's too bad AC rules don't require full publication of each boat's specifications after the cup is decided.

It would help the spread technology to the sport and provide an actual additional news cycle instead of idle speculation.

 

willelm7

New member
6
0
Herbie took inputs from a gyro in the nose of the plane. Reports are now OTUSA system had three axes. OTUSA system used lifting and lateral, and longitudinal forces on the daggerboard (or cant and heel moments about pivot), and "controlled," in a fully mechanical, and pre-determined fashion, board angles based on those forces. Cylinder pressures are clearly available to the valve, and in turn component X. Keeping the analogy alive: 747 (B-47) engineers would've wanted data on forces imparted at the fuselage by the rudder, elevators and wings if they could get their hands on it. They didn't have those forces available, so they needed to wait until the forces caused a change in yaw, pitch, etc. Hence the gyro in the control loop.

The nail in the coffin on the "stability augmentation" moniker that's driving people nuts, is that this valve, or valves, were continuously adjusted. From Question 4 of interpretation 52: "a control input to move part ‘Y’ further to the right will have no effect on the position of the valve, but will change the extension of Component X. At that point in time would such a use of the system satisfy the requirement of Rule 19.2...?"

The answer from MC was yes, all clear. Buttons didn't control ride height, they controlled lifting force. For example, going downwind, if the force on the lifting foil were less than 7 tons, pushing the "up" button would change the lift and the boat would pop out of the water. If the lift were already adequate and the boat was going to pop out of the water, you just need to wait a second, component-X would "slip," the valve would not open, the daggerboard angle would not change, and the input from the operator is "ignored." That's a control system. Same as keeping somebody from getting bouncy in a 747. It's legal.

You may also need to account for heeling forces here, but those are more important upwind, which is another great place for finding that secret sauce by the shore team. Maybe less wing twist helped this equation. Reports are similar systems were employed in the other two axes of rotation. Add heel into that equation and you have the recipe for a nasty coupled control problem. Just thinking about lift; if the lifting force goes down, component-X will "slip back" to its previous location. (I'm not saying the "slip" is governed by friction). The slipping is likely a nonlinear function of force in component X and/or hydraulic pressure in the master (why not). The bleed comes when you need to keep the valve open, maintain pressure at "A", and flow fluid from E to F, in order to return component-X to a neutral location without changing the cant angle. That's your "cost." The fact that OTUSA had better control systems allowed them to use shorter boards. Better speed.

Latitude 38 reports the protest was over a spring (likely a or B) that "controlled" the way this system operated. You input all these parameters into a detailed model of what the system will do, and you get an "optimum" setting for all of these free parameters. That's how you control/design your "damper" if you really want to call it that. It took a while to figure the whole thing out. Good on them. I'm guessing Larry's got a few spare compute cycles laying around for control optimization/system id problems.

 

born2sail

Super Anarchist
It seems to me the real secret to OR's success is the way they were able to simulate and test all of the changes being made to the #17 boat. I'm curious, did OR have a simulator set-up in the shed or did they rely on computer models and the other OR boat in the water?

 

Trickypig

Super Anarchist
4,399
124
Australia
I'm getting tired of the `Oracle sailed slower but boxed smarter' arguments.

In the latter races you could see the boat speed difference both upwind and downwind. In the race 16 video when the two boats were close, they showed the VMG numbers along with the boat speed numbers and Oracle clearly had better VMG with similar or even slightly slower boat speed; ie they were sailing higher.

In various commentaries Oracle team members have said themselves they changed the boat to find more boat speed.
hmm VMG was running up and down the scale and mostly they were showing SOG numbers.

if in fact your claim about the boatspeed difference is true

How come the data shows IDENTICAL average speeds for the last race?

How come the data from the last race shows ETNZ's upwind speed of 24.61 knots and OTUSAs of 23.96 kots?

How come on the NYT plot in the last part of the course where ETNZ is finally in the same phase as OTUSA they sail parallel courses? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/25/sports/americas-cup-course.html?_r=2&

What I'm tired of is folks claiming something about the speed numbers that simply isn't true... look it up click on the image below
Huh? Your table shows USA slightly slower boat speed; which is what I said. (didn't I?)

The plot you post shows ETNZ slightly higher angles downwind and slightly lower upwind. (Especially close and on the same board)

Nothing you've posted shows anything other than Oracle having a more efficient package.

You seem myopic about boat speed and completely ignore VMG as being the real measure... and we don't have the data on VMG.

 

surfsailor

Super Anarchist
1,887
156
Maui
Why don't you connect to him on Facebook and ask him? My guess is that he is just a geeky Kiwi conspiracy theorist with enough engineering knowledge for his ideas to sound plausible to the uneducated. Doesn't make it anything but wishful thinking though
Way ahead of you mate. Have asked the question lets see if we get a response.

There are other ways of finding out how this rumour started.

How ironic it would be if the ETNZ was duped and utimately psyched out by misinformation dreamed up and promulgated by a fellow Kiwi. DOH!

 

floater

Super Duper Anarchist
4,933
795
quivira regnum
Why don't you connect to him on Facebook and ask him? My guess is that he is just a geeky Kiwi conspiracy theorist with enough engineering knowledge for his ideas to sound plausible to the uneducated. Doesn't make it anything but wishful thinking though
Way ahead of you mate. Have asked the question lets see if we get a response.
There are other ways of finding out how this rumour started.
How ironic it would be if the ETNZ was duped and utimately psyched out by misinformation dreamed up and promulgated by a fellow Kiwi. DOH!
how ironic if they got beat by the sailing / design / engineering brilliance of a fellow Kiwi.
Arguably, this is what really happened.

 

surfsailor

Super Anarchist
1,887
156
Maui
Why don't you connect to him on Facebook and ask him? My guess is that he is just a geeky Kiwi conspiracy theorist with enough engineering knowledge for his ideas to sound plausible to the uneducated. Doesn't make it anything but wishful thinking though
Way ahead of you mate. Have asked the question lets see if we get a response.
There are other ways of finding out how this rumour started.
How ironic it would be if the ETNZ was duped and utimately psyched out by misinformation dreamed up and promulgated by a fellow Kiwi. DOH!
how ironic if they got beat by the sailing / design / engineering brilliance of a fellow Kiwi.
Arguably, this is what really happened.
No, man - they got out-designed (OR was a more extreme boat with higher ultimate potential) and out-sailed on the race course. Your imaginary 'silver bullet' didn't win all those starts, throw down those flawless tactics, or radically evolve the way they were trimming the wing and handling the boat through transitions.

 

floater

Super Duper Anarchist
4,933
795
quivira regnum
Why don't you connect to him on Facebook and ask him? My guess is that he is just a geeky Kiwi conspiracy theorist with enough engineering knowledge for his ideas to sound plausible to the uneducated. Doesn't make it anything but wishful thinking though
Way ahead of you mate. Have asked the question lets see if we get a response.
There are other ways of finding out how this rumour started.
How ironic it would be if the ETNZ was duped and utimately psyched out by misinformation dreamed up and promulgated by a fellow Kiwi. DOH!
how ironic if they got beat by the sailing / design / engineering brilliance of a fellow Kiwi.
Arguably, this is what really happened.

No, man - they got out-designed (OR was a more extreme boat with higher ultimate potential) and out-sailed on the race course. Your imaginary 'silver bullet' didn't win all those starts, throw down those flawless tactics, or radically evolve the way they were trimming the wing and handling the boat through transitions.

I didn't say "silver bullet". Instead, I'm taking RC at his word that balancing the boat - and powering up the wing - was 60% responsible for their race time gains.
Still, there is that other 40%.

And if you were watching OR jibe 3 weeks before the final - you would be a believer also that some new control was introduced to the boat.

3 weeks before final: OR hit about 50% of their jibes.

1 week before final - up that number to 90%.

During final - beat ET at their own game.

 

Latest posts




Top