AC 45 World Championship Cheating??

Haven't been to this site for a while, really enjoy the usual deep analysis here. Please, for the sake of us lurkers, dont degenerate into quoting SA forum posts, then they'll just quote from here and before you know it the entire web will just be one endlessly recurring mindless SA forum post.

 

Stingray occasionally writes something delightful, in the course of his 38,000 or so postings at SAAC...

Did you see recently when he asked if the chainplates were close to the forward kingpost?



...

That Oracle will now have to answer for themselves in respect to Article 60: that is a bizarre, kafkaesque predicament, or what? No-one has ever spent remotely as much money to refashion, modernize and promote the America's Cup...

And no-one ever will again!

First, Ellison allocates what might be approaching a couple hundred million dollars into the AC34; and now he's hearing there's a risk the AC Jury may impose a massive $ x-million penalty on his team, on him really, for having disgraced it.

Then again, it's possible that Ellison sees nothing much out of the ordinary about this. It probably wouldn't be the first time he's sunk a fortune into a project, that contrary to original intentions ends up losing a ton of money instead.

The last time that the tyrannosaurus rex of the ambulance-chasing profession, David Boies, made an America's Cup appearance it was his job to sermonize about Larry and Russell's allegations of Ernesto's perfidy. Someone really impressive was needed to do that.

But this time (assuming the Boies rumor is true) he's hired to extricate Oracle from treachery within the team itself.

 

It was about legal positioning of compensating weights, wasn't it? - and Stingers suggested, questioned, (he didn't know) the two positions, near main shrouds or forward king post, implied that they were close to each other ... so what difference did it make?
Actually, felt sorry for him.
I'm sure he's a good joker ... but he needs to take a break from his posting marathon and being the continuing Oracle guard dog and apologist.

 

Stingray has always had a schizoid streak that when pressed became silly or more often abusive, and currently this is more on display than usual.

During AC33 he assumed leadership of an immense pack of litigious hounds, and they never had more fun. But now these years later he's at the receiving end; the guard dog finds himself alone and more vulnerable, with attendant snarling.

The Rear Admirals at SA don't know better, or they would have intervened long ago. But they of course are much of the same cloth.

 

...

I copy the following from the AC website, since it is a most curious rule, never equalled in the history of seafaring, and crafted to be completely watertight. Or so they thought.

 

^^^

Presumably everyone else in the world would consider this Article 60 to be an example of ridiculous lawyering... except for Oracle and Sir Russell, who devised the damned thing in all seriousness, and are now confronted with it.


Can Article 60 be boiled down to 20 words or less?

The America's Cup is our business.
Saying or doing anything we deem irresponsible, unreasonable, against business interests, will be punished.

....


I think this article 60 is a heavy handed attempt to infringe the free speech of people engaged in the pastime of racing sailboats. There has never been anything like it before, because there has never before been a race format that sought to turn its voluntary entrants into subservient personnell.

It's perfectly OK to have sanctions against employees at a corporation on the other hand; if someone says or does anything you don't like then of course you can fire him.

But Article 60 is stupid. Do you know when it became part of the America's Cup protocol? It was at the end of January 2012, when Coutts was desperate to entice additional entrants into the Cup, and when he was anxious that bad publicity and statements by Dalton and Iain Murray (who'd slipped up by saying he expected only 3 teams) were making that more difficult.

...

Coutts isn't so much a sailor, as a master in the art of getting very rich and vain people to part with their money. With this implementation of Article 60 he engaged in gross overreach; and it did no good, there were no more suckers who bought into the program.

And fittingly, Article 60 has come back to bite them in the ***.

 

And yet, and yet, Blackburn, if it wasn't for Russell Coutts we wouldn't be observing the most astonishing and on edge sailing developments the AC has ever seen (and maybe will ever see again?).
That is, not knocking the '88 Stars & Stripes catamaran, also a breakthrough time - but too far ahead and hated by many. Well, I guess the same applies today ... but more a minority, crowds seem happy, just the bigots are spewing.

 

lol

I have to think that one over for a while, Coxcreek!

There is nothing so bad, as not to be good for something?

 

While we patiently wait for the Jury findings, Gogo, tell me if there is anything in this rendition below that you disagree with, based on what the jury has made public already:

All main kingposts in the fleet were checked, and only Coutts' and Spithill's were found to be longer than regulation (507mm and 509mm, v. 500 regulation).

There were spacers above the kingpost tubes of these 2 boats. Though the Jury has not given the specs of the spacers, perhaps they alone account for the differences in main kingpost length.

The class-legal top fitting spigot which inserts into the tube is 15mm. So someone who adds a 9mm spacer to the assembly will consider that only 6mm of remaining spigot in the main tube is too little, and is likely to break. Therefor the use of a spacer also led to making a new top fitting with a longer spigot.

The new illegal spigots are 80mm on both boats, in other words extending further into the main kingpost tube, a lot further than the class-legal fittings; if you are assembling something which you know is not allowed under the rules, then it might be awkward if it breaks apart, so to be on the safe side we make the spigot much longer.

The point of the whole exercise has been to lengthen the main kingpost, so that the the fixed-length cable which it holds will then be tighter. Any added strain on the cable is another reason you might want a longer spigot. That the non-class-legal top fitting you have constructed weighs a little more is a small disadvantage, compared to the advantage of having the slightly longer main kingpost, and tighter cable.

...

Now step back and admire the handiwork. Wrapped in tape the modification is extremely hard to spot, and nobody measures these components anyway since everyone knows this is, after all, the most painstakingly built one-design class of all time!

 

You said: "All main kingposts in the fleet were checked, and only Coutts' and Spithill's were found to be longer than regulation (507mm and 509mm, v. 500 regulation)."
Yes true.

You said: "There were spacers above the kingpost tubes of these 2 boats. Though the Jury has not given the specs of the spacers, perhaps they alone account for the differences in main kingpost length."
My interpretation of the words in the report & the construction analysis picture of the 'spacer,' is that the additional length is solely responsible for the increased length of 7 mm & 9 mm.

You said: "The class-legal top fitting spigot which inserts into the tube is 15mm. So someone who adds a 9mm spacer to the assembly will consider that only 6mm of remaining spigot in the main tube is too little, and is likely to break. Therefore the use of a spacer also led to making a new top fitting with a longer spigot."
I did not consider this idea. I thought they made the spigot longer because the twisting moment at the top or the spigot caused,or could have caused, real cracking or expected, cracking.

You said: "The new illegal spigots are 80mm on both boats, in other words extending further into the main kingpost tube, a lot further than the class-legal fittings; if you are assembling something which you know is not allowed under the rules, then it might be awkward if it breaks apart, so to be on the safe side we make the spigot much longer."
I didn't think that technically. I thought that OTUSA knew this was a weak design issue, i.e., a short spigot... FOR SOME REASON. I always thought that OTUSA widely believed across the team & up the management chain, that this was a BIG RELIABILITY issue.

BUT, you have a good point, if my consideration is correct. If you add the spacer you make the 'perceived" reliability issue worse, right!?

You said: "The point of the whole exercise has been to lengthen the main kingpost, so that the the fixed-length cable which it holds will then be tighter. Any added strain on the cable is another reason you might want a longer spigot. That the non-class-legal top fitting you have constructed weighs a little more is a small disadvantage, compared to the advantage of having the slightly longer main kingpost, and tighter cable.
Originally, I suspected some resonance issue & that was why they added "the lead shot bags." There are no "lead shot bags!" So the issue has come down to fixing a reliability problem with the top kingpost OR fixing a performance problem brought on by the dynamic response of the strut/cable/kingpost system.

I have been musing these last few days about what was, I believe, the real issue: "What actions would I take to fix a reliability/resonance problem without adding weight? Make the kingpost longer or the cable shorter? All this engineering is hard to do over the internet. For instance, there's nothing to be found on the natural frequency of strut--cable interconnections! LOL

You said: "Now step back and admire the handiwork. Wrapped in tape the modification is extremely hard to spot, and nobody measures these components anyway since everyone knows this is, after all, the most painstakingly built one-design class of all time!"
If you read the last column in the Appendix of the report, You will see that for Coutts #5, Spithill's #4 & ETNZ all had some, "Stifening repair / modification..." so there was, as you suggest, a lot of action around the kingpost.

But here's the problem, the cable or guy that runs under the kingpost is almost as long as the boat!!! By my eye/calculation it's ~7.7 METERS. If you want to stiffen A ~7.7 METER guy, what's another 8 mm's going to add to the cable tension & worse, if the 8 mm's is added TANGENTIALLY? That's not a lot of lengthening. Of course I could be wrong about a lot of my assumptions.

I've always been so perplexed about motivation here because, I can't find any. So it has to come down to why would you add a mere, piddling, inconsequential, 8 mm's? Because the kingpost will fail for some reason well understood by a matrix of men at OTUSA. That's the only reason I have been able to fathom.

MY POST IS FAR TOO LONG, MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT & NOT EDITING IT BECAUSE IT'S TOO LONG. LOL

Regards, good thoughtful discussion Blackburn, thanks, ggsss

 

AC45 OTUSA... Why Only 8 mm's?

I've read the August 24th Measurement Committee report more than a few times. It's likely me, but the report is almost unintelligible at times. You would think Nicholson, Ritson & de Beltran would have wanted to present themselves with more professionalism... but maybe they didn't care what the quality the rope was that they were making, they just wanted to get along with the hanging.

It's written also with a fair amount of vindictiveness. And they include a few, "herein's" just to give it a flair of legalese. Their minds were all made up! There are curious parts, however. Let me quote a few:

External reinforcement of this type is common at one or both ends of the kingpost tubes of most AC45's & could generally increase weight... External reinforcements are a permitted repair... Approval for a repair involving external reinforcement is often given verbally, & is not recorded.​

Let me speculate again on a potential scenario of what could have happened:
1. There were a lot of problems in the kingpost area, experienced by all the teams.
2. OTUSA said, "we're continually revisiting this kingpost, the insertion length is the problem."
3. OTUSA also realized that the carbon fiber tube's kerf was a source of point contact to the spigot.
4. OTUSA machined a new spigot to increase the insertion length.
5. They also add a common part, which the report calls a "C-plate spacer." Why does the report name it that?
6. They add the C-plate because they think it will better redistribute the kerf point contact stress riser action, AND...
7. OTUSA FURTHER REALIZES THAT WITH THE ADDED HEIGHT OF THE C-PLATE, THE EXTERNAL WRAPPING PURCHASE AREA WILL COMPLETELY SOLVE THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATE WITH THE KINGPOSTS. THE EXTERNAL TAPING IS A PERMITTED REPAIR BUT IT MUST GO OVER THE ENTIRE END OF THE TUBING, THE KERF DEFECT AREA, WHICH CANNOT HAPPEN WITH THE SPIGOT IN PLACE. QED?????

Some "genius" on OTUSA convinces someone, everyone, that they don't have to tell the Committee because everyone's fixing the kingposts, it's happening "everyday," & they are always given verbal permission, all the time, anyway, as is everyone else!

The "genius" argues we're not change any performance characteristics with the increased insertion length, "just let's do it & go racing."

 

What Else????

If this tempest in a teapot is any indication of what could happen in the AC45's World Series, what could possibly be going on with the Louis Vuitton or the America's Cup final itself.

An 8 mm change here, a pounds a half there... this is MINOR STUFF! What are they really doing? You should excuse the expression, but... This is just the tip of the iceberg! ROTFLMAO, LOL, Ha!

 

What Else????

Sorry For The Repeated Posts.

 

I'm really confused now.
If I'd bought a strict One-design boat specifically to do a series of events that essentially act as a qualifier to the AC, and I found that the supplied boat which I paid a large sum of money for, had some structural design or manufacturing fault, I would be all over the supplier demanding that they replace the faulty designed or built part, with one that :
a) complies with the class rule
b) fixes the problem
c) is replaced throughout the fleet, ensuring fairness.

If all teams were repairing the kingposts that indicates that they were poorly designed or built. The AC circus management should have recalled all kingposts and replaced them with a more robust solution, so that no teams should have had to fiddle with them. They are not a high wear part, or a moving part, or something the crew would be bashing into regularly.

Further, if the AC45 is indeed such a strict OD class, then in hindsight they should have had the boat supplier do all the repairs to the boats when damaged, to ensure conformity with the class specs, or have a representative oversee the repairs in the very least.
Allowing such clever engineers in each team to manage their own "repairs" can be a dangerous thing, it seems.

 

^^^

Whatever we say today Gogo, will likely be obsolete tomorrow when the Jury hopefully can bring more clarity to this. So I'm doing some household repairs while it's more sensible!

lol

The expression 'Tip of the iceberg' was used by SA's Monster Mash a week ago, and he's been one of the contributors who has seemed genuinely inquisitive, spent much time collecting info and photos, making friends on the teams, etc. It's a very few people like him who make worthwhile news on SA, on occasion.

Tip of the iceberg

...

In all the reams of commentary re. the cheating story, there's been a lot of talk of sloppiness, stupidity, forgetfulness, ignorance of the rules etc.

That doesn't square at all with my own encounters with elite professional sailors, builders and shore teams. In my experience they are incredibly meticulous, knowledgeable, and constantly active in optimizing whatever they can. If you are in a boat with them they will make you feel like a lazy schlepp in five minutes, and even more so over several days.

So I'm not inclined to underrate or underestimate whoever is responsible for what we've heard about, so far.

...

^ You don't sound confused, Steve. You just sound honest!