34th America's Cup: multihulls!

[Earl Boebert]

Well, here's the way I see it:

Assuming that our collective reverse engineering is correct, we have a device that operates according to the following logic:

There are a discrete set of AOA set points and a "gearshift" to select one. Moving the gearshift to a new setting has no effect until the grinders pressure up the hydraulics. At that point an internal feedback loop moves the foil to the new AOA setting and then stops.

So far, so good.

Now the question which remains unanswered in my mind is: how does the device react (if at all) to an uncommanded change in AOA, i.e. from wave action or some other external force on the foil? I see three options:

1. The foil is somehow locked in position, uncommanded change in AOA is not possible. No issues.

2. The device only reacts to a deviation between actual AOA and set point when a "new" set point moves relative to AOA, and ignores cases when the AOA moves relative to an existing set point. No issues.

3. If there is an uncommanded movement of the AOA, the next time the hydraulics are powered up the device moves the AOA back to where it was, equal to to the set point. This gets iffy, because now we have a feedback loop responding to a variable that has been influenced by the outside world.

As a practical matter, the rule is so sloppily written ("automatic" as in pistol, transmission, or elevator?) that there exist no grounds to argue with the decision of the measurers. They said it's OK, so it's OK, end of story.

As far as the artful dodging of the Oracle team goes, the PR crew in this event have been flatfooted from the start so there really is no meaningful conclusion that can be drawn from their manifest contempt for the intelligence of the public.

Cheers,

Earl

 

[xarax]

Your comments are ill-informed pure speculation. You are impugning the character of Spithill, Ellison and the whole team based on ZERO evidence.

I wait patiently to you and all the other well-informed members of the synchronized choir here - who are sooo sure about what they claim because they were allowed to see inside the boat ( I, for one, had not... ) - to enlighten us, the poor mortals, by presenting some evidence for the contrary... Till then, I can not but be and remain ill-informed, AS EVERYBODY ELSE ! I have not seen ONE picture, or, for that matter, I had not read not even ONE clear statement that there was no foil control system used ! "We had not used stored energy" ( first line of defence ), " We had not used computers" ( second line of defence), "We had used nothing illegal, we have been measured all the time"( third line of defence ), We had not used SAS or Herbies" ( but we do not say WHAT we HAD used...), "All we had used is hard work" - meaning that TNZ were just lazy dogs, so they should had expected they will lose... "Our boat was suddenly transformed, from a rocking chair into a train, and gained one minute upwind " because, miraculously, all the ingredients of US Oracle s win were synchronized in one day, and, by sheer co-incidence, this day happened to be the day after the score was 8-1 ! If all the money Oracle and Ellison had made were from sales of products of such high quality, they would had sailed the AC in Optimists, at best...

The character of "Spithil, Ellison and the whole team" ( I would nt include Ellison to the team, but let us leave this aside for the time being...) was not "impugned" by me, of course - it was questioned by the impugning actions of some of the members of the team during the cheating scandal - which I had never mentioned before, because I did not believe it was related to the issue. However, I can see now that only a certain guilt "Spithil, Ellison and the whole team" feel, would be able to explain their present behaviour ! They probably fear that, if they will reveal the details of the foil stabilizing mechanism they had used, they would be condemned, somehow, that they had cheated, as before ... and this is the last thing the marketing department of Oracle wishes !

You're making a pitiful *** of yourself.

Contrary to what some "enlightened" members in this forum did to my post, ( and I expect them to continue to do it, because, evidently, they are so desperate...), I would not fall so low as to ask the intervention of the moderator. I do not feel I need any help, my reasoning is crystal clear, I am not fan of anybody, neither do I have any special interest, financial or other, to say something I do not believe. I am not hiding myself or anything else behind anybody, I can deal with such "polite"(sic) comments which are "about ideas, and do not degrade..."(sic) without any censorship on what other people write !

 

[troy2000]

Xarax, you don't get to make wild, unsupported accusations and claim it's our job to prove you're wrong, instead of you having to prove you're right. Unless your real name is Erich Anton Paul von Dänik

 

[troy2000]

Well, IMHO Xarax didn't say anything about "illegal" - he is just pointing at the sudden recovery of Team USA and doesn't believe that a usually gradual improvement in boat handling due to "hard work is sufficient to explain this. So, in his opinion (and not without reason), it must some technical improvement on the boat to achieve this.
It's just like in every other sport: if someone comes back from a training session and pulverises his former results in a miraculous way, people start wondering how this was achieved... .

He's claiming that Oracle used some sort of magic device, that if not actually illegal was so unsporting they're ashamed to admit it exists. He offers no proof at all, aside from simply refusing to believe that anything else could possibly explain Oracle's win.

Again: it's his job to support his accusations with real evidence instead of unsupported speculation, not ours to prove him wrong.

 

[xarax]

3. If there is an uncommanded movement of the AOA, the next time the hydraulics are powered up the device moves the AOA back to where it was, equal to to the set point. This gets iffy, because now we have a feedback loop responding to a variable that has been influenced by the outside world.

Hmmm, the existence of a feedback loop itself is not the only thing that separates a truly "direct" and "manual" control system ( as the rudder is, for example ), from a less or more automatic one, I am afraid. One can argue that even a humble safety belt incorporates such a feedback loop, because it locks only if and when it is fed by a certain kind of input, and not by any input - the sudden deceleration of the car, then the acceleration of the body and the set in motion of the centrifugal brake inside the mechanism of the belt.
The mere "blind" intervention by the human hand of a puppet sailor at the very end of the mechanism is also not able to really transform a closed hydraulic circuit, or a closed "loop" of control instructions, and enable it to be considered as "open" or "linear" / "direct". A mechanism where whatever the trimmer-"button pusher" does could had been replaced by just some more servos, valves and relays, can still be and remain automatic or not - the presence of a human hand by itself can not alter its character.
The rule has been "sloppily written", indeed, but how else could it be ? How one can draw the line, and define what is "direct" and "manual", and uses the power provided by the grinders only to multiply the power of the muscles of the trimmer, and what is "semi-automatic", a system of even most simple servos and relays which is nevertheless able to alter what the trimmer would had chosen was he not there ? One of the first "computers" was made by a Meccano toy set - what I keep saying is that I do not believe we can define where a complex "manual" mechanism made from many interconnected levels and valves stops, and a simple more or less automatic mechanism begins - and write a rule that prohibits the any automation ( if we chose to do so ).

 

[xarax]

...instead of you having to prove you're right.

HOW ? This complex thought has not penetrated your hat yet... - to say nothing for your "second line of defence" underneath it.
Will "Spithil, Ellison and the whole team" allow ANYBODY to have a look inside the boat, EVER ? If they will do it, and when they will do it, give me a call !

 

[upchurchmr]

I'm in support of Troy in this case.

Just cause you don't understand the workings of a piece of technology that was developed by a group at tremendous cost, does not mean you should have access to it.

Nor anyone else, except the measurers, and they should have agreed to keep it secret.

You might as well ask the winning Forumal 1 team to show you all their secrets (or any other racing team).

When will you trot out the rest of the conspiracy theory? The measurers are in on it too!

Theories are real easy to spout without facts. They can even sound good until you get a useful fact. I've been guilty of it myself. Shame on me.

Xarax - do you have any actual connection to the AC? Actual knowledge?

 

[champ0815]

Just cause you don't understand the workings of a piece of technology that was developed by a group at tremendous cost, does not mean you should have access to it.

The only thing some people in this forum want to understand is how this tremendous costly piece of technology failed in almost every race before on certain points of sail and then, suddenly, like they have finally found the instruction manual, removed the braking parachute (or sea anchor) and sailed away.
However, the guy who found the manual in the bilge of the boat found it at a very suitable moment... .

 

[Earl Boebert]

Oh, and for the record, I think that control system design should be unrestricted, both for safety's sake and because of the difficulty noted above of defining "manual" and "automatic." If you are going to race go-fast flying machines, deliberately introducing unknown risk by crippling control mechanisms is beyond stupid.

Cheers,

Earl

 

[troy2000]

HOW ? This complex thought has not penetrated your hat yet... - to say nothing for your "second line of defence" underneath it.
Will "Spithil, Ellison and the whole team" allow ANYBODY to have a look inside the boat, EVER ? If they will do it, and when they will do it, give me a call !

They're under no obligation whatsoever to do so, just to satisfy you. And you wouldn't believe them anyway; you'd claim they hid the evidence of what they really used. You remind me of the birthers who kept demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, then immediately declared it a fake when he produced it.

Oracle allowed the measurers to look inside the boat on a regular basis. When you become one, you can demand to have a look too.

 

[troy2000]

The only thing some people in this forum want to understand is how this tremendous costly piece of technology failed in almost every race before on certain points of sail and then, suddenly, like they have finally found the instruction manual, removed the braking parachute (or sea anchor) and sailed away.
However, the guy who found the manual in the bilge of the boat found it at a very suitable moment... .

It was hardly 'failing' in the earlier races; it was the second fastest boat around.

And you've never seen anyone find the sweet spot when operating something, and start getting more out of it? It seems to me they learned some things about sailing the boat (like letting it run a little bow down when it wanted to, instead of fighting to bring the nose up level), made a few physical and mechanical tweaks, and things just gelled. There doesn't have to be a magic wand or secret device for that to happen...

 

[El_Guero]

They're under no obligation whatsoever to do so, just to satisfy you. And you wouldn't believe them anyway; you'd claim they hid the evidence of what they really used. You remind me of the birthers who kept demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, then immediately declared it a fake when he produced it.

Oracle allowed the measurers to look inside the boat on a regular basis. When you become one, you can demand to have a look too.

Just when I was agreeing with everything Troy wrote, he had to go and become a tea bagger on us ....

 

[xarax]

Xarax - do you have any actual connection to the AC ? Actual knowledge?

As much as you do, I suppose... - but you believe in every piece of "information" ( of propaganda quality...) which is offered / fabricated by the professional ( = paid = $ $ $ . $ $ $ ) members of this team, and/or their fanatic fans - even if it makes no sense, or it is really naïve ( "hard work" ... ), and even if it is not based in any concrete evidence that could well have been provided by them, if they had really wished to be "crystal clear"(sic) as they claim they are - while I do not. Am I free to believe something that is not contradictory to the facts, or not ? Is there any secret paragraph of the AC72rules, or of this Forum s rules, that prohibits this, I wonder... I have not seen much "good sportsmanship" in any instant before, during or after this AC, and, in any case, I have not seen more "good sportsmanship" than in most previous cups ! On the contrary, I should say....

There were those drawings of a mechanism that was supposed to correspond to what the measurers had seen, and I had said my opinion about it. Nobody of the fanatic fans can deny that this mechanism does NOT describe a "direct","manual" foil adjusting and controlling system, that is only "power assisted" by the grinders, and it is not self-adjusting in a more or less automatic way, by the reaction of the foils themselves to the motion of the elements and of the boat. Nobody was able to convince me that it is just a mechanism of a "power-assisted" "foil rudder", so to speak. The only things they were able to pronounce were that this mechanism was not using "stored energy" - but it was using the energy that was produced by the grinders -, that it was not an "electronic computer" - but it could well have been a mechanical one - and that it was not "illegal" by the AC72 rules - but it will better be prohibited by the rules of the next Cup, so we do not see robo-sailboats raced by puppet, decorative sailors, comfortably sitting on on-board armchairs...

 

[El_Guero]

Well the fact is simple, an international team of sailors beat an international team of sailors.

So, 7 or 8 kiwis were on the 'American' team, I think there was only one American on the 'American' team. 2 Dutch, 1 French, even a couple of Auzzies, and other nationalities.

Therefore, if you cannot find a nationality on the 'American' team to root for, you are just being a troll.

And if you look at the series, New Zealand (ETNZ)never had a command of Oracle. 3-1,3-2,2-8 ETNZ is in bold. They were about 50-50 until Oracle got their groove.

So, had ETNZ gotten their groove, would you have challenged their win. Did you challenge their win? If not, you are not being fair to your Kiwi team (America) as they did an outstanding job, just like their country men, team ETNZ.

wayne

 

[troy2000]

Well the fact is simple, an international team of sailors beat an international team of sailors.

So, 7 or 8 kiwis were on the 'American' team, I think there was only one American on the 'American' team. 2 Dutch, 1 French, even a couple of Auzzies, and other nationalities.

Therefore, if you cannot find a nationality on the 'American' team to root for, you are just being a troll.

And if you look at the series, New Zealand (ETNZ)never had a command of Oracle. 3-1,3-2,2-8 ETNZ is in bold. They were about 50-50 until Oracle got their groove.

So, had ETNZ gotten their groove, would you have challenged their win. Did you challenge their win? If not, you are not being fair to your Kiwi team (America) as they did an outstanding job, just like their country men, team ETNZ.

wayne

Yeah. I'm not hung up on the nationalities involved; I'd have been just as impressed had the other team reeled off a string of victories instead. I think they hit their stride and started getting the most out of their boat earlier; it's just that eventually there was more to be gotten out of Oracle's boat.