Cheating in AC?

OK, so now the TV people have to explain to an already bemused audience that one boat will have to win 11 races and the other boat 9, because they added a bit of carbon to a boat which isn't out racing here. And no, it isn't like the match racing world cup. The previous series results have nothing to do with the results from this series, it is a stand alone event, whatever the paperwork says.

I was very keen to see what was going to happen in this version of the cup a couple of years ago, but my interest has waned as time has gone on, and things like this (however clear they are in the rules) threaten to switch me off completely.

Originally posted by Contender443 Originally posted by Rupert OK, so now the TV people have to explain to an already bemused audience that one boat will have to win 11 races and the other boat 9, because they added a bit of carbon to a boat which isn't out racing here. And no, it isn't like the match racing world cup. The previous series results have nothing to do with the results from this series, it is a stand alone event, whatever the paperwork says. I was very keen to see what was going to happen in this version of the cup a couple of years ago, but my interest has waned as time has gone on, and things like this (however clear they are in the rules) threaten to switch me off completely. Why are bemused as it is exactly the same as a football team being docked 9 points (or whatever it is) for going into administration. That is a penalty against the playing team for something that is not related to what happened on the pitch.

Never got that, either. But it is more like the 1st team being docked points because one of their players when playing for the 2nd team (possibly deliberately) wore studs that were too long.

Are the people complaining that JS is too aggressive the same people who complained that NO wasn't aggressive enough on Artemis? Although it seems to me that he needs be slightly further away and more overlapped at the start or he's never going to be giving them room to keep clear. Equally a bigger overlap might help prevent them sailing over the top at the start.
But then it's easy for me to say that from here... I reckon when they are barely moving in the prestart they are probably still going faster than I ever have in a sailing boat...

Originally posted by Rupert I can't see the event being that close - though I have no idea which team will be faster, just seems unlikely that with all the changes and new stuff they will be even - so I doubt the 2 race penalty will have bearing on the end result. Mind, with my track record of prediction, stand by for it being 8 all...

Still I am perplexed, incredulous even. Perhaps this is because I am looking from years of experience. And for me the issue is of huge significance. There seems to be a concerted effort to avoid looking like sore losers and show what good sports we are by accepting the loss of America's Cup with dignity and moving on. Highly commendable if all reasonable issues relating to the Rules (Ref:1) are settled and accepted. Taking on the Likes of Oracle or the Measuring Committee would be a daunting and expensive effort. But what if there really is a breach? What if ETNZ were not in a position to pursue this, but have to say something like "we have to trust the Measurers", even though there were apparent transgressions? I do not want to detract from the innovative and legitimate changes Oracle made. Just investigate the dubious. Consider the following please: Prior to racing there were discussions relating to foil control operation. ETNZ, Oracle, and Prada and Artemis were involved in writing the rules so everyone had a level playing field. Oracle  wanted to be able to use an automated foil system. Prada objected strongly to this as it would have been prohibitively expensive. As a result, part of AC Rule Vs 1.1 19.c was written to specify and clarify what was OK and what was not regarding control of daggerboards. This was written by someone who understood control systems. To prevent "closed loop control", (Ref 2) i.e direct input from sensors or electronics to the daggerboard system NOT ALLOWED. Sensors and electronics had to be isolated and not connected and physically separate. It is this difference, being able to connect sensors or electronics directly to daggerboard control that is at issue. It was specifically this that was not allowed by the Rule. The article on A19/A20 of the Weekend  Herald  does nothing to put my mind at ease.  In fact it increases my suspicion that Oracle may have breached this Rule with the co-operation of the Measurers. The description in Herald under "Daggerboard Adjustment", vague as it is, says "electro-mechanical device used to open and close a hydraulic valve". And further, the Measurement Committee gave Oracle permission to use an electro-mechanical actuator to move a valve".  Was this on/off control , or modulating? Was the electro-mechanical device a positioner? If so it is a closed loop control system itself. Shifting the feedback from outside the foil control to inside  would be a breach also. Where did the electrical signal come from to operate this? If from  a sensor or electronics it is a breach. If it was a simpler I/P actuator, where was the electrical signal coming from? Mr Kramer can say "there is no computer driving any surface at all",  as a sensor is not a computer, nor is a positioner. The issue is the difference between open and closed loop control systems. No feedback from sensors or electronics allowed. As an old Automation and Control Engineer, with some sailing experience, I remain convinced there was use of closed loop control. Nothing else explains to me how those foils moved so accurately and at a frequency that was to quick for direct human operation. Remember the first mark in last race? Spithill pulled hard to port in attempt to enter circle with overlap. Oracle, on a reach,  fell off foils  at high speed and buried bows. Then popped up again as if by magic. It was not due to buoyancy, so how did that happen? Superhuman foil adjustment? No use of sensor feedback or stored energy? Remember the limits on stored energy forbid its use to do significant work. Then rounding mark 3 from upwind to downwind gybe, (a difficult manoeuvre that saw ETNZ bury bows once,) Oracle was on rails. Ride height, pitch, roll all too perfect.  I would also want to look at possible  daggerboard bearing adjustment . So as Dennis Connor once said, if your not cheating , show us. Then we had to take a core sample on a boat already passed by Measurers. The non compliance of Oracle's AC 45 Cats was not discovered until after racing finished. How does a stability control system work in manual without feedback? How do foils move so fast and accurate without stored energy and a positioner? Come on Oracle, let the Cat out of the bag. Show us you did it fair and square. Until then I remain sceptical, sorry. Ref:(1) AC 72 Class rule Vs 1.1.19.1 (specifies no significant work is allowed to be done by stored energy) AC 72 Class Rule Vs 1.1.19.2 e.  (specifies no connection to daggerboard system (and others) by sensors or electronics) The effect of these is to not allow stored energy for foil control, (has to come from crew directly), and not allow  direct feedback from sensors or electronics, (has to come via crew) . Ref(2)Open/ Closed Loop control, Wikipedia, or ANSI,(American National Standards Institute), or ISA, (International Society of Automation*