35th America's Cup

Damn you philip! ;-). I really didn't want to get into this but this is really interesting stuff:

So, #6, I think they're basically looking to see if they can use a pressure sensor to shift gears on the cyclists stations (assuming this was TNZ). The pressure sensor would read the hydraulic pressure that they've accumulated and adjust the gearing on the bikes accordingly. Higher pressures, lower gears. In addition, by using that pressure sensor to directly control flow from one or more accumulators, they can stage the accumulators so some are automatically low pressure accumulators and some are high. I've often wondered if they run two (or more) hydraulic pressure systems on the boat...some motions need low pressure high volume of flow and other need high pressure low volume flow. It would SUCK to be peddling like hell to get the tippy-top of pressure built up in the accumulator but then lose all that pressure with a big vertical board motion that took a ton of oil but didn't really need much pressure. The measurement committee basically said that any gear shifting had to be performed manually and referred back to 15.1 that does allow for some automatic pressure control devices - but it's limited to a few specific device types.

#70 is complicated and fascinating. What a terrific and clear response by the measurement team too. It basically says the earlier suggestion of having a tablet with dots moving on it and an operator just following those dots is ILLEGAL. The feedback systems and the control systems have to be physically AND electrically isolated and that is not isolated. It does say that they could have TWO tablets with one above showing the correct position for the fingers and the operator touching a second tablet in response to what the first one was telling him - but they could not be on the same device.

#72 is similar to #70 but is fishing for the exact level of what is considered

manual input

. The measurement committee again had a very clear response and drew the line at attaching electrodes to peoples hands and having the computer shock them to make involuntary finger movements to push buttons....seriously. That was one of the questions. 😉

I really don't think there are any magic bullets in there except that #70 actually says the

follow the dot

thing that was suggested that Ashby was doing is clearly NOT permitted. The data systems and control systems are required to be clearly labeled and completely isolated from each other. It looks like a solid approach to keep computers from driving the boats.

Jake, only an automations person would call that manually controlled (speaking from experience here too). That will never pass the sniff test for Joe Six Pack, let alone the average sailor of sheet-controlled boats (99.99999+% of the world).

Not saying it's illegal (any more than the fossil-fueled engines from a few regattas back), but is really stretching what sailing means to most people. Foiling is one thing, using computer-aided motors is something else entirely.

Mike

[quote=Will_R] Like Outterideg, he's also been the Moth world champion; those boats are more like a cat than a mono.
/quote]I think you're right about the fact that the best sailors can normally pick up skills like apparent wind sailing. It's also arguable that the common implication that there is

apparent wind sailing

and

the other sailing

is overdone. Even in Lasers people like Tom and Ben are working wind pressure a lot, even when they are just playing around in big breeze. Tom is also a keen windsurfer so he's used to going downwind faster than most cats a fair amount of the time.

Although my experience in foilers is very limited it's hard to agree that Moths are closer to cats than they are to fast monos. How many cats fall over instantly if you're not actively sailing them? How many cats heel to windward? How many fast cats have that sort of mast bend, massive vang tension, and no mast rotation? How many fast cats are sailed when hiking and with that level of mainsheet input?

The foiling Moth feels closer to a foiling Laser or International Canoe than it does to a cat, from my very limited experience.

Has the AC always favoured the in-crowd? Eons ago they pulled in people like Charlie Barr (a Scot) to drive defenders. The French pulled in Elvstrom in the '60s (although he dropped out due to nationality issues). Ted Turner came in from the wrong sort of boat and the wrong part of the country. Dennis Connor was a blow-in from California Star sailing. The second Endeavour challenge had a bunch of dinghy sailors. The second British 12 Metre challenge had a dinghy sailor driving. Ben Lexcen was an outsider in design terms, as was Bond. Key guys in Aus 2 like Grant Simmer were not even in the 'in crowd' in Sydney dinghy sailing.

In the early days multihull experts like Loick Peyron were called in - his team got last first time around. This time one of the world's great sailors, Cammas, got last in the ACWS on ONE DESIGN boats and last in the real AC. In the ACWS, when there was no design advantage because the boats were one design, the result was the same as it was in the cats last time around - teams with backgrounds in Etchells, Lasers and Finns dominated. That's only to be expected in some ways - monos make up about 95% of the racing scene, and slower monos like Etchells, Lasers and Finns make up a very big proportion of the rest. It's only logical that the type that has by far the largest pool of sailors will end up with the largest pool of talent.

It was interesting that when the AC was moved to foiling cats, people like Outteridge, Slingsby and Burling got into cats and/or foilers. Tom is apparently too heavy to keep up downwind in Moths, but he did very well upwind. Maybe the lesson to be learned is that good sailors can move from one extreme to the other pretty easily, and that if multihull sailors want to be asked into the afterguard of AC boats they should also do some cross-training to show how good they are?

I didn't spell this out very well but when I mentioned earlier the lack of using multihull (or boats that sail strictly on apparent-wind - like the moth) familiar sailors, I was talking mostly about Oracle & Alinghi. I was also talking about AC33 - the point at which they switched to mulithulls and stuck with their traditional AC crowd. Certainly there has been some influx of skilled life-long apparent-wind sailors and yes, definitely, the more traditional sailors are capable of, and have, adapted. Most big name French sailors ARE multihull sailors so that makes sense that teams derived in France would turn to guys like Loick (my favorite!) and Cammas. Oracle did invoke Melvin & Morrelli to assist with the boat design in AC33 but let them go (or was it just Melvin?) shortly after they helped develop the rules for AC34. New Zealand wisely snatched up Pete Melvin shortly after that and he played a sizable role in their foiling development.

What we HAVE seen, though, in AC33, AC34 we saw some wrong application of monohull tactics in multihull sailing and we saw some multihull handling mistakes than many of us made when we first started sailing multihulls (but, notably, I don't recall seeing Groupama making any of these types of errors). We've still seen a little bit of this in AC35 but not nearly as much - they are mostly past the inexperience curve.

My point is, the main AC teams in AC33 and AC34 discounted multihull experience and stuck with their in-crowd. As far as the in-crowd, yes, DEFINTELY, they are stuck as the in-crowd. Ted Turner had to practically beat, scream, pay, and yell his way onto the helm of an AC campaign and if you judge one single fact alone, just look at the number of Australian and New Zealander sailors that make up practically every team. Yes, there is still a good bit of an in-crowd going on.

THIS is my biggest concern when taking monohull sailors and putting them into major multihull regattas (AC, Olympics, etc.). There are VERY, VERY few people who can successfully make this transition.

I won't speak for Jake, but when I hear a comparison of monos to cats, I think the folks with the best (only?) chance are apparent-wind sailors (49ers, Foiling Moths, etc.). As Garda mentioned, it's not so much about boat handling, but IMHO is all about race strategy and tactics.

EDIT: I'm certainly NOT saying that smart monohull sailors can't learn this, it just takes a long time. How long depends on a lot of factors, but I'd measure it in cycles rather than months or even years.

Mike

I totally agree Mike. As far as tactics go lately, the splits that Oracle have been doing at the bottom of the course on the first transition from downwind to upwind are either old-school monohull thinking or knowledgeable desperation. Either way, I don't think there is any situation where I would want to split from my competition if I'm within 1 boat length of them rounding the bottom of the course on the first upwind leg of a relatively long race. This is a habit that has taken me a long time to build and it serves me well - basically, it requires managing my panic - managing my strategic risk. At the speeds THESE boats can achieve, you only need the smallest opportunity to pass. Additionally while in the lead on a boat as efficient through the wind, you can't physically hold a boat behind you like you could with the AC monohulls. You hold a boat down on faster-than-wind boats by making sure you have as good or better pressure and angle and sail higher faster. Oracle was either making panicked, ill-advised, strategy decision from the outset of races 3 and 4 (I didn't see 1 and 2) or they knew they had a major upwind speed deficit and just started rolling the dice at the beginning.

I know I'm heavy in arm-chair-skipper mode here, and, admittedly, I've most certainly never made any money sailing... but even with a known speed deficit and sailing from behind, I would work hard to keep myself in as close touch with the opponent boat to see what we can figure out to deal with our speed problem or stay tight to capitalize on a mistake. If nothing else, the data that you can record while sailing in tight quarters with your opponent can help define exactly how much of a problem you need to overcome. The data you record while sailing on opposite sides of the course from your competitor isn't quite as sound since the wind and water differences start to get less predictable between the boat conditions.

In old school monohulls, passing was harder. The splits were more strategically sound because you will likely tack several more times upwind and you have a chance to try and manipulate the timing that your opponent tacks to cover so that you can work the wind phase in your advantage. With only three or four tacks upwind now, and going from edge to edge of the course during those tacks, being in phase with the wind is critical. I really think they should round the bottom of the course with the best chance to be and stay in phase with the wind ~almost~ regardless of what the competition is doing. Anticipating shifts just a little better than your opponent (who is placing a good deal of his focus on you) is not too hard to do and very solid gains are available.

It's very unlikely that any of these teams are going to pick the wrong side of the course when given their preference. I probably would NOT allow them to choose first what side of the course they want and then take the longer way to get to wherever my opponent didn't want to go. That smells like almost certain death...aka, taking a flyer. Flyers are the equivalent to an American Football hail mary, and when have you ever seen a team try a hail mary (the kind where everybody bunches up at the longest point the QB can throw the ball) when they first get possession? It hardly ever happens - and for good reason. It's poor risk management EVEN IF you expect that your chances to win are low at the outset of the match.

I would agree with you Jake. Splitting the course hasn't shown to be very effective in most of the round robin or semi-final matches.

If I recall, the few times it did work was because one side was favored after a wind shift and the leading boat had picked the wrong side.

So, if it is true that Oracle didn't have the speed to drive up and over NZL, perhaps your right that Spithill should have stayed right on NZL and tried to rattle their cage or force an error.

Dropping off the foil, dipping the windward hull, or any number of smaller tweaks could have cost NZL the lead if USA was sitting right there to capitalize, rather than on the other side of the course.

Heck, seeing the (albeit few) gaffs NZL pulled and how quickly leads changed (against SWE and USA) I think splitting the course just doesn't make as much sense anymore...

Well the guy who is calling the splits is a world-class

apparent wind

sailor - 7th in one Moth worlds, a heat win and a bunch of seconds (and lots of broken kit) in 2015. He's got top 3 in heats in the A Class worlds but is too heavy for the class (IIRC). And the guy steering the boat into the splits was 6th in the A Class worlds and has been extremely competitive against guys of the quality of Steve Brewin and Outteridge in other regattas.

If they are so cr*p and

old school

tactically then how did they do well in the worlds against those who specialise in Moths and A Class?

If the tactician was influenced by his

old school mono thinking

then he'd do the usual thing that Laser sailors do, and stick with the opposition. By the way, you may find that saying

not too hard

to pick shifts better than Ashby and Burling is incorrect.

Yes, sticking with the opposition while you try to analyse the speed deficit is one option. These guys are so good, and have so many people off the boat watching them and recording stuff, that it's understandable that they take a different choice. It's also much, much harder to get leverage on a very tight course if you don't split at the leeward gate.

I can't see how the number of Aussies and Kiwis in the AC is proof of the

in team

issue. How are a guy from a litle lake in inland Australia and a guy from a small-boat club in a mining suburb somewhere on the Australia coast part of the

in team

??????

Santiago Lange went from 9th in the 1996 Olympics in a Laser to 10th in the 2000 Games in a Tornado and then to medals. Fernando Leon was 4th in 470s at the 1992 Olympics, 6th in the Olympic keelboat in 1996, and won Gold in Olympic cat in 2000. So people from

old school mono

classes can get into apparent wind classes and do as well or do better than they used to within a cycle.

As noted, if people using

wrong tactics

could get 6th and 7th in the Moth and A Class worlds (which Spithill and Slingsby have done) then the Moth and A Class guys must be pretty bad. Personally I reckon the top A Class guys and Moth guys are fantastic, and therefore the people who can get up with them must not be using

wrong tactics

.

Spithill was as high as 4th in the 2008 Australian A Class titles and 6th in the worlds in 2009, before AC33 was sailed. That's hardly the effort of someone who was going to go on and make multihull rookie mistakes.

I'm not saying they don't know what they're doing. I'm also not saying they don't know a lot more than me and maybe they had some magic plan (that clearly didn't work out - repeatedly). I've clarified that I don't get paid to sail. But, for the sake of discussion, I just don't see how that split helped Oracle at all. I understand leverage - but that only works if you are sailing into better wind and/or better angle for a shorter distance. They were not AND they sailed a longer path to get there. Professionals are capable of making mistakes.

As far as the

in-crowd

goes...Aussies and New Zealand sailors became the hot ticket item when the cup was finally taken from the US. I use the team nationality makeup as an example of the

in-crowd

mentality because there are a lot of good and great sailors from other nations but the perception has been that you need to have a New Zealand or Australian sailors on your team to be competitive. You generally need to either start your own team, or have an OUTSTANDING resume to get a roll on teams compromised from

little lake in inland Australia and a guy from a small-boat club in a mining suburb somewhere on the Australia coast

You are basically making my point for me in this regard. A guy in a little inland lake in Australia can make it but that generally doesn't happen from other countries.

I'm not bitter - it's not like I ever tried to get on a team or anything...but there is definitely an in-crowd that teams like to depend on for cup sailors - otherwise, it wouldn't be as difficult to have some sort of nationality requirement for some percentage of the team.

I'm not going as far as to say that, but fleet racing and match racing could be considered different disciplines.

It has been said that two-boat tactics in a fleet race are quite slow. Splitting with your opponent in a match race could be death, too.

All of these folk are at the pointy end of (any) fleet which justifies why they were picked for the AC campaign and can adapt/interpret very quickly.

If your boat was ever so slightly slower than the other boat, would you risk splitting the course on the chance the leading boat picked the wrong side of the course? Even if this meant an extra set of tacks/gybes which we all know costs several boatlengths (possibly more in AC boats)?

That's a gamble these teams have to make. In some cases, I think they'd have a hard time explaining to management why they didn't split (since I assume the management/coaches are

old school

match racers as well?).

But these new boats certainly call for new match racing tactics. How can you pressure the other team into a mistake... a mistake being dipping the windward hull or dropping off a foiling tack, or even having to point higher than the optimal angle for that team's foil package?

I noticed that the hunting maneuvers did seem to be more effective than I would have originally thought due to the speeds involved...

Seeing SWE drive all over NZL on many of the starts brought it home that new match racing tactics had to be employed... Simple things like off-wind starting lines all the way to complex things like different foils on each side of the boat to capitalize on that first/last reaching leg.

If NZL doesn't build fluid pressure as quickly, maybe USA needs to force them to make multiple maneuvers in the hopes that they'll drop off the foil.

Your Majesty, there is no second.

In the AC or Olympics, if you don't win, you're not a success. Period. Harsh? Sure, but it's reality. Top 10 is not winning, it's a list of the top nine teams that lost.

I have no problem with the splitting (unless it's complete desperation), but if not well planned, results in poorly executed (and extra) maneuvers, which is a horrific idea in fast boats that turn slowly.

Am I a world-class sailor? No. But I'm friends with more than a few, and have seen first-hand that extra tacks or gybes rarely work out on cats, and leebowing is a concept that is a complete joke on a catamaran. Anyone who tries it (leebowing) should be immediately removed from the course, along with the tactician and anyone else responsible for the decision, and never allowed back on a cat. Ever.

Mike

Ahh...I meant to bring up NZ hydraulics earlier too. I hope we get a full technical breakdown of the boats at some point but I doubt we'll ever be left with more than our own conjecture based on some limited guesswork.

NZ should have more capacity to generate hydraulic pressure with their pedaling stations vs. the hand crank grinding stations. However, we have seen them have hydraulic power limitations at least as much as the other teams...which means, either they're not generating more power with the biking stations or they're using more hydraulic power than the average team. Given that they've even elected for a push-button hydraulic mainsheet system over the hydraulic powered drum winch, they probably elected to have more hydraulic controls throughout their wing than the others...and knowing that this was on the table, went with the bike stations so they could have a chance to keep up with that hydraulic demand. I think Ashby has more detailed control of the wing than other teams and that it consumes a good deal of hydraulic power....or, possibly, their ride height system moves more giving them better control on their side grip upwind while consuming more stored energy.

Man, what I would give for an hour alone with either boat with the wing skin off and hatches open ;-).

I think you're right that they may have more hydraulic demand on NZL.

Your earlier point about the cyclors having free hands to adjust things seems to me as a key strategy so you can designate people certain tasks rather than have one or two folks control all that while they are trying to get their head out of the boat and watch strategy, wind, etc.

Did you all watch the Red Bull Youth AC races?

Was that last mark on last race (Day 2, Race 6) the most unbelievable regatta finish ever?

And the cameras missed most of it.

It was epic. Sorry I forgot to post the link. Here it is for replay.

There was some rumor circulating that the rear cyclor had twist handle grips to control the flight height of the boat...I'm not sure about that. After reading several of the rule clarifications, I suspect he has a gear ratio control for the group of cyclors there. One of the requests specifically asked about an automatic gear change system based on hydraulic pressure and the measurement committee said that any gear change had to be manual. While they can probably do some simple tasks, their heads are mostly down and they're really cranking out the energy - I don't think they can really do much else.

I don't think any top sailor I know really has that attitude. In fact if you do have that attitude what does it say about all of us. Everyone is a failure by that standard.

The point is that you don't get 6th or 7th in a world title in a significant class like As or Moths by being crappy at tactics and making lots of mistakes. It can also be said that foiling cats are tacking faster than seahuggers and that it could be

old school seahugger tactics

to be too concerned about an extra tack.

We could either learn from these experts or sit back and say that they are getting it all wrong and that we are much smarter than they are. Surely the former is more logical and useful.

One of the cyclors confirmed that he controls the foils from his handlebars.
In some of the racing footage you can also see that they do not all output the same amount of power, the guy doing the foils doesn't go into the red like the other guys do.

wow. Crazy finish! Thanks for sharing link PM. The youth teams are such much fun to watch because they make so many mistakes!

Which brings up a point of our earlier rules discussion. 10 seconds (or any set reasonable time) would not have been adequate for penalizing the swiss. Having them get behind the German boat was probably a fair penalty there...and a good example of when to sail clean...Germany could have aborted their rounding, spun up, tacked, and rounded again in a much less painful way that forking the mark.

I suppose it depends on what you call having an

in crowd

and how strong it is, and to what extent it's just getting people who are known quantities on small boats and big. The Aussies and NZ sailors (and now the British sailors) became a hot ticket item when their nations were on top at the Olympics. Most, if not all, of them got their spots on AC teams by winning multiple world titles and Olympic medals. There's no recent 49er gold medallist sitting at home. There's no recent cat gold medallist sitting at home. That seems more like a meritocracy than an in-crowd.

The guy from the little country lake got there by winning multiple world A Class titles. The guy from the little mining surburb got there by winning multiple world titles and gold in 49ers and Moths. They weren't handed anything on a platter and the support they got in their early careers largely came from middle-class family and friends. They earned their spots by winning lots.

There are a couple of gaping holes in the rosters, though (there's no women, no 470 sailors and no windsurfers) but there seems to be no evidence that it's an in-crowd/out-crowd issue. Given the close links between Aussie Olympians from different classes, for example, it would seem unlikely that people like Slingsby are excluding the 470 sailors and windsurfers.

Anyway, I'll end by just saying that these guys are there because they are brilliant sailors in slow boats and fast ones, and the moves they are making are likely to be the best ones in the situation they are in.

Garda, you're helping to make my point. You don't get a ticket to the AC without winning. Not placing, but winning. And, none of those guys actually go to the AC just to place. If you truly believe that, watch the losers at each of their pressers. They all try to put on a good face for the team, but none of them really accept losing (which is a GOOD thing).

And, I never once referred to any of us, who would be thrilled to be top 10 in any regatta, so don't be confused about that.

And, since you obviously missed this too, a flying boat that is tacking is MUCH slower than a flying boat going straight. True, a flying boat also risks coming off the foils by tacking, but a flying tack is still slower than a flying boat going straight. It's the same concept as any floating cat (extra tacks are slow and should be avoided unless a significant gain can be made). Look at the meters on the replays if you don't believe me.

Mike

On to more important things...

It's Thursday night. The current forecast for Saturday is a repeat of last weekend.

What has Oracle been doing? Are there any news reports of their progress or practice sailing?

Have we missed any pressers since last weekend?

Mike

I believe I heard one of the announcers (Outterage??) say that each maneuver cost them at least 30-50 meters. And that was if everything was ideal.

Minimizing your maneuvers and forcing the other team to make more would seem to me to give you the best chance. More chances for the opponents to make a bad gibe or tack and that seems to be where the biggest gains are made. Going to the wrong side just to split seems to me to be a fool's gamble.

Yes, you get to the AC by winning, but that does not mean that everyone bar the winner in other regattas is a

loser

. AC winners DO sometimes accept losing when it's for reasons out of their control - I've sailed with a couple. To say that people like Steve Brewin are

losers

when they run second in a worlds is pretty damn insulting.

I didn't say that you don't lose by tacking. The point was that many say that you lose less by tacking a foiler then by tacking a seahugger. The only other choice is to follow but somehow put the leader

under pressure

. Even when you're just winning at national level (and I know for a fact that you are wrong to say that we would all be thrilled to be top 10 in any nationals regatta - to some here, 10th is losing) you're not normally

under pressure

when you have a comfortable lead and the other boat is following you - especially when you are sailing the Kiwi boat with its bigger foils and therefore probably more reliable tacking.

Well, if these guys are fools then I look forward to you showing how much smarter you are, by beating them or at least winning the H16 worlds.

The Kiwis DID do a fairly bad tack when OTUSA split, and OTUSA gained. If you don't split then they can just cover you out to the boundary and/or tack when they have the right pressure and angle, and extend their lead. Ironically, on other forums the Kiwis are getting bagged for not covering enough.

I get what Garda is saying about the in-crowd...a lot of jobs in the America's Cup are, indeed, born out of Olympic success and that does define a path that's not necessarily a closed door system. I still think they were slow to adopt any multihull sailors during the DOG match, but we've belabored this point.

I do still stand by Oracle's splits as a mistake and what happened afterwards is pretty solid evidence of it not being the correct move. As far as this being

hindsight

, just ask my wife how much I was expressing the same thought as it was happening live ;-). When they were behind by one boat length at the leeward gate, it was as if they gave up and sailed a longer route to the wrong side of the course because they had absolutely zero confidence that they could do anything to pass New Zealand. This wild chance

roll the dice

move hardly ever works in real life. My entire growth as a racer has been to abandon risky moves and build the patience to focus on getting small gains. When someone is faster than me and I need to beat them, I try to stay as close as possible and see what I can do to match or improve on their speed. When I'm behind by only a little, stay close, look for small gains. Use the other boat as a tell as to the wind that I'm about to get and pounce on it to pick up a boat length every tack and nibble away at that small lead. Look for an opportunity to tack just a little sooner or a little later and get a little advantage. That said, if I find myself behind by a huge amount and I'm entering the last lap of the race, yeah, I'm probably going to roll the dice but only after I've exhausted all hope. I do still struggle sometimes with this patience and the result is pretty obvious when I haven't controlled it.

If you are in the lead, as in New Zealand's case in the last four races, Oracle's expended so much race course just getting to a split that it gave NZ enough of a lead that they could sail across the entire course on the wrong shift, maintain cover, and still maintain their lead (and they were NOT on the wrong shift coming around the bottom). Absolutely NZ should just sail their own race at that point. The tight cover, cover, cover, is also a bit of a standover of monohull sailing. Now, it is certainly still valid in a good deal of multihull sailing but again, if you have enough of a lead and the wind is obviously stable enough that you can count on your lead being enough to get to your competitor and still maintain a lead no matter what, just sail on. I mean, seriously, New Zealand stretched on just about every leg - it's hard to find fault in their tactics.

Of course, with NZL consistency, it's hard to just sit there on the hip and

wait

for them to make a mistake....

As agressive as Spithill is, I'm sure there would be stuff they'd try to get Burling to blink and do something just 'wrong' enough to gain... Sort of Jake's strategy. Pick small things and eventually they add up ...

Also, in the light air, it almost appears as they are just barely keeping the foils working... So a major move like tack/gybe would be a gamble

But yes, I'm THAT GUY who always thinks taking a flyer is a good idea (at the time)... so my armchair skippering is just as flawed as my lower mid-fleet standing