Originally Posted by waterbug_wpb
Back to Jake's discussion, I would almost think that Ashby controls a lot more than the mainsail...

I'd even venture a guess that they could have some software that automates many of the foil controls or settings during maneuvers (possibly tied to wheel position, as you see Burling yank that thing hard over).

Think about all the stuff you have to adjust:
- Main Foil draft profile (fore and aft pieces)
- Main sheet
- Jib clew
- Jib sheet
- possibly jib luff tension
- Daggarboard foils (height, AOA, etc)
- Rudder elevator

And only one (possibly two) folks doing all that at the same time they run across the trampoline?

I really like the Kiwi Biker Gang for their total out-of-box thinking on this boat design.

I think Nathan said it right at one point. From his description, NZL was one of the last teams to show up in Bermuda. This kept them away from the other team's development which may have been an advantage as those Bermuda teams were all working designs against each other. This lead development more closely together in terms of performance.

Having NZL show up late was a huge gamble, but seems to be very effective in lighter airs.

And I still think SWE was blazing fast compared to the other boats. Too bad consistency was their downfall. Probably their tradeoff for that speed (too hard to maintain or duplicate)...

It's getting to the limit of my knowledge on the topic, but I'm quite sure that automated controls (ride height, etc.) are NOT allowed. These boats wouldn't have the ride height problems they clearly have if they were. During the last cup cycle, there was a lot of debate about one of Oracle's control system with this rule because they had put an extra layer of control between the daggerboard fore/aft position system and they were protested over it with the argument that it made for an automated control.

In that case, basically, they had issues when the button was pressed to move the daggerboard rake, the amount the daggerboard moved with the same button press duration was different depending on how much hydraulic pressure they had - this made it hard to control. Oracle came up with a system with a very small hydraulic cylinder that operated on a low consistent regulated pressure. That cylinder was mounted to the boat chassis and it moved it's arm over a center position switch that was mounted directly to the daggerboard. The button push moved the arm of the small cylinder off the switch in one direction or the other. The switch controlled the flow of hydraulic pressure that moved the daggerboard and the daggerboard would keep moving until the switch was centered again under the small cylinder actuator. With this system, the daggerboard might take more or less time to get to the setpoint but the setpoint made by pushing the button for any particular duration was very consistent. This is part of what allowed Oracle to start foiling upwind and defend the cup last iteration. There was some issue with how the protest was filed and I think it got thrown out on a technicality but it was generally accepted that that system did not constitute and "automated" control system.

Granted, we're under a new ruleset for this cup but I'm nearly certain that they still do not allow any automated control. Digital, remote, etc., yes - but a computer can't be initiating movements.

Jake Kohl