jawjaw

Members
  • Content Count

    612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jawjaw

  1. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    Yeah. Just about all the evidence we have, through practice racing, LV, and the AC, suggests that ETNZ > Artemis > OTUSA. The only thing that doesn't agree with that is ETNZ losing twice to Oracle in the RRs, but even then they seemed a little faster upwind and just fucked things up through a lack of experience. I think it's less IM and more the wind direction. They want the finish line near the village. They set the course by the wind, and the final leg in whichever direction the village is in - sometimes that's a pure reach, sometimes it's almost downwind.
  2. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    Oh wow. Is this standard or something new? Did Oracle have someone check them out?
  3. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    The rules said they couldn't launch them until 30 days before the start of the round robins. There are no rules apart from that. They could keep them in the shed and not launch until the day they need them, if that's what they want to do.
  4. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    The ACWS points were more than tiebreakers. If ETNZ had've had one win more than OTUSA in the round robins then the latter still would've finished ahead. The ACWS point would've put them tied on points, and then finishing ahead of ETNZ in the ACWS would've given them the tiebreaker. It originally was that the team would start on +1, and then they changed it to the other team starting on -1. I think the explanation is pretty obvious: having a team start on -1 guarantees that they'll need at least four days of racing, which means at least four days of broadcasting and four days of glad-handing rich people and four days of opening the village to paying customers. If a team started on +1 point they could potentially finish the whole thing in three days. Try protocol section 11.1 (f), particularly parts (iv) and (v) for discussion of other penalties that might impact a team's score. Agree about some of the inconsistencies. I think if you replace the words 'first Competitor to score at least seven' with 'first Competitor to reach a score of seven' then it'd be fine.
  5. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    There's nothing like that in the rules at all. The rules just say that they, unlike the other teams, are allowed to launch a second pair of hulls, and then gives conditions under which they can race with them (unintentional damage that can't be fixed in time, essentially). There's nothing at all about what they have to put on the hulls or anything. Both pairs of hulls do have to be more or less the same because they're one design, but there are no restrictions saying they have to do the same things with those hulls.
  6. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    I don't think anything I'm suggesting would count as a 'conspiracy'. I think they're most likely building a totally legal backup, with completely fresh hulls, in case they need it. Just like I think pretty much everyone always expected they'd do. I don't think there's any cheating going on, and I don't think they're planning on crashing the current boat to get to the new one.
  7. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    The restrictions on wings are the number allowed per competitor, not per boat. Even if they launch a second pair of hulls, I don't think there's any question of whether they can launch more wings and daggerboards to go with them. They can't.
  8. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    It doesn't matter to the outcome of the cup, but it matters to our understanding of what's legal, which is what we're talking about here. Agreed that a decent chunk of the NZ complaints (both here and in the press) are stupid and unnecessary. Some definitely jump to 'cheating!' too easily.
  9. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    I don't think BAR used their backup bows, if they had them. You mean after the ETNZ practice incident? Pretty sure they had to repair the damaged bows. Unless you have sources that say otherwise? Oracle also 100% can't just paint STJ's bows and then use them. The bows have to be built in the team's country.
  10. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    Even if they showed the bow as a wind-up, that doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. I'd be extremely surprised if they were attaching those hulls to STJ's to make a new boat, because it's just so unlikely to be legal, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they're constructing a second boat with completely new hulls, and just using the STJ shed (and maybe some of their non-hull components) to do it. Why wouldn't they build a backup boat? They appear to have built the bows, which would be of no use to them unless they were building a second boat, so they must've had the possibility in mind for a while. And if they're building it, why not use STJ's shed, crew, etc, given they (rightly or wrongly) have that sort of relationship? Probably makes sense they'd use some components (although not the hulls) from STJ's boat, too. And, if they were building a second boat in STJ's shed, why not walk across the waterfront with OTUSA bows just to get everyone worked up over it?
  11. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    Something worth noting from the redress rules: if Oracle have launched a second set of hulls, then they don't get a day off for repairs even if they aren't at fault. So if they launch a second boat, and it isn't as good as their first boat, then they're putting themselves at some risk. I wonder if they'd keep their second pair dry for that reason, even if it meant they'd be untested in the event they need them.
  12. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    Even if a team isn't at fault, they can only get one calendar day of delays for repairs. After that you have to be back out there or you're losing races, even if you did nothing wrong.
  13. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    Agree about the first comment. For the second comment, I think the problem is that 'hull' is defined as the combination of the bow and the non-bow section, and each has an identification number that goes with it if the hulls are sold. Hard to argue it's a new set of hulls (and that they haven't modified them) if the non-bow sections have STJ's original ID number on them.
  14. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    Those are American bows. The speculation is that they'd attach them to the non-bow section of the STJ hulls, and since they'd be using American bows it'd be fine. I don't think it would work, since that would presumably count as modifying the hulls, which isn't allowed. (See Oracle thread for more).
  15. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    Exactly the part they're carrying - the bows.
  16. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    Yeah. I just think it if they wanted the word 'modificy' to exclude completely replacing major components as long as the shape stays the same - which would be a pretty unusual use of the word - it would be extremely unusual not to explicitly define it that way. Without any definition of what 'modify' means, my guess is that a court would not have any trouble deciding that replacing the bows constitutes a modification. If the rule were just there to prevent modifying beyond allowable limits, but to allow modifications otherwise, they'd say that, no? Instead it just says no modifications.
  17. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    Can never rule anything out 100% when it comes to this stuff, but I'd say it's extremely likely they'd count 'completely replace a huge chunk of the hull but keep the shape the same' as not a modification.
  18. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    Yup. As long as OTUSA aren't acquiring them, it's no problem. As I said in post 5459, though, I think acquiring the non-bow part of STJ's hulls and attaching their own bows is going to be a violation of the protocol anyway, since it would mean they're modifying the original surface of the hulls as a whole.
  19. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    35.10 in the protocol: So yeah, the limit is by team, not by boat, so if they used STJ's daggerboards, or even just acquired them, they'd be in breach of this.
  20. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    The bigger problem they'd face, imo, is rule 35.11 from the protocol: along with a couple of definitions: If they're taking a pair of launched hulls, removing the bows, and attaching new bows, how can they possibly argue they haven't modified the original hull surface? They'd be completely replacing part of it! The only way around this is if 'at launch' (in the definition of original hull surface) means 'when Oracle launch them' not 'when they're launched for the first time', which I have to think would be easily challenged.
  21. jawjaw

    Oracle Team USA

    35.5(b). The last window in which you were allowed to do 'racing or on-water testing an AC Class Yacht in a coordinated manner with a yacht of another Competitor'. If they were to put their bows on STJ's boat (so that it becomes their boat and not the boat of another competitor) and sail against that, I think (a) it would be contested by ETNZ, and (b) it'd probably have to be Oracle sailing it, and not the STJ crew. That'd explain why they left this so late, though - leave it as an STJ boat when you need it to practice against, then once you can't do that anymore turn it into an Oracle boat for backup in case of damage. Still, I'm sceptical that just switching bows and buying or otherwise acquiring the rest of the boat would end up being legit.
  22. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    The America's Cup is about challengers racing each other THEN one challenger racing the defender. The current system gives a huge advantage to the defernder, relative to the way things are usually done. I'm talking about reducing that advantage (without entirely removing it). My proposal is still less advantageous to challengers than every AC prior to this one.
  23. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    Make it that 2 wins gets 1 point and I could live with that. 2 AC points is too much. Again, the challenger should be able to opt out if they want, though. The key things are that defender vs challenger races shouldn't impact the ranking of challengers, and races against one challenger shouldn't affect the AC vs another challenger.
  24. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    I agree with the basic idea here - if Oracle want to race the challengers, they should have to put AC points on the line in every race. That's what happens when an AC defender and challenger race - one of them gets a point. I also think the challenger should be able to choose to not have it count if they wish. I'd change things further to make those races separate from the challenger series. The challenger series should've been a triple round-robin between the 5 challengers. Throughout that period, each team has one race scheduled against Oracle, with port entry to the challenger, and an AC point on the line if and only if the challenger wants, and no impact on the challenger series.
  25. jawjaw

    Team NZ

    Of course they will, I wasn't saying anything about whether they'll broadcast races. I was saying they're wrong to call race 7 'if required', since race 7 is guaranteed to be required.