sarah0809

Artemis?

Recommended Posts

There is a lot of shit written on these forums and no doubt, I am as guilty as anybody of having written some. Even taking that into account, I have been pretty shocked (but not surprised) at the unjustified, irresponsible and inappropriate posts there have been on this subject.

 

However, they pale into insignificance compared with the comments on the fp. Over the last few days, Clean and Ed have got this so far wrong it is almost unbelievable. The last item, on the private event that AR has conducted along with representatives of other teams and the AC is a case in point. The "scandal" would have been if they had not had such an event and it would have been totally wrong to have made it a public event.

 

While there are occasions when I have been a bit embarrassed to have been associated with some of the stuff posted on the forums, I now feel deeply ashamed that my name is linked with SA. I want it to be known that the views on the front page not only don't represent my views, but are, I believe, totally inappropriate and represent editorial egos out of control.

 

Well said. Thank you for your candor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there are occasions when I have been a bit embarrassed to have been associated with some of the stuff posted on the forums, I now feel deeply ashamed that my name is linked with SA. I want it to be known that the views on the front page not only don't represent my views, but are, I believe, totally inappropriate and represent editorial egos out of control.

+1, completely agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it disturbing that some come here to give moral lessons and throw loads of insults.

 

That's pretty fucking rich coming from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question that I keep asking myself: Where does criminal negligence fall into this "investigation?" Any prosecutors in the house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Artemis continue? That's what I want to know.

The very reasons that would make it easier for AR not to continue are the same compelling ones why they will. Will they be competitive? I hope not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A week ago today I logged onto sailing anarchy ( as I do most days ) to "catch up " with the worlds sailing news etc

I was horrified to read the now deleted front page story of artemis Ac 72 "failure "

As I have 2 good mates on this boat you could imagine the feeling I had until I found out they were ok !

The words and description that was in that initial story were disgusting to say the least and I can only think its a way of this particular web site gaining the "upper hand " on its competitors so they can say that they "broke the story first "

Just for a moment I would like whoever posted the original story to think about the families of those on board ! Imagine finding out about the incident in that way ,

What I think the sites administrators have failed to comprehend during this whole terrible story is that they like the rest of the world will just have to wait until all parties involved have finished all the internal and external investigations of this unfortunate event .

Ranting and raving about there right to know is a load of rubbish ,the only right anyone has is the right to respect the greeting family of Bart ,and also the ongoing support to the other people who were involved as these people have to live with this incident daily .

If you really do care put some good news story's on your front page and try and bring a bit of happiness back to the best sport in the world .

It's easy to be nasty but let's try and be humble .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A week ago today I logged onto sailing anarchy ( as I do most days ) to "catch up " with the worlds sailing news etc

I was horrified to read the now deleted front page story of artemis Ac 72 "failure "

As I have 2 good mates on this boat you could imagine the feeling I had until I found out they were ok !

The words and description that was in that initial story were disgusting to say the least and I can only think its a way of this particular web site gaining the "upper hand " on its competitors so they can say that they "broke the story first "

Just for a moment I would like whoever posted the original story to think about the families of those on board ! Imagine finding out about the incident in that way ,

What I think the sites administrators have failed to comprehend during this whole terrible story is that they like the rest of the world will just have to wait until all parties involved have finished all the internal and external investigations of this unfortunate event .

Ranting and raving about there right to know is a load of rubbish ,the only right anyone has is the right to respect the greeting family of Bart ,and also the ongoing support to the other people who were involved as these people have to live with this incident daily .

If you really do care put some good news story's on your front page and try and bring a bit of happiness back to the best sport in the world .

It's easy to be nasty but let's try and be humble .

very nicely said indeed. there are countless individuals investigating every detail, and I could go as far as to wait yo see what police and/ or coast guard investigations come up with. right now all the facts are in a tangled mess. for tuck sake that was difficult to write on ambien with a kindle fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of shit written on these forums and no doubt, I am as guilty as anybody of having written some. Even taking that into account, I have been pretty shocked (but not surprised) at the unjustified, irresponsible and inappropriate posts there have been on this subject.

 

However, they pale into insignificance compared with the comments on the fp. Over the last few days, Clean and Ed have got this so far wrong it is almost unbelievable. The last item, on the private event that AR has conducted along with representatives of other teams and the AC is a case in point. The "scandal" would have been if they had not had such an event and it would have been totally wrong to have made it a public event.

 

While there are occasions when I have been a bit embarrassed to have been associated with some of the stuff posted on the forums, I now feel deeply ashamed that my name is linked with SA. I want it to be known that the views on the front page not only don't represent my views, but are, I believe, totally inappropriate and represent editorial egos out of control.

+100....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never fear, issa is on it, soon we willmsee all the emails, then time to impeach somebody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don"t like some of the stuff that has featured on the FP either, but this thread is getting more than a whiff of an orchestrated campaign by AR to use that as a way to turn opinion in their favour.

 

Underlying it all, Bart is dead, his family, friends, and sailing community are grieving and for me it still looks like Bart was let down by the programme he was a part of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Clean et al walk into a sailing club bar and speak like that front page reads? i.e. I and others have a right to attend the memorial I was not invited to?

 

….a very strange attitude indeed……do they/SA think they are important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have spent many years reading these forums and rarely feel compelled to post. In a public forum such as this my expectation is to get occasionally insightful commentary on current events watered down by a whole heap of crap. I am sure I am not alone in stating that most of the time I find filtering all this worth it for the great content that comes to the fore.

 

I almost never read anything on the front page, as is the case for many I know. As staid and off the pace as print journalism is, it's generally like that for a reason. Personally I like to read magazines because they are written by people who have done their time learning the ins and outs of what is publishable and interesting and what is simply not. Additionally, monthly sailing rags are not really constrained by the 'breaking news' concept anymore, and as such are afforded time to consider and research their pieces.

 

With this in mind, the concept of sailing 'anarchy' is admirable as a reaction to all the inherent flaws that come with this process. News is not fast enough in this modern day and there does need to be an outlet that provides fast and dirty, instant reaction.

 

That is what you all do here so well and long may it live. However, to view SA as anything other than an unconfirmed, unconsidered source of instantaneous news is, I tentatively say, foolish. I view the front page as a forum given more prominence than any other with a limited number of posters. Look at Clean's ETNZ video saga, that shit is not journalism MM delivers more and on a regular basis than either he or Scott do. What works well here are the people spread throughout the world making valuable, informed posts, not two people hamfistedly banging at a keyboard and hitting the 'front page' button. As wrong as their coverage has been I am no more offended by it than PH or TC's flagrant jingoism simply because I view the pair of them in the same light, I don't think I know anyone that takes anything on the FP of anarchy seriously.

 

I hope this place stays around for a long time because it really is invaluable but only because of you lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s part of a post I made in the ‘Professor Milgram’ thread, but relevant to the discussion here as well:

 

"There has been one death in the AC72’s, but we still do not understand the precise circumstances that caused this. Fundamentally, it comes down to whether the death was an inevitable consequence of the initial incident with the boat (be it pitchpole or mechanical failure) or the result of a series of events that individually might not have been fatal, but in combination were just that.

 

Until we know the outcome of the various investigations, that hopefully will provide some detail on this incident, any discussion is speculative at best, but combined with certain people’s private agenda’s, it’s downright malicious."

 

Anarchy is one thing (as exemplified by lack of reverence for the status quo and the many bloated ego’s out there) but malice is something entirely different. The FP rants appear to be driven by malice – hence the negative reaction from many Anarchists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have spent many years reading these forums and rarely feel compelled to post. In a public forum such as this my expectation is to get occasionally insightful commentary on current events watered down by a whole heap of crap. I am sure I am not alone in stating that most of the time I find filtering all this worth it for the great content that comes to the fore.

 

I almost never read anything on the front page, as is the case for many I know. As staid and off the pace as print journalism is, it's generally like that for a reason. Personally I like to read magazines because they are written by people who have done their time learning the ins and outs of what is publishable and interesting and what is simply not. Additionally, monthly sailing rags are not really constrained by the 'breaking news' concept anymore, and as such are afforded time to consider and research their pieces.

 

With this in mind, the concept of sailing 'anarchy' is admirable as a reaction to all the inherent flaws that come with this process. News is not fast enough in this modern day and there does need to be an outlet that provides fast and dirty, instant reaction.

 

That is what you all do here so well and long may it live. However, to view SA as anything other than an unconfirmed, unconsidered source of instantaneous news is, I tentatively say, foolish. I view the front page as a forum given more prominence than any other with a limited number of posters. Look at Clean's ETNZ video saga, that shit is not journalism MM delivers more and on a regular basis than either he or Scott do. What works well here are the people spread throughout the world making valuable, informed posts, not two people hamfistedly banging at a keyboard and hitting the 'front page' button. As wrong as their coverage has been I am no more offended by it than PH or TC's flagrant jingoism simply because I view the pair of them in the same light, I don't think I know anyone that takes anything on the FP of anarchy seriously.

 

I hope this place stays around for a long time because it really is invaluable but only because of you lot.

BINGO!!!

 

Someone who gets it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS folks, this isn't called ANARCHY for nothing!! What's pathetic is the way some of you want everyone else to know how distraught you are over the tragedy!! It's happened, respect Andrew's memory, and move on, there are no points for the number of posts to tell us how sad the incident is: WE GET IT!!

 

Those at ACEA in charge of media accreditation should invite SA in, whether they agree with their demographic target and "social" discourse or not. It's called keeping your enemy close....

 

 

EDIT: As an addendum, I've just seen the news about 6 people dead in Texas as a result of deadly tornadoes: where's the outpouring of grief and condolence for these poor victims of mother nature!?...

But a tornado isn't designed by some else but god. If I design a housebig mousetrap, and somebody dies in it, would I say; well that was just another deadly accident? Please some considaration towards most crewmembers and familyin this thread. You make them and others angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis has the right to protect themselves as well as Clean has the right to make his own research.

 

I think everybody is sad about what happened, I find it disturbing that some come here to give moral lessons and throw loads of insults.

 

 

Might there be a tad bit of difference in looking for answers, and even being critical of Artemis for not presenting the video, and blasting Artemis for not making the initial memorial a fucking circus? I know, if I was the family or the team, I would absolutely not want assholes there from all over society, some likely to be using that venue for their bullshit agenda of firing shots at Cayard? There is a time and a place for things. There is also the situation when some people lose track of themselves, and rather than keep their focus on what is reasonable (finding the answers), they make it personal and become way too over-critical of every damn thing the other side does. THAT is what the SA FP has become on this issue.

 

By the way, I also give the Eds credit for letting us rip them on occasion. They are not hypocrites in that way, allowing us to put our beef with them out there without deleting posts or banning posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never fear, issa is on it, soon we willmsee all the emails, then time to impeach somebody

 

 

Nice,

 

Have spent many years reading these forums and rarely feel compelled to post. In a public forum such as this my expectation is to get occasionally insightful commentary on current events watered down by a whole heap of crap. I am sure I am not alone in stating that most of the time I find filtering all this worth it for the great content that comes to the fore.

 

I almost never read anything on the front page, as is the case for many I know. As staid and off the pace as print journalism is, it's generally like that for a reason. Personally I like to read magazines because they are written by people who have done their time learning the ins and outs of what is publishable and interesting and what is simply not. Additionally, monthly sailing rags are not really constrained by the 'breaking news' concept anymore, and as such are afforded time to consider and research their pieces.

 

With this in mind, the concept of sailing 'anarchy' is admirable as a reaction to all the inherent flaws that come with this process. News is not fast enough in this modern day and there does need to be an outlet that provides fast and dirty, instant reaction.

 

That is what you all do here so well and long may it live. However, to view SA as anything other than an unconfirmed, unconsidered source of instantaneous news is, I tentatively say, foolish. I view the front page as a forum given more prominence than any other with a limited number of posters. Look at Clean's ETNZ video saga, that shit is not journalism MM delivers more and on a regular basis than either he or Scott do. What works well here are the people spread throughout the world making valuable, informed posts, not two people hamfistedly banging at a keyboard and hitting the 'front page' button. As wrong as their coverage has been I am no more offended by it than PH or TC's flagrant jingoism simply because I view the pair of them in the same light, I don't think I know anyone that takes anything on the FP of anarchy seriously.

 

I hope this place stays around for a long time because it really is invaluable but only because of you lot.

 

Good points. HOWEVER, I would say that the blurbs about the event that have been posted on the FP are reasonably considered editorials, and not journalism. They are the opinions of the editors/owners of SA. And as such, given the "anarchy" label of this site, are absolutely open to criticism. In my opinion, I find it odd that people are not voicing annoyance with those of us who are voicing criticism of the editorials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s part of a post I made in the ‘Professor Milgram’ thread, but relevant to the discussion here as well:

 

"There has been one death in the AC72’s, but we still do not understand the precise circumstances that caused this. Fundamentally, it comes down to whether the death was an inevitable consequence of the initial incident with the boat (be it pitchpole or mechanical failure) or the result of a series of events that individually might not have been fatal, but in combination were just that.

 

Until we know the outcome of the various investigations, that hopefully will provide some detail on this incident, any discussion is speculative at best, but combined with certain people’s private agenda’s, it’s downright malicious."

 

Anarchy is one thing (as exemplified by lack of reverence for the status quo and the many bloated ego’s out there) but malice is something entirely different. The FP rants appear to be driven by malice – hence the negative reaction from many Anarchists

 

 

Ding ding ding, GREAT post! What they have been doing is trying to blend biased editorials with the push for "journalism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

never fear, issa is on it, soon we willmsee all the emails, then time to impeach somebody

 

 

Nice,

 

>Have spent many years reading these forums and rarely feel compelled to post. In a public forum such as this my expectation is to get occasionally insightful commentary on current events watered down by a whole heap of crap. I am sure I am not alone in stating that most of the time I find filtering all this worth it for the great content that comes to the fore.

 

I almost never read anything on the front page, as is the case for many I know. As staid and off the pace as print journalism is, it's generally like that for a reason. Personally I like to read magazines because they are written by people who have done their time learning the ins and outs of what is publishable and interesting and what is simply not. Additionally, monthly sailing rags are not really constrained by the 'breaking news' concept anymore, and as such are afforded time to consider and research their pieces.

 

With this in mind, the concept of sailing 'anarchy' is admirable as a reaction to all the inherent flaws that come with this process. News is not fast enough in this modern day and there does need to be an outlet that provides fast and dirty, instant reaction.

 

That is what you all do here so well and long may it live. However, to view SA as anything other than an unconfirmed, unconsidered source of instantaneous news is, I tentatively say, foolish. I view the front page as a forum given more prominence than any other with a limited number of posters. Look at Clean's ETNZ video saga, that shit is not journalism MM delivers more and on a regular basis than either he or Scott do. What works well here are the people spread throughout the world making valuable, informed posts, not two people hamfistedly banging at a keyboard and hitting the 'front page' button. As wrong as their coverage has been I am no more offended by it than PH or TC's flagrant jingoism simply because I view the pair of them in the same light, I don't think I know anyone that takes anything on the FP of anarchy seriously.

 

I hope this place stays around for a long time because it really is invaluable but only because of you lot.

 

Good points. HOWEVER, I would say that the blurbs about the event that have been posted on the FP are reasonably considered editorials, and not journalism. They are the opinions of the editors/owners of SA. And as such, given the "anarchy" label of this site, are absolutely open to criticism. In my opinion, I find it odd that people are not voicing annoyance with those of us who are voicing criticism of the editorials.

 

Fair point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooops, made a typo:

 

"I find it odd that people are not voicing annoyance with those of us who are voicing criticism of the editorials."

 

Should read:

 

"I find it odd that people are now voicing annoyance with those of us who are voicing criticism of the editorials."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean/Ed, why do you abuse the topic of Artemis' horrible accident for your personal vendetta with Paul Cayard and sell it as journalism? Because that's the impression this makes on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the FP editorial might be an attempt to act as The Truth Will Come Out, Power To The People (and with it the suggestion/allegation already made by Clean that a bunch of 'hacks' do not have truth discovery and lessons to be learned as their goal), the 'Anarchism' has unfortunately instead taken on the tone of Malice. Not a good look..

 

That the discussion around here has gotten so badly skewed by the subject of coverage, 'rights to the facts,' continued shots at Cayard as if he caused the accident, and such, as opposed to the more important issues at hand staying at the forefront, is us kow-towing to those other agendas and getting caught up in the misdirections.

 

I will just ignore the FP more than usual and not send any clicks that way until they get their heads out of their asses and start to treat the real subjects, which are not all about them, responsibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the FP editorials have been a little insensitive, but the fact remains that this team has a history of mismanagement and engineering failures. The ORMA 72 wing failure a week into testing, the tow test beam failure, firing of TH, the decision to try non-foiling, the central grinder platform, a late-game redesign, culminating with Bart's death (in what appears to be another engineering failure).

 

I'm no fanboy of any team with an axe to grind nor am I an apologist for AR, but from the sidelines this team has shown a lot of incompetence. I feel there is a strong case to be made for criminal negligence. Whether the negligent party is JK or PC or the builder I don't know.

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp. There is a story here, and it deserves to be told. I'm happy that the sport has a truth seeking platform like SA. It's a bit like making sausage, it's an ugly process, but the powers that be need to be cajoled into telling the truth. If the US only had a press corps willing to question authority we could have maybe avoided Iraq. I'm a part time member of the sailing media and I can attest to the fact that most journos attend the cocktail parties and wrote the obvious story, avoiding telling the ugly stories so they get invited to the next PR cocktail hour.

 

I was excited to see JK's innovative thinking brought to the multihull world but it seems the teams grasp of the challenges of designing a multihull leave a lot to be desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the FP editorials have been a little insensitive, but the fact remains that this team has a history of mismanagement and engineering failures. The ORMA 72 wing failure a week into testing, the tow test beam failure, firing of TH, the decision to try non-foiling, the central grinder platform, a late-game redesign, culminating with Bart's death (in what appears to be another engineering failure).

 

I'm no fanboy of any team with an axe to grind nor am I an apologist for AR, but from the sidelines this team has shown a lot of incompetence. I feel there is a strong case to be made for criminal negligence. Whether the negligent party is JK or PC or the builder I don't know.

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp. There is a story here, and it deserves to be told. I'm happy that the sport has a truth seeking platform like SA. It's a bit like making sausage, it's an ugly process, but the powers that be need to be cajoled into telling the truth. If the US only had a press corps willing to question authority we could have maybe avoided Iraq. I'm a part time member of the sailing media and I can attest to the fact that most journos attend the cocktail parties and wrote the obvious story, avoiding telling the ugly stories so they get invited to the next PR cocktail hour.

 

I was excited to see JK's innovative thinking brought to the multihull world but it seems the teams grasp of the challenges of designing a multihull leave a lot to be desired.

 

+ 10

 

Just to add to the above. The elephant in the room is the fact that Juan K has never designed a multihull. Why would the upper management at Artemis Racing - PC and TT, expect him to get it right the first time out? Sure he thinks out of the box but solid multihull experience it what is needed here form a safety standpoint. Talk about jumping into the deep end. It was obvious early on that the choice was wrong.

 

Someone made the call to repair that beam after the first day rather than replace it. Replaceing it would have delayed the program even more after the wing fiasco. It appears that the main beam was never right. Tow testing it Day One with both lifting boards down at the same time pulling inward with out the wing in place was a big warning sign. I mean they basically broke the boat in half and they hadn't even sailed it!

 

The questions the police should be asking should be about the entire history of the beam- from concept to engineering to building to testing and repair.

 

Contrary to what was said at the first press conferecnce, there is a Black Box on these boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp.

Oh bullshit. After OR's PP there was no liability exposure to any of the crew or team members (except perhaps a USCG fine for "plastic pollution").

 

Here you have

  • A foreign flagged vessel involved in an incident
  • on Federally Navigable waterways
  • With a fatality to a non-US crew
  • with a captain/master who has no navigation licenses that we know of

The level of liability FOR EACH AND EVERY PERSON ON THAT BOAT is so much greater than in the OR PP - that its just ignorant to make that comparison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not a French designer, someone asked, after all, their boats do not break. Well, other than multiple ocean races with 50+% attrition ratios, true-ish. But they have learned alot in the process about the limits of modeling. There was an interesting interview with Shaughnessy in which he and his Farr asoc. discussed a bit the increase of entry in the design biz fueled by the ready availibilty of computerized modeling and design tools, how this had brought in more guys but may also be diluting some valuable proprietary knowledge bases. Basically a pitch for the empirical experience of long time designers for ocean going yachts. Of course that did not turn out so well for them in the VO70.

 

What about the compressed time frame in AC cycles? Does that really allow a fair and safe work up for radical new designs? One often hears of ocean racers not truly hitting their stride until the second year. And did the organizers implement adequate safety regs and event strucures for the new class? When 2/4 teams participation is in question it is time to listen to the stakeholders and suspend until all concerns are satisfied or one risks having a solo race. And that is what they are doing, so I think that some if not a lot of credit needs to be given to them for behaving sensibly.

 

Anarchy in yacht clubs, that is funny, it is like I read a political rant the oth day that mentioned Bolshevik anarchists. Obviously someone with a limted grasp of history given how many Anarchists the Bolsheviks shot or starved or worked to death over the decades. Anarchy is not an excuse for ranting endlessly with little regard for facts or others, that is just being an asshole. So many of whom seem to prop up YC bars, ranting ignorantly about this or that when their reseach takes them no further than the bottom of their glass and the Fox Gnus on the boob toob in front of them.

 

So whilst the FP may function as an editorial column more than a news source they have a right to their opinion on their website, and repeating the same middle aged crisis crap over and over will not make them look any smarter or prescient regardless of how loud and often. As we have a right to our opinions (for now and in some venues) and we can and do object when it seems right. But when people are dead it all seems a bit tacky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree that the FP editorials have been a little insensitive, but the fact remains that this team has a history of mismanagement and engineering failures. The ORMA 72 wing failure a week into testing, the tow test beam failure, firing of TH, the decision to try non-foiling, the central grinder platform, a late-game redesign, culminating with Bart's death (in what appears to be another engineering failure).

 

I'm no fanboy of any team with an axe to grind nor am I an apologist for AR, but from the sidelines this team has shown a lot of incompetence. I feel there is a strong case to be made for criminal negligence. Whether the negligent party is JK or PC or the builder I don't know.

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp. There is a story here, and it deserves to be told. I'm happy that the sport has a truth seeking platform like SA. It's a bit like making sausage, it's an ugly process, but the powers that be need to be cajoled into telling the truth. If the US only had a press corps willing to question authority we could have maybe avoided Iraq. I'm a part time member of the sailing media and I can attest to the fact that most journos attend the cocktail parties and wrote the obvious story, avoiding telling the ugly stories so they get invited to the next PR cocktail hour.

 

I was excited to see JK's innovative thinking brought to the multihull world but it seems the teams grasp of the challenges of designing a multihull leave a lot to be desired.

 

+ 10

 

Just to add to the above. The elephant in the room is the fact that Juan K has never designed a multihull. Why would the upper management at Artemis Racing - PC and TT, expect him to get it right the first time out? Sure he thinks out of the box but solid multihull experience it what is needed here form a safety standpoint. Talk about jumping into the deep end. It was obvious early on that the choice was wrong.

 

Someone made the call to repair that beam after the first day rather than replace it. Replaceing it would have delayed the program even more after the wing fiasco. It appears that the main beam was never right. Tow testing it Day One with both lifting boards down at the same time pulling inward with out the wing in place was a big warning sign. I mean they basically broke the boat in half and they hadn't even sailed it!

 

The questions the police should be asking should be about the entire history of the beam- from concept to engineering to building to testing and repair.

 

Contrary to what was said at the first press conferecnce, there is a Black Box on these boats.

 

+1

 

though there may be no electronic black box

 

a sail boat boat covered in gopro

 

is probably better

 

was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Have spent many years reading these forums and rarely feel compelled to post. In a public forum such as this my expectation is to get occasionally insightful commentary on current events watered down by a whole heap of crap. I am sure I am not alone in stating that most of the time I find filtering all this worth it for the great content that comes to the fore.

 

I almost never read anything on the front page, as is the case for many I know. As staid and off the pace as print journalism is, it's generally like that for a reason. Personally I like to read magazines because they are written by people who have done their time learning the ins and outs of what is publishable and interesting and what is simply not. Additionally, monthly sailing rags are not really constrained by the 'breaking news' concept anymore, and as such are afforded time to consider and research their pieces.

 

With this in mind, the concept of sailing 'anarchy' is admirable as a reaction to all the inherent flaws that come with this process. News is not fast enough in this modern day and there does need to be an outlet that provides fast and dirty, instant reaction.

 

That is what you all do here so well and long may it live. However, to view SA as anything other than an unconfirmed, unconsidered source of instantaneous news is, I tentatively say, foolish. I view the front page as a forum given more prominence than any other with a limited number of posters. Look at Clean's ETNZ video saga, that shit is not journalism MM delivers more and on a regular basis than either he or Scott do. What works well here are the people spread throughout the world making valuable, informed posts, not two people hamfistedly banging at a keyboard and hitting the 'front page' button. As wrong as their coverage has been I am no more offended by it than PH or TC's flagrant jingoism simply because I view the pair of them in the same light, I don't think I know anyone that takes anything on the FP of anarchy seriously.

 

I hope this place stays around for a long time because it really is invaluable but only because of you lot.

BINGO!!!

 

Someone who gets it!!

 

 

.

Quite so! Well said.

 

But the very fact that this is Sailing ANARCHY places no restraint from me expressing disgust at some of the more blatant and mean-spirited stuff shovelled out by our beloved leaders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree that the FP editorials have been a little insensitive, but the fact remains that this team has a history of mismanagement and engineering failures. The ORMA 72 wing failure a week into testing, the tow test beam failure, firing of TH, the decision to try non-foiling, the central grinder platform, a late-game redesign, culminating with Bart's death (in what appears to be another engineering failure).

 

I'm no fanboy of any team with an axe to grind nor am I an apologist for AR, but from the sidelines this team has shown a lot of incompetence. I feel there is a strong case to be made for criminal negligence. Whether the negligent party is JK or PC or the builder I don't know.

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp. There is a story here, and it deserves to be told. I'm happy that the sport has a truth seeking platform like SA. It's a bit like making sausage, it's an ugly process, but the powers that be need to be cajoled into telling the truth. If the US only had a press corps willing to question authority we could have maybe avoided Iraq. I'm a part time member of the sailing media and I can attest to the fact that most journos attend the cocktail parties and wrote the obvious story, avoiding telling the ugly stories so they get invited to the next PR cocktail hour.

 

I was excited to see JK's innovative thinking brought to the multihull world but it seems the teams grasp of the challenges of designing a multihull leave a lot to be desired.

 

+ 10

 

Just to add to the above. The elephant in the room is the fact that Juan K has never designed a multihull. Why would the upper management at Artemis Racing - PC and TT, expect him to get it right the first time out? Sure he thinks out of the box but solid multihull experience it what is needed here form a safety standpoint. Talk about jumping into the deep end. It was obvious early on that the choice was wrong.

 

Someone made the call to repair that beam after the first day rather than replace it. Replaceing it would have delayed the program even more after the wing fiasco. It appears that the main beam was never right. Tow testing it Day One with both lifting boards down at the same time pulling inward with out the wing in place was a big warning sign. I mean they basically broke the boat in half and they hadn't even sailed it!

 

The questions the police should be asking should be about the entire history of the beam- from concept to engineering to building to testing and repair.

 

Contrary to what was said at the first press conferecnce, there is a Black Box on these boats.

 

+1

 

though there may be no electronic black box

 

a sail boat boat covered in gopro

 

is probably better

 

was it?

I've heard that there are at least 4 pieces of video that are being studied. Some external to the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp.

Oh bullshit. After OR's PP there was no liability exposure to any of the crew or team members (except perhaps a USCG fine for "plastic pollution").

 

Here you have

  • A foreign flagged vessel involved in an incident
  • on Federally Navigable waterways
  • With a fatality to a non-US crew
  • with a captain/master who has no navigation licenses that we know of
The level of liability FOR EACH AND EVERY PERSON ON THAT BOAT is so much greater than in the OR PP - that its just ignorant to make that comparison

 

Haha.... So because its built overseas and skippered by non US sailors the liability increases?? After the US boat flipped last year??? C'mon pull the other one.

 

It doesn't matter which boat, where or when or by whom, local crash investigators will apply the same criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how much more enjoyable this thread is when you ignore the angry little man from the SW.

It may not be your ignore button; he is following an anger management course but will be back soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I agree that the FP editorials have been a little insensitive, but the fact remains that this team has a history of mismanagement and engineering failures. The ORMA 72 wing failure a week into testing, the tow test beam failure, firing of TH, the decision to try non-foiling, the central grinder platform, a late-game redesign, culminating with Bart's death (in what appears to be another engineering failure).

 

I'm no fanboy of any team with an axe to grind nor am I an apologist for AR, but from the sidelines this team has shown a lot of incompetence. I feel there is a strong case to be made for criminal negligence. Whether the negligent party is JK or PC or the builder I don't know.

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp. There is a story here, and it deserves to be told. I'm happy that the sport has a truth seeking platform like SA. It's a bit like making sausage, it's an ugly process, but the powers that be need to be cajoled into telling the truth. If the US only had a press corps willing to question authority we could have maybe avoided Iraq. I'm a part time member of the sailing media and I can attest to the fact that most journos attend the cocktail parties and wrote the obvious story, avoiding telling the ugly stories so they get invited to the next PR cocktail hour.

 

I was excited to see JK's innovative thinking brought to the multihull world but it seems the teams grasp of the challenges of designing a multihull leave a lot to be desired.

 

+ 10

 

Just to add to the above. The elephant in the room is the fact that Juan K has never designed a multihull. Why would the upper management at Artemis Racing - PC and TT, expect him to get it right the first time out? Sure he thinks out of the box but solid multihull experience it what is needed here form a safety standpoint. Talk about jumping into the deep end. It was obvious early on that the choice was wrong.

 

Someone made the call to repair that beam after the first day rather than replace it. Replaceing it would have delayed the program even more after the wing fiasco. It appears that the main beam was never right. Tow testing it Day One with both lifting boards down at the same time pulling inward with out the wing in place was a big warning sign. I mean they basically broke the boat in half and they hadn't even sailed it!

 

The questions the police should be asking should be about the entire history of the beam- from concept to engineering to building to testing and repair.

 

Contrary to what was said at the first press conferecnce, there is a Black Box on these boats.

 

+1

 

though there may be no electronic black box

 

a sail boat boat covered in gopro

 

is probably better

 

was it?

I've heard that there are at least 4 pieces of video that are being studied. Some external to the team.

what angles? onboard? chase boat? where are you getting this info, what team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be videos from the spyboats: ETNZ, LR and OR were all out there checking out the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp.

Oh bullshit. After OR's PP there was no liability exposure to any of the crew or team members (except perhaps a USCG fine for "plastic pollution").

 

Here you have

  • A foreign flagged vessel involved in an incident
  • on Federally Navigable waterways
  • With a fatality to a non-US crew
  • with a captain/master who has no navigation licenses that we know of
The level of liability FOR EACH AND EVERY PERSON ON THAT BOAT is so much greater than in the OR PP - that its just ignorant to make that comparison

 

Haha.... So because its built overseas and skippered by non US sailors the liability increases?? After the US boat flipped last year??? C'mon pull the other one.

 

It doesn't matter which boat, where or when or by whom, local crash investigators will apply the same criteria.

Um again - do you understand how Admiralty Law works? Remember a foreign flagged vessel is essentially sovereign foreign soil. That's why during the Soviet era there was the whole issue of where Russian ships would anchor to prevent crew from jumping overboard in hopes of asylum.

 

That law stiil applies. So its not that the liability increases, its that the complexity of WHO HAS liability increases. Now stir in "proportional liability" (hmm that crewmember over/under tightend the backstay in the last tack, so now they are 5% contributory liable for the death....) And you have a huge reason for absolutely everyone involved to completely clam up.

 

And the diff between the US boat flipping and a Foreign Flagged vessel flipping is that there were no injuries nor fatalities in the OR boat's crash. So whatever liability might have existed was limited to within the team. Sure Larry might have sued Jimmy or the main trimmer for the cost of the boat... uhuh sure....

 

But in this case you have outside parties (the child, the wife, the parents, Bart's life insurance co) that have vested interests in legally pursuing EVERYONE THEY CAN..

 

And given Bart's salary, the "lost potential earnings" are in the $US millions ($150k x 30)

 

So tell me again how the two crashes are similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree that the FP editorials have been a little insensitive, but the fact remains that this team has a history of mismanagement and engineering failures. The ORMA 72 wing failure a week into testing, the tow test beam failure, firing of TH, the decision to try non-foiling, the central grinder platform, a late-game redesign, culminating with Bart's death (in what appears to be another engineering failure).

 

I'm no fanboy of any team with an axe to grind nor am I an apologist for AR, but from the sidelines this team has shown a lot of incompetence. I feel there is a strong case to be made for criminal negligence. Whether the negligent party is JK or PC or the builder I don't know.

 

This "coverup" is almost an acknowledgement of negligence. Compare to OR's openness after the pp. There is a story here, and it deserves to be told. I'm happy that the sport has a truth seeking platform like SA. It's a bit like making sausage, it's an ugly process, but the powers that be need to be cajoled into telling the truth. If the US only had a press corps willing to question authority we could have maybe avoided Iraq. I'm a part time member of the sailing media and I can attest to the fact that most journos attend the cocktail parties and wrote the obvious story, avoiding telling the ugly stories so they get invited to the next PR cocktail hour.

 

I was excited to see JK's innovative thinking brought to the multihull world but it seems the teams grasp of the challenges of designing a multihull leave a lot to be desired.

 

+ 10

 

Just to add to the above. The elephant in the room is the fact that Juan K has never designed a multihull. Why would the upper management at Artemis Racing - PC and TT, expect him to get it right the first time out? Sure he thinks out of the box but solid multihull experience it what is needed here form a safety standpoint. Talk about jumping into the deep end. It was obvious early on that the choice was wrong.

 

Someone made the call to repair that beam after the first day rather than replace it. Replaceing it would have delayed the program even more after the wing fiasco. It appears that the main beam was never right. Tow testing it Day One with both lifting boards down at the same time pulling inward with out the wing in place was a big warning sign. I mean they basically broke the boat in half and they hadn't even sailed it!

 

The questions the police should be asking should be about the entire history of the beam- from concept to engineering to building to testing and repair.

 

Contrary to what was said at the first press conferecnce, there is a Black Box on these boats.

 

+1

 

though there may be no electronic black box

 

a sail boat boat covered in gopro

 

is probably better

 

was it?

Well I would be very surprised if they don't have atleast the same level of telemetry that DogZilla had. And that included laser fiberoptic interferometry down the length of each load bearing structure. That sort of stuff isn't that expensive compared to the cost of the hull and the info you would get from it would be invaluable for Design Iteration #2.

 

So I suspect there is solid "black box" data as well. the issue in such things though is "time synch". Particularly between the video and the structural data being captured. and then you go through it frame by frame. and there is also a lot of math involved in sorting out the failure paths... Remember you don't just want to find out what the precipitating failure was, but you want to understand the full cascade of events to see if perhaps the precipitating failure would not have been catastrophic if some other structure had been more solid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this 'report' of damage in transit been noted yet? Yikes

 

"The Artemis team has yet to indicate its clear intention to continue with its challenge. The boat which broke up cannot be sailed and will need time to repair, a process which may be hampered if reports that its second boat, the one it intended to campaign, suffered some damage in transit from Sweden.

There are only seven weeks to work up the new boat and be in full race mode. Some of those may be lost just repairing the second boat. Team boss Torbjorn Tornqvist and sailing director Iain Percy, who partnered Simpson to both gold in China and silver in Weymouth last year, have been in intensive discussions since Tuesday with team ceo Paul Cayard."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/sailing/luna-rossa-team-boss-sets-out-demands-for-new-americas-cup-rules-following-death-of-british-sailor-andrew-simpson-8622012.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boat 2 damaged would be just huge for this team. How confident could you be sailing a 2nd boat that had damage before even hitting the water?

 

For their sake I hope this is not true, other than maybe a ding or something minor, not a structural component.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this 'report' of damage in transit been noted yet? Yikes

 

"The Artemis team has yet to indicate its clear intention to continue with its challenge. The boat which broke up cannot be sailed and will need time to repair, a process which may be hampered if reports that its second boat, the one it intended to campaign, suffered some damage in transit from Sweden.

There are only seven weeks to work up the new boat and be in full race mode. Some of those may be lost just repairing the second boat. Team boss Torbjorn Tornqvist and sailing director Iain Percy, who partnered Simpson to both gold in China and silver in Weymouth last year, have been in intensive discussions since Tuesday with team ceo Paul Cayard."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/sailing/luna-rossa-team-boss-sets-out-demands-for-new-americas-cup-rules-following-death-of-british-sailor-andrew-simpson-8622012.html

 

Why would they even comtemplate repairing boat one... it's completed wrecked and completely uncompetitive as well, not to mention who the hell would sail on such a cursed ship!

 

Timeto throw all the eggs in one basket and do the best you can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

wrongful death is a civil cause of action.

Not always, when it happens on the water:

 

http://www.hilderlaw.com/Publications/WB18-USC-1115.pdf

 

The grounds for conviction are simple rather than gross negligence, which is much easier to prove.

 

This 150 year old statute was dusted off to prosecute the Captain in the Staten Island ferry accident of 2003 and again last year to indict the two BP employees who were nominally in charge of the Deepwater Horizon when it blew up and sank in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Another possible reason to keep very quiet until facts have been determined.

 

Earl

No, "wrongful death" is a civil cause of action. That article talks about the criminal cause of action, which is 'negligent homicide" or "seaman's manslaughter" coloquially.

You aren't suggesting that this is within your "area of knowledge", are you, Alan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this 'report' of damage in transit been noted yet? Yikes

 

"The Artemis team has yet to indicate its clear intention to continue with its challenge. The boat which broke up cannot be sailed and will need time to repair, a process which may be hampered if reports that its second boat, the one it intended to campaign, suffered some damage in transit from Sweden.

There are only seven weeks to work up the new boat and be in full race mode. Some of those may be lost just repairing the second boat. Team boss Torbjorn Tornqvist and sailing director Iain Percy, who partnered Simpson to both gold in China and silver in Weymouth last year, have been in intensive discussions since Tuesday with team ceo Paul Cayard."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/sailing/luna-rossa-team-boss-sets-out-demands-for-new-americas-cup-rules-following-death-of-british-sailor-andrew-simpson-8622012.html

 

 

The structural failure of boat one could very well cast shadow on the scantlings of boat two. Seriously I'd be surprised if Artemis isn't out of the game already. With the liabilities involved, it behooves them to play along as if everything is as kosher as possible, all the way to the very end whatever that may be. Tragedy or not, this is business after all, and the proper forms will be followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Has this 'report' of damage in transit been noted yet? Yikes

 

"The Artemis team has yet to indicate its clear intention to continue with its challenge. The boat which broke up cannot be sailed and will need time to repair, a process which may be hampered if reports that its second boat, the one it intended to campaign, suffered some damage in transit from Sweden.

There are only seven weeks to work up the new boat and be in full race mode. Some of those may be lost just repairing the second boat. Team boss Torbjorn Tornqvist and sailing director Iain Percy, who partnered Simpson to both gold in China and silver in Weymouth last year, have been in intensive discussions since Tuesday with team ceo Paul Cayard."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/sailing/luna-rossa-team-boss-sets-out-demands-for-new-americas-cup-rules-following-death-of-british-sailor-andrew-simpson-8622012.html

 

The structural failure of boat one could very well cast shadow on the scantlings of boat two. Seriously I'd be surprised if Artemis isn't out of the game already. With the liabilities involved, it behooves them to play along as if everything is as kosher as possible, all the way to the very end whatever that may be. Tragedy or not, this is business after all, and the proper forms will be followed.

Am probably reading too much into Alexander's frequently obtuse language construction but anyway: Is there a suggestion PC is advising against continuing?

 

"Team boss Torbjorn Tornqvist and sailing director Iain Percy, who partnered Simpson to both gold in China and silver in Weymouth last year, have been in intensive discussions since Tuesday with team ceo Paul Cayard."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More likely that they would continue - at least in appearance - to ensure that ETNZ don't become CoR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More likely that they would continue - at least in appearance - to ensure that ETNZ don't become CoR.

You're suggesting that AR continuing would be for just the purpose of ensuring a screwing of GD? Far Out, Dude! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the sailors would love to continue - if they had a boat they could trust.

 

Otherwise, the fact that this isn't 'tiddly winks' and has half a billion dollars of investment by the teams at stake, will mean that nothing is off the table to ensure promises by the Bs are kept. If this means TT has to keep LE on side and not let GD get a seat at the table, then I would posture that yes - the purpose (however wrong), would be clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the beginning of AC35 for Artemis!

I believe they are now in for the experience.

Besides, sailing these rockets is all learning and most in the team are up for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boat 2 damaged would be just huge for this team. How confident could you be sailing a 2nd boat that had damage before even hitting the water?

 

For their sake I hope this is not true, other than maybe a ding or something minor, not a structural component.

It would be very sad to see these guys pull out, but I don't think the b1 boat damage (human tragedy aside) should necessarily affect their challenge.

 

I guess the wing damage could be a set back, but not really the platform.

 

It was cited as being the last sailing day for B1. I don't recall any intent to reconfigure it to foiling mode and if so, they probably would have done that during the initial rebuild after realising displacement was uncompetitive.

 

So if b2 is damaged, they would have known that before they crash. What was their training intent if b1 was not to be sailed?

 

AC45's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, I hope the damage is not to the front beam !!

 

Go, Big Blue !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this 'report' of damage in transit been noted yet? Yikes

 

"The Artemis team has yet to indicate its clear intention to continue with its challenge. The boat which broke up cannot be sailed and will need time to repair, a process which may be hampered if reports that its second boat, the one it intended to campaign, suffered some damage in transit from Sweden.

There are only seven weeks to work up the new boat and be in full race mode. Some of those may be lost just repairing the second boat. Team boss Torbjorn Tornqvist and sailing director Iain Percy, who partnered Simpson to both gold in China and silver in Weymouth last year, have been in intensive discussions since Tuesday with team ceo Paul Cayard."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/sailing/luna-rossa-team-boss-sets-out-demands-for-new-americas-cup-rules-following-death-of-british-sailor-andrew-simpson-8622012.html

 

The fact that the article talks about repairing boat 1 suggests that the author doesn't know what s/he is talking about, so take damage to boat 2 with a grain of salt until you see it on Sail World.

That said, the whole team does seem rather cursed from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the audio from the NPR radio piece.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=184845132

 

 

Pretty shallow piece from NPR. I expected better even though they have the tough job of explaining a complex situation to an unknowing public.

 

However they did extract this great quote from Kim Livingston: "These boats are prototypes, and until you're beyond the edge, you don't know where it is. It's behind you".

The most disappointing part of this report was John Rousmaniere's comments on safety. Given the important and evenhanded role he has played in past sailing accident investigations, it's disingenuous of him to criticise before we even know what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Has this 'report' of damage in transit been noted yet? Yikes

 

"The Artemis team has yet to indicate its clear intention to continue with its challenge. The boat which broke up cannot be sailed and will need time to repair, a process which may be hampered if reports that its second boat, the one it intended to campaign, suffered some damage in transit from Sweden.

There are only seven weeks to work up the new boat and be in full race mode. Some of those may be lost just repairing the second boat. Team boss Torbjorn Tornqvist and sailing director Iain Percy, who partnered Simpson to both gold in China and silver in Weymouth last year, have been in intensive discussions since Tuesday with team ceo Paul Cayard."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/sailing/luna-rossa-team-boss-sets-out-demands-for-new-americas-cup-rules-following-death-of-british-sailor-andrew-simpson-8622012.html

 

The fact that the article talks about repairing boat 1 suggests that the author doesn't know what s/he is talking about, so take damage to boat 2 with a grain of salt until you see it on Sail World.

That said, the whole team does seem rather cursed from the start.

 

 

Pay attention Jasp!

 

Stuart Alexander is male, as his name suggests. Very-well connected long-time Brit sailing writer. Been on the sailing scene for the past 20 or 30 years or so. Generally gets it right although he's not above publishing the odd rumour before confirmation.

 

His "word budget" from The Independent only permits one story whenever they cover sailing. So its not unusual to see news of different events tacked onto the end of major articles. That's what happened here. The Bertelli media conference was the hard-news story of the day. The unsubstantiated rumor was the add-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Doesn't change the fact that he talked about repairing boat 1, which is clearly not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Doesn't change the fact that he talked about repairing boat 1, which is clearly not going to happen.

 

If they have foil boxes for B1, already built,

If they have another front beam, already built,

If they repair/build a wing for B1,

If don't have to measure it, can it stay outside AC (just another boat on the bay)

Is that feasible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Plus need to stick the two parts of the hull back together again.

OR's boat suffered less damage than this and took 3 months to get back on the water.

By that time the LVC will be pretty much done and dusted.

 

Besides, suggesting that they would repair Clifford ignores the fact that he is a dog and that even AR said that it was his last day sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I get it now.

 

Dogs on foils still fly? but you are right the hull dimension takes it out of the realm of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^ Doesn't change the fact that he talked about repairing boat 1, which is clearly not going to happen.

 

If they have foil boxes for B1, already built,

If they have another front beam, already built,

If they repair/build a wing for B1,

If don't have to measure it, can it stay outside AC (just another boat on the bay)

Is that feasible?

 

why?

 

why rebuild it?

 

because it was fast?

 

because it was safe?

 

because it could turn their fortunes around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

To test foils and wings.

 

If it had a new front beam, good foils, a modified wing1 (and a repaired/new hull) it could be foiling and just as fast (up on foils) as the others.

I was assuming they might have a new beam rebuilt and a set of adaptable foil boxes like B2's and a repaired/modified wing1 ready as you might have had if they had not crashed.

But the hull damage they would not have foresawn and there is not enough time to repair.

 

So my question is not valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^ Doesn't change the fact that he talked about repairing boat 1, which is clearly not going to happen.

 

If they have foil boxes for B1, already built,

If they have another front beam, already built,

If they repair/build a wing for B1,

If don't have to measure it, can it stay outside AC (just another boat on the bay)

Is that feasible?

One benefit of AR base location has been the ability to work 24/7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^ Doesn't change the fact that he talked about repairing boat 1, which is clearly not going to happen.

 

If they have foil boxes for B1, already built,

If they have another front beam, already built,

If they repair/build a wing for B1,

If don't have to measure it, can it stay outside AC (just another boat on the bay)

Is that feasible?

One benefit of AR base location has been the ability to work 24/7

 

Yes, but remember what Mike Drummond said in his interview about expediting the boat building process.

What you can do is still very limited as you still need to wait for the carbon to cure regardless of how many people or shifts you are working.

 

Anyway, I wonder if AR have resumed their AC preparations yet?

One one hand they will be struggling to recover from the loss of a mate and on the other they only have 7 weeks to launch and prep a boat for racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

^ Doesn't change the fact that he talked about repairing boat 1, which is clearly not going to happen.

 

If they have foil boxes for B1, already built,

If they have another front beam, already built,

If they repair/build a wing for B1,

If don't have to measure it, can it stay outside AC (just another boat on the bay)

Is that feasible?

One benefit of AR base location has been the ability to work 24/7

 

Yes, but remember what Mike Drummond said in his interview about expediting the boat building process.

What you can do is still very limited as you still need to wait for the carbon to cure regardless of how many people or shifts you are working.

 

Anyway, I wonder if AR have resumed their AC preparations yet?

One one hand they will be struggling to recover from the loss of a mate and on the other they only have 7 weeks to launch and prep a boat for racing.

My comment was more in the context that B1 mods may have already been in work to be done when B2 was ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Remember that last week AR said that it was Clifford last day?

I think the team would/will have enough on their plates getting boat 2 race ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Remember that last week AR said that it was Clifford last day?

I think the team would/will have enough on their plates getting boat 2 race ready.

 

The more I think about it the more I agree with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Careful Kiwing! Agreeing with me will get you burnt for being a witch by some on these forums! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

new to me, has a few quotes including this one

 

 

I know Artemis is also respecting the process, and they have not pulled out of the competition, Ehman said. Thats certainly one of the things they are considering, but theres no indication at this point of that from any of the teams. And Patrizio Bertelli, in fact, gave quite a strong endorsement for pressing on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/sports/americas-cup-changes-are-sought-after-death-of-sailor.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

new to me, has a few quotes including this one

I know Artemis is also respecting the process, and they have not pulled out of the competition, Ehman said. Thats certainly one of the things they are considering, but theres no indication at this point of that from any of the teams. And Patrizio Bertelli, in fact, gave quite a strong endorsement for pressing on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/sports/americas-cup-changes-are-sought-after-death-of-sailor.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Actually it's ehman spinning up LR's finger to the committee as a strong endorsement for pressing on.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis new boat is not here yet and they never foiled on an AC72, do they have one wing left ? is it true that B2 has the same beam ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both the news article linked above and another posted elsewhere Lunna Rossa and Team New Zealand are accusing, implying, suggesting, inferring.... (choose one) that another team is using Bart's death as an excuse to change the rules in their favor.

Who are the referring to? Artemis, Oracle, Both?

What changes? Wind speed reductions? Luna Rossa seemed most adament about that initially. Now, after Team New Zealand weighed in, not so much.

Has either Artemis or Oracle made any statements on changes they would like to see implemented?

So far the only public rant demanding specific changes has come from Lunna Rossa. And that was not entirely clear.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xlot suggested above that during the QnA last week PB mentioned PC as one pressing for lower limits. But no matter who suspects who, it hardly seems to matter if PB came out for such low limits, first. Why point fingers?

 

And no, neither OR nor AR have said anything about it so far. TE did allude to it in the NYT piece but inconclusively. Edit, here: "It wouldnt surprise any of us if thats a recommendation that comes out of this, and they get the winds down lower," Ehman said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis new boat is not here yet and they never foiled on an AC72, do they have one wing left ? is it true that B2 has the same beam ?

Big blue is in Alameda since May 7th

 

395709_10151401180046087_1403213430_n.jp

315935_10151401389151087_1181315176_n.jp

947132_10151403447506087_2118586212_n.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has mentioned wind limits? Hell it would be quicker to list the few who have not.

 

IM certainly mentioned it (amongst other measures) and since then the teams have met again and no doubt have each put ideas forward. So they all know what each team is suggesting and what the Review Committee is considering, even if we have no clue.

 

It's not all by 'Public Decree' - even if HRH-PB seems to fancy that way of doing things! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has mentioned wind limits? Hell it would be quicker to list the few who have not.

 

IM certainly mentioned it (amongst other measures) and since then the teams have met again and no doubt have each put ideas forward. So they all know what each team is suggesting and what the Review Committee is considering, even if we have no clue.

 

 

Who has mentioned wind limits? Hell it would be quicker to list the few who have not.

 

IM certainly mentioned it (amongst other measures) and since then the teams have met again and no doubt have each put ideas forward. So they all know what each team is suggesting and what the Review Committee is considering, even if we have no clue.

 

Was clear to me what Luna Rosa's position is.

They want to be able to have a say in the way that the LVS is run. And on a given day, with a given forecast, be able to say "not today dear" to the RC, without repercussion.

Seems reasonable.

Obviously LR feel they have a good management team in place, have made good decisions to date. they don't want some wingnut incompetent person or committee to start telling them how to behave. Autonomy is strength, and LR understands that they give away their's if they submit to any usurper. A committee, or official acting ultra vires is their biggest obstacle to success, and they know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would be very surprised if they don't have atleast the same level of telemetry that DogZilla had. And that included laser fiberoptic interferometry down the length of each load bearing structure.

 

This sounds interesting. Could you explain it a bit more? How does it work? Sensors at specific places? Doing what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

>Who has mentioned wind limits? Hell it would be quicker to list the few who have not.

 

IM certainly mentioned it (amongst other measures) and since then the teams have met again and no doubt have each put ideas forward. So they all know what each team is suggesting and what the Review Committee is considering, even if we have no clue.

 

 

Was clear to me what Luna Rosa's position is.

They want to be able to have a say in the way that the LVS is run. And on a given day, with a given forecast, be able to say "not today dear" to the RC, without repercussion.

Seems reasonable.

Obviously LR feel they have a good management team in place, have made good decisions to date. they don't want some wingnut incompetent person or committee to start telling them how to behave. Autonomy is strength, and LR understands that they give away their's if they submit to any usurper. A committee, or official acting ultra vires is their biggest obstacle to success, and they know that.

 

There is a big hole in their argument though. They seem to be saying some parts of the Protocol are sacrosanct but other bits (the bits they don't like - $ penalties for not starting for example) can and should be changed.

 

Actually I agree with that particular point from a safety perspective - there is a problem when you mandate with financial penalties the need to stage a race for broadcast and to ensure two competitors turn up, regardless the state of their vessel, their crew, or the course.

 

Some delicate negotiation ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD's argument is that ETNZ is designed to be safe all through the specified range; they made choices and design compromises for that exact reason. If LR or anybody else did not, well then surely that should be their own problem?

 

I could see not dinging a team financially for sitting out a race, but shouldn't the team at least forfeit the race point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD's argument is that ETNZ is designed to be safe all through the specified range; they made choices and design compromises for that exact reason. If LR or anybody else did not, well then surely that should be their own problem?

 

I could see not dinging a team financially for sitting out a race, but shouldn't the team at least forfeit the race point?

 

Forfeit the race point... kinda like they do in regular yacht racing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That goes without saying - I'm sure PB sees it the same way - he just wants that choice resting with the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That goes without saying - I'm sure PB sees it the same way - he just wants that choice resting with the team.

Yes, it could be what he meant and it just didn't need saying.

 

In that case what he is really limiting is another boat's right to sail the course, something I assume they would still need to do to earn the point. He'd be preventing an ETNZ from doing that, above some X knots of wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites