Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sarah0809

Artemis?

Recommended Posts

 

GG^ No, can't think of an 'issue' penalty, they either measure or not and if No then can't win the race point.

 

What ETNZ and LR are trying to force, either all-but-one or else none of the DR safety changes, is very very unlikely to happen. Far more likely is All or None, or else some other third-way compromise that we haven't seen yet. And so under any likely scenario AR will be able to measure in and race; the current ETNZ proposal that would eliminate them has almost zero chance of flying.

I could see this dragging on for quite some time, meanwhile the LV cup schedule could be chewed up.

My view is that from the legal argument perspective the IJ will rule that IM doesn't have the power to change the rules. I don't see the IJ inventing some other compromise, there is no logical basis for them to do so even if it would 'save' the event.

 

Subsequent to that, there will be a period where the teams are forced to get together and decide what they can agree on unanimously out of the safety regulations. That is likely to be everything except: rudders past beam (LR, ET dissenting), rudder areas (AR, dissenting because they can't build it),and maybe the 100kg surplus. I think OR will dissent against increasing rudder areas if max beam is enforced, because of the inconvenience.

 

I suspect that to really drive the knife in deep, ETNZ will want to try and force OR to have to take rudder area AND not exceed the beam, requiring them to do some rebuilding, and they may all argue this for some time. In the end, I'd expect that to not follow through because of the risk to Artemis and the massive detriment to the LV schedule and event (plus ensuing PR wars). Then, the package that has been agreed will have to be taken back to the CG by a sheepish IM who will politely ask if they could approve the changes, in a bit of a climbdown from the all-or-nothing posture of before.

 

If IP is bluffing about AR and they can build the larger rudders inside the beam restrictions, then they may well blink first, and OR, while hassled, will go along with it because they have time.

Incidentally, it's hard to tell whether the Artemis rudder location is intertwined with their rear beam. Seems like they sit in about the same location.fw60jr.jpg

Photo credit to Monster Mash - Sorry mate, it came up unattributed in a Google image search, took a second to find it on the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I heard he's seeking asylum - in Argentina!

Rendition flights are going cheap at the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ All good points.

 

It seems possible that the IJ might simultaneously rule that while IM has no authority to effect DR changes unilaterally, he does have authority and obligation as RD to inform and satisfy the CG in order to achieve the MEP, and rule that by the Prot the MEP is the superseding 'local law' despite the arguments by CF and a few posters here. Were that to happen then the contentious parts of the AC72 DR become superseded, during any racing overseen by the USCG anyway, by the MEP.

 

Hopefully the knuckleheads will figure out a better third-way, while maintaining safety, that all - even GD - can live with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems that NONE of the teams want IM's big elevators

 

.................................

 

but how about relaxing the box rule for the LVC?

 

so AR can use big elevators if they feel they need them

 

but keeping the rule integrity for the AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AR can use big elevator!!!!

With the original rules....

They just have to have big cord so they don't exceed max beam?

But at that point, they become draggy, and no racer wants draggy foils...

That is why they (whoever want that rule, but not ETNZ and LR) want to extend outside the max beam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rules mandate a bigger area then it only makes sense that it should not come with other drag prices too. It's a package that makes sense only as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rules mandate a bigger area then it only makes sense that it should not come with other drag prices too. It's a package that makes sense only as a whole.

The rule of unintended consequences. or No good deed goes unpunished

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few weeks till the boat launches... No wonder PC is rambling about everything but the boat.

 

In any competition if they can't make the round robin...they'd be out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the unofficial word doing the rounds yesterday was their new boat may not be ready until July 26, leaving just 1 weeks before they need to take the startline for the semifinals.


After experiencing the consequences of what can happen when things go wrong in the high-powered AC72 catamarans, perhaps what Artemis are still weighing up is whether they are willing to send an under-prepared team and unprepared boat out on to the race course.



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10895081


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the unofficial word doing the rounds yesterday was their new boat may not be ready until July 26, leaving just 1 weeks before they need to take the startline for the semifinals.

After experiencing the consequences of what can happen when things go wrong in the high-powered AC72 catamarans, perhaps what Artemis are still weighing up is whether they are willing to send an under-prepared team and unprepared boat out on to the race course.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10895081

 

Thanks for quoting Dana the drama queen from NZ on what she thinks of AR.

 

Just like you, I'm sure she doesn't have an agenda.

 

Perhaps what she should do is get off her ass and come speak with the team directly as I did today if she wants the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So what are the facts that you've been told so recently?

 

What makes you feel I have any desire or obligation to post them here ?

 

What I will tell you is she knows very little about what she posts, and if she wants to be in the game maybe she should show up at the event like all the other jurnos have done. Looks like she's three steps behind the pace. Maybe she'll catch up when the IJ hearing concludes and her source comes back on line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relax buddy, I didn't say you had to tell us anything. I'm curious and if you have information it would be good to shut up some of the clowns around here. And show how wrong Dana is..

 

Or are you just going to cock tease like you've done with information from other teams?

 

Is don't get it. Why post that you have the facts and then say you'll tell us later?

 

 

^ So what are the facts that you've been told so recently?

What makes you feel I have any desire or obligation to post them here ?

 

What I will tell you is she knows very little about what she posts, and if she wants to be in the game maybe she should show up at the event like all the other jurnos have done. Looks like she's three steps behind the pace. Maybe she'll catch up when the IJ hearing concludes and her source comes back on line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Relax buddy, I didn't say you had to tell us anything. I'm curious and if you have information it would be good to shut up some of the clowns around here. And show how wrong Dana is..

 

Or are you just going to cock tease like you've done with information from other teams?

 

Is don't get it. Why post that you have the facts and then say you'll tell us later?

 

 

^ So what are the facts that you've been told so recently?

What makes you feel I have any desire or obligation to post them here ?

 

What I will tell you is she knows very little about what she posts, and if she wants to be in the game maybe she should show up at the event like all the other jurnos have done. Looks like she's three steps behind the pace. Maybe she'll catch up when the IJ hearing concludes and her source comes back on line.

 

Appreciate your comments, but it's pretty well known that Dana is not much more than a female version of Ta Kootie/Hastings.Kia Ora, assuming he's a male.

 

Point is that people that cite reports from biased reporters several thousand miles removed from the event and players are propagating inaccurate BS - hence her conjecture which I can confirm is baseless.

 

That should tell you something.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the bit I don't get is that if all this is about "safety", why would they let Artemis race in a boat that is neither in the water and untested and has a track record of failure and safety issues. Surely that would be very "unsafe" and if it is in the water within the next two weeks how can anyone (as IM would say "hand on my heart") give ANY assurances about this team remembering that they actually broke boat 1 just by towing it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the bit I don't get is that if all this is about "safety", why would they let Artemis race in a boat that is neither in the water and untested and has a track record of failure and safety issues. Surely that would be very "unsafe" and if it is in the water within the next two weeks how can anyone (as IM would say "hand on my heart") give ANY assurances about this team remembering that they actually broke boat 1 just by towing it!

 

Just a totally wild guess, but maybe that's why they're testing the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the bit I don't get is that if all this is about "safety", why would they let Artemis race in a boat that is neither in the water and untested and has a track record of failure and safety issues. Surely that would be very "unsafe" and if it is in the water within the next two weeks how can anyone (as IM would say "hand on my heart") give ANY assurances about this team remembering that they actually broke boat 1 just by towing it!

 

I would say they need to abstain from any judgements on the quality of the competitors and their boats. Their job is to set rules that are safe and fair. When they feel they've done the best job they can, they let the rest play out. Looking at individual teams and saying whether they could race or not is not up to the committee or any jury. Like all sailing, it's the sailors' choice to take the course, every day, every race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation but they haven't launched a boat yet. When they do they have a track record of fucking everything up. How is that safe in anyone's book?

 

 

So the bit I don't get is that if all this is about "safety", why would they let Artemis race in a boat that is neither in the water and untested and has a track record of failure and safety issues. Surely that would be very "unsafe" and if it is in the water within the next two weeks how can anyone (as IM would say "hand on my heart") give ANY assurances about this team remembering that they actually broke boat 1 just by towing it!

 

Just a totally wild guess, but maybe that's why they're testing the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I think having all of those details in the rule is stupid. Let them engineer something they can sail fast and safe. Give them basic rules that restrict the power and size, which will reduce the cost of the basic platform. Then let them innovate, and if they spend a lot of money on innovating and testing, then that is up to them, they are advancing the state of the art. If they are smart and scrappy, it's not going to matter that they don't have billions to throw at problems.

 

Let's not forget that the whole foiling revolution was something the rule makers tried to prevent, and that ETNZ used a technical flaw in the rule to make the boards bigger than the rule makers wanted them to.

 

Let's not forget that Artemis has been behind the curve on that and various other things this cycle. There's no shame in that. Every cup cycle has teams with great sailors and designers who end up behind the curve.

 

The complexity and the small limitations that increase the complexity just slow the boats down, make them less safe and make them cost more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most unsafe thing is letting Artemis race against another boat with less than a weeks testing/training under their belt.

Everyone has said these are very hard boats to sail, it's taken ETNZ how many hrs to get to this point?

And Oracle, they have also put in many hrs and only now are starting to get to grips with the boat

I have money (as all NZers have in ETNZ) and would be really P...ed off if ETNZ got rammed by a 'Learner' let alone if it KILLS someone in so doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I think having all of those details in the rule is stupid. Let them engineer something they can sail fast and safe. Give them basic rules that restrict the power and size, which will reduce the cost of the basic platform. Then let them innovate, and if they spend a lot of money on innovating and testing, then that is up to them, they are advancing the state of the art. If they are smart and scrappy, it's not going to matter that they don't have billions to throw at problems.

 

Let's not forget that the whole foiling revolution was something the rule makers tried to prevent, and that ETNZ used a technical flaw in the rule to make the boards bigger than the rule makers wanted them to.

 

Let's not forget that Artemis has been behind the curve on that and various other things this cycle. There's no shame in that. Every cup cycle has teams with great sailors and designers who end up behind the curve.

 

The complexity and the small limitations that increase the complexity just slow the boats down, make them less safe and make them cost more.

For over a $100 million there is every shame. Artemis is a shameful waste. All comes back to the man running it? Not the first time he has shamefully wasted a shit load of OPM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ All good points.

 

It seems possible that the IJ might simultaneously rule that while IM has no authority to effect DR changes unilaterally, he does have authority and obligation as RD to inform and satisfy the CG in order to achieve the MEP, and rule that by the Prot the MEP is the superseding 'local law' despite the arguments by CF and a few posters here. Were that to happen then the contentious parts of the AC72 DR become superseded, during any racing overseen by the USCG anyway, by the MEP.

Seen any foiling elephants lately in the neighbourhood?? :lol: Keep looking because you're more likely to see a squadron of them than your wacky pinot-induced convolution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the unofficial word doing the rounds yesterday was their new boat may not be ready until July 26, leaving just 1 weeks before they need to take the startline for the semifinals.

After experiencing the consequences of what can happen when things go wrong in the high-powered AC72 catamarans, perhaps what Artemis are still weighing up is whether they are willing to send an under-prepared team and unprepared boat out on to the race course.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10895081

Iain Percy said at todays press conference that they will not be launching for another two weeks. They start load / stress testing next week with the help of the other 3 teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the fuck does that work - "with the help of the other 3 teams"? If Artemis cannot as a $100 million team figure the rules and compliance out then they have not part of this event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ All good points.

 

It seems possible that the IJ might simultaneously rule that while IM has no authority to effect DR changes unilaterally, he does have authority and obligation as RD to inform and satisfy the CG in order to achieve the MEP, and rule that by the Prot the MEP is the superseding 'local law' despite the arguments by CF and a few posters here. Were that to happen then the contentious parts of the AC72 DR become superseded, during any racing overseen by the USCG anyway, by the MEP.

 

Hopefully the knuckleheads will figure out a better third-way, while maintaining safety, that all - even GD - can live with.

 

As sure as the sky is blue that road leads to the NYSC.

You can't give a set of rules to the CG and then use the fact those rules come from the CG as the rationale for ignoring the rest of the contract and having everyone accept them.

I would think LR and ETNZ would not just be looking for the cup they would be looking for damages to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets talk about the actual blue boat.

 

How far along was B2 when the crash happened? Were the bows already being built?

 

Full bows like ENTZ?

 

Place your bets.

 

What if its lightning fast?

 

That would be some shit.

 

It probably wont be too bad as AR can pillage off the other campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the fuck does that work - "with the help of the other 3 teams"? If Artemis cannot as a $100 million team figure the rules and compliance out then they have not part of this event.

 

So much for "ETNZ is throwing AR under the bus."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

Wait until Giovanni Belgrano "accidentally" trips over the hydraulic pressure control valve and applies ten times the design load ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the unofficial word doing the rounds yesterday was their new boat may not be ready until July 26, leaving just 1 weeks before they need to take the startline for the semifinals.

After experiencing the consequences of what can happen when things go wrong in the high-powered AC72 catamarans, perhaps what Artemis are still weighing up is whether they are willing to send an under-prepared team and unprepared boat out on to the race course.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10895081

Iain Percy said at todays press conference that they will not be launching for another two weeks. They start load / stress testing next week with the help of the other 3 teams.

There's been a beehive of activity lately, the parking lot today is almost full. A lot of the team members are now wearing blue Artemis shirts instead of the white ones. During smoke breaks builders are reviewing blue prints and talking on cell phones.

The last couple of weeks there have been what appear to be non-Artemis people in and out of the hanger. An unusual amount of high end BMW and LEXUS sport vehicles. The Artemis crew seems to have embraced the older American cars. There are lots of burn out marks in the parking lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How the fuck does that work - "with the help of the other 3 teams"? If Artemis cannot as a $100 million team figure the rules and compliance out then they have not part of this event.

 

So much for "ETNZ is throwing AR under the bus."

IP openly acknowledged this yesterday on stage, and also thanked the teams.

 

Should have been some high impact press from grumpy, as PH suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

the unofficial word doing the rounds yesterday was their new boat may not be ready until July 26, leaving just 1 weeks before they need to take the startline for the semifinals.

After experiencing the consequences of what can happen when things go wrong in the high-powered AC72 catamarans, perhaps what Artemis are still weighing up is whether they are willing to send an under-prepared team and unprepared boat out on to the race course.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10895081

Iain Percy said at todays press conference that they will not be launching for another two weeks. They start load / stress testing next week with the help of the other 3 teams.

There's been a beehive of activity lately, the parking lot today is almost full. A lot of the team members are now wearing blue Artemis shirts instead of the white ones. During smoke breaks builders are reviewing blue prints and talking on cell phones.

The last couple of weeks there have been what appear to be non-Artemis people in and out of the hanger. An unusual amount of high end BMW and LEXUS sport vehicles. The Artemis crew seems to have embraced the older American cars. There are lots of burn out marks in the parking lot.

Tragedy across the bay- lets hope for the best.

 

Asiana 777 inbound from Asia crashed on landing http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo/nYfcx/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to make my thoughts known

1. I want AR on the race track

2. I am sure most others do too

3. I am sure there is a lot of behind the scenes help from TNZ for AR

4. That is not something you tell anyone - you just do it.

5. It was good of IP yesterday to thank those for the help

6. Realistically the totally AR campaign has been troublesome

7. They do not have a hope of being competitive against either LR or TNZ - let alone winning

8. AR have made a call to continue and I and lots of people on the ground have supported that

9. This should not include changing the rules when other teams benefit disproportionately

10. I hope that there are some negotiations to ensure that AR can get to the race track even though it may not measure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ 1/2 right ;)

 

 

^^

9. This should not include changing the rules when other teams benefit disproportionately

 

This is the key - they need to get a lot more creative if they desire to have AR in. They would benefit from being more transparent about it as well.

I.e.

Issue #1 sensible safety measures.

Issue #2 Getting AR ready to race asap. Let AR convince a naval architect about any non-conforming (box rule) parts, while leaving the other teams to work along their original development paths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

--

 

 

Paul Cayard, CEO of Artemis Racing

 

The 34th Americas Cup is about to get under way in San Francisco. At Artemis Racing, we have had our heads down, working hard to finish a new boat and wing in order to get back out on the water and compete in this event that we have worked hard on for three years.

 

In general, when you are as busy as we are, you dont have time to get involved in media and spin. However, some of what is being said is erroneous, insulting, and downright disrespectful. I need to stand up for my team and state some facts.

 

On May 22, Iain Murray, Regatta Director for the 34th Americas Cup, issued 37 Safety Recommendations. These are the product of interviews of 25 personnel from all four teams, which were conducted by a panel that included just one member associated with a team: Jim Farmer of Emirates Team New Zealand (ETNZ).

 

The first person to commend the Safety Recommendations was Grant Dalton, CEO of ETNZ. He publicly congratulated Murray for his work and said you wont get any push back from ETNZ on this.

 

Now, five weeks later, Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa (LR) have lodged protests over two of the 37 recommendations and seek for these two Safety Recommendations to be eliminated. The two rules are permissive rules. They work hand in hand with other rules, which place new requirements on the size of the elevators. The inclusion of these rules excludes no one. Yet, excluding these rules, and keeping the other 35, will exclude Artemis Racing.

 

So I ask, who is trying to force whom out of the 34th Americas Cup?

 

These rules are not about one team. They are about bringing safety to the fleet and the event. The Regatta Director and his panel conducted a thorough and unbiased analysis, and were inclusive in the recommendations and rule changes. There are accusations being cast about that the Regatta Directors Safety Recommendations are a conspiracy to promote Oracle or Artemis Racing. These are slanderous and paranoid. Iain Murray is a man of the highest integrity and everyone in the sport knows that.

 

In making the Safety Recommendations at this late stage, Murray needed to make sure all teams could comply with his rule changes. The AC72s in the fleet are not identical. They are not one design like the AC45s. So some of the rules, such as minimum draft and the area of the elevators, are requirements. Other rules, like the two in question by ETNZ and LR, are there to create room for teams to comply with the requirements at this late stage of the game.

 

Artemis Racing doesnt like all the Safety Recommendations, but we recognize that many of the recommendations work together. Therefore, we have said that we support the entirety of the recommendations.

 

On May 24, in good faith, Artemis Racing began modifications on one set of its rudders and elevators to comply with the Safety Recommendations. These are long lead-time projects. So now Artemis Racing has two sets rudder elevators: one that complies with the Safety Recommendations in their entirety, and one that complies with the rules as they were before the Safety Recommendations were issued. Artemis Racing cannot comply with the third case, which ETNZ and LR are now trying to force on the competition.

 

The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition.

 

The two teams took a similar path to exclude Artemis Racing three weeks ago when they proposed a schedule change that would have started eliminatory racing on July 19, rather than the previously scheduled August 6. They tried to camouflage this move by saying that they were helping Artemis Racing by delaying the start of the Louis Vuitton Cup. It was quite the opposite.

 

Finally, contrary to what has been said in various sailing media, there never has been a ban on elevators on rudders in the AC72 Class Rule. All AC72s have rudder elevators because the Class Rule allows them. And ETNZ wasnt the first to figure out how to foil without elevators. No AC72 has ever foiled without them.

 

For Artemis Racing, our priority is safety and our goal is to race. Our challenges have been great but we are a determined team. We look forward to being out on the water soon!

 

--

 

Here To Race

 

http://artemis-racing.americascup.com/news/4567/we-are-here-to-race-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is it again. IIUC, ETNZ don't want to have the class rules changed, therefore - if they succeed in front of the Jury - the rules stay as they have been for three (?) years. And then AR's rudders cannot measure? How's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

 

 

Paul Cayard, CEO of Artemis Racing

 

The 34th Americas Cup is about to get under way in San Francisco. At Artemis Racing, we have had our heads down, working hard to finish a new boat and wing in order to get back out on the water and compete in this event that we have worked hard on for three years.

 

In general, when you are as busy as we are, you dont have time to get involved in media and spin. However, some of what is being said is erroneous, insulting, and downright disrespectful. I need to stand up for my team and state some facts.

 

On May 22, Iain Murray, Regatta Director for the 34th Americas Cup, issued 37 Safety Recommendations. These are the product of interviews of 25 personnel from all four teams, which were conducted by a panel that included just one member associated with a team: Jim Farmer of Emirates Team New Zealand (ETNZ).

 

The first person to commend the Safety Recommendations was Grant Dalton, CEO of ETNZ. He publicly congratulated Murray for his work and said you wont get any push back from ETNZ on this.

 

Now, five weeks later, Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa (LR) have lodged protests over two of the 37 recommendations and seek for these two Safety Recommendations to be eliminated. The two rules are permissive rules. They work hand in hand with other rules, which place new requirements on the size of the elevators. The inclusion of these rules excludes no one. Yet, excluding these rules, and keeping the other 35, will exclude Artemis Racing.

 

So I ask, who is trying to force whom out of the 34th Americas Cup?

 

These rules are not about one team. They are about bringing safety to the fleet and the event. The Regatta Director and his panel conducted a thorough and unbiased analysis, and were inclusive in the recommendations and rule changes. There are accusations being cast about that the Regatta Directors Safety Recommendations are a conspiracy to promote Oracle or Artemis Racing. These are slanderous and paranoid. Iain Murray is a man of the highest integrity and everyone in the sport knows that.

 

In making the Safety Recommendations at this late stage, Murray needed to make sure all teams could comply with his rule changes. The AC72s in the fleet are not identical. They are not one design like the AC45s. So some of the rules, such as minimum draft and the area of the elevators, are requirements. Other rules, like the two in question by ETNZ and LR, are there to create room for teams to comply with the requirements at this late stage of the game.

 

Artemis Racing doesnt like all the Safety Recommendations, but we recognize that many of the recommendations work together. Therefore, we have said that we support the entirety of the recommendations.

 

On May 24, in good faith, Artemis Racing began modifications on one set of its rudders and elevators to comply with the Safety Recommendations. These are long lead-time projects. So now Artemis Racing has two sets rudder elevators: one that complies with the Safety Recommendations in their entirety, and one that complies with the rules as they were before the Safety Recommendations were issued. Artemis Racing cannot comply with the third case, which ETNZ and LR are now trying to force on the competition.

 

The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition.

 

The two teams took a similar path to exclude Artemis Racing three weeks ago when they proposed a schedule change that would have started eliminatory racing on July 19, rather than the previously scheduled August 6. They tried to camouflage this move by saying that they were helping Artemis Racing by delaying the start of the Louis Vuitton Cup. It was quite the opposite.

 

Finally, contrary to what has been said in various sailing media, there never has been a ban on elevators on rudders in the AC72 Class Rule. All AC72s have rudder elevators because the Class Rule allows them. And ETNZ wasnt the first to figure out how to foil without elevators. No AC72 has ever foiled without them.

 

For Artemis Racing, our priority is safety and our goal is to race. Our challenges have been great but we are a determined team. We look forward to being out on the water soon!

 

--

 

Here To Race

 

http://artemis-racing.americascup.com/news/4567/we-are-here-to-race-2

Nothing quite like creating your own reality, Paul. You're full of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I-m-the-special-one.png

 

Different day - same bullshit.

 

Your Royal Lateness, you may beg to get in, work to get in, compromise your arse off to get in, but don't whine or tell those virtually ruining the event in making exemptions for your failures that they are annoying you.

HTFU and pull your finger out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it the main reason AR can't comply with the original rules is that they can't get within the maximum weight limit ..

 

If/when the IJ finds that IM can't change the rules the contestants need to get around the table and find a way to get AR into the LV contest .. eg: they could agree to allow AR to be overweight for the LV but not for the AC or they could let her race with proviso that she would be disqualified for being overweight ..

 

When there is goodwill there is always a way .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America’s Cup 34: Access in Alameda

A firsthand look inside Artemis Racing's base reveals the monumental task ahead for the Swedish Challenger.

In a surprise gesture to reestablish ties with the media, Artemis finally opened its doors for an hour-long base tour co-hosted by CEO Paul Cayard and helmsman Nathan Outteridge. In stark contrast to Oracle Team USA’s base, which has the appearance of a clean and tidy garage in which to store a few AC72s and wings, the Challenger of Record’s workspace looked like a sailor’s chop shop.

The boat itself was a hive of activity, its bow sections wrapped in silver padding. The bowsprit had only been attached the night before

“We had four rudders, two sets that we made for Boat 2,” he explained. “They were rule compliant before May 22. When the safety recommendations came out we were told they would be rules, and in good faith, we began a six-week process to make safety-rule compliant elevators.”

They “cannibalized” one set to do so, he added, and are awaiting their arrival. “So we have those coming, and we have the class-rules compliant rudders currently in hand. We’re sort of exposed because we don’t have spares as we did before.”

 

 

post-33465-0-89172700-1373174379_thumb.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the LVC is not the AC

 

if they want to fuck with the rules to let AR race in the LV maybe they can let them sail heavy

 

but keep the old rules for the AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that it is late and the rules should not be changed now and I dont say that they should change.They should have been two years but I still dont understand.

 

Why is it a max weight limit? It does not make sense or am I missing somthing now? A min weight limit I understand as lighter is normally faster and you have to set a limit somewere due to both cost and safety but why a max limit? A max weight means that you will have to save every gram they can to get within the limits (min and max) and that might mean taking shortcuts when it comes to making it strong and just makes it more expensive. After all AC72:s is prototypes and you test, you break, you change and so on. Boats will gain weight. If you have to build to a certain weight and then has to change something (add weight) for some reason, maybe reinforcment you might not be within the rules and have to remove weight in another place that might mean that that part will break.

 

It just sounds like a way to keep the cost up and make it more difficult to put on a good challenge for the cup.

 

Hmmm. I think that I am on to something here. The rules were written by Oracle and the more expensive the smaller chance it is that some one can come up with the money to and take the cup away from Oracle that they did not deserve in the first place :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey PC how about Put a non foiling boat on the start line ???

 

Yeah, hope for 4 knots and sail the race.

 

Koukel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this palava under the guise of safety is just plain wrong.

 

It would surely be more dangerous to let a team try to foil a Juan K catamaran in a race with next to no training and development time this is a recipe for disaster. Mark my words this will be a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

And that's a good reason for ETNZ to accrue points in the RR. IIRC it gives the option of skipping the semis i.e. they don't have to line up against AR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's utter madness the argument is based around a class rule that the two compliant boats have proven to be the safest.

 

Now they are happy to let a team with a history of breakages and bad decisions go out and try race an AC72 in anger on foils with no prior AC 72 foiling experience? because the rudder elevators are a little bigger ??

 

Come on

 

They are missing the actual liability here and thats PC's camapaign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the safety recommendations came out, Outteridge said, the team’s original rudders weren’t big enough. “They were like .26 and so we’ve had to rebuild ours to be .32 and we’ve gone to a symmetric rudder with them outside the beam because that’s what the recommendations say we’re allowed to do. If they say you have to be .32, and you have to be inside the boundaries, then we have an issue because our rudders won’t fit. So we’re good for the original rule and we’re good for what changed, but in between…we’re like six to eight weeks from making those.”

 

These claims by AR are BS. ETNZ are not pushing a "third" option of ".32 sq m asymmetric" to the old rules: they're simply asking for the Jury to rule that Murray over-stepped his authority, meaning if the Jury agrees, they revert to the old Class Rules and AR can revert to their .26 sq m rudder elevators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the safety recommendations came out, Outteridge said, the team’s original rudders weren’t big enough. “They were like .26 and so we’ve had to rebuild ours to be .32 and we’ve gone to a symmetric rudder with them outside the beam because that’s what the recommendations say we’re allowed to do. If they say you have to be .32, and you have to be inside the boundaries, then we have an issue because our rudders won’t fit. So we’re good for the original rule and we’re good for what changed, but in between…we’re like six to eight weeks from making those.”

 

These claims by AR are BS. ETNZ are not pushing a "third" option of ".32 sq m asymmetric" to the old rules: they're simply asking for the Jury to rule that Murray over-stepped his authority, meaning if the Jury agrees, they revert to the old Class Rules and AR can revert to their .26 sq m rudder elevators.

I hear OR has plenty of different winglets lying around and they're not too precious about which ones they use...might be worth a bit of dumpster diving at the OR compound?

Seriously it's ridiculous if it's taking that long to make a rudder.

What happens if you hit a small log and damage a winglet - you're campaign is over because you haven't got a spare?!

Sounds like some down on his luck loser bet it all on black.

Hollywood couldn't write a script this bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of what Cayard is saying is a little confusing, for example, RC says new elevators aren't a big deal, Cayard says they are long lead-time projects.

I also can't figure out what the 'third case' is - 0.32m2 rudders that don't go past the beam or transom limits? I don't know that ET/LR's IJ protest requests this - just that non-unanimous changes cannot be allowed.

 

"On May 24, in good faith, Artemis Racing began modifications on one set of its rudders and elevators to comply with the Safety Recommendations. These are long lead-time projects. So now Artemis Racing has two sets rudder elevators: one that complies with the Safety Recommendations in their entirety, and one that complies with the rules as they were before the Safety Recommendations were issued. Artemis Racing cannot comply with the third case, which ETNZ and LR are now trying to force on the competition"

 

And then there's:

 

"The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition."

 

Which regretfully indicates that Artemis should be the first eliminee of this competition - it's not just a sailboat race, you have to get on the course first.

 

. - See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/07/05/paul-cayard-comments-on-the-americas-cup-controversy/#sthash.KgNqP26Z.dpuf

 

[edit: substituted a pronoun]

 

Paul Cayard is engaging in special pleading in this report, and the timeline of events reinforces this.

 

As a result of Iain Murray’s 37 safety recommendations issued on May 22, Cayard says that Artemis started modifying one set of their rudders and foils to comply with them. Now, he says, 5 weeks later ETNZ and LR have lodged protests that, if successful, may mean AR cannot use their new rudders and will not be compliant.

 

There are two problems with this statement. The first is that it is dated July 5, which is actually just over 6 weeks, not 5 as Cayard asserts (but this is relatively minor, and may reflect how long it took to get into print).

 

The second, and more telling, problem is that he is saying that ETNZ and LR are only now lodging protests to the IJ, and he is insinuating that this is a surprise and may have big ramifications for AR.

 

This is either deliberate spin or PC is being disingenuous, because everyone here on this thread knew on June 12, 3 weeks after the safety recommendations release, that Bryan Willis sent out a notice to convene a meeting between all the parties to mediate this very issue (http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JN071.pdf), so it could hardly have been a surprise when they went to the IJ after the mediation failed.

 

Note that the notice for mediation was circulated exactly 3 weeks after the release of Iain Murray’s recommendations, and it is reasonable to assume that ETNZ and LR made their positions known before this.

 

Like a lot of people on SA, I hoped AR could get their act together in time for some racing. I also ignored a lot of the vitriol aimed at PC, but I have to admit that if he did write this piece, then I have lost some of the faith I put in him.

 

PS. Like others, I have no idea what he means when he talks about the “third case”, but going by his general muddied understanding of how this all works, I’m pretty sure he thinks they are trying to introduce trimarans and he will need one more rudder case for the center hull. If so, he has my commiserations. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cayard is confused by his own BS and lack of integrity. He should know that until GGYC/ACRM had submitted a MEP application, and the MEP was issued, there was nothing for ETNZ and LR to protest to the Jury. Once Murray formalised his assumed authority to change the Class Rule by issuing his RN189, ETNZ and LR had 14 days to file their applications. Nothing surprising about that - but apparently Cayard found it so!

 

And now Cayard is blaming ETNZ and LR for his decision to build new rudders based solely on the recommendations? If this is a reflection of his understanding of the Protocol and Class Rules, it certainly explains why AR got beaten so badly so often in all their applications to the Jury!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

PS. Like others, I have no idea what he means when he talks about the “third case”, but going by his general muddied understanding of how this all works, I’m pretty sure he thinks they are trying to introduce trimarans and he will need one more rudder case for the center hull. If so, he has my commiserations. <_<

 

No we know why they need a symetrical rudder! it's for the centre hull!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the safety recommendations came out, Outteridge said, the team’s original rudders weren’t big enough. “They were like .26 and so we’ve had to rebuild ours to be .32 and we’ve gone to a symmetric rudder with them outside the beam because that’s what the recommendations say we’re allowed to do. If they say you have to be .32, and you have to be inside the boundaries, then we have an issue because our rudders won’t fit. So we’re good for the original rule and we’re good for what changed, but in between…we’re like six to eight weeks from making those.”[/size]

 

These claims by AR are BS. ETNZ are not pushing a "third" option of ".32 sq m asymmetric" to the old rules: they're simply asking for the Jury to rule that Murray over-stepped his authority, meaning if the Jury agrees, they revert to the old Class Rules and AR can revert to their .26 sq m rudder elevators.

No, IM is saying that .32 sq m elevators are still needed to comply with the USCG permit and hence the 3rd requirement of a .32 sq m that also complies with the old class rules.

 

ETNZ and LR have those rudders and RC states he can comply with this requirement if the IJ rules in ETNZ favour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When the safety recommendations came out, Outteridge said, the team’s original rudders weren’t big enough. “They were like .26 and so we’ve had to rebuild ours to be .32 and we’ve gone to a symmetric rudder with them outside the beam because that’s what the recommendations say we’re allowed to do. If they say you have to be .32, and you have to be inside the boundaries, then we have an issue because our rudders won’t fit. So we’re good for the original rule and we’re good for what changed, but in between…we’re like six to eight weeks from making those.”[/size]

 

These claims by AR are BS. ETNZ are not pushing a "third" option of ".32 sq m asymmetric" to the old rules: they're simply asking for the Jury to rule that Murray over-stepped his authority, meaning if the Jury agrees, they revert to the old Class Rules and AR can revert to their .26 sq m rudder elevators.

No, IM is saying that .32 sq m elevators are still needed to comply with the USCG permit and hence the 3rd requirement of a .32 sq m that also complies with the old class rules.

 

ETNZ and LR have those rudders and RC states he can comply with this requirement if the IJ rules in ETNZ favour

But if the Jury upholds the applications, those .32sq/m are out. The point of the ETNZ-LR applications is that Murray exceeded his jurisdiction in changing the Class Rules when he issued his RN189 implementing the "safety recommendations (which introduced the 0.32sq/m elevators. If the Jury rules in favour of ETNZ, ALL recommendations which are governed by the Class Rules (of which I think there are 7) are invalid. ETNZ and LR might be negotiable on some of them, but certainly not on at least two of them.

 

All Murray has done is legalised OR's symmetric rudder elevators, and then tries to appear to be conceding some by allowing ETNZ and LR to sail with their old rudders (after submitting load calcs, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ on that basis and IM's negotiating record, coupled with LR's statement today that they won"t race until this issue is fully resolved it could be sometime until we get some actual racing...ETNZ could be off to the LVC final without a race with another boat on the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Americas Cup 34: Access in Alameda

A firsthand look inside Artemis Racing's base reveals the monumental task ahead for the Swedish Challenger.

In a surprise gesture to reestablish ties with the media, Artemis finally opened its doors for an hour-long base tour co-hosted by CEO Paul Cayard and helmsman Nathan Outteridge. In stark contrast to Oracle Team USAs base, which has the appearance of a clean and tidy garage in which to store a few AC72s and wings, the Challenger of Records workspace looked like a sailors chop shop.

The boat itself was a hive of activity, its bow sections wrapped in silver padding. The bowsprit had only been attached the night before

We had four rudders, two sets that we made for Boat 2, he explained. They were rule compliant before May 22. When the safety recommendations came out we were told they would be rules, and in good faith, we began a six-week process to make safety-rule compliant elevators.

They cannibalized one set to do so, he added, and are awaiting their arrival. So we have those coming, and we have the class-rules compliant rudders currently in hand. Were sort of exposed because we dont have spares as we did before.

 

http://www.sailingworld.com/racing/americas-cup/americas-cup-34-access-in-alameda

 

Don't know about Michele, but I see Pierre there - and yet he didn't post anything, was it so embarassing to be painful? I feel for AR, at one time or another we've all been in IP's place, toiling the night away with no hope of succeeding.

 

Seriously, we can all pin their status on the timeline of other teams, and it's what: 3-4 months from ready for racing? Sorry - I was counting on them to provide a few wins for LR - but it just might be the time someone euthanizes the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that it is late and the rules should not be changed now and I dont say that they should change.They should have been two years but I still dont understand.

 

Why is it a max weight limit? It does not make sense or am I missing somthing now? A min weight limit I understand as lighter is normally faster and you have to set a limit somewere due to both cost and safety but why a max limit? A max weight means that you will have to save every gram they can to get within the limits (min and max) and that might mean taking shortcuts when it comes to making it strong and just makes it more expensive. After all AC72:s is prototypes and you test, you break, you change and so on. Boats will gain weight. If you have to build to a certain weight and then has to change something (add weight) for some reason, maybe reinforcment you might not be within the rules and have to remove weight in another place that might mean that that part will break.

 

It just sounds like a way to keep the cost up and make it more difficult to put on a good challenge for the cup.

 

Hmmm. I think that I am on to something here. The rules were written by Oracle and the more expensive the smaller chance it is that some one can come up with the money to and take the cup away from Oracle that they did not deserve in the first place :-)

 

Even if most of what you write above turns out true, the cool thing about Oracle, in my opinion, is if they lose they aren't going to pout and boycott a New Zealand or European event.

 

Koukel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

 

 

Paul Cayard, CEO of Artemis Racing

 

The 34th Americas Cup is about to get under way in San Francisco. At Artemis Racing, we have had our heads down, working hard to finish a new boat and wing in order to get back out on the water and compete in this event that we have worked hard on for three years.

 

In general, when you are as busy as we are, you dont have time to get involved in media and spin. However, some of what is being said is erroneous, insulting, and downright disrespectful. I need to stand up for my team and state some facts.

 

On May 22, Iain Murray, Regatta Director for the 34th Americas Cup, issued 37 Safety Recommendations. These are the product of interviews of 25 personnel from all four teams, which were conducted by a panel that included just one member associated with a team: Jim Farmer of Emirates Team New Zealand (ETNZ).

 

The first person to commend the Safety Recommendations was Grant Dalton, CEO of ETNZ. He publicly congratulated Murray for his work and said you wont get any push back from ETNZ on this.

 

Now, five weeks later, Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa (LR) have lodged protests over two of the 37 recommendations and seek for these two Safety Recommendations to be eliminated. The two rules are permissive rules. They work hand in hand with other rules, which place new requirements on the size of the elevators. The inclusion of these rules excludes no one. Yet, excluding these rules, and keeping the other 35, will exclude Artemis Racing.

 

So I ask, who is trying to force whom out of the 34th Americas Cup?

 

These rules are not about one team. They are about bringing safety to the fleet and the event. The Regatta Director and his panel conducted a thorough and unbiased analysis, and were inclusive in the recommendations and rule changes. There are accusations being cast about that the Regatta Directors Safety Recommendations are a conspiracy to promote Oracle or Artemis Racing. These are slanderous and paranoid. Iain Murray is a man of the highest integrity and everyone in the sport knows that.

 

In making the Safety Recommendations at this late stage, Murray needed to make sure all teams could comply with his rule changes. The AC72s in the fleet are not identical. They are not one design like the AC45s. So some of the rules, such as minimum draft and the area of the elevators, are requirements. Other rules, like the two in question by ETNZ and LR, are there to create room for teams to comply with the requirements at this late stage of the game.

 

Artemis Racing doesnt like all the Safety Recommendations, but we recognize that many of the recommendations work together. Therefore, we have said that we support the entirety of the recommendations.

 

On May 24, in good faith, Artemis Racing began modifications on one set of its rudders and elevators to comply with the Safety Recommendations. These are long lead-time projects. So now Artemis Racing has two sets rudder elevators: one that complies with the Safety Recommendations in their entirety, and one that complies with the rules as they were before the Safety Recommendations were issued. Artemis Racing cannot comply with the third case, which ETNZ and LR are now trying to force on the competition.

 

The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition.

 

The two teams took a similar path to exclude Artemis Racing three weeks ago when they proposed a schedule change that would have started eliminatory racing on July 19, rather than the previously scheduled August 6. They tried to camouflage this move by saying that they were helping Artemis Racing by delaying the start of the Louis Vuitton Cup. It was quite the opposite.

 

Finally, contrary to what has been said in various sailing media, there never has been a ban on elevators on rudders in the AC72 Class Rule. All AC72s have rudder elevators because the Class Rule allows them. And ETNZ wasnt the first to figure out how to foil without elevators. No AC72 has ever foiled without them.

 

For Artemis Racing, our priority is safety and our goal is to race. Our challenges have been great but we are a determined team. We look forward to being out on the water soon!

 

--

 

Here To Race

 

http://artemis-racing.americascup.com/news/4567/we-are-here-to-race-2

Here is the BS that is the problem. From above:

"These rules are not about one team. They are about bringing safety to the fleet and the event."

 

So PC is saying that this isn't about ONE team, but "The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition."

 

So ONE team will be forced from the competition. It IS about one team. AR can't race a safe boat if they don't get rule changes (which may or may not help OR) so they would be out. End of story. And as I have said before, if AR don't get on the water soon they are just a danger to themselves and others on the course. PC should take a reality pill, they WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE so they should withdraw so as not to be a safety risk for the other teams and stop whining about rules that will only help ONE team, ARTEMIS.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

America’s Cup 34: Access in Alameda

A firsthand look inside Artemis Racing's base reveals the monumental task ahead for the Swedish Challenger.

In a surprise gesture to reestablish ties with the media, Artemis finally opened its doors for an hour-long base tour co-hosted by CEO Paul Cayard and helmsman Nathan Outteridge. In stark contrast to Oracle Team USA’s base, which has the appearance of a clean and tidy garage in which to store a few AC72s and wings, the Challenger of Record’s workspace looked like a sailor’s chop shop.

The boat itself was a hive of activity, its bow sections wrapped in silver padding. The bowsprit had only been attached the night before

“We had four rudders, two sets that we made for Boat 2,” he explained. “They were rule compliant before May 22. When the safety recommendations came out we were told they would be rules, and in good faith, we began a six-week process to make safety-rule compliant elevators.”

They “cannibalized” one set to do so, he added, and are awaiting their arrival. “So we have those coming, and we have the class-rules compliant rudders currently in hand. We’re sort of exposed because we don’t have spares as we did before.”

 

 

maybe a bit more volume been added to those bows in the background?

seems like a sensible safety measure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So PC is saying that this isn't about ONE team, but "The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition."

 

So ONE team will be forced from the competition. It IS about one team. AR can't race a safe boat if they don't get rule changes (which may or may not help OR) so they would be out. End of story. And as I have said before, if AR don't get on the water soon they are just a danger to themselves and others on the course. PC should take a reality pill, they WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE so they should withdraw so as not to be a safety risk for the other teams and stop whining about rules that will only help ONE team, ARTEMIS.

 

 

 

 

I think NO addressed your concerns very directly here... http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/Americas-Cup:-Behind-the-Artemis--door---the-Swedish-team-unveiled/111672 (Note the credits at the bottom! :) )

 

Nathan Outteridge: The other teams know that we are going to be off the pace initially, But we can get the boat in the water in a couple of weeks and go sailing, and test our structures, get the boat foiling and start to do our maneuvers , then we will be in a position to head up to the City Front and do the racing. Until we get confident in the boat and our ability in the boat we don’t want to risk anyone’s safety.

 

We’re going out early in the morning in he boat. Get the boat foiling and see how we go. It is too hard to say when we will definitely be racing. Of course anything can happen.

 

We have to be realistic about our chances. The pecking order has to be Emirates Team New Zealand, Luna Rossa and then us, as the underdog. But until we get our boat in the water it is impossible to say how we are going to go..

 

The boat is going to go through structural testing next week. We are going to flip the boat upside down and have to tick all the boxes, and we are half way through that process. Then we have to get her on the water, get the wingsail on, do the load testing. Then it is the sailing team’s turn to take over.

 

The thing for us that is positive is that we have been able to turn the AC45 into a foiling boat, and we went foiling on the first day, and we did almost 30knots with very good control and stability. We have refined that thinking on the 45 ad moved it to the 72, so when we have passed all our tests, when we get out there we will be in good shape.

 

We are going to need five, six or seven days to get through the basic stuff, but the way I see it, it is not how many days, but how productive you can be in those days. It is tough to say how many days it is going to take. But obviously the lighter the wind is , the sooner we are going to be able to race. In 8-10 kts the boat should be manageable. If we have 20kts on day 5, I am sure we will have a bit on Hopefully by the time we get to August we will be able to handle 15-18kts quite comfortably.

 

All we want to do is compete in this America’s Cup. I joined this America’s Cup thinking what a great concept, they are trying to achieve. It is obvious that they have overstepped the mark with the equipment. It is a little outrageous for the venue, But I think the concept is great. What they are trying to do is awesome. Our whole team just wants to go racing, but we have got an issue and can’t get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would surely be more dangerous to let a team try to foil a Juan K catamaran in a race with next to no training and development time this is a recipe for disaster. Mark my words this will be a mistake.

Yes, I agree.

 

There are many signs of pressure in Artemis.

 

When the syndicate CEO calls other leaders "slanderous and paranoid" you know there is a major problem.

 

Under these conditions, it would dangerous for them to launch an untried boat under pressure to compete with better-organised syndicates.

 

If Cayard believes his own speech about safety, he will keep his boat in the shed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So PC is saying that this isn't about ONE team, but "The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition."

 

So ONE team will be forced from the competition. It IS about one team. AR can't race a safe boat if they don't get rule changes (which may or may not help OR) so they would be out. End of story. And as I have said before, if AR don't get on the water soon they are just a danger to themselves and others on the course. PC should take a reality pill, they WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE so they should withdraw so as not to be a safety risk for the other teams and stop whining about rules that will only help ONE team, ARTEMIS.

 

 

 

 

I think NO addressed your concerns very directly here... http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/Americas-Cup:-Behind-the-Artemis--door---the-Swedish-team-unveiled/111672 (Note the credits at the bottom! :) )

 

Nathan Outteridge: The other teams know that we are going to be off the pace initially, But we can get the boat in the water in a couple of weeks and go sailing, and test our structures, get the boat foiling and start to do our maneuvers , then we will be in a position to head up to the City Front and do the racing. Until we get confident in the boat and our ability in the boat we don’t want to risk anyone’s safety.

 

We’re going out early in the morning in he boat. Get the boat foiling and see how we go. It is too hard to say when we will definitely be racing. Of course anything can happen.

 

We have to be realistic about our chances. The pecking order has to be Emirates Team New Zealand, Luna Rossa and then us, as the underdog. But until we get our boat in the water it is impossible to say how we are going to go..

 

The boat is going to go through structural testing next week. We are going to flip the boat upside down and have to tick all the boxes, and we are half way through that process. Then we have to get her on the water, get the wingsail on, do the load testing. Then it is the sailing team’s turn to take over.

 

The thing for us that is positive is that we have been able to turn the AC45 into a foiling boat, and we went foiling on the first day, and we did almost 30knots with very good control and stability. We have refined that thinking on the 45 ad moved it to the 72, so when we have passed all our tests, when we get out there we will be in good shape.

 

We are going to need five, six or seven days to get through the basic stuff, but the way I see it, it is not how many days, but how productive you can be in those days. It is tough to say how many days it is going to take. But obviously the lighter the wind is , the sooner we are going to be able to race. In 8-10 kts the boat should be manageable. If we have 20kts on day 5, I am sure we will have a bit on Hopefully by the time we get to August we will be able to handle 15-18kts quite comfortably.

 

All we want to do is compete in this America’s Cup. I joined this America’s Cup thinking what a great concept, they are trying to achieve. It is obvious that they have overstepped the mark with the equipment. It is a little outrageous for the venue, But I think the concept is great. What they are trying to do is awesome. Our whole team just wants to go racing, but we have got an issue and can’t get there.

Exactly, so why the fuck are they still here? Everyday that goes by without them sailing their NEW FOILING AC72 makes them that more underprepared and dangerous. They know it, so they should go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So PC is saying that this isn't about ONE team, but "The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition."

 

So ONE team will be forced from the competition. It IS about one team. AR can't race a safe boat if they don't get rule changes (which may or may not help OR) so they would be out. End of story. And as I have said before, if AR don't get on the water soon they are just a danger to themselves and others on the course. PC should take a reality pill, they WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE so they should withdraw so as not to be a safety risk for the other teams and stop whining about rules that will only help ONE team, ARTEMIS.

 

 

 

 

I think NO addressed your concerns very directly here... http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/Americas-Cup:-Behind-the-Artemis--door---the-Swedish-team-unveiled/111672 (Note the credits at the bottom! :) )

 

Nathan Outteridge: The other teams know that we are going to be off the pace initially, But we can get the boat in the water in a couple of weeks and go sailing, and test our structures, get the boat foiling and start to do our maneuvers , then we will be in a position to head up to the City Front and do the racing. Until we get confident in the boat and our ability in the boat we don’t want to risk anyone’s safety.

 

We’re going out early in the morning in he boat. Get the boat foiling and see how we go. It is too hard to say when we will definitely be racing. Of course anything can happen.

 

We have to be realistic about our chances. The pecking order has to be Emirates Team New Zealand, Luna Rossa and then us, as the underdog. But until we get our boat in the water it is impossible to say how we are going to go..

 

The boat is going to go through structural testing next week. We are going to flip the boat upside down and have to tick all the boxes, and we are half way through that process. Then we have to get her on the water, get the wingsail on, do the load testing. Then it is the sailing team’s turn to take over.

 

The thing for us that is positive is that we have been able to turn the AC45 into a foiling boat, and we went foiling on the first day, and we did almost 30knots with very good control and stability. We have refined that thinking on the 45 ad moved it to the 72, so when we have passed all our tests, when we get out there we will be in good shape.

 

We are going to need five, six or seven days to get through the basic stuff, but the way I see it, it is not how many days, but how productive you can be in those days. It is tough to say how many days it is going to take. But obviously the lighter the wind is , the sooner we are going to be able to race. In 8-10 kts the boat should be manageable. If we have 20kts on day 5, I am sure we will have a bit on Hopefully by the time we get to August we will be able to handle 15-18kts quite comfortably.

 

All we want to do is compete in this America’s Cup. I joined this America’s Cup thinking what a great concept, they are trying to achieve. It is obvious that they have overstepped the mark with the equipment. It is a little outrageous for the venue, But I think the concept is great. What they are trying to do is awesome. Our whole team just wants to go racing, but we have got an issue and can’t get there.

Exactly, so why the fuck are they still here? Everyday that goes by without them sailing their NEW FOILING AC72 makes them that more underprepared and dangerous. They know it, so they should go!

 

All you need is pitchforks and torches and you'll be all set. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So PC is saying that this isn't about ONE team, but "The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition."

 

So ONE team will be forced from the competition. It IS about one team. AR can't race a safe boat if they don't get rule changes (which may or may not help OR) so they would be out. End of story. And as I have said before, if AR don't get on the water soon they are just a danger to themselves and others on the course. PC should take a reality pill, they WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE so they should withdraw so as not to be a safety risk for the other teams and stop whining about rules that will only help ONE team, ARTEMIS.

 

 

 

 

I think NO addressed your concerns very directly here... http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/Americas-Cup:-Behind-the-Artemis--door---the-Swedish-team-unveiled/111672 (Note the credits at the bottom! :) )

 

Nathan Outteridge: The other teams know that we are going to be off the pace initially, But we can get the boat in the water in a couple of weeks and go sailing, and test our structures, get the boat foiling and start to do our maneuvers , then we will be in a position to head up to the City Front and do the racing. Until we get confident in the boat and our ability in the boat we don’t want to risk anyone’s safety.

 

We’re going out early in the morning in he boat. Get the boat foiling and see how we go. It is too hard to say when we will definitely be racing. Of course anything can happen.

 

We have to be realistic about our chances. The pecking order has to be Emirates Team New Zealand, Luna Rossa and then us, as the underdog. But until we get our boat in the water it is impossible to say how we are going to go..

 

The boat is going to go through structural testing next week. We are going to flip the boat upside down and have to tick all the boxes, and we are half way through that process. Then we have to get her on the water, get the wingsail on, do the load testing. Then it is the sailing team’s turn to take over.

 

The thing for us that is positive is that we have been able to turn the AC45 into a foiling boat, and we went foiling on the first day, and we did almost 30knots with very good control and stability. We have refined that thinking on the 45 ad moved it to the 72, so when we have passed all our tests, when we get out there we will be in good shape.

 

We are going to need five, six or seven days to get through the basic stuff, but the way I see it, it is not how many days, but how productive you can be in those days. It is tough to say how many days it is going to take. But obviously the lighter the wind is , the sooner we are going to be able to race. In 8-10 kts the boat should be manageable. If we have 20kts on day 5, I am sure we will have a bit on Hopefully by the time we get to August we will be able to handle 15-18kts quite comfortably.

 

All we want to do is compete in this America’s Cup. I joined this America’s Cup thinking what a great concept, they are trying to achieve. It is obvious that they have overstepped the mark with the equipment. It is a little outrageous for the venue, But I think the concept is great. What they are trying to do is awesome. Our whole team just wants to go racing, but we have got an issue and can’t get there.

Exactly, so why the fuck are they still here? Everyday that goes by without them sailing their NEW FOILING AC72 makes them that more underprepared and dangerous. They know it, so they should go!

 

I must admit even if you overlook their inability to design efficient boats to the box rule, their inability to model loads, their inability to carry out tests, still their apparent inability to assemble, repair and rebuild boats quickly is stunning!

Nice bunch of sailors though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So PC is saying that this isn't about ONE team, but "The fact is that if ETNZ and LR get what they want, Artemis Racing will be excluded from competition."

 

So ONE team will be forced from the competition. It IS about one team. AR can't race a safe boat if they don't get rule changes (which may or may not help OR) so they would be out. End of story. And as I have said before, if AR don't get on the water soon they are just a danger to themselves and others on the course. PC should take a reality pill, they WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE so they should withdraw so as not to be a safety risk for the other teams and stop whining about rules that will only help ONE team, ARTEMIS.

 

 

 

 

I think NO addressed your concerns very directly here... http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/Americas-Cup:-Behind-the-Artemis--door---the-Swedish-team-unveiled/111672 (Note the credits at the bottom! :) )

 

Nathan Outteridge: The other teams know that we are going to be off the pace initially, But we can get the boat in the water in a couple of weeks and go sailing, and test our structures, get the boat foiling and start to do our maneuvers , then we will be in a position to head up to the City Front and do the racing. Until we get confident in the boat and our ability in the boat we don’t want to risk anyone’s safety.

 

We’re going out early in the morning in he boat. Get the boat foiling and see how we go. It is too hard to say when we will definitely be racing. Of course anything can happen.

 

We have to be realistic about our chances. The pecking order has to be Emirates Team New Zealand, Luna Rossa and then us, as the underdog. But until we get our boat in the water it is impossible to say how we are going to go..

 

The boat is going to go through structural testing next week. We are going to flip the boat upside down and have to tick all the boxes, and we are half way through that process. Then we have to get her on the water, get the wingsail on, do the load testing. Then it is the sailing team’s turn to take over.

 

The thing for us that is positive is that we have been able to turn the AC45 into a foiling boat, and we went foiling on the first day, and we did almost 30knots with very good control and stability. We have refined that thinking on the 45 ad moved it to the 72, so when we have passed all our tests, when we get out there we will be in good shape.

 

We are going to need five, six or seven days to get through the basic stuff, but the way I see it, it is not how many days, but how productive you can be in those days. It is tough to say how many days it is going to take. But obviously the lighter the wind is , the sooner we are going to be able to race. In 8-10 kts the boat should be manageable. If we have 20kts on day 5, I am sure we will have a bit on Hopefully by the time we get to August we will be able to handle 15-18kts quite comfortably.

 

All we want to do is compete in this America’s Cup. I joined this America’s Cup thinking what a great concept, they are trying to achieve. It is obvious that they have overstepped the mark with the equipment. It is a little outrageous for the venue, But I think the concept is great. What they are trying to do is awesome. Our whole team just wants to go racing, but we have got an issue and can’t get there.

Exactly, so why the fuck are they still here? Everyday that goes by without them sailing their NEW FOILING AC72 makes them that more underprepared and dangerous. They know it, so they should go!

 

All you need is pitchforks and torches and you'll be all set. :)

Well, by their own statements it will take 5-7 days to "get through the basic stuff" That is about the amount of time they have to sail before racing based on the "new" schedule. Looking back at all of the teams and their training, you get maybe 4 days a week of sailing (out of 7), so they will make it through part of the basic stuff before they have to go race. Would you want ETNZ, OR, or LR out on the race course with 5 days of actual sailing on the boat they will compete in? All of the other teams are race ready (think more than 40 days sailing on the race boat) that is many times more than AR will EVER have before they get out on the race course. They have no hope of being competitive ( I believe they even made that statement themselves) so why would you EVER go out on the course and risk ANY injury (or worse) for your team or any other? If you can't design a boat according to the rules set out YEARS ago you should be in the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If safety is such a concern, why do we have a challenger who is rushing to put together an essentially experimental boat to race against proven boats, with a design and build team with a history of failure? I guess theres a real concern about what happens if the COR can't race, and likely legal BS, but at this point I think that if AR pulled out, NZ would probably be confident enough to offer to be COR with no changes to the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Artemis effort bothers you all so much why do you keep following it?

Its so compelling watching a train wreck happen in slow motion - can't help myself!

 

Are you saying you aren't bothered by them? I have this sense of watching a group of people getting more and more frantic, less and less realistic, and ultimately more and more danger to themselves. I really want someone to step in and say "Its OK, its all over now, you made a good effort but go on home and get yourselves a good rest and some time to grieve properly". If they were kids you would be hoping their parents stepped in right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^it is worse than that, NO and PC are both talking about going back to their .26 sq m elevators if they have too, have these guys learnt nothing?

 

They certainly don't seem to have acknowledged that IM believes that .32 sq m is needed as a safety minimum, they are just going along with it because they think they have to.

 

Reading the NO article above is very scary

 

"We are going to need five, six or seven days to get through the basic stuff, but the way I see it, it is not how many days, but how productive you can be in those days. It is tough to say how many days it is going to take. But obviously the lighter the wind is , the sooner we are going to be able to race. In 8-10 kts the boat should be manageable. If we have 20kts on day 5, I am sure we will have a bit on Hopefully by the time we get to August we will be able to handle 15-18kts quite comfortably."

 

If this is the level of their thinking and planning IM's safety plan should include bolting AR to the dock and making sure their boat never has the foils or wing attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Paul Cayard: Luna Rossa and Team New Zealand want to cherry pick out two of the rules which are essentially allowances. The two rules they want to remove aren't requirements, they are allowances to allow the entirety of the fleet - which is not a one design fleet, every boat is a little different - to comply with the safety recommendations. If they pull those two out and they leave the other two requirement rules in, that is actually a third set of rudders - and we don't have time to make a third set of rudders."

 

me: I am really looking forward to saluting their effort when they some day soon cross a finish line in an AC72. Win or lose that first race Artemis will win my respect for the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^it is worse than that, NO and PC are both talking about going back to their .26 sq m elevators if they have too, have these guys learnt nothing?

 

They certainly don't seem to have acknowledged that IM believes that .32 sq m is needed as a safety minimum, they are just going along with it because they think they have to.

 

Reading the NO article above is very scary

 

"We are going to need five, six or seven days to get through the basic stuff, but the way I see it, it is not how many days, but how productive you can be in those days. It is tough to say how many days it is going to take. But obviously the lighter the wind is , the sooner we are going to be able to race. In 8-10 kts the boat should be manageable. If we have 20kts on day 5, I am sure we will have a bit on Hopefully by the time we get to August we will be able to handle 15-18kts quite comfortably."

 

If this is the level of their thinking and planning IM's safety plan should include bolting AR to the dock and making sure their boat never has the foils or wing attached.

 

Well as RD does he or does he not have responsibility to see that the event is as safe as possible, and if class rules are the issue what about the other 5 or 6 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^it is worse than that, NO and PC are both talking about going back to their .26 sq m elevators if they have too, have these guys learnt nothing?

 

They certainly don't seem to have acknowledged that IM believes that .32 sq m is needed as a safety minimum, they are just going along with it because they think they have to.

 

Reading the NO article above is very scary

 

"We are going to need five, six or seven days to get through the basic stuff, but the way I see it, it is not how many days, but how productive you can be in those days. It is tough to say how many days it is going to take. But obviously the lighter the wind is , the sooner we are going to be able to race. In 8-10 kts the boat should be manageable. If we have 20kts on day 5, I am sure we will have a bit on Hopefully by the time we get to August we will be able to handle 15-18kts quite comfortably."

 

If this is the level of their thinking and planning IM's safety plan should include bolting AR to the dock and making sure their boat never has the foils or wing attached.

 

Well as RD does he or does he not have responsibility to see that the event is as safe as possible, and if class rules are the issue what about the other 5 or 6 ?

Ideally not, RD's, RO's, OA's delve into prescriptive safety measures at their peril and the very basic law of the sea which obligates the safety of vessel and crew to the skipper is a fundamental to survival at sea but when things go awol and skippers abrogate that responsibility (or are not competent to assess the risks or the structure of the organisation does not give them the ultimate responsibility) then yes the OA has a responsibility to enter the fray and that seems to have been the case here to varying degrees across the fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

<yikes> As you wish SR, but please don't hold your breath!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To comply, you have to shorten the outboard elevator to stay within the beam. So where do you go with that area? You go forward and then the area becomes less efficient. The way to have an efficient and effective given area (like in an aircraft) is span. So when Iain Murray says I want 0.37 area he is assuming a certain efficiency of that area. That's why he required symmetry originally and he said you can go as much as 0.4 outside the beam so you have a nice symmetrical rudder that is an effective rudder - effective use of the 0.32.

 

so 2 years ago when they signed off on the rule

 

PC as head of AR chose to build a semi-foiling boat 1

 

even when it became apparent that etnz were going full foiling with their boat 1, august? last year, PC still decided to build AR's 2nd boat as a semi-foiler

 

then after their boat 1 semi-foiler folded up PC saw the light and decided to try and mod AR2 into a full-foiler

 

but as the hulls and beams weren't built for full-foiling they needed to be beefed up

 

plus they needed to develop and test foils that would allow not only full-foiling but also with full control, so as not to kill any more crew

 

but by leaving it so late to go full-foiling they don't have the time or the skills to get the changes made within the box rule before racing starts

 

so to make up for 2 years of bad choices, PC wants more time and relaxed rules

 

not to actually be competitive

 

but just to say they were in the races

 

and the rules he wants relaxed could alter the delicate balance between the defender and likely challenger's design

 

sorry paul

 

the cost is too high

 

and the payoff too small

 

to throw out hundreds of years of racing rules

 

in an attempt to salvage your reputation

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so 2 years ago when they signed off on the rule

 

the cost is too high

 

and the payoff is too small

 

to throw out hundreds of years of racing rules

 

Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Paul Cayard has absolutely no room to complain about the ETNZ protest. All ETNZ ever wanted to do was keep the rules as they originally were. They were rule compliant then, and are also rule compliant now with the safety recommendations. But just because you can do something does not mean you should do that something. ETNZ accepted the safety recommendations (as they should've)even though it meant they were stuck with an admittedly slower, heavy air capable design. I guess ETNZ could have designed a light air boat like OR and AR did, and counted on a rule change later, but if it didn't happen it would've put them in a vulnerable position in heavy air conditions (which it was stated in the protocol the boats had to be capable of surviving)The OR design and AR design were never designed to be able to survive the 33 knot wind limit. That much is definite. Was it a bad thing to design your boat to the conditions set out in the protocol?? Maybe, we'll see in September. But as far as Paul Cayard complaining about the ETNZ protest...Its not ETNZ that will have eliminated AR if the protest is upheld tomorrow, it will have been POOR decision making, and BAD boat design that would have eliminated them. Artemis will have eliminated themselves. No one else is responsible for their POORLY run programme except themselves. Paul Cayard should be blaming HIMSELF for his own situation not ETNZ or Luna Rossa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

me: I am really looking forward to saluting their effort when they some day soon cross a finish line in an AC72. Win or lose that first race Artemis will win my respect for the effort.

 

For what exactly?

Respect is based/given on the level of achievement, what have AR achieved that is worthy of respect?

 

Poor management and design that caused the death of a crew member.

If that is something that is worthy of respect you're a very twisted individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Paul Cayard has absolutely no room to complain about the ETNZ protest. All ETNZ ever wanted to do was keep the rules as they originally were. They were rule compliant then, and are also rule compliant now with the safety recommendations. But just because you can do something does not mean you should do that something. ETNZ accepted the safety recommendations (as they should've)even though it meant they were stuck with an admittedly slower, heavy air capable design. I guess ETNZ could have designed a light air boat like OR and AR did, and counted on a rule change later, but if it didn't happen it would've put them in a vulnerable position in heavy air conditions (which it was stated in the protocol the boats had to be capable of surviving)The OR design and AR design were never designed to be able to survive the 33 knot wind limit. That much is definite. Was it a bad thing to design your boat to the conditions set out in the protocol?? Maybe, we'll see in September. But as far as Paul Cayard complaining about the ETNZ protest...Its not ETNZ that will have eliminated AR if the protest is upheld tomorrow, it will have been POOR decision making, and BAD boat design that would have eliminated them. Artemis will have eliminated themselves. No one else is responsible for their POORLY run programme except themselves. Paul Cayard should be blaming HIMSELF for his own situation not ETNZ or Luna Rossa.

+1, dead on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites