Archived

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

sarah0809

Artemis?

Recommended Posts

 

 

Yes and then the whole challenger series would be farcical and nullified and the COR would be left to nominate a challenger for the AC....Cayard would the challenger!!

 

^ Charter Boat?

 

Does Adcat measure?

no elevators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes and then the whole challenger series would be farcical and nullified and the COR would be left to nominate a challenger for the AC....Cayard would the challenger!!

 

^ Charter Boat?

 

Does Adcat measure?

no elevators.

No worries there. Pretty sure the class Rule can be changed to accommodate all comers. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Yes and then the whole challenger series would be farcical and nullified and the COR would be left to nominate a challenger for the AC....Cayard would the challenger!!

 

^ Charter Boat?

 

Does Adcat measure?

no elevators.

No worries there. Pretty sure the class Rule can be changed to accommodate all comers. :)

Is that what's taking the IJ so long ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So have I got this right, now all four teams have publicly said that without the safety recommendations they would have gone with smaller elevators than the minimum-for-safety 0.32?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only OR went with below that for certain. AR might have been headed that way too.

 

There was no min in the old rules and yet ETNZ and LR already went bigger than the new min anyway.

 

Who wanted or needed bigger elevators? Head-scratcher? You bet. Try facing up and explaining that one to Bertelli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what it looks like

 

And Murray seems to be saying

 

He can't be biased

 

Because no team wants big elevators

 

But 1 team will live with them if they can disregard the box rule

 

Oh, and he works for all teams

 

And answers to all teams

 

Now is it clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

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

I promise to not hold my breath waiting for the next brilliant entry at the FV blog. Good enough for you? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw someone asked about Mango leaving the team. He was definitely pictured on the Sailing Team page pre accident but he's not there anymore. Yet you can still find his profile on the page with Google

http://artemis-racing.americascup.com/team/sailing-team/magnus-augustson

 

Maybe the webmaster is just busy building new rudders?!?

Yes Mango has left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Down but not out - Outteridge refuses to accept that his America's Cup campaign is all but over

07 Jul 2013

 

During a tour of the Artemis base in Alameda, I had the chance to speak with Australia’s Olympic 49er gold medallist Nathan Outteridge, who will steer the Artemis AC72 when it finally hits the water later this month. The second Artemis boat has been dramatically delayed by the accident that wrote off the first boat and killed crewman Andrew Simpson, and by the change to a fully foiling configuration.

 

 

http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/down-but-not-out-outteridge-refuses-to-accept-that-his-america-s-cup-campaign-is-all-but-over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Down but not out - Outteridge refuses to accept that his America's Cup campaign is all but over

07 Jul 2013

 

During a tour of the Artemis base in Alameda, I had the chance to speak with Australia’s Olympic 49er gold medallist Nathan Outteridge, who will steer the Artemis AC72 when it finally hits the water later this month. The second Artemis boat has been dramatically delayed by the accident that wrote off the first boat and killed crewman Andrew Simpson, and by the change to a fully foiling configuration.

 

 

http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/down-but-not-out-outteridge-refuses-to-accept-that-his-america-s-cup-campaign-is-all-but-over

great. now all they have to do is do it within the rules that everyone else built their boats to, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pesume the rules were written before plans were drawn and boats built, two got it wrong and are now demanding a rule change in the hope of catching up, thier design teams have clearly failed. They should race with the rule as it was and if they cant foil safely then dont foil,like all races onus should be on the skipper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pesume the rules were written before plans were drawn and boats built, two got it wrong and are now demanding a rule change in the hope of catching up, thier design teams have clearly failed. They should race with the rule as it was and if they cant foil safely then dont foil,like all races onus should be on the skipper.

+1000

 

the type in bold +1,000,000 - lest we inadvertently set an extremely dangerous precedent within our sport i.e. it is the RD job to warrant the safety of all the competitors boats and the competence of their crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Down but not out - Outteridge refuses to accept that his America's Cup campaign is all but over

07 Jul 2013

 

During a tour of the Artemis base in Alameda, I had the chance to speak with Australia’s Olympic 49er gold medallist Nathan Outteridge, who will steer the Artemis AC72 when it finally hits the water later this month. The second Artemis boat has been dramatically delayed by the accident that wrote off the first boat and killed crewman Andrew Simpson, and by the change to a fully foiling configuration.

 

 

http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/down-but-not-out-outteridge-refuses-to-accept-that-his-america-s-cup-campaign-is-all-but-over

"He explained that he learned to sail a foiling Moth by watching YouTube videos of other sailors".

 

It is amazing how much you can learn watching videos on the internet :D !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering if Artemis is or should be pushing to get launched, out on the water and into this RR earlier.

 

If the IJ rules for NZ and the Italians and Artemis can't measure in without the changes then the only chance for them to sail and get exposure would be before the IJ ruling, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe they should do what they said they'll do... and test their boat, like the kiwis did, before another incident happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering if Artemis is or should be pushing to get launched, out on the water and into this RR earlier.

 

If the IJ rules for NZ and the Italians and Artemis can't measure in without the changes then the only chance for them to sail and get exposure would be before the IJ ruling, no?

 

even if they wanted to get on the water earlier, they are just not able to do so. According to IP it's gonna take around 11 days from now to launch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday Artemis moved the crane to the compound.

Today as predicted they flipped the platform to start load testing.

 

DSC_1687_zps925ee374.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news from AR ? postponing the LV to september ? making a joke of a CoR ?

Well, with all the qualities of chief architect IM, it will be a safe boat. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sailracingmagazine.com/blog/sail-racing-magazine-podcast-episode-16-nathan-outteridge-artemis-racing

 

 

Sail Racing Magazine Podcast Episode 16 - Nathan Outteridge - Artemis Racing.
July 9, 2013

Forced to sit out his scheduled match against Emirates Team New Zealand while the Artemis Racing AC72 undergoes load testing, helmsman Nathan Outteridge updates us on the Swedish challenger of record's attempts to return to action in the 34th America's Cup.

 

 

Maybe by end next week float test

Doubtful for racing in July

Issue .32 on rudder area

"The boat is fast"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Down but not out - Outteridge refuses to accept that his America's Cup campaign is all but over

 

07 Jul 2013

 

During a tour of the Artemis base in Alameda, I had the chance to speak with Australias Olympic 49er gold medallist Nathan Outteridge, who will steer the Artemis AC72 when it finally hits the water later this month. The second Artemis boat has been dramatically delayed by the accident that wrote off the first boat and killed crewman Andrew Simpson, and by the change to a fully foiling configuration.

 

 

http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/down-but-not-out-outteridge-refuses-to-accept-that-his-america-s-cup-campaign-is-all-but-over

I am really happy that TT is supporting the team's choice to keep trying to make it to a start line. It's pretty cool if you think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really happy that TT is supporting the team's choice to keep trying to make it to a start line

Yup, it's the nearest place deep enough for the concrete shoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis Racing - Media Tour

Cayard must think everyone else is thick!! He goes on about having rudders that comply under the Class Rules, rudders that comply with the Murray Class Rules, and then claims they won't comply with a "third" permutation which he's accused ETNZ of promoting. Well, perhaps he should be asking Erkelens to start earning her Swedish kronas because even if ETNZ were pushing a "third" option, it would still require unanimous agreement by all Competitors before it flies!! And it would never fly if they vote against it....

 

Next whine....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis Racing - Media Tour

PC claims the committee including ETNZ Jim Farmer wrote the 37 recommendations, but Jim writes this below.

 

"Ultimately the Committee found itself unable to make recommendations as a committee because issues around legal liability were unable to be satisfactorily resolved by the Event Authority and the Golden Gate Yacht Club. However, Iain Murray, in his capacity as Regatta Director, following that investigation, did make 37 safety recommendations which have since been attached as conditions of the Permit issued by the US Coast Guard to hold the Event on San Francisco Bay."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see them out there too, but only if it's safe firstly for them, then for those around them. Lack of time on water is probably the biggest issue to overcome...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great photo, athough it is disturbing to see how far they still have to come. they look less prepared than etnz were when they unpacked in SF, and it still took them 2 weeks to recommission B2, a boat that had previously sailed. Hard to imagine how much work still need to be done in the next 3 weeks. let alone getting time in the boat to learn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The better this boat is the better the spectacle will be! I can't wait to see a fucking race between any of these things!

I just hope they can be in the game so the whole event and sailing benefits, my money is on NZ vs OR in a reasonably close battle, ideally with varied conditions throught the finals with multiple race wins to each team, that would make it the ultimate spectacle, but in reality there will probably be one boat which is the fastest and the result is obvious early on. We can only hope.

 

Go the big blue underdog! so much hate towards Cayard, i say god on them, i look foward to having another beautiful boat to perve at and all the best!

 

They may need to Lassou that NZ boat at the start to really be in it i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see them out there too, but only if it's safe firstly for them, then for those around them. Lack of time on water is probably the biggest issue to overcome...

ETNZ foiled on their fourth day out in the first AC72 ever. OR foiled their first boat on day two. AR2 has a lot of lessons behind her.

 

Yes there's been a lot of heavy-handed effort to disparage, discourage, and to even disqualify Artemis through various attempts by ETNZ. But that argument above is the biggest bullshit argument of them all.

 

If that Artemis AC72 can make it to the line too then they have every right to race hard and fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis Racing - Media Tour

 

So there is Pj Montgomery in San Francisco.

 

Is he available for race commentary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Artemis Racing - Media Tour

 

So there is Pj Montgomery in San Francisco.

 

Is he available for race commentary?

 

PJ should be doing race commentary, but I guess he is not American enough.

 

I love Andy Greene, but Tucker Thompson embellishes too much. He is overly dramatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Artemis Racing - Media Tour

 

So there is Pj Montgomery in San Francisco.

 

Is he available for race commentary?

 

PJ should be doing race commentary, but I guess he is not American enough.

 

I love Andy Greene, but Tucker Thompson embellishes too much. He is overly dramatic.

 

Not American enough ?

 

You really can't help yourself can you ? Did you also check with Hastings and Kia Ora ?

 

TT is good - certainly a lot better than the screamer, he knows the venue very well and has done the Rolex BBS for several years.

 

Go back to your cave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd like to see them out there too, but only if it's safe firstly for them, then for those around them. Lack of time on water is probably the biggest issue to overcome...

ETNZ foiled on their fourth day out in the first AC72 ever. OR foiled their first boat on day two. AR2 has a lot of lessons behind her.

 

Yes there's been a lot of heavy-handed effort to disparage, discourage, and to even disqualify Artemis through various attempts by ETNZ. But that argument above is the biggest bullshit argument of them all.

 

If that Artemis AC72 can make it to the line too then they have every right to race hard and fast.

 

StingRay:

 

What would be the SAFER situation?

 

(a) Artemis crew in a boat that's been on the water for a few days.

(B) Artemis crew that have had a boat on the water for weeks.

 

Take your time...

 

I genuinely want to see them on the water, racing, but not if they have to cut corners and put themselves or others at risk. Take your PR governed spin and direct it elsewhere. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd like to see them out there too, but only if it's safe firstly for them, then for those around them. Lack of time on water is probably the biggest issue to overcome...

ETNZ foiled on their fourth day out in the first AC72 ever. OR foiled their first boat on day two. AR2 has a lot of lessons behind her.

 

Yes there's been a lot of heavy-handed effort to disparage, discourage, and to even disqualify Artemis through various attempts by ETNZ. But that argument above is the biggest bullshit argument of them all.

 

If that Artemis AC72 can make it to the line too then they have every right to race hard and fast.

 

StingRay:

 

What would be the SAFER situation?

 

(a) Artemis crew in a boat that's been on the water for a few days.

( B) Artemis crew that have had a boat on the water for weeks.

 

Take your time...

 

I genuinely want to see them on the water, racing, but not if they have to cut corners and put themselves or others at risk. Take your PR governed spin and direct it elsewhere. Thanks.

 

I'd certainly give NO judgement over your opinion. Tell me, which corners are they cutting ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ AR put in 27 sailing days (!) on their first AC72 before the accident. Full-out foiling one will be new but the rest of it all will not be.

 

Take your 'they are just a threat to others' poppycock elsewhere. Thanks ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They put in 27 sailing days on a boat that broke and killed someone. They've now reworked a new boat, probably changing its structure and handling, have had the team composition change, are under extreme time pressure to get a boat on the water and working late hours to accomplish this.

 

It's not quite a simple as "they've had 27 sailing days".

 

Get a new hymn sheet from the OR media management guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They put in 27 sailing days on a boat that broke and killed someone. They've now reworked a new boat, probably changing its structure and handling, have had the team composition change, are under extreme time pressure to get a boat on the water and working late hours to accomplish this.

 

It's not quite a simple as "they've had 27 sailing days".

 

Get a new hymn sheet from the OR media management guys.

 

Yet another kiwi armchair admiral as of June 13th - join the fleet, you're more experienced than some :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They put in 27 sailing days on a boat that broke and killed someone. They've now reworked a new boat, probably changing its structure and handling, have had the team composition change, are under extreme time pressure to get a boat on the water and working late hours to accomplish this.

 

It's not quite a simple as "they've had 27 sailing days".

 

Get a new hymn sheet from the OR media management guys.

 

Yet another kiwi armchair admiral as of June 13th - join the fleet, you're more experienced than some :)

 

Better an Armchair Admiral than a Pirate who's plundered that pesky Class Rule treasure chest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the hull shape / transom profile. Different........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd like to see them out there too, but only if it's safe firstly for them, then for those around them. Lack of time on water is probably the biggest issue to overcome...

ETNZ foiled on their fourth day out in the first AC72 ever. OR foiled their first boat on day two. AR2 has a lot of lessons behind her.

 

Yes there's been a lot of heavy-handed effort to disparage, discourage, and to even disqualify Artemis through various attempts by ETNZ. But that argument above is the biggest bullshit argument of them all.

 

If that Artemis AC72 can make it to the line too then they have every right to race hard and fast.

yes OR foiled badly on day one if thats what you mean, ETNZ boat 2 foiled day one very well, so whats your point ?

 

Disqualify Artemis? Spinray are you on fucking drugs ?? if the original rules dont get thrown out they say they cant even sail.

 

Just to clarify ETNZ and LR want to keep the rules the same as when they started, not change them, fuck me , do you work for Oracle or Atremis or something in the PR department?

 

I really really struggle to understand where you are coming from!!

 

and just to clarify i cant wait to see Artemis on the water too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great photo, athough it is disturbing to see how far they still have to come. they look less prepared than etnz were when they unpacked in SF, and it still took them 2 weeks to recommission B2, a boat that had previously sailed. Hard to imagine how much work still need to be done in the next 3 weeks. let alone getting time in the boat to learn it.

My thoughts exactly. This is like taking a prototype fighter, still in pieces in the hanger, into battle against F22 Raptors. In 3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ssshhhhh!!!! You'll be accused of scaremongering!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They put in 27 sailing days on a boat that broke and killed someone. They've now reworked a new boat, probably changing its structure and handling, have had the team composition change, are under extreme time pressure to get a boat on the water and working late hours to accomplish this.

 

It's not quite a simple as "they've had 27 sailing days".

 

Get a new hymn sheet from the OR media management guys.

 

Yet another kiwi armchair admiral as of June 13th - join the fleet, you're more experienced than some :)

 

Better an Armchair Admiral than a Pirate who's plundered that pesky Class Rule treasure chest...

 

Don't speak of fellow countryman Jim Farmer like that, or is he now banned from the country :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC has said that they have cannibalised one of their two sets of old rule compliant rudders in response to the 37 recommendations - that they will then have one set that complies with the old rules and one set that complies with the new ones. What is the third option that he says will result if LR/ETNZ wins the protest? I thought the whole idea was to keep the rules as they were?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1044369_654269997934000_687380421_n.jpg

 

Since when does a canoe with outrigger comply with any of the rules, as they are/were/will be? Oh - perspective - sorry... 8-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC has said that they have cannibalised one of their two sets of old rule compliant rudders in response to the 37 recommendations - that they will then have one set that complies with the old rules and one set that complies with the new ones. What is the third option that he says will result if LR/ETNZ wins the protest? I thought the whole idea was to keep the rules as they were?

A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1044369_654269997934000_687380421_n.jpg

 

Since when does a canoe with outrigger comply with any of the rules, as they are/were/will be? Oh - perspective - sorry... 8-)

I didn't know they made duck tape that wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC has said that they have cannibalised one of their two sets of old rule compliant rudders in response to the 37 recommendations - that they will then have one set that complies with the old rules and one set that complies with the new ones. What is the third option that he says will result if LR/ETNZ wins the protest? I thought the whole idea was to keep the rules as they were?

 

i think the 3rd option

 

that PC hates but that etnz + LR think is the way out of IM's safety box

 

is the rudders must fit the box rule

and they must have the larger area theat IM says is safer

 

AR can go small symms inside the box

 

or

 

large symms outside the box

 

but they cannot go large and stay inside the box because they would appear to be unable to build assyms that won't break their boat

 

unlike the other 3 who can build large assyms and so stay inside the box AND be big enough for IM's new minimum area rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PC has said that they have cannibalised one of their two sets of old rule compliant rudders in response to the 37 recommendations - that they will then have one set that complies with the old rules and one set that complies with the new ones. What is the third option that he says will result if LR/ETNZ wins the protest? I thought the whole idea was to keep the rules as they were?

A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly.

I think it's more legit than that. I think it's a combination of the rudder length, rudder elevator area, and beam limitations. AR has two sets of rudders that meet the original rule and the full safety regs rule, but if the IJ say the max beam issue is out, but the rudder length and area hold, they no longer have a rudder that complies.

 

I see their point, to them it's a moving targeting with lesser resources. They built two new rudders to the safety regs, that won't comply with the rules if the IJ rule in favor of NZ/LR. If the IJ also say the rudders must be a certain length, longer than before, then they have no rudders that can comply.

 

More than anything, I hope a way is found for AR to get on the water, sail, and race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So AR would have been better off with no changes to the Class Rule mooted/slipped in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

PC has said that they have cannibalised one of their two sets of old rule compliant rudders in response to the 37 recommendations - that they will then have one set that complies with the old rules and one set that complies with the new ones. What is the third option that he says will result if LR/ETNZ wins the protest? I thought the whole idea was to keep the rules as they were?

A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly.

I think it's more legit than that. I think it's a combination of the rudder length, rudder elevator area, and beam limitations. AR has two sets of rudders that meet the original rule and the full safety regs rule, but if the IJ say the max beam issue is out, but the rudder length and area hold, they no longer have a rudder that complies.

 

I see their point, to them it's a moving targeting with lesser resources. They built two new rudders to the safety regs, that won't comply with the rules if the IJ rule in favor of NZ/LR. If the IJ also say the rudders must be a certain length, longer than before, then they have no rudders that can comply.

 

More than anything, I hope a way is found for AR to get on the water, sail, and race.

Except the application by ETNZ is seeking a ruling that Murray exceeded his jurisdiction to change the AC72 Class Rules, which means if upheld all changes (of which there are about 7-8) are out. The Jury can't pick and choose which changes Murray can keep: they don't have that jurisdiction either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

PC has said that they have cannibalised one of their two sets of old rule compliant rudders in response to the 37 recommendations - that they will then have one set that complies with the old rules and one set that complies with the new ones. What is the third option that he says will result if LR/ETNZ wins the protest? I thought the whole idea was to keep the rules as they were?

A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly.

I think it's more legit than that. I think it's a combination of the rudder length, rudder elevator area, and beam limitations. AR has two sets of rudders that meet the original rule and the full safety regs rule, but if the IJ say the max beam issue is out, but the rudder length and area hold, they no longer have a rudder that complies.

 

I see their point, to them it's a moving targeting with lesser resources. They built two new rudders to the safety regs, that won't comply with the rules if the IJ rule in favor of NZ/LR. If the IJ also say the rudders must be a certain length, longer than before, then they have no rudders that can comply.

 

More than anything, I hope a way is found for AR to get on the water, sail, and race.

Except the application by ETNZ is seeking a ruling that Murray exceeded his jurisdiction to change the AC72 Class Rules, which means if upheld all changes (of which there are about 7-8) are out. The Jury can't pick and choose which changes Murray can keep: they don't have that jurisdiction either.

 

Not true. Not at all.

 

Changes to the CR require unanimous consent. They got that on all but a few issues. So those changes are all well and find. That's the issues the AR camps speaks to...if they keep several of the changes but not all, they have no rudders that will measure. They will meet the new requirements about length, etc but will not measure if the max beam issues is overturned by the IJ.

 

And to speak to Nutta, no, they wouldn't be better off with the old rules. But, they started modifying rudders to meet ALL of the new 'rules' from the safety proposals. And if any of the changes in the new rules are reversed, while other required ones remain, they have no rudders that will measure.

 

I'm no AR apologist, but I really do hope this works out in some way that they can sail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except the application by ETNZ is seeking a ruling that Murray exceeded his jurisdiction to change the AC72 Class Rules, which means if upheld all changes (of which there are about 7-8) are out. The Jury can't pick and choose which changes Murray can keep: they don't have that jurisdiction either.

 

 

Not true. Not at all.

 

Changes to the CR require unanimous consent. They got that on all but a few issues. So those changes are all well and find. That's the issues the AR camps speaks to...if they keep several of the changes but not all, they have no rudders that will measure. They will meet the new requirements about length, etc but will not measure if the max beam issues is overturned by the IJ.

Tell me which part of ETNZ's application is "not true":

 

JURY CASE AC24

JURY NOTICE JN072

DIRECTIONS No.1

APPLICATION 1. On 28th June 2013, the Jury received an Application from Emirates Team New Zealand („ETNZ‟) representing Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron. The Application was distributed to the Trustee, the Competitors, America‟s Cup Race Management (ACRM), America‟s Cup Event Authority (ACEA), and the Chief Measurer by means of the „jurycomms72‟ distribution system.

 

2. ETNZ, inter alia, „seek a ruling from the Jury that the Regatta Director has exceeded his jurisdiction in seeking to introduce amendments to the AC 72 Class Rule (“Class Rule”) without obtaining the unanimous consent of the Competitors as required by Clause 4 of the Class Rule and that any such amendments are invalid and of no effect‟.

 

Below are all the "safety" recommendations governed by the Class Rules which Murray illegally amended. Most of them were agreed to by the Competitors. However, the effect of any ruling upholding ETNZ's application is that any previous agreements may need to be re-validated by the Competitors, and there may be enough goodwill to do so.

1. AC72 Yacht
1.1. AC72 Yacht Structural Review: Competitors in consultation with ACRM to collectively identify and complete a process of competent third party review or testing process of the structural integrity of the platform and wing.
1.2. Daggerboard Rake Control Hydraulic System: Competitors in consultation with ACRM shall identify and complete a process of competent third party review and testing process of their daggerboard rake control hydraulic systems to ensure an acceptable safety margin and level of reliability.
1.3. Rudder Elevators:
a) minimum total area 0.32 m2 per rudder;
B) minimum depth of elevators on rudder span of 2.1m;
c) maximum elevator span of 1.4m;
d) rudder elevators to be symmetrical in plan form and allowed to extend beyond maximum beam of the Yacht; and
e) elevators permitted to be adjusted until warning signal.
1.4. Crew Restraints: Competitors to effectively restrain crew through bearing-off manoeuvres, severe deceleration, or capsize, such as installation of cockpits, foot-straps, handholds, tether and/or belay points.
1.5. Maximum AC72 Yacht Sailing Weight: The maximum sailing weight specified in AC72 Class Rule 5.10 shall be increased by 100kg.
1.6. Soft Sails: Competitors limited to carrying two soft sails and eliminating the minimum weight in 26© of the AC72 Class Rule.
1.7. Guest Racers: No guest racers aboard an AC72 yacht whilst racing.
1.8. ACRM Personnel: AC72 Class Rule 25.1( B) to be modified to remove reference to “ACRM personnel” – this was originally intended to be a camera person and it has since been agreed to remove such a person from the boat.
1.9. Soft Coverings and Soft Fairings: Soft coverings and soft fairings shall be made of predominantly see-through/transparent material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=654269974600669&set=a.654269894600677.1073741830.109933829034289&type=3&theater

 

Photo's from LP's facebook raises an interesting question for me. I'm a structural engineer (bridges, not yachts), but I look at how the two diagonal members in the platform tie into rear beam and question the location of this connection.

 

ETNZ's connect in where the beam meets the hull, therefore reducing the load on the beam in the horizontal plane, whereas Artemis' positions appear to put significant shear and bending forces into that beam?

 

Now unless those diagonal members don't actually transfer load in that plane (possible, since I don't know or understand all the forces on these boats) but to me this seems like a really dumb move, especially since they've had so much trouble with their beams!

 

I'd be keen to hear an actual yacht designers thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=654269974600669&set=a.654269894600677.1073741830.109933829034289&type=3&theater

 

Photo's from LP's facebook raises an interesting question for me. I'm a structural engineer (bridges, not yachts), but I look at how the two diagonal members in the platform tie into rear beam and question the location of this connection.

 

ETNZ's connect in where the beam meets the hull, therefore reducing the load on the beam in the horizontal plane, whereas Artemis' positions appear to put significant shear and bending forces into that beam?

 

Now unless those diagonal members don't actually transfer load in that plane (possible, since I don't know or understand all the forces on these boats) but to me this seems like a really dumb move, especially since they've had so much trouble with their beams!

 

I'd be keen to hear an actual yacht designers thoughts.

My structural engineer would try and talk me out of that arrangement too so I'm wondering what the benefit is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=654269974600669&set=a.654269894600677.1073741830.109933829034289&type=3&theater

 

Photo's from LP's facebook raises an interesting question for me. I'm a structural engineer (bridges, not yachts), but I look at how the two diagonal members in the platform tie into rear beam and question the location of this connection.

 

ETNZ's connect in where the beam meets the hull, therefore reducing the load on the beam in the horizontal plane, whereas Artemis' positions appear to put significant shear and bending forces into that beam?

 

Now unless those diagonal members don't actually transfer load in that plane (possible, since I don't know or understand all the forces on these boats) but to me this seems like a really dumb move, especially since they've had so much trouble with their beams!

 

I'd be keen to hear an actual yacht designers thoughts.

I'm neither engineer nor boat designer, but my gut feeling was telling me the same. The diagonals don't look very stable...

 

I'd say, if they manage to not break the boat while load testing, they'll flex like a ballerina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

PC has said that they have cannibalised one of their two sets of old rule compliant rudders in response to the 37 recommendations - that they will then have one set that complies with the old rules and one set that complies with the new ones. What is the third option that he says will result if LR/ETNZ wins the protest? I thought the whole idea was to keep the rules as they were?

A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly.

I think it's more legit than that. I think it's a combination of the rudder length, rudder elevator area, and beam limitations. AR has two sets of rudders that meet the original rule and the full safety regs rule, but if the IJ say the max beam issue is out, but the rudder length and area hold, they no longer have a rudder that complies.

 

I see their point, to them it's a moving targeting with lesser resources. They built two new rudders to the safety regs, that won't comply with the rules if the IJ rule in favor of NZ/LR. If the IJ also say the rudders must be a certain length, longer than before, then they have no rudders that can comply.

 

More than anything, I hope a way is found for AR to get on the water, sail, and race.

Except the application by ETNZ is seeking a ruling that Murray exceeded his jurisdiction to change the AC72 Class Rules, which means if upheld all changes (of which there are about 7-8) are out. The Jury can't pick and choose which changes Murray can keep: they don't have that jurisdiction either.

 

Don't you get it. It is just that AC teams have to agree to any rule changes, so they can agree to some, as they have said they will for reasons of safety, but not the principal of giving up changes to the rule made by third parties. IM overstepped the mark on this. Surely safety in any regatta in the end remains with the competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=654269974600669&set=a.654269894600677.1073741830.109933829034289&type=3&theater

 

Photo's from LP's facebook raises an interesting question for me. I'm a structural engineer (bridges, not yachts), but I look at how the two diagonal members in the platform tie into rear beam and question the location of this connection.

 

ETNZ's connect in where the beam meets the hull, therefore reducing the load on the beam in the horizontal plane, whereas Artemis' positions appear to put significant shear and bending forces into that beam?

 

Now unless those diagonal members don't actually transfer load in that plane (possible, since I don't know or understand all the forces on these boats) but to me this seems like a really dumb move, especially since they've had so much trouble with their beams!

 

I'd be keen to hear an actual yacht designers thoughts.

I'm neither engineer nor boat designer, but my gut feeling was telling me the same. The diagonals don't look very stable...

 

I'd say, if they manage to not break the boat while load testing, they'll flex like a ballerina

Alinghi 5 had it like this. Was rock solid, with higher loads due to a normal mast/sail combination. Theoretically, a single strut would do it with a slightly different spine.

 

Edit: Truss is probably the better word than strut.

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.

They already have my respect.

Knowing some of the guys involved and knowing who else is there supporting them (LP) I have no doubt that they will not only give it a red hot effort, but, they will also sail to their schedule, which currently keeps them out of the round robin.

I got the impression that they think they can do it safely, and WOULD withdraw if there was no chance of doing so, and I respect that.

They are after all, NOT potted plants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=654269974600669&set=a.654269894600677.1073741830.109933829034289&type=3&theater

 

Photo's from LP's facebook raises an interesting question for me. I'm a structural engineer (bridges, not yachts), but I look at how the two diagonal members in the platform tie into rear beam and question the location of this connection.

 

ETNZ's connect in where the beam meets the hull, therefore reducing the load on the beam in the horizontal plane, whereas Artemis' positions appear to put significant shear and bending forces into that beam?

 

Now unless those diagonal members don't actually transfer load in that plane (possible, since I don't know or understand all the forces on these boats) but to me this seems like a really dumb move, especially since they've had so much trouble with their beams!

 

I'd be keen to hear an actual yacht designers thoughts.

 

The original...Le Black

 

http://www.sebschmidt.ch/portfolio/99143/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They put in 27 sailing days on a boat that broke and killed someone. They've now reworked a new boat, probably changing its structure and handling, have had the team composition change, are under extreme time pressure to get a boat on the water and working late hours to accomplish this.

 

It's not quite a simple as "they've had 27 sailing days".

 

Get a new hymn sheet from the OR media management guys.

 

Yet another kiwi armchair admiral as of June 13th - join the fleet, you're more experienced than some :)

 

Better an Armchair Admiral than a Pirate who's plundered that pesky Class Rule treasure chest...

 

Don't speak of fellow countryman Jim Farmer like that, or is he now banned from the country :)

Earlier Nutta claimed to have the IQ of room temperature. Go easy on him mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i posted somewhere else....but this is a very interesting letter from an impressive source:

 

* Dave Hollom.: Paul Cayard is wrong in saying that the AC72 rule allows elevators and that all AC72's have them. An elevator is an essentially horizontal control surface whose lift coefficient (Cl), either positive or negative, can be adjusted to alter and maintain the angle of incidence and hence the Cl of the main plane. This can be achieved by either an all moving surface or a surface that incorporates a moveable flap. Either way, it either all moves or has an element that moves which the AC72 rule specifically disallows. Any AC72 sailing with an elevator is therefore illegal.

Nevertheless, to foil successfully you must have some method of adjusting the incidence angle (Cl) of the main plane. The problem is that lift squares with velocity and yet the boat remains (excluding any aerodynamic effects) the same weight at 20kts as it is at 40kts. As the lift, for the same angle of attack, increases fourfold between 20 and 40kts, the incidence angle of the main foil must reduce to a quarter in order that the lift force remains constant, which it must to produce a constant ride height. If, because of the rules, you cannot adjust the Cl of the mainplane by altering the angle of an elevator you must alter the angle of the mainplane directly by altering the rake of the daggerboard to which it is attached or, alternatively, by using free surface effects to automatically reduce the lift, progressively, as the foil nears the water surface, or a combination of both. In either case, longitudinal stability is more easily achieved with a horizontal surface, well separated from the main plane, on the rudders. This, under the rule must be fixed and is thus a horizontal stabiliser not an elevator. It does what it says on the tin. It ensures that the back follows the front and that, whatever incidence the main plane is set at, it is approximately maintained.

Altering the angle of the stabiliser before the start merely adjusts the starting point for trimming the main plane. Its relationship to the angle of the mainplane will remain the same at any given speed and weight. However, the trim angle at which the boat naturally wants to run will alter. It will be either more bow up or bow down which I guess is the reason for allowing the angle to be changed before the start. But, as others have observed, how do you ensure that it is not then subsequently continuously altered during the race and thus becomes an illegal elevator. Also, if some means could be found of ensuring that the stabiliser is not subsequently moved, weather is very fickle. If running bow up is safer, and that is not necessarily so, how can it be safe to set the boat up at a more bow down attitude in lighter airs when, during the course of the race, things could freshen up?

The easiest, safest, and perhaps fastest, solution to the problem is to use a rudder mounted stabiliser that is moveable at all times, i.e. an elevator. But that is illegal. Having mastered the legal, more difficult and perhaps slower solution you can understand why Emirates and Prada are a little less than chuffed when Oracle, who seem to have been unable to master the more difficult but legal approach are offered the easier, but under the original rule, illegal solution in the name of safety.

The purpose of the safety rules may well be to bring safety to the whole fleet and to the event but when they unfairly favour one team to the disadvantage of others then they are wrong. If any team can produce a safe boat under the original rules, then any team that cannot and realises that their boat is not safe and are unable to fix the problem under the existing rules, should withdraw. This brings us to another of Paul's points. Paul seems to think that Emirates and Prada would like to see Artemis out of the event and that this is the reason for their objections. I say this in the nicest possible way. Are Artemis, at the moment, in any position to offer a threat such that it is worth trying to prevent them from sailing? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what could possibly be taking Artemis so long. That boat, for all intents and purposes, looks identical to the red boat. What have they been working on?

 

I am all for more competitors in the LV cup but these guys should just do the prudent thing and pack it in. Why make a bigger investment when it is close to impossible they will represent a challenge to ETNZ or LR. I've shown up to events with unprepared boats before and it's the worst feeling. I wouldn't do it again...why would "professionals" do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the recent 14min AR video

 

AR do have original rule compliant assym rudders

 

and

 

they have new bigger IM sym? rudders coming

 

but they didn't/don't have enough spare rudders to also make big assym rudders

 

post-23477-0-61625200-1373458897_thumb.jpg

 

i can see they are trying rear hard

 

but they are a year behind the other teams

 

and that's not anyone's fault but their own!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

nice detail on the overhead shot: all the tire mark donuts on the surface!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what could possibly be taking Artemis so long. That boat, for all intents and purposes, looks identical to the red boat. What have they been working on?

 

I am all for more competitors in the LV cup but these guys should just do the prudent thing and pack it in. Why make a bigger investment when it is close to impossible they will represent a challenge to ETNZ or LR. I've shown up to events with unprepared boats before and it's the worst feeling. I wouldn't do it again...why would "professionals" do it?

The boat basically has a new front beam. You don't knock one of those up in a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand what could possibly be taking Artemis so long. That boat, for all intents and purposes, looks identical to the red boat. What have they been working on?

 

I am all for more competitors in the LV cup but these guys should just do the prudent thing and pack it in. Why make a bigger investment when it is close to impossible they will represent a challenge to ETNZ or LR. I've shown up to events with unprepared boats before and it's the worst feeling. I wouldn't do it again...why would "professionals" do it?

The boat basically has a new front beam. You don't knock one of those up in a week.

No, of course not. But they seem to have had enough time between watching the other teams foil and the accident to rethink their entire structure. I get it that the hulls will, by and large, look the same but to my eye (and this is an untrained eye looking strictly at external features) the boat looks identical to Big Red. I am guessing if/when they start foiling Big Blue is going to look a lot like Oracle 1 with plenty of twist in the platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't understand what could possibly be taking Artemis so long. That boat, for all intents and purposes, looks identical to the red boat. What have they been working on?

 

I am all for more competitors in the LV cup but these guys should just do the prudent thing and pack it in. Why make a bigger investment when it is close to impossible they will represent a challenge to ETNZ or LR. I've shown up to events with unprepared boats before and it's the worst feeling. I wouldn't do it again...why would "professionals" do it?

The boat basically has a new front beam. You don't knock one of those up in a week.

No, of course not. But they seem to have had enough time between watching the other teams foil and the accident to rethink their entire structure. I get it that the hulls will, by and large, look the same but to my eye (and this is an untrained eye looking strictly at external features) the boat looks identical to Big Red. I am guessing if/when they start foiling Big Blue is going to look a lot like Oracle 1 with plenty of twist in the platform.

Hulls look quite like the love child of OR and ETNZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any team can produce a safe boat under the original rules, then any team that cannot and realises that their boat is not safe and are unable to fix the problem under the existing rules, should withdraw.

Great post in whole & I'm sad to say it but really Artemis should have withdrawn at the point they knew they couldn't make any more than 2 or 3 of the first races.

 

Photo's from LP's facebook raises an interesting question for me. I'm a structural engineer (bridges, not yachts), but I look at how the two diagonal members in the platform tie into rear beam and question the location of this connection.

 

ETNZ's connect in where the beam meets the hull, therefore reducing the load on the beam in the horizontal plane, whereas Artemis' positions appear to put significant shear and bending forces into that beam?

Its worse than that.

They have the join further inboard on boat 2 than on boat 1.

But even worse than that, right where the boat1 Main beam broke they have a fucking huge inspection hatch.

No sane engineer puts a big hole at the max bending point like that :wacko:

(pic from http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup:-Artemis-Racing-emerges-from-the-shed---First-images/111779 I don't normally post the hi-res from there because they go to some length to hide it but seriously you gotta see this to believe it)

1048067_10151500784186087_969627354_o1.j

 

ETNZ foiled on their fourth day out in the first AC72 ever. OR foiled their first boat on day two

ETNZ publicly admitted they foil on day 5, they got busted with a big sequence foiling up the harbour past the CBD on day 4 but I believe the rumor started & the first 'photoshop' pic was day 3.

Meanwhile Oracle day 2 was light wind with stumpy and the foil that didn't break on day 1, no way they foiled that day.

First galloping jalopy pics/footage was with the rebuilt DZ foil which I think was day 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd like to see them out there too, but only if it's safe firstly for them, then for those around them. Lack of time on water is probably the biggest issue to overcome...

ETNZ foiled on their fourth day out in the first AC72 ever. OR foiled their first boat on day two. AR2 has a lot of lessons behind her.

 

Yes there's been a lot of heavy-handed effort to disparage, discourage, and to even disqualify Artemis through various attempts by ETNZ. But that argument above is the biggest bullshit argument of them all.

 

If that Artemis AC72 can make it to the line too then they have every right to race hard and fast.

yes OR foiled badly on day one if thats what you mean, ETNZ boat 2 foiled day one very well, so whats your point ?

 

Disqualify Artemis? Spinray are you on fucking drugs ?? if the original rules dont get thrown out they say they cant even sail.

 

Just to clarify ETNZ and LR want to keep the rules the same as when they started, not change them, fuck me , do you work for Oracle or Atremis or something in the PR department?

 

I really really struggle to understand where you are coming from!!

 

and just to clarify i cant wait to see Artemis on the water too

 

Wrong and wrong. AR can race with the original protocol (although they would prefer the full 37 recommendations), and ETNZ/LR DO want change to the protocol (just 35 changes, rather than 37 changes). I think the following will summarize the situation as well as anything you might hear:

 

First of all, AR say they CAN race according to the original protocol. They do have rudders/elevators that comply with the original protocol, ready to put on the boat. They say they CAN also race with the full set of 37 recommendations (with rudders built that comply, pending delivery). They only say they can't comply with a NEW revised set of rules that include 35 of the 37 suggestions. They say they cannot get rudders modified in time if they have to comply with the longer draft and larger foil area (included in the 35 suggestions) that ALSO meets the original max beam limit (the element that ETNZ and LR want to have retained, excluding the two contentious suggestions), as their new rudders were designed to comply with all 37 recommendations. Those two contentious recommendations DO allow for symmetrical, high-aspect elevators that go outside the beam.

 

ETNZ, because of the potential threat that higher-aspect, more efficient elevators on the OR boat could pose to them, do not want 2 of the recommendations that allow higher-aspect, symmetrical elevators that go outside the beam. To ETNZ's credit, they designed great rudders that complied with the original protocol. They did not take advantage of the opportunity to design new rudders (or modify existing rudders) to take advantage of the two elements of the new 37 recommendations, to our knowledge, as they could have, and as AR did. They, instead, hold that the wider elevators pose a threat to their crew. How much added threat those 120mm pose, you will have make that call. Is it really added threat, or added cost, effort and learning, or perceived competitive advantage they are concerned about?

 

I, at first, sided with ETNZ on this issue. Not sure any more. I see both arguments, but also see that AR were in a bit of a bind when they went to build the new rudders. Comply with all 37 recommendations to their best advantage, comply with 35, assuming 2 recommendations would be tossed, or keep a set of rudders that comply with the original protocol. Frankly, this seems like a pretty tough situation, with all sides having reasonably good arguments.

 

I am understanding PC's call for all or nothing regarding this issue, now, more than I used to. The problem for them, at this point, is basically the same argument that ETNZ and LR are using, you can't change the rules just before the racing. They (AR) have either rudders for the original protocol, OR rudders for the 37 recommendations, designed at the time those recommendations were drawn up. ETNZ and LR agreed with the longer draft and larger elevators, along with the rest of the 35 recommendations. Just as ETNZ and LR want the 35 rules, which involve changes to the protocol that enhance the ability of the boats to perform (higher stability does translate to more ability to control the boats, and better ability to push them), AR wants the full set, both involve change. If ETNZ and LR REALLY want to not force teams to go along with a rule change just before racing, then the original protocol is the option, but I do not believe they really want that. At this point, they have a good argument that they had the original best design, but they may also be stuck in a situation where they have to go along with the full 37 if they want to be fair about going along with change and not put the biggest screw on the team that would be most hurt by a last minute change, and that would be AR having to comply with the 35, and not be able to take advantage of the other two as they had designed for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PC has said that they have cannibalised one of their two sets of old rule compliant rudders in response to the 37 recommendations - that they will then have one set that complies with the old rules and one set that complies with the new ones. What is the third option that he says will result if LR/ETNZ wins the protest? I thought the whole idea was to keep the rules as they were?

 

i think the 3rd option

 

that PC hates but that etnz + LR think is the way out of IM's safety box

 

is the rudders must fit the box rule

and they must have the larger area theat IM says is safer

 

AR can go small symms inside the box

 

or

 

large symms outside the box

 

but they cannot go large and stay inside the box because they would appear to be unable to build assyms that won't break their boat

 

unlike the other 3 who can build large assyms and so stay inside the box AND be big enough for IM's new minimum area rule

 

Remember, the 37 recommendations were originally to have a requirement that the elevators be symmetrical. Do we know when AR did the design and start the construction on the new 37-recommendation compliant rudders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1048067_10151500784186087_969627354_o1.j

 

 

Looks like the AR team have been doing burn-outs in the yard while they wait for their new boat to be ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaucho,

 

I'm sure AR can go to the IJ if they feel it creates a third permutation if only 35 out 37 new rules are implemented. For the same reason ETNZ went to the IJ.

Even if all teams signed the first 35 rule changes.

If the IJ sides with ETNZ, all rules changing the class should be canceled and then the teams should negotiate again any safety rules that would affect the class rules.

 

PC is just hiding the fact he can do what ETNZ did (calling on IJ) so that he looks like the innocent picked upon team...

 

Blue sky

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaucho,

 

I'm sure AR can go to the IJ if they feel it creates a third permutation if only 35 out 37 new rules are implemented. For the same reason ETNZ went to the IJ.

Even if all teams signed the first 35 rule changes.

If the IJ sides with ETNZ, all rules changing the class should be canceled and then the teams should negotiate again any safety rules that would affect the class rules.

 

PC is just hiding the fact he can do what ETNZ did (calling on IJ) so that he looks like the innocent picked upon team...

 

Blue sky

D

 

Not sure your point. I already indicated I believe ETNZ/LR and AR are all basically using the same argument (can't make changes at the last second), although all three actually do want changes to the protocol.

 

Now, if the original set of 37 safety recommendations would have not had the symmetry clause or allowed elevators to go outside the beam, would everyone be happy now? Maybe AR would have developed their newest set of rules to comply, and everyone would be ready to roll without protest. Not sure. Not sure if the ETNZ / LR argument that there is a significant increased hazard, and/or that the higher-aspect elevators that go outside the beam are enough of an competitive advantage to get as worked up about as LR and ETNZ are acting. PC, for what it's worth, seems to think any potential advantage is trivial, at best. Or is it more of an opportunity for ETNZ / LR to protest and push for advantages of their own? Would that be so outside the realm of possibility, considering this is the Americas Cup?

 

I don't know. I do know I'm glad I'm not on the IJ. There is no winning decision for them that I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the recent 14min AR video

 

AR do have original rule compliant assym rudders

 

and

 

they have new bigger IM sym? rudders coming

 

but they didn't/don't have enough spare rudders to also make big assym rudders

 

attachicon.gifARassym.jpg

 

i can see they are trying rear hard

 

but they are a year behind the other teams

 

and that's not anyone's fault but their own!

 

Nice grab of the "original Rule compliant' rudders ;)

 

5:41 in the video if you need to check the trimtabs!

 

 

Speaking of illegal adjustment of rudders...

 

But, as others have observed, how do you ensure that it is not then subsequently continuously altered during the race and thus becomes an illegal elevator. (Dave Hollom - thanks blakie)

 

Has anyone got an idea of how IM et al intend to deal with this issue - whether at 08:00 or 5 minutes before the race?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites