Archived

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

sarah0809

Artemis?

Recommended Posts

Same design faults, same result (I hope not!).

 

Big Red crashed and disintegrated after about 30 days of sailing IIRC.

There is not way Big Blue will get that many days under its belt before being eliminated (assuming they race), so hopefully that will help with their safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the AR guys had a Corvette that, if he'd just hit the big blinking Idiot button placed invitingly right next to the gearshift, would lay down some far better stripes, and in positraction too. He must not have the personality for it, in even that inviting a spot.

 

Inside, that video shows the facility to be even bigger than I'd imagined. By the size of the planes that must have been rolled out of those doors it's no wonder there are no confining lampposts to have to worry about outside.

 

There's a Boeing hangar near me with a similar setup, clubs put out cones and race there on some weekends. Yes, I have left my marks on a few other weekends if I'm going past anyway :)

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.

 

Chuckled when I saw that too. May pre-date them. Looks like the car needs a good LSD to get twin black tracks. Single not so impressive.

Thread drift alert:

 

How awesome are the docklands around the Bay? What a brilliant resource.

 

Had it not been for the GFC and the haste with which AC72 class was spawned, could this have been the greatest regatta spectacle of all time?

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?

I suspect because Cayard is trying to save what is left of his busted arse career from the trash heap.

If he manages to get a boat around the course without casualty, then presumably there is still a chance some dumb bastard will offer him a similar role in the next AC.

If you look at what he is saying in press at the moment, it smacks of a 5 year old bawling to its parents saying that its everyone elses fault but his own.

Coutts looked even worse in his interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they look 'bad' to people hell-bent on disagreeing with them, because they have some views that run contrary to GD's. But they look pretty even-keeled to me and I still wish that GD would face a camera and explain to us what all his big problems are with #37.

 

Both PC and RC have adressed it very specifically. GD, source of all the bitching about it, apparently will not. Does he not actually have much of a case? Is that why the attempt to overthrow everything based on what did get protested instead? Could he never even make a case that #37 actually benefits OR, compared to the original rules that OR would prefer to run with anyway?

 

Let's see who has the 'badder' look, by whose arguments are most logical. Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD doesn't have to. The issue here is changing the rules without agreement of all the competitors. It's those with an agenda of some sort that seem to be whining in the press recently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course GD does not ~have~ to but it would be very interesting to at least hear why he'd agree 36 but not 37.

 

I hope we see the Jury submissions, perhaps they will get to the heart of it, give us some damn transparency into what his problems are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD doesn't have to. The issue here is changing the rules without agreement of all the competitors. It's those with an agenda of some sort that seem to be whining in the press recently...

that's what i don't get how many people do you need to make representations to the ij on such a basic rules question?

all they have to decide is yes or no

looked like more of a crisis mediation session to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because 36 could be justified for safety reasons and didn't (from and ETNZ point of view) greatly benefit one competitor over another?

 

#37 probably is arguable on the safety front and ETNZ perceive it gives another team some advantage over the others?

 

But overriding this is the rule slippage that could open up if the Class Rule changes get rammed through without 100% team approval. Look at the various on-the-fly race notices issued by IM with respect to rudders. Once you start playing fast and loose with rules, bad things happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 things SR

 

1/ you only see what you want to. GD has done multiple radio, video and newspaper interviews on the subject, you seem to be the only one that doesn't know his thoughts, perhaps due to your recent 24 hour a day spin cycle??

 

2/ not sure if it's deliberate but you speak of the issues around the 37 points as if it's known and static. Actually many of the points were unclear/to be investigated when first announced and others seemed, clear like new wind limits being agreed to, only to move and morph later as someone 'fiddles'. Ie. new wind measurement protocols after the numbers where agreed. Same with rudders, must be symmetrical, then asymmetric is ok if load cases are first cleared through the IM school of engineering etc. Therefor there's no reason to expect anyone's 'take' on the 37 to be static either.

 

3/ trying to spin this to make ETNZ the protagonist is clearly ridiculous - who do think you are fooling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#37 probably is arguable on the safety front and ETNZ perceive it gives another team some advantage over the others?

 

I do understand and take seriously the larger argument. But the reason for arguing that larger argument clearly has at its root the ETNZ belief that "it gives another team some advantage over the others." And without GD explaining that, well it's difficult to just automatically accept as Gospel.

 

Both RC and PC, to their credit, have addressed it in explicit detail and aren't even the ones creating the argument. The one making the claim is the one who logically should be addressing it, even before everyone else. If he has a real problem then I wish he could explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things SR

 

1/ you only see what you want to. GD has done multiple radio, video and newspaper interviews on the subject, you seem to be the only one that doesn't know his thoughts, perhaps due to your recent 24 hour a day spin cycle??

 

2/ not sure if it's deliberate but you speak of the issues around the 37 points as if it's known and static. Actually many of the points were unclear/to be investigated when first announced and others seem clear like new wind limits being agreed to, only to move and morph later as someone 'fiddles'. Ie. new wind measurement protocols after the numbers where agreed. Same with rudders, must be symmetrical, then asymmetric is ok if load cases are first cleared through the IM school of engineering etc. Therefor there's no reason to expect anyone's 'take' on the 37 to be static either.

 

The devil is in the detail, and no one knows the detail of what was submitted attached to the the MEP...

 

Something in there was obviously unpalatable to ETNZ/LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ And yet even without knowing in detail what was unpalatable, some die-hards will not even question the proposition?

 

That's just borderline crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course GD does not ~have~ to but it would be very interesting to at least hear why he'd agree 36 but not 37.

 

I hope we see the Jury submissions, perhaps they will get to the heart of it, give us some damn transparency into what his problems are.

Are you referring to this No. 37:

4.12. Develop Standard Operating Procedures Between Competitors for Rescue: ACRM shall develop common safety procedures between competitor’s rescue boats, medical personnel, and divers.

 

Because that is the last and 37th of the "safety recommendations". Or are you as screwed up in your numbering as you are in your circular logic?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am referring to the BMax as #37, since it is somehow, apparently, the last and only problem for GD among the rest.

 

But I suspect you realized that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SR - the question to the IJ is clear:

 

Can the RD make class rule changes in the name of safety without it going to a competitor vote?

 

That's it.

 

Whether that has sideline questions which will become apparent once we know the ruling, we will certainly find out once we see the next submission or competitor vote to change the rules - as per the protocol.

You have been doing your job well - posts on all topics are singing the same song. If it weren't so obvious you have been fed the party line, it might actually convince a few people.

 

And, GD has no reason to front the media to answer your questions about the 37 - he is currently racing on the only boat in the LVC, and can be comfortable that they are racing legally under the class rules and safety recommendations. What does he have to answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SR - the question to the IJ is clear:

 

Can the RD make class rule changes in the name of safety without it going to a competitor vote?

 

That's it.

 

Whether that has sideline questions which will become apparent once we know the ruling, we will certainly find out once we see the next submission or competitor vote to change the rules - as per the protocol.

You have been doing your job well - posts on all topics are singing the same song. If it weren't so obvious you have been fed the party line, it might actually convince a few people.

====================

Lets hope so.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^
Unfortunately Stinger is doing what OR, AR and IM are all doing, which is taking a simple yes/no question and attempting to cloud it with mass hysteria.

If the IJ rules against ETNZ/LR, then it can only be assumed that the rot is set in and it will become impossible to wrest the cup from OR since anything becomes possible in the name of safety.

I don't believe this will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course GD does not ~have~ to but it would be very interesting to at least hear why he'd agree 36 but not 37.

 

I hope we see the Jury submissions, perhaps they will get to the heart of it, give us some damn transparency into what his problems are.

 

we're all very confused now

 

but afaik it boils down to this

 

there are 2 problems rules for etnz

 

and the 2 are interlinked

 

- new rule allowing the beam box to be broken

 

- new rule to allow the stern plane rule to be broken

 

and these rules need to be rewritten because AR didn't make enough rudders

 

and so can't make 0.32m2 horistab assym rudders

 

rather than continue this clusterfuck i would support allowing the challs to race to a weakened box rule allowing AR to compete with symm 0.32m2 HS

 

but that the AC final be raced to the original box rule, whatever the defender and challenger can agree on

 

but the AC should not be corrupted by an LV challs requiring special a never ending stream of exceptions to the rules

 

either with 0.32m2 assyms or the original smaller HS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SR - the question to the IJ is clear:

 

Can the RD make class rule changes in the name of safety without it going to a competitor vote?

 

That's it.

 

Whether that has sideline questions which will become apparent once we know the ruling, we will certainly find out once we see the next submission or competitor vote to change the rules - as per the protocol.

You have been doing your job well - posts on all topics are singing the same song. If it weren't so obvious you have been fed the party line, it might actually convince a few people.

 

And, GD has no reason to front the media to answer your questions about the 37 - he is currently racing on the only boat in the LVC, and can be comfortable that they are racing legally under the class rules and safety recommendations. What does he have to answer?

The RD submitted the MEP. He did not change the AC72 DR first, although yes that was a side effect - at least for during the duration of this event.

 

I have not been fed any party line and in part for that reason will take credit for seeking and eventually seeing the pertinent arguments - long before we ever heard RC or PC elicit the almost identical points.

 

Recognizing and then posting perspectives that may run counter-revolutionary to the Church of ETNZ may make me unpopular to 80% of the devout here. But I am perfectly comfortable in my skin doing so regardless ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a reason that Class Rule changes could be made by majority vote of competitors early on in the AC cycle, later requiring unanimous vote. If people think about it for a second, they'll see why that was a good idea.

 

If there was something in the class rules that made all the boats unsafe (not just some that had taken specific design routes), I don't believe that there would be an issue getting unanimous consent on a rule change.

 

It's the fact that only one or two boats need/want the rule change that is the issue. Two teams have demonstrated that the rules can be applied to build and sail a safe boat. A change just prior to the LVC starting is just what the protocol was written to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SR - the question to the IJ is clear:

 

Can the RD make class rule changes in the name of safety without it going to a competitor vote?

 

That's it.

 

Whether that has sideline questions which will become apparent once we know the ruling, we will certainly find out once we see the next submission or competitor vote to change the rules - as per the protocol.

You have been doing your job well - posts on all topics are singing the same song. If it weren't so obvious you have been fed the party line, it might actually convince a few people.

====================

Lets hope so.......

 

 

And it shouldn't take more than one fatality to realize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's the fact that only one or two boats need/want the rule change that is the issue.

Largely agree with the rest. But this key point is very, very questionable. It is most certainly no 'fact' and yet it underpins the entire conspiracy regardless, with enormous reluctance by some to even question its truth or validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

SR - the question to the IJ is clear:

 

Can the RD make class rule changes in the name of safety without it going to a competitor vote?

 

That's it.

 

Whether that has sideline questions which will become apparent once we know the ruling, we will certainly find out once we see the next submission or competitor vote to change the rules - as per the protocol.

You have been doing your job well - posts on all topics are singing the same song. If it weren't so obvious you have been fed the party line, it might actually convince a few people.

 

And, GD has no reason to front the media to answer your questions about the 37 - he is currently racing on the only boat in the LVC, and can be comfortable that they are racing legally under the class rules and safety recommendations. What does he have to answer?

The RD submitted the MEP. He did not change the AC72 DR first, although yes that was a side effect - at least for during the duration of this event.

 

I have not been fed any party line and in part for that reason will take credit for seeking and eventually seeing the pertinent arguments - long before we ever heard RC or PC elicit the almost identical points.

 

Recognizing and then posting perspectives that may run counter-revolutionary to the Church of ETNZ may make me unpopular to 80% of the devout here. But I am perfectly comfortable in my skin doing so regardless ;)

Not sure you realise that I am not a member of the 'Church of ETNZ'. :)

 

One very simple point that i am glad you clarified - In submitting the MEP, he changed the class rules.

 

Exactly as I said - the IJ has been asked to rule on whether that was beyond his station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

#37 probably is arguable on the safety front and ETNZ perceive it gives another team some advantage over the others?

I do understand and take seriously the larger argument. But the reason for arguing that larger argument clearly has at its root the ETNZ belief that "it gives another team some advantage over the others." And without GD explaining that, well it's difficult to just automatically accept as Gospel.

 

Both RC and PC, to their credit, have addressed it in explicit detail and aren't even the ones creating the argument. The one making the claim is the one who logically should be addressing it, even before everyone else. If he has a real problem then I wish he could explain it.

http://www.kiwiyachting.co.nz/dean-barkers-blog/8-days-lvc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

#37 probably is arguable on the safety front and ETNZ perceive it gives another team some advantage over the others?

I do understand and take seriously the larger argument. But the reason for arguing that larger argument clearly has at its root the ETNZ belief that "it gives another team some advantage over the others." And without GD explaining that, well it's difficult to just automatically accept as Gospel.

 

Both RC and PC, to their credit, have addressed it in explicit detail and aren't even the ones creating the argument. The one making the claim is the one who logically should be addressing it, even before everyone else. If he has a real problem then I wish he could explain it.

http://www.kiwiyachting.co.nz/dean-barkers-blog/8-days-lvc
Yes, the closest explanation we have of ETNZ's problem with BMax. But I just want a better explanation or argument than "Allowing the rudder elevators to extend outside of max beam is incredibly dangerous and introduces serious risk for the crew." It does not even effect ETNZ, they already have asymms.

 

They are after something else. I wish they would explain their problem better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's the fact that only one or two boats need/want the rule change that is the issue.

Largely agree with the rest. But this key point is very, very questionable. It is most certainly no 'fact' and yet it underpins the entire conspiracy regardless, with enormous reluctance by some to even question its truth or validity.

 

So why don't we postulate that none of the four teams need or want "rule #37".

 

That would mean that none of the teams could see that there was a safety benefit in that rule change, for themselves or other teams, that couldn't be met within existing class rules. In which case IM has this wrong and the rule change should be dropped - this whole fiasco is over nothing.

 

However, there is a fiasco, which means that someone does want or need that rule change. We can rule out ETNZ and LR as they're opposed to it and have gone to the IJ over it. That leaves one or two teams that might want or need the rule change.

 

So isn't my original statement that only one or two teams need/want the rule change valid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

It's the fact that only one or two boats need/want the rule change that is the issue.

Largely agree with the rest. But this key point is very, very questionable. It is most certainly no 'fact' and yet it underpins the entire conspiracy regardless, with enormous reluctance by some to even question its truth or validity.

So why don't we postulate that none of the four teams need or want "rule #37".

 

That would mean that none of the teams could see that there was a safety benefit in that rule change, for themselves or other teams, that couldn't be met within existing class rules. In which case IM has this wrong and the rule change should be dropped - this whole fiasco is over nothing.

 

However, there is a fiasco, which means that someone does want or need that rule change. We can rule out ETNZ and LR as they're opposed to it and have gone to the IJ over it. That leaves one or two teams that might want or need the rule change.

 

So isn't my original statement that only one or two teams need/want the rule change valid?

It's more a case of two teams being willing to go with it, so long as (for AR anyway) the package does not get poison-pilled through ETNZ's cherry-picking attempt to try create problems.

 

If the rudder measurements revert to the original rules then IM has much less for pitchpole safety controls in place; and teams can revert to designs that favor speed over safety. Shrug, but ETNZ should probably consider very carefully how that is supposed to help them competitively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

#37 probably is arguable on the safety front and ETNZ perceive it gives another team some advantage over the others?

I do understand and take seriously the larger argument. But the reason for arguing that larger argument clearly has at its root the ETNZ belief that "it gives another team some advantage over the others." And without GD explaining that, well it's difficult to just automatically accept as Gospel.

 

Both RC and PC, to their credit, have addressed it in explicit detail and aren't even the ones creating the argument. The one making the claim is the one who logically should be addressing it, even before everyone else. If he has a real problem then I wish he could explain it.

http://www.kiwiyachting.co.nz/dean-barkers-blog/8-days-lvc
Yes, the closest explanation we have of ETNZ's problem with BMax. But I just want a better explanation or argument than "Allowing the rudder elevators to extend outside of max beam is incredibly dangerous and introduces serious risk for the crew." It does not even effect ETNZ, they already have asymms.

 

They are after something else. I wish they would explain their problem better.

 

The AC72 Class Rule is not an unsafe rule. There are choices each team needs to make and these are a balance between performance and safety. You can make an incredibly safe AC72 which would probably have a compromise on performance. So the rule encourages a certain amount of risk vs reward. The boats are incredibly powerful, complex and amazingly fast. The faster you go the more risk there is. This is the same as with motor racing. Imposing real safety measures have greatly reduced the chances of further crew injuries. However there is a line which needs to be drawn between safety improvements and class rule changes which have no bearing on safety.

 

It's not only about the performance of the boat getting the new rudders, it's about the compromises already made on some boats to comply with the rules in a manner that created a safe boat.

If you hobble those boats with those compromises that they cannot reverse at this late stage but allow the other two boats not avoid having to make them you are directly hurting the chances of the boats designed according to the rules.

I am not sure why this is complicated argument for people to get the hang of, it's pretty basic stuff really, ETNZ have routinely mentioned the compromises they made to get to the design they did.

It doesn't matter whether we agree with them or not, they are the party with something to lose and feel it will hurt them, therefore they are completely entitled to try and prevent it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more a case of two teams being willing to go with it, so long as (for AR anyway) the package does not get poison-pilled through ETNZ's cherry-picking attempt to try create problems.

 

If the rudder measurements revert to the original rules then IM has much less for pitchpole safety controls in place; and teams can revert to designs that favor speed over safety. Shrug, but ETNZ should probably consider very carefully how that is supposed to help them competitively.

 

If they're willing to go with the changes then they either (1) see a performance or other benefit for themselves, or (2) see a genuine safety issue that they believe the rule change will resolve that cannot be managed within the agreed class rules.

 

Which is it in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

#37 probably is arguable on the safety front and ETNZ perceive it gives another team some advantage over the others?

I do understand and take seriously the larger argument. But the reason for arguing that larger argument clearly has at its root the ETNZ belief that "it gives another team some advantage over the others." And without GD explaining that, well it's difficult to just automatically accept as Gospel.

 

Both RC and PC, to their credit, have addressed it in explicit detail and aren't even the ones creating the argument. The one making the claim is the one who logically should be addressing it, even before everyone else. If he has a real problem then I wish he could explain it.

http://www.kiwiyachting.co.nz/dean-barkers-blog/8-days-lvc
Yes, the closest explanation we have of ETNZ's problem with BMax. But I just want a better explanation or argument than "Allowing the rudder elevators to extend outside of max beam is incredibly dangerous and introduces serious risk for the crew." It does not even effect ETNZ, they already have asymms.

 

They are after something else. I wish they would explain their problem better.

 

It's very simple - these changes are just a way for Grumpy to scream "CHEATER" about Oracle/Coutts....and his entire country will believe him.

 

It's just a typical confuse and distract tactic - causing fear and doubt.

 

It's really nothing more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutta^ I'm suggesting ETNZ made the wrong compromises, have already been caught up to by OR who selected different compromises, but ETNZ is now trying to regain a lead by taking advantage of the Safety Regs, to try to corner OR into making them play ETNZ's game instead but with it even more their-way compromised; they want to force OR into bigger elevators than the original rules, yet still be beam-bound.

 

Despite how self-serving and aggressive that ETNZ proposal is, OR can and will be fine even if it did somehow happen. AR? Apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on LR: leak us the Jury decision now :P

 

Yeah, I'd only got in enough beer to last until this afternoon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

#37 probably is arguable on the safety front and ETNZ perceive it gives another team some advantage over the others?

I do understand and take seriously the larger argument. But the reason for arguing that larger argument clearly has at its root the ETNZ belief that "it gives another team some advantage over the others." And without GD explaining that, well it's difficult to just automatically accept as Gospel.

 

Both RC and PC, to their credit, have addressed it in explicit detail and aren't even the ones creating the argument. The one making the claim is the one who logically should be addressing it, even before everyone else. If he has a real problem then I wish he could explain it.

http://www.kiwiyachting.co.nz/dean-barkers-blog/8-days-lvc
Yes, the closest explanation we have of ETNZ's problem with BMax. But I just want a better explanation or argument than "Allowing the rudder elevators to extend outside of max beam is incredibly dangerous and introduces serious risk for the crew." It does not even effect ETNZ, they already have asymms.

 

They are after something else. I wish they would explain their problem better.

 

It's very simple - these changes are just a way for Grumpy to scream "CHEATER" about Oracle/Coutts....and his entire country will believe him.

 

It's just a typical confuse and distract tactic - causing fear and doubt.

 

It's really nothing more than that.

 

And exactly what benefit would casing this confusion and distraction have for ETNZ?

 

Oracle have until September to clear their heads and ready themselves for racing.

 

It's the challengers who are losing out on racing time and don't have certainty over what rules are in place at the moment.

 

I don't think your idea has that much merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutta^ I'm suggesting ETNZ made the wrong compromises, have already been caught up to by OR who selected different compromises, but ETNZ is now trying to regain a lead by taking advantage of the Safety Regs, to try to corner OR into making them play ETNZ's game instead but with it even more their-way compromised; they want to force OR into bigger elevators than the original rules, yet still be beam-bound.

 

Despite how self-serving and aggressive that ETNZ proposal is, OR can and will be fine even if it did somehow happen. AR? Apparently not.

<<yawn!!>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's more a case of two teams being willing to go with it, so long as (for AR anyway) the package does not get poison-pilled through ETNZ's cherry-picking attempt to try create problems.

 

If the rudder measurements revert to the original rules then IM has much less for pitchpole safety controls in place; and teams can revert to designs that favor speed over safety. Shrug, but ETNZ should probably consider very carefully how that is supposed to help them competitively.

If they're willing to go with the changes then they either (1) see a performance or other benefit for themselves, or (2) see a genuine safety issue that they believe the rule change will resolve that cannot be managed within the agreed class rules.

 

Which is it in your opinion?

I ~honestly~ believe it is about 2. Safety did get very big when Bart was killed. Both OR and AR were okay with supporting the recs, for that reason only.

 

I also believe the hell that ETNZ raised is a lot about nothing; they can't even face a camera to make the case, so what should that tell us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It's more a case of two teams being willing to go with it, so long as (for AR anyway) the package does not get poison-pilled through ETNZ's cherry-picking attempt to try create problems.

 

If the rudder measurements revert to the original rules then IM has much less for pitchpole safety controls in place; and teams can revert to designs that favor speed over safety. Shrug, but ETNZ should probably consider very carefully how that is supposed to help them competitively.

If they're willing to go with the changes then they either (1) see a performance or other benefit for themselves, or (2) see a genuine safety issue that they believe the rule change will resolve that cannot be managed within the agreed class rules.

 

Which is it in your opinion?

I ~honestly~ believe it is about 2. Safety did get very big when Bart was killed. Both OR and AR were okay with supporting the recs, for that reason only.

 

I also believe the hell that ETNZ raised is a lot about nothing; they can't even face a camera to make the case, so what should that tell us?

 

I agree....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

I

1048067_10151500784186087_969627354_o1.j

 

The bracing location should be where the back stays connect .. AR seem to have chosen to have the back stays inboard a bit and that would make the location of the bracing reasonable .. Also note that AR are locating the ties from the king post to the same inboard position which makes the inboard location of the bracing essential .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And exactly what benefit would casing this confusion and distraction have for ETNZ?

 

Oracle have until September to clear their heads and ready themselves for racing.

 

It's the challengers who are losing out on racing time and don't have certainty over what rules are in place at the moment.

 

I don't think your idea has that much merit.

 

You must be new to the AC game. Head games go on all the time. Witness Cayard's successful bitchslapping of New Zealand in '92. I suspect that some of this protest is about payback too for Cayard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutta^ I'm suggesting ETNZ made the wrong compromises, have already been caught up to by OR who selected different compromises, but ETNZ is now trying to regain a lead by taking advantage of the Safety Regs, to try to corner OR into making them play ETNZ's game instead but with it even more their-way compromised; they want to force OR into bigger elevators than the original rules, yet still be beam-bound.

 

Despite how self-serving and aggressive that ETNZ proposal is, OR can and will be fine even if it did somehow happen. AR? Apparently not.

 

I agree, ETNZ an OR made different compromises within the class rules as they stood while they were doing their design.

 

ETNZ (and LR) is trying to hold everyone to the rules that they agreed to at the start of the game. They have agreed to changes where they believe there is a genuine safety benefit and no significant change to the level playing field.

 

Let the design choices made within the agreed class rules be the ones that determine the outcome.

 

If OR don't want the larger rudder winglets and don't think that they make their boat any safer (SWS suggests they'd prefer to run with smaller ones) then they should be protesting the changes along with ETNZ and LR..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's more a case of two teams being willing to go with it, so long as (for AR anyway) the package does not get poison-pilled through ETNZ's cherry-picking attempt to try create problems.

 

If the rudder measurements revert to the original rules then IM has much less for pitchpole safety controls in place; and teams can revert to designs that favor speed over safety. Shrug, but ETNZ should probably consider very carefully how that is supposed to help them competitively.

If they're willing to go with the changes then they either (1) see a performance or other benefit for themselves, or (2) see a genuine safety issue that they believe the rule change will resolve that cannot be managed within the agreed class rules.

 

Which is it in your opinion?

 

I ~honestly~ believe it is about 2. Safety did get very big when Bart was killed. Both OR and AR were okay with supporting the recs, for that reason only.

 

I also believe the hell that ETNZ raised is a lot about nothing; they can't even face a camera to make the case, so what should that tell us?

The case really isn't all that difficult to understand. Iain Murray changed the class rule when he had no authority to change it (according to the protocol). ETNZ protested for that reason. IJ makes a ruling. The whole specifics of the size of elevators and Rudder size is just part and parcel of that protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

And exactly what benefit would casing this confusion and distraction have for ETNZ?

 

Oracle have until September to clear their heads and ready themselves for racing.

 

It's the challengers who are losing out on racing time and don't have certainty over what rules are in place at the moment.

 

I don't think your idea has that much merit.

 

You must be new to the AC game. Head games go on all the time. Witness Cayard's successful bitchslapping of New Zealand in '92. I suspect that some of this protest is about payback too for Cayard.

 

I don't think GD needs to get inside the head of PC and Artemis - they've got plenty on their plate already.

 

Luna Rossa? I'd be surprised if ETNZ didn't know if they had the measure of that team or not, but I guess they might get some benefit from the distracted Italians.

 

The SWS/StingRay cheerleading team maintains OR has nothing to worry about.

 

So, some psychological warfare against the LR team, where the downside is them quitting and going to the NYSC and stopping the whole event? I don't know that GD would be making that sort of gamble with stakes that high, and the benefits that low?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It's more a case of two teams being willing to go with it, so long as (for AR anyway) the package does not get poison-pilled through ETNZ's cherry-picking attempt to try create problems.

 

If the rudder measurements revert to the original rules then IM has much less for pitchpole safety controls in place; and teams can revert to designs that favor speed over safety. Shrug, but ETNZ should probably consider very carefully how that is supposed to help them competitively.

If they're willing to go with the changes then they either (1) see a performance or other benefit for themselves, or (2) see a genuine safety issue that they believe the rule change will resolve that cannot be managed within the agreed class rules.

 

Which is it in your opinion?

I ~honestly~ believe it is about 2. Safety did get very big when Bart was killed. Both OR and AR were okay with supporting the recs, for that reason only.

 

I also believe the hell that ETNZ raised is a lot about nothing; they can't even face a camera to make the case, so what should that tell us?

 

So, if that's the case, then what is the specific safety issue that can't be mitigated/managed within the original class rules? What is the critical issue that ETNZ and LR are exposing themselves to just for some racing advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It's more a case of two teams being willing to go with it, so long as (for AR anyway) the package does not get poison-pilled through ETNZ's cherry-picking attempt to try create problems.

 

If the rudder measurements revert to the original rules then IM has much less for pitchpole safety controls in place; and teams can revert to designs that favor speed over safety. Shrug, but ETNZ should probably consider very carefully how that is supposed to help them competitively.

If they're willing to go with the changes then they either (1) see a performance or other benefit for themselves, or (2) see a genuine safety issue that they believe the rule change will resolve that cannot be managed within the agreed class rules.

 

Which is it in your opinion?

I ~honestly~ believe it is about 2. Safety did get very big when Bart was killed. Both OR and AR were okay with supporting the recs, for that reason only.

 

I also believe the hell that ETNZ raised is a lot about nothing; they can't even face a camera to make the case, so what should that tell us?

 

I agree....

 

Then both you guys obviously know the exact cause of the AR fold-up.

Care to enlighten us all?

 

In particulate could you help me with the following

1- Would IMs proposed rudder changes have prevented the death on AR1? If so how?

2- IF safety is such burning primary concern why is IM allowing an unsafe boat on the Race Course?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must be new to the AC game. Head games go on all the time. Witness Cayard's successful bitchslapping of New Zealand in '92. I suspect that some of this protest is about payback too for Cayard.

 

Why on earth would ETNZ give a flying fark about Cayard?

This comes back to the seemingly age old myth that Cayard has managed to cultivate that goes something like this "ETNZ are trying to have us elminated".

 

If there was even the slightest chance that AR could pose a threat to ETNZ, then you might be able to argue this.

However, given the current situation, we can expect LR to eliminate AR without ETNZ having even sailed a single race against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Unfortunately Stinger is doing what OR, AR and IM are all doing, which is taking a simple yes/no question and attempting to cloud it with mass hysteria.

If the IJ rules against ETNZ/LR, then it can only be assumed that the rot is set in and it will become impossible to wrest the cup from OR since anything becomes possible in the name of safety.

I don't believe this will happen.

 

Hold on a second, there. ETNZ and LR WANT 35 changes. They don't want 2. Is the ETNZ / LR option entirely safer than the 37? Are those 2 elements hazardous? Can those two be considered related to safety?

 

I would say it is dubious that the 35 is safer than the 37. I would also say that the 2 in question do have a safety element to them, namely, the idea that symmetrical elevators are easier to engineer than asymmetrical. Since EVERYONE is calling for at least the 35, it is not like ETNZ and LR are puritans, and that their supported option is somehow totally within all reason, and the only option within reason. Sure, they see an advantage, and I will even say their advantage comes from their superior engineering history in this event. But that does not mean that their 35 recommendations are automatically reasonable, and the package with all 37 is not.

 

If the jury finds that a) wider elevators are a significant added hazard, AND that the higher aspect elevator is a significant performance enhancement, then I would say things are as clear and sure as you want to claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes of course GD does not ~have~ to but it would be very interesting to at least hear why he'd agree 36 but not 37.

 

I hope we see the Jury submissions, perhaps they will get to the heart of it, give us some damn transparency into what his problems are.

 

we're all very confused now

 

but afaik it boils down to this

 

there are 2 problems rules for etnz

 

and the 2 are interlinked

 

- new rule allowing the beam box to be broken

 

- new rule to allow the stern plane rule to be broken

 

and these rules need to be rewritten because AR didn't make enough rudders

 

and so can't make 0.32m2 horistab assym rudders

 

rather than continue this clusterfuck i would support allowing the challs to race to a weakened box rule allowing AR to compete with symm 0.32m2 HS

 

but that the AC final be raced to the original box rule, whatever the defender and challenger can agree on

 

but the AC should not be corrupted by an LV challs requiring special a never ending stream of exceptions to the rules

 

either with 0.32m2 assyms or the original smaller HS

 

I can agree with all of the above. I also believe it would be reasonable if to go along with your suggestion for the LV, and for the AC to be raced with the ETNZ / LR 34 set. This would give AR plenty of time to develop the compliant rudders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a reason that Class Rule changes could be made by majority vote of competitors early on in the AC cycle, later requiring unanimous vote. If people think about it for a second, they'll see why that was a good idea.

 

If there was something in the class rules that made all the boats unsafe (not just some that had taken specific design routes), I don't believe that there would be an issue getting unanimous consent on a rule change.

 

It's the fact that only one or two boats need/want the rule change that is the issue. Two teams have demonstrated that the rules can be applied to build and sail a safe boat. A change just prior to the LVC starting is just what the protocol was written to avoid.

 

Is there any proof that ANY team did not call for changes. We know LR and AR did request changes. Do we know if either ETNZ or OR requested changes. I believe representatives from each team gave suggestions for different things that would enhance safety, and that all teams agreed that 35 should be adopted, and two wanted all 37.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are after something else. I wish they would explain their problem better.

 

Seriously? It's about setting precedent and not standing for changes they have every right to oppose to (for whatever damn reason they might choose). IM intentionally/unintentionally changed the protocol without 100% consent from the participants and that is against the rules because he decided that was the way it should be. I'm sure he has advisers to his actions, and they must have foreseen this as an issue.

 

I truly doubt ETNZ or LR really give a shit about the rudders, but you're blind if you can't wrap your head around the fact that they are after that protocol is strictly adhered to. Plain and simple. You can't "Spin" that any other way. The fact is, someone changed the rules and they did not have the power to do so.

 

Secondly- NO/PC state that they built FOUR rudders, and "cannibalized" two of them "in good faith" to meet to the rule suggestions (at the time). Meaning, they still have TWO more rudders that measure in under the non-cheater rules. I don't understand how PC can stand up in front of a press conference, or send an e-mail stating that if the rudder rule is now altered they can't race. seems like this team needs a unified voice.

 

additionally, ETNZ (or LR) owe nothing to Artemis, why should ETNZ care if Artemis make the line at all? ETNZ put a plan in place to have a boat ready for racing, and they've done exactly that. Artemis and whoever's decision making only have themselves to blame for not being able to show up to the starting line. PC's line about "ETNZ are trying to make it impossible for us to race" is total crap. Artemis made the decisions that have ultimately lead to where they currently are a LONG time ago, and they simply got it wrong. It's time they sucked it up and owned up to that fact rather than point the blame at ETNZ for trying to eliminate them.

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?

Its worse that them just feeling bad, they are a positive danger to themselves. Initial on the water tests two weeks before they are due to race? The team skipper claiming that he has learnt to sail an AC72 by watching video clips? Working up the most complex and dangerous sailing boat in history whilst racing? Is this the workings of a sane team?

 

They may have a plan, but its a poor one and they should be DSQ'd now for their own sakes.

 

All you guys hoping that they get on the water and cheering them on should have another think. These poor bastards need saving from themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nutta^ I'm suggesting ETNZ made the wrong compromises, have already been caught up to by OR who selected different compromises, but ETNZ is now trying to regain a lead by taking advantage of the Safety Regs, to try to corner OR into making them play ETNZ's game instead but with it even more their-way compromised; they want to force OR into bigger elevators than the original rules, yet still be beam-bound.

 

Despite how self-serving and aggressive that ETNZ proposal is, OR can and will be fine even if it did somehow happen. AR? Apparently not.

 

I agree, ETNZ an OR made different compromises within the class rules as they stood while they were doing their design.

 

ETNZ (and LR) is trying to hold everyone to the rules that they agreed to at the start of the game. They have agreed to changes where they believe there is a genuine safety benefit and no significant change to the level playing field.

 

Let the design choices made within the agreed class rules be the ones that determine the outcome.

 

If OR don't want the larger rudder winglets and don't think that they make their boat any safer (SWS suggests they'd prefer to run with smaller ones) then they should be protesting the changes along with ETNZ and LR..

 

I would say the best proposal would be a modification of the one proposed by Eric E, having the AC raced in either the original protocol or the 35 unanimously supported recommendations, and allowing AR to race in the LV with their new boards, since they were developed at a time when the 37 would reasonably be thought as the law of the land, and do not have time to develop/build new boards for the LV. They would have plenty of time for new rudders by the time of the AC, if a miracle were to happen. Would that make everyone happy????

 

By the way, I forget, are there any limits on the number of rudders, like there is for the main foils?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

Unfortunately Stinger is doing what OR, AR and IM are all doing, which is taking a simple yes/no question and attempting to cloud it with mass hysteria.

If the IJ rules against ETNZ/LR, then it can only be assumed that the rot is set in and it will become impossible to wrest the cup from OR since anything becomes possible in the name of safety.

I don't believe this will happen.

 

Hold on a second, there. ETNZ and LR WANT 35 changes. They don't want 2. Is the ETNZ / LR option entirely safer than the 37? Are those 2 elements hazardous? Can those two be considered related to safety?

 

I would say it is dubious that the 35 is safer than the 37. I would also say that the 2 in question do have a safety element to them, namely, the idea that symmetrical elevators are easier to engineer than asymmetrical. Since EVERYONE is calling for at least the 35, it is not like ETNZ and LR are puritans, and that their supported option is somehow totally within all reason, and the only option within reason. Sure, they see an advantage, and I will even say their advantage comes from their superior engineering history in this event. But that does not mean that their 35 recommendations are automatically reasonable, and the package with all 37 is not.

 

If the jury finds that a) wider elevators are a significant added hazard, AND that the higher aspect elevator is a significant performance enhancement, then I would say things are as clear and sure as you want to claim.

 

 

Ok, couple of problems there. Firstly, it would be WRONG to assume that ETNZ and LR WANT the other 35 changes.

They probably wanted some and accepted others.

 

However, and heres the only issue at hand, the last two changes require unanimous consent which is being withheld by ETNZ & LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They are after something else. I wish they would explain their problem better.

 

Seriously? It's about setting precedent and not standing for changes they have every right to oppose to (for whatever damn reason they might choose). IM intentionally/unintentionally changed the protocol without 100% consent from the participants and that is against the rules because he decided that was the way it should be. I'm sure he has advisers to his actions, and they must have foreseen this as an issue.

 

I truly doubt ETNZ or LR really give a shit about the rudders, but you're blind if you can't wrap your head around the fact that they are after that protocol is strictly adhered to. Plain and simple. You can't "Spin" that any other way. The fact is, someone changed the rules and they did not have the power to do so.

 

Secondly- NO/PC state that they built FOUR rudders, and "cannibalized" two of them "in good faith" to meet to the rule suggestions (at the time). Meaning, they still have TWO more rudders that measure in under the non-cheater rules. I don't understand how PC can stand up in front of a press conference, or send an e-mail stating that if the rudder rule is now altered they can't race. seems like this team needs a unified voice.

 

additionally, ETNZ (or LR) owe nothing to Artemis, why should ETNZ care if Artemis make the line at all? ETNZ put a plan in place to have a boat ready for racing, and they've done exactly that. Artemis and whoever's decision making only have themselves to blame for not being able to show up to the starting line. PC's line about "ETNZ are trying to make it impossible for us to race" is total crap. Artemis made the decisions that have ultimately lead to where they currently are a LONG time ago, and they simply got it wrong. It's time they sucked it up and owned up to that fact rather than point the blame at ETNZ for trying to eliminate them.

 

Seriously? It is very clear. They have rudders that comply to the original protocol, they also have rudders that comply with the proposed 37. They only don't have rudders that comply with just the cherry-picked 35. The 35 cherry-picked protocol changes that ETNZ and LR support. Remember, the change in wind speed is no different, really, than the change in rudders, and everyone is supporting that. The idea that ETNZ and LR are not supporting any significant changes flies in the face of reality. Since everyone is supporting change, then everyone has their hands dirty, at least a little. I would say it is not fair to change the rules again at this point in a way that would immediately scratch one team who has designed rudders to comply with the safety recommendations or the original protocol, even if their engineering is inferior to a team(s) who comply either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

Unfortunately Stinger is doing what OR, AR and IM are all doing, which is taking a simple yes/no question and attempting to cloud it with mass hysteria.

If the IJ rules against ETNZ/LR, then it can only be assumed that the rot is set in and it will become impossible to wrest the cup from OR since anything becomes possible in the name of safety.

I don't believe this will happen.

 

Hold on a second, there. ETNZ and LR WANT 35 changes. They don't want 2. Is the ETNZ / LR option entirely safer than the 37? Are those 2 elements hazardous? Can those two be considered related to safety?

 

I would say it is dubious that the 35 is safer than the 37. I would also say that the 2 in question do have a safety element to them, namely, the idea that symmetrical elevators are easier to engineer than asymmetrical. Since EVERYONE is calling for at least the 35, it is not like ETNZ and LR are puritans, and that their supported option is somehow totally within all reason, and the only option within reason. Sure, they see an advantage, and I will even say their advantage comes from their superior engineering history in this event. But that does not mean that their 35 recommendations are automatically reasonable, and the package with all 37 is not.

 

If the jury finds that a) wider elevators are a significant added hazard, AND that the higher aspect elevator is a significant performance enhancement, then I would say things are as clear and sure as you want to claim.

 

ETNZ are happy enough with the recommendations that already fall within the current rules and are just making it more restrictive ie: minimum length and area, they already had rudders that conform to these requirements.

If all the hype is to be believed from IM and ACRM it is these two aspects that make the new rudders safer.

What they are unhappy with is the rule that allows this to be achieved other teams, without having to make the same performance compromises on the rest of the boat that ETNZ and LR had to make to get to there using the current rules.

 

But the other teams are totally within their rights to be unhappy with just the two changes, the class rule can only be changed by unanimous consent after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to gouchogreg

 

The 35 unonymous changes are not design rule changes
The ohter two are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^

Unfortunately Stinger is doing what OR, AR and IM are all doing, which is taking a simple yes/no question and attempting to cloud it with mass hysteria.

If the IJ rules against ETNZ/LR, then it can only be assumed that the rot is set in and it will become impossible to wrest the cup from OR since anything becomes possible in the name of safety.

I don't believe this will happen.

 

Hold on a second, there. ETNZ and LR WANT 35 changes. They don't want 2. Is the ETNZ / LR option entirely safer than the 37? Are those 2 elements hazardous? Can those two be considered related to safety?

 

I would say it is dubious that the 35 is safer than the 37. I would also say that the 2 in question do have a safety element to them, namely, the idea that symmetrical elevators are easier to engineer than asymmetrical. Since EVERYONE is calling for at least the 35, it is not like ETNZ and LR are puritans, and that their supported option is somehow totally within all reason, and the only option within reason. Sure, they see an advantage, and I will even say their advantage comes from their superior engineering history in this event. But that does not mean that their 35 recommendations are automatically reasonable, and the package with all 37 is not.

 

If the jury finds that a) wider elevators are a significant added hazard, AND that the higher aspect elevator is a significant performance enhancement, then I would say things are as clear and sure as you want to claim.

 

 

Ok, couple of problems there. Firstly, it would be WRONG to assume that ETNZ and LR WANT the other 35 changes.

They probably wanted some and accepted others.

 

However, and heres the only issue at hand, the last two changes require unanimous consent which is being withheld by ETNZ & LR.

 

And that is different than the part of the 35 recommendations that require bigger elevators and deeper draft????? NOPE.

 

They (ETNZ and LR) want to make changes (they support the larger elevator area and deeper draft), they just don't want changes that negate their advantage. That's great and all, but does not lead to safety and fair treatment of AR, seeing that they developed rudders to comply with the 37 or have original protocol rudders. I have yet to hear LR support opting for no changes (and I don't think I have heard that from ETNZ). Therefore, they support change to the protocol, too.

 

I will happily admit it if I'm shown to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

rather than continue this clusterfuck i would support allowing the challs to race to a weakened box rule allowing AR to compete with symm 0.32m2 HS

 

but that the AC final be raced to the original box rule, whatever the defender and challenger can agree on

 

but the AC should not be corrupted by an LV challs requiring special a never ending stream of exceptions to the rules

 

either with 0.32m2 assyms or the original smaller HS

 

That is way too sensible of an idea....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^

Unfortunately Stinger is doing what OR, AR and IM are all doing, which is taking a simple yes/no question and attempting to cloud it with mass hysteria.

If the IJ rules against ETNZ/LR, then it can only be assumed that the rot is set in and it will become impossible to wrest the cup from OR since anything becomes possible in the name of safety.

I don't believe this will happen.

 

Hold on a second, there. ETNZ and LR WANT 35 changes. They don't want 2. Is the ETNZ / LR option entirely safer than the 37? Are those 2 elements hazardous? Can those two be considered related to safety?

 

I would say it is dubious that the 35 is safer than the 37. I would also say that the 2 in question do have a safety element to them, namely, the idea that symmetrical elevators are easier to engineer than asymmetrical. Since EVERYONE is calling for at least the 35, it is not like ETNZ and LR are puritans, and that their supported option is somehow totally within all reason, and the only option within reason. Sure, they see an advantage, and I will even say their advantage comes from their superior engineering history in this event. But that does not mean that their 35 recommendations are automatically reasonable, and the package with all 37 is not.

 

If the jury finds that a) wider elevators are a significant added hazard, AND that the higher aspect elevator is a significant performance enhancement, then I would say things are as clear and sure as you want to claim.

 

ETNZ are happy enough with the recommendations that already fall within the current rules and are just making it more restrictive ie: minimum length and area, they already had rudders that conform to these requirements.

If all the hype is to be believed from IM and ACRM it is these two aspects that make the new rudders safer.

What they are unhappy with is the rule that allows this to be achieved other teams, without having to make the same performance compromises on the rest of the boat that ETNZ and LR had to make to get to there using the current rules.

 

But the other teams are totally within their rights to be unhappy with just the two changes, the class rule can only be changed by unanimous consent after all.

 

How the hell can you guys claim that adding new requirements for longer blades and larger elevators does not represent a design rule change, but the shape of the elevators is a design rule change? Both represent design rule changes, EVEN IF it was possible to design a rudder that would satisfy the new rules within the old rule. Fact of the matter, the requirement to have longer rudders with larger elevators compelled AR to build to that rule, and they did so under the proposed 37 recommendations. Still, they have their old rudders, for the old protocol. NOW, to me, this seems like a whole hell of a lot of grey area, where we all have good points. As I have said before, I'm glad I'm not on that IJ, there is no win for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to gouchogreg

 

The 35 unonymous changes are not design rule changes

The ohter two are

 

Meaning PCs original rudders should comply OR they have chosen to build something that is outside the class rules anyway(?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to gouchogreg

 

The 35 unonymous changes are not design rule changes

The ohter two are

 

See my last post. The 35 recommendations DO include design rule changes, namely requiring longer rudders with larger elevators. That requirement represents a design rule change, with or without modifying the beam rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

^

Unfortunately Stinger is doing what OR, AR and IM are all doing, which is taking a simple yes/no question and attempting to cloud it with mass hysteria.

If the IJ rules against ETNZ/LR, then it can only be assumed that the rot is set in and it will become impossible to wrest the cup from OR since anything becomes possible in the name of safety.

I don't believe this will happen.

 

Hold on a second, there. ETNZ and LR WANT 35 changes. They don't want 2. Is the ETNZ / LR option entirely safer than the 37? Are those 2 elements hazardous? Can those two be considered related to safety?

 

I would say it is dubious that the 35 is safer than the 37. I would also say that the 2 in question do have a safety element to them, namely, the idea that symmetrical elevators are easier to engineer than asymmetrical. Since EVERYONE is calling for at least the 35, it is not like ETNZ and LR are puritans, and that their supported option is somehow totally within all reason, and the only option within reason. Sure, they see an advantage, and I will even say their advantage comes from their superior engineering history in this event. But that does not mean that their 35 recommendations are automatically reasonable, and the package with all 37 is not.

 

If the jury finds that a) wider elevators are a significant added hazard, AND that the higher aspect elevator is a significant performance enhancement, then I would say things are as clear and sure as you want to claim.

 

 

Ok, couple of problems there. Firstly, it would be WRONG to assume that ETNZ and LR WANT the other 35 changes.

They probably wanted some and accepted others.

 

However, and heres the only issue at hand, the last two changes require unanimous consent which is being withheld by ETNZ & LR.

 

And that is different than the part of the 35 recommendations that require bigger elevators and deeper draft????? NOPE.

 

They (ETNZ and LR) want to make changes (they support the larger elevator area and deeper draft), they just don't want changes that negate their advantage. That's great and all, but does not lead to safety and fair treatment of AR, seeing that they developed rudders to comply with the 37 or have original protocol rudders. I have yet to hear LR support opting for no changes (and I don't think I have heard that from ETNZ). Therefore, they support change to the protocol, too.

 

I will happily admit it if I'm shown to be wrong.

 

Ok, so one more time:

 

* Changing class rules with unanimous consent = OK

* Changing class rules without unanimous consent = Not OK and quite frankly amoral.

 

AR has had MORE than fair treatment because they (like everyone else) has had acess to the rules by which their boat was to be built by for the last 2+ years.

 

However, quite frankly, I couldn't care if they allowed AR to race their AC72 with a couple of fucking great outboards on it, it still aint gonna win.

 

I have no idea why so many Americans on this board are desperate to see any and all accomodations given to AR.

But what is worse is suggestions that they are being treated unfairly or that somehow ETNZ wants them elminated due to some fear of their immense potential.

 

AR are a fucked team and have been for more than a year now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

to gouchogreg

 

The 35 unonymous changes are not design rule changes

The ohter two are

 

Meaning PCs original rudders should comply OR they have chosen to build something that is outside the class rules anyway(?).

 

No, PC's original rudders comply to the original protocol, but not the safety committees recommendations, which is what they had to go by when they made their new rudders. No one (publicly) wants the original protocol without the 35 recommendations, however, so no one will let AR race with what are otherwise legal rudders. Further, ETNZ and LR are contesting the 36th and 37th recommendations, making it impossible to race with anything they developed under the two likely protocol options. Could they have developed rudders similar to ETNZ and LR? Probably. But that does not make it absolute that they should have if they were compliant with the safety committees recommendations, or the original protocol. It would be reasonable to develop the optimal equipment for the rules applicable to them. They (AR) has a good argument they have two sets of rudders made optimally for their boat under the two scenarios they had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

^

Unfortunately Stinger is doing what OR, AR and IM are all doing, which is taking a simple yes/no question and attempting to cloud it with mass hysteria.

If the IJ rules against ETNZ/LR, then it can only be assumed that the rot is set in and it will become impossible to wrest the cup from OR since anything becomes possible in the name of safety.

I don't believe this will happen.

 

Hold on a second, there. ETNZ and LR WANT 35 changes. They don't want 2. Is the ETNZ / LR option entirely safer than the 37? Are those 2 elements hazardous? Can those two be considered related to safety?

 

I would say it is dubious that the 35 is safer than the 37. I would also say that the 2 in question do have a safety element to them, namely, the idea that symmetrical elevators are easier to engineer than asymmetrical. Since EVERYONE is calling for at least the 35, it is not like ETNZ and LR are puritans, and that their supported option is somehow totally within all reason, and the only option within reason. Sure, they see an advantage, and I will even say their advantage comes from their superior engineering history in this event. But that does not mean that their 35 recommendations are automatically reasonable, and the package with all 37 is not.

 

If the jury finds that a) wider elevators are a significant added hazard, AND that the higher aspect elevator is a significant performance enhancement, then I would say things are as clear and sure as you want to claim.

 

 

Ok, couple of problems there. Firstly, it would be WRONG to assume that ETNZ and LR WANT the other 35 changes.

They probably wanted some and accepted others.

 

However, and heres the only issue at hand, the last two changes require unanimous consent which is being withheld by ETNZ & LR.

 

And that is different than the part of the 35 recommendations that require bigger elevators and deeper draft????? NOPE.

 

They (ETNZ and LR) want to make changes (they support the larger elevator area and deeper draft), they just don't want changes that negate their advantage. That's great and all, but does not lead to safety and fair treatment of AR, seeing that they developed rudders to comply with the 37 or have original protocol rudders. I have yet to hear LR support opting for no changes (and I don't think I have heard that from ETNZ). Therefore, they support change to the protocol, too.

 

I will happily admit it if I'm shown to be wrong.

 

Ok, so one more time:

 

* Changing class rules with unanimous consent = OK

* Changing class rules without unanimous consent = Not OK and quite frankly amoral.

 

AR has had MORE than fair treatment because they (like everyone else) has had acess to the rules by which their boat was to be built by for the last 2+ years.

 

However, quite frankly, I couldn't care if they allowed AR to race their AC72 with a couple of fucking great outboards on it, it still aint gonna win.

 

I have no idea why so many Americans on this board are desperate to see any and all accomodations given to AR.

But what is worse is suggestions that they are being treated unfairly or that somehow ETNZ wants them elminated due to some fear of their immense potential.

 

AR are a fucked team and have been for more than a year now.

 

So, where is the unanimous consent for supporting 35 recommendations (which includes design rule changes) and not the other 2? That situation does not exist.

 

Where is the unanimous consent for the 37 rules (which also includes design rule changes)? That situation does not exist.

 

So, we are in a situation where AR can race with the original protocol, which did have unanimous consent, or they can race with the 37 recommendations, which is largely supported, and could have reasonably been considered to be the direction of the rules. The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enhancement reasoning), claiming they are opposed to design rule changes, while at the same time supporting design rule changes as part of the 35 recommendations, that if implemented, boot AR out of the game. I believe that is an unfair situation for AR, at least on such short notice, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for AR to race unless it can be shown that their rudders pose a real elevated hazard, real competitive advantage, or both, if that is the reasoning ETNZ and LR are using to support change to the protocol for the 35 recommendations, but not the last two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back that up a bit.

So AR would be protesting that changes to class rules re: rudder safety (36/37) did not have unanimous consent of the challengers as they didn't vote for it(?) ...and/or LR, TNZ and OR have been privy to information re: rudder design/compliance that AR hasn't been?

 

This is what happens when you start screwing with the class rule, everybody begins to squeal.

Hope the IJ hasn't booked return tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that if implemented, boot AR out of the game.

 

To be fair I think AR booted themselves out of the game quite sometime ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back that up a bit.

So AR would be protesting that changes to class rules re: rudder safety (36/37) did not have unanimous consent of the challengers as they didn't vote for it(?) ...and/or LR, TNZ and OR have been privy to information re: rudder design/compliance that AR hasn't been?

 

This is what happens when you start screwing with the class rule, everybody begins to squeal.

Hope the IJ hasn't booked return tickets.

 

Why are you claiming just 36 & 37 are changes to the class rule, but the other 35 (including the minimum draft and elevator area requirements) are not class rule changes? All changes that stipulate minimum OR maximum length/area, or require/restrict specific shapes, represent changes to the rule. Just because some teams satisfy minimums and maximums before and after the changes does not make those changes non-class rule changes, while changes in shapes are class rule changes. If ETNZ and LR are supporting the minimum draft and elevator area requirements, they are supporting class rule changes (and my guess is other class rule changes are included in the 35).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

that if implemented, boot AR out of the game.

 

To be fair I think AR booted themselves out of the game quite sometime ago.

 

Well, until the rules of the game include a boot clause, outside of racing, for those teams that are poorly managed and/or have major incidents, AR should be protected by the same rules and protocol as all the other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, where is the unanimous consent for supporting 35 recommendations (which includes design rule changes) and not the other 2? That situation does not exist.

 

Where is the unanimous consent for the 37 rules (which also includes design rule changes)? That situation does not exist.

 

So, we are in a situation where AR can race with the original protocol, which did have unanimous consent, or they can race with the 37 recommendations, which is largely supported, and could have reasonably been considered to be the direction of the rules. The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enhancement reasoning), claiming they are opposed to design rule changes, while at the same time supporting design rule changes as part of the 35 recommendations, that if implemented, boot AR out of the game. I believe that is an unfair situation for AR, at least on such short notice, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for AR to race unless it can be shown that their rudders pose a real elevated hazard, real competitive advantage, or both, if that is the reasoning ETNZ and LR are using to support change to the protocol for the 35 recommendations, but not the last two.

 

You are overlooking the additional 100 kg allowance that AR need to strengthen the defects in the design of the structure in their boat .. the 100 kg is also a rule change and will require 100% support from the teams to enable them to measure ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, where is the unanimous consent for supporting 35 recommendations (which includes design rule changes) and not the other 2? That situation does not exist.

 

Where is the unanimous consent for the 37 rules (which also includes design rule changes)? That situation does not exist.

 

So, we are in a situation where AR can race with the original protocol, which did have unanimous consent, or they can race with the 37 recommendations, which is largely supported, and could have reasonably been considered to be the direction of the rules. The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enhancement reasoning), claiming they are opposed to design rule changes, while at the same time supporting design rule changes as part of the 35 recommendations, that if implemented, boot AR out of the game. I believe that is an unfair situation for AR, at least on such short notice, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for AR to race unless it can be shown that their rudders pose a real elevated hazard, real competitive advantage, or both, if that is the reasoning ETNZ and LR are using to support change to the protocol for the 35 recommendations, but not the last two.

 

You are overlooking the additional 100 kg allowance that AR need to strengthen the defects in the design of the structure in their boat .. the 100 kg is also a rule change and will require 100% support from the teams to enable them to measure ..

 

Admittedly, I'm not up on that issue as much (most likely because it is not getting griped about as much). Is that part of the 37 recommendations? If so, then it would be no different than the rudder issue, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

that if implemented, boot AR out of the game.

 

To be fair I think AR booted themselves out of the game quite sometime ago.

 

Well, until the rules of the game include a boot clause, outside of racing, for those teams that are poorly managed and/or have major incidents, AR should be protected by the same rules and protocol as all the other teams.

 

Quite true.

Although given the above I think that in the next cycle we'll see something around challenges having to sail a minimum number of RR races to qual for the SFs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wish that GD would face a camera and explain to us what all his big problems are with #37.

SR ... what do you not understand?

 

The class rule cannot be changed without the unanimous consent of competitors.

 

The RD changed the class rule (without consent).

 

Why should Grant go in front of a camera to explain this simple notion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, where is the unanimous consent for supporting 35 recommendations (which includes design rule changes) and not the other 2? That situation does not exist.

 

Where is the unanimous consent for the 37 rules (which also includes design rule changes)? That situation does not exist.

 

So, we are in a situation where AR can race with the original protocol, which did have unanimous consent, or they can race with the 37 recommendations, which is largely supported, and could have reasonably been considered to be the direction of the rules. The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enhancement reasoning), claiming they are opposed to design rule changes, while at the same time supporting design rule changes as part of the 35 recommendations, that if implemented, boot AR out of the game. I believe that is an unfair situation for AR, at least on such short notice, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for AR to race unless it can be shown that their rudders pose a real elevated hazard, real competitive advantage, or both, if that is the reasoning ETNZ and LR are using to support change to the protocol for the 35 recommendations, but not the last two.

 

For goodness sake, you are starting to sound like SWS and Stingray right now.

All teams had every right to vote for the rule changes they agreed to and against those that they did not.

 

Some of the changes DO require unanimous consent (the class rule changes) and others did not.

 

There are ONLY two possible outcomes from this decision:

 

1. The rules remain the same, meaning that only rudders built to the original rules are valid.

2. The rules change meaning that rudders built to the original OR new rules are valid.

 

If AR finds itself in a situation where it doesn't have a rudder to meet either of those situations, then they are incompetent - pure and simple.

 

This would mean that they would have modified their only rudders compliant with the original rules to meet ONLY the new rules.

If they have done this, not only are they incompetent but genuinely deserve to be excluded.

 

Unfortunately, the only team that AR is a danger to is themselves and if they kill another sailor then I hope someone goes to jail for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, where is the unanimous consent for supporting 35 recommendations (which includes design rule changes) and not the other 2? That situation does not exist.

 

Where is the unanimous consent for the 37 rules (which also includes design rule changes)? That situation does not exist.

 

So, we are in a situation where AR can race with the original protocol, which did have unanimous consent, or they can race with the 37 recommendations, which is largely supported, and could have reasonably been considered to be the direction of the rules. The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enhancement reasoning), claiming they are opposed to design rule changes, while at the same time supporting design rule changes as part of the 35 recommendations, that if implemented, boot AR out of the game. I believe that is an unfair situation for AR, at least on such short notice, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for AR to race unless it can be shown that their rudders pose a real elevated hazard, real competitive advantage, or both, if that is the reasoning ETNZ and LR are using to support change to the protocol for the 35 recommendations, but not the last two.

 

For goodness sake, you are starting to sound like SWS and Stingray right now.

All teams had every right to vote for the rule changes they agreed to and against those that they did not.

 

Some of the changes DO require unanimous consent (the class rule changes) and others did not.

 

There are ONLY two possible outcomes from this decision:

 

1. The rules remain the same, meaning that only rudders built to the original rules are valid.

2. The rules change meaning that rudders built to the original OR new rules are valid.

 

If AR finds itself in a situation where it doesn't have a rudder to meet either of those situations, then they are incompetent - pure and simple.

 

This would mean that they would have modified their only rudders compliant with the original rules to meet ONLY the new rules.

If they have done this, not only are they incompetent but genuinely deserve to be excluded.

 

Unfortunately, the only team that AR is a danger to is themselves and if they kill another sailor then I hope someone goes to jail for it.

Jaysper, I don't know much about this comical AC, but after the time you seem to spend here, didn't you realize that this case is about the RD's authority to take decisions modifying the prot ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just back that up a bit.

So AR would be protesting that changes to class rules re: rudder safety (36/37) did not have unanimous consent of the challengers as they didn't vote for it(?) ...and/or LR, TNZ and OR have been privy to information re: rudder design/compliance that AR hasn't been?

 

This is what happens when you start screwing with the class rule, everybody begins to squeal.

Hope the IJ hasn't booked return tickets.

 

Why are you claiming just 36 & 37 are changes to the class rule, but the other 35 (including the minimum draft and elevator area requirements) are not class rule changes? All changes that stipulate minimum OR maximum length/area, or require/restrict specific shapes, represent changes to the rule. Just because some teams satisfy minimums and maximums before and after the changes does not make those changes non-class rule changes, while changes in shapes are class rule changes. If ETNZ and LR are supporting the minimum draft and elevator area requirements, they are supporting class rule changes (and my guess is other class rule changes are included in the 35).

wind limit changes were a clear compromise to ETNZ, given so at the time, they didn't appear "reckless", or less

*"SAFE*".

All the Challs (able to sail that is), should have dug their heels in as soon as a RD starts "cherry picking" loose "recommendation" from the teams, and forcing what "he" thinks down their throats....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, where is the unanimous consent for supporting 35 recommendations (which includes design rule changes) and not the other 2? That situation does not exist.

 

Where is the unanimous consent for the 37 rules (which also includes design rule changes)? That situation does not exist.

 

So, we are in a situation where AR can race with the original protocol, which did have unanimous consent, or they can race with the 37 recommendations, which is largely supported, and could have reasonably been considered to be the direction of the rules. The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enhancement reasoning), claiming they are opposed to design rule changes, while at the same time supporting design rule changes as part of the 35 recommendations, that if implemented, boot AR out of the game. I believe that is an unfair situation for AR, at least on such short notice, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for AR to race unless it can be shown that their rudders pose a real elevated hazard, real competitive advantage, or both, if that is the reasoning ETNZ and LR are using to support change to the protocol for the 35 recommendations, but not the last two.

 

For goodness sake, you are starting to sound like SWS and Stingray right now.

All teams had every right to vote for the rule changes they agreed to and against those that they did not.

 

Some of the changes DO require unanimous consent (the class rule changes) and others did not.

 

There are ONLY two possible outcomes from this decision:

 

1. The rules remain the same, meaning that only rudders built to the original rules are valid.

2. The rules change meaning that rudders built to the original OR new rules are valid.

 

If AR finds itself in a situation where it doesn't have a rudder to meet either of those situations, then they are incompetent - pure and simple.

 

This would mean that they would have modified their only rudders compliant with the original rules to meet ONLY the new rules.

If they have done this, not only are they incompetent but genuinely deserve to be excluded.

 

Unfortunately, the only team that AR is a danger to is themselves and if they kill another sailor then I hope someone goes to jail for it.

Jaysper, I don't know much about this comical AC, but after the time you seem to spend here, didn't you realize that this case is about the RD's authority to take decisions modifying the prot ?

 

Actually, its about the ability to change the class rule (which is separate from the protocol, which incidentally is the document that says it requires unanimous consent).

However, some of our American friends want to make it about safety, hand shakes, fairness to AR, whatever.

Anything to avoid the fact that ammending the class rules in a way that is not in accordance with the protocol is amoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen this put in the following way yet, but I gather Iain Murray's point is that the agreement to modifiy the class rule was given by all teams agreeing to the 37 safety measures on May 22nd...

 

An agreement that both ETNZ and LR reneged on a few weeks later - no wonder he feels hard done by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

I

1048067_10151500784186087_969627354_o1.j

 

The bracing location should be where the back stays connect .. AR seem to have chosen to have the back stays inboard a bit and that would make the location of the bracing reasonable .. Also note that AR are locating the ties from the king post to the same inboard position which makes the inboard location of the bracing essential .

 

Not a fan of the transverse undercarriage connection points to the mainbeam. Isn't that where the last boat broke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto Jaysper..!

 

 

 

So, where is the unanimous consent for supporting 35 recommendations (which includes design rule changes) and not the other 2? That situation does not exist.

 

Where is the unanimous consent for the 37 rules (which also includes design rule changes)? That situation does not exist.

 

So, we are in a situation where AR can race with the original protocol, which did have unanimous consent, or they can race with the 37 recommendations, which is largely supported, and could have reasonably been considered to be the direction of the rules. The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enhancement reasoning), claiming they are opposed to design rule changes, while at the same time supporting design rule changes as part of the 35 recommendations, that if implemented, boot AR out of the game. I believe that is an unfair situation for AR, at least on such short notice, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for AR to race unless it can be shown that their rudders pose a real elevated hazard, real competitive advantage, or both, if that is the reasoning ETNZ and LR are using to support change to the protocol for the 35 recommendations, but not the last two.

 

For goodness sake, you are starting to sound like SWS and Stingray right now.

All teams had every right to vote for the rule changes they agreed to and against those that they did not.

 

Some of the changes DO require unanimous consent (the class rule changes) and others did not.

 

There are ONLY two possible outcomes from this decision:

 

1. The rules remain the same, meaning that only rudders built to the original rules are valid.

2. The rules change meaning that rudders built to the original OR new rules are valid.

 

If AR finds itself in a situation where it doesn't have a rudder to meet either of those situations, then they are incompetent - pure and simple.

 

This would mean that they would have modified their only rudders compliant with the original rules to meet ONLY the new rules.

If they have done this, not only are they incompetent but genuinely deserve to be excluded.

 

Unfortunately, the only team that AR is a danger to is themselves and if they kill another sailor then I hope someone goes to jail for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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?

I

1048067_10151500784186087_969627354_o1.j

 

The bracing location should be where the back stays connect .. AR seem to have chosen to have the back stays inboard a bit and that would make the location of the bracing reasonable .. Also note that AR are locating the ties from the king post to the same inboard position which makes the inboard location of the bracing essential .

 

Not a fan of the transverse undercarriage connection points to the mainbeam. Isn't that where the last boat broke?

 

Part of the issue with this whole shit storm - we still don't know what happened to AR1 and why it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

SR - the question to the IJ is clear:

 

Can the RD make class rule changes in the name of safety without it going to a competitor vote?

 

That's it.

 

Whether that has sideline questions which will become apparent once we know the ruling, we will certainly find out once we see the next submission or competitor vote to change the rules - as per the protocol.

You have been doing your job well - posts on all topics are singing the same song. If it weren't so obvious you have been fed the party line, it might actually convince a few people.

====================

Lets hope so.......

 

 

And it shouldn't take more than one fatality to realize it.

So you are ok with the RD demanding that OR increase their bow volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that if implemented, boot AR out of the game.

 

WHO CARES? they aren't IN the game in the first place (I don't know if you missed the race #2 where they where a no-show?). Why should two teams make concessions for the other two teams who missed the design mark? Why should they have sympathy for Artemis? So far they have gotten every aspect of this cup incorrect. It's not like Artemis is there on a sponsors dime, they only have one B to answer to, and while he will be a bit upset, it's not like they will be denying the ROI that ENTZ sold it's government/sponsors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I feel for Artemis's situation ETNZ is shooting for the whole kahuna here and Artemis's ability to get to the start line is none of their concern.

 

If you concerned about the number of participants have a go at the organising committee not the competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cross structure of AR2 appears pretty much the same as AR1. The king post is short compared with that of the other teams and, judging from videos of AR1, is low to the point where it will tend to drag in the water during maneuvers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, where is the unanimous consent for supporting 35 recommendations (which includes design rule changes) and not the other 2? That situation does not exist.

 

Where is the unanimous consent for the 37 rules (which also includes design rule changes)? That situation does not exist.

 

So, we are in a situation where AR can race with the original protocol, which did have unanimous consent, or they can race with the 37 recommendations, which is largely supported, and could have reasonably been considered to be the direction of the rules. The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enhancement reasoning), claiming they are opposed to design rule changes, while at the same time supporting design rule changes as part of the 35 recommendations, that if implemented, boot AR out of the game. I believe that is an unfair situation for AR, at least on such short notice, and that reasonable accommodations should be made for AR to race unless it can be shown that their rudders pose a real elevated hazard, real competitive advantage, or both, if that is the reasoning ETNZ and LR are using to support change to the protocol for the 35 recommendations, but not the last two.

 

You are overlooking the additional 100 kg allowance that AR need to strengthen the defects in the design of the structure in their boat .. the 100 kg is also a rule change and will require 100% support from the teams to enable them to measure ..

 

Admittedly, I'm not up on that issue as much (most likely because it is not getting griped about as much). Is that part of the 37 recommendations? If so, then it would be no different than the rudder issue, right?

 

Absolutely all the class design rule changes are covered by the same statement, ANY team can choose to support or not support ANY design changes. If Artemis are unhappy with the length and area rules but without the bmax and stern plane additions they are perfectly free to refuse them under the same clause ETNZ are using.

ETNZ aren't going to complain their rudders are compliant with both sets (well the long ones are anyway), they are not expecting to have their cake and eat it to, they are just stating the changes they can live with and the ones they can't, Artemis would be well served to do the same, bearing in mind that the original rules are the default if agreement isn't found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The reason that many of us are now defending AR is that they appear to me to have designed/developed for two reasonable options but that ETNZ and LR appear to be fighting them on those with little reasoning (safety or performance enha