sarah0809

Artemis?

Recommended Posts

 

The point is not if they all formally agreed, but that IM was given the distinct impression that they did, which led him to go forward in forwarding all 37 points to the CG for the event permit...

 

But didn't he submit the recommendations to the CG after mediation?

No. I believe IM sent the MEP application with the 37 recommendations attached to the CG before mediation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no agreement. Even Murray admitted to that on the media call. There was a statement of "you'll get no pushback from us" from Dalton, which only the most mentally slow would think constitutes an agreement to modify the Class Rules. There were also numerous statements of concern by ETNZ and LR about how much work would be necessary to get the recommendations implemented in time under the required procedures and with all required amendments of documents.

 

That process never happened, despite nearly 4 weeks of mediation. Leaving us where we are now.

 

Lame excuses, I don't care how many statements they made - just indicates a gum flapping lobbying effort and nothing more, nothing new either. They also claim they don't need them as they are safe as is - seems pretty disingenuous.

 

How in the hell could AR possibly manage to do so given their workload ?

 

Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is not if they all formally agreed, but that IM was given the distinct impression that they did, which led him to go forward in forwarding all 37 points to the CG for the event permit...

 

Yep. There were comments on the nature of "we're not happy with all of them", but still, they all realized and commented on having to move forward. I'm not saying they all had to agree with every point, either. But at the time AR had to move forward with new designs, they did so according to the recommendations, while also retaining their original protocol compliant rudders, in the case the recommendations were not adopted. The only thing AR did not do was foresee that ETNZ and LR would force the case that only 35 of the 37 recommendations be adopted. Maybe they should have, but that is subjective. Either way, I really would love to see some kind of analysis that shows how much of an impact for competitive advantage the new rule compliant rudders provide over the rudders ETNZ and LR have, just so we can know how much reason there is for their protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

Anyone who is in the habit of taking significant decisions affecting others on the basis of an "impression" is in need of adult supervision.

 

Actually, they did not put all their eggs in one basket . . . they also had their original protocol-compliant rudders. The only thing they did not do is assume, or depend on, or insulate themselves from, the ETNZ / LR challenge of the two recommendations.

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.

 

There is a difference, the wind limits are no class rule, the ruder specs are. The first need a majority to be changed, the latter unanimous consent. And this is the core of the matter: If Artemis is not happy with any class rule change proposal by other teams (e.g. that "third" version by ETNZ) they only have to say "no" to a class rule change, and things stay as they were initially.

All the rest is just distraction from the real issue, PR, spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

 

Anyone who is in the habit of taking significant decisions affecting others on the basis of an "impression" is in need of adult supervision.

 

Actually, they did not put all their eggs in one basket . . . they also had their original protocol-compliant rudders. The only thing they did not do is assume, or depend on, or insulate themselves from, the ETNZ / LR challenge of the two recommendations.

 

If you read the thread, you'll see I wasn't talking about Artemis at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is a difference, the wind limits are no class rule, the ruder specs are. The first need a majority to be changed, the latter unanimous consent. And this is the core of the matter: If Artemis is not happy with any class rule change proposal by other teams (e.g. that "third" version by ETNZ) they only have to say "no" to a class rule change, and things stay as they were initially.

All the rest is just distraction from the real issue, PR, spin.

So after Artemis are eliminated ETNZ and LR could have the necessary majority to raise the wind limits so as not to favour Oracle? Or would Oracle be able to lower them again after the LV final?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

There's isn't the slightest sign ETNZ or LR want to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this quote from TE: "We're disappointed to have only three challengers … but the truth is that all three are probably the best prepared teams we've seen in the history of the America's Cup." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/11/americas-cup-disaster-san-francisco). Imagine what would have happened if some of the challengers from previous ACs not represented in San Francisco had entered AC34? Usually when someone uses “the truth is” in a sentence s/he is saying anything but the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feck, that was a stupid enough line to have trotted out in December but he's just said it again.

 

horses-ass-thumb2483689.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Excellent explanation, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised nobody has posted the decision yet:

 

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JN075.pdf

 

Summary: ETNZ, LR and USCG were correct, notice 189 attempted to alter the Class Rules in a manner that is not allowed under the Protocol, it is not a "regulation" and is not enforceable, the RD is required to provide feedback from all entrants to USCG if he deems the event "unsafe".

 

It's interesting reading actually and should help some of the dubious "doubters" in this thread understand the basic premise of "rules".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised nobody has posted the decision yet:

 

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JN075.pdf

 

Summary: ETNZ, LR and USCG were correct, notice 189 attempted to alter the Class Rules in a manner that is not allowed under the Protocol, it is not a "regulation" and is not enforceable, the RD is required to provide feedback from all entrants to USCG if he deems the event "unsafe".

 

It's interesting reading actually and should help some of the dubious "doubters" in this thread understand the basic premise of "rules".

 

Normally I don't criticize first time posters for being "newbs", but this has been discussed for the past 50 minutes in two other threads. The IJ made the most conservative ruling possible, AFAICT, putting the onus back on the teams and the organizers to come to an agreement that would lead to agreement. From what I can tell, the decision reverts everything back to the original protocol, so it was a cherry picking where longer rudders and larger elevators are required, but wider beam was allowed. So, from what I can tell, AR's original rudders will be compliant. The 100KG issue may be a bigger problem for them, but we will have to wait and see on that one.

 

By the way, it will be very interesting to see what AR's response is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm surprised nobody has posted the decision yet:

 

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JN075.pdf

 

Summary: ETNZ, LR and USCG were correct, notice 189 attempted to alter the Class Rules in a manner that is not allowed under the Protocol, it is not a "regulation" and is not enforceable, the RD is required to provide feedback from all entrants to USCG if he deems the event "unsafe".

 

It's interesting reading actually and should help some of the dubious "doubters" in this thread understand the basic premise of "rules".

 

Normally I don't criticize first time posters for being "newbs", but this has been discussed for the past 50 minutes in two other threads. The IJ made the most conservative ruling possible, AFAICT, putting the onus back on the teams and the organizers to come to an agreement that would lead to agreement. From what I can tell, the decision reverts everything back to the original protocol, so it was a cherry picking where longer rudders and larger elevators are required, but wider beam was allowed. So, from what I can tell, AR's original rudders will be compliant. The 100KG issue may be a bigger problem for them, but we will have to wait and see on that one.

 

By the way, it will be very interesting to see what AR's response is.

 

Well I don't feel criticised so you were nice (thanks). I posted here because this thread seemed to have the momentum (I've been following it for the last 10 pages or so). This thread also seemed to have the largest collection of people who just "didn't get it" and the ruling, when read in full, will probably help them.

 

There was never any "cherry picking", that's deliberately emotive language (via PC I think?) that doesn't help people understand the basic principles and interpret the facts. Both ETNZ and LR said "you can't change any of the Class Rules without unanimous consent" and they have been proven to be correct.

 

I agree with the rest of your summary, we are reverted to the original rules and the teams can negotiate together any additional recommendations. We know that they'll likely quickly negotiate ~34 or 35 of them, the rest remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for PC to stop whining like a little girl, play by the Rules and get his AC72 in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely AR can't win the LVC on illegal rudders and over weight so they had better think how to get back into the rules if they have a fast boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Now that we have NO's conformation that Dana was indeed correct, "perhaps" you can enlighten us to why your source within the team was so wrong? How did Dana know the launch timeframe and your team source did not?

 

When you were asked politely for your "inside" information you responded very defensively:

 

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

 

Is there an explanation or is your story BS?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its pretty clear that AR is not going to be competitive, regardless, so they might as well be magnanimous and let them race in whatever configuration they need to feel comfortable going out on the water.

 

From the comments from NO and others, it seems like they are simply trying to honor the memory of Simpson and fly the flag out there.

 

Good on them for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

to pull a few bits out of indio's find

 

the big red flag

 

d) rudder elevators to be symmetrical in plan form and allowed to extend
beyond maximum beam of the Yacht; and
e) elevators permitted to be adjusted until warning signal.
other contentious parts
1.5. Maximum AC72 Yacht Sailing Weight: The maximum sailing weight specified
in AC72 Class Rule 5.10 shall be increased by 100kg.
1.9. Soft Coverings and Soft Fairings: Soft coverings and soft fairings shall be
made of predominantly see-through/transparent material.
NO noted in the video that clear wing film wasn't as stiff as opaque and so AR had had to add extra wing ribs to support it
4.4. Wind Limits: Reduced to 20kts in July, 21kts in August, and 23kts in September
(as measured pursuant to art. 21.1), but with additional wind limit adjustments for
4.7. Start Time: Flexible start time and flexible pre/post race programme based on
wind and projected tidal flows.
tide and sea state.

 

Looking at the wing in I had a slightly different take on that. PC was busy telling the journos about the super-duper opaque film/sheet they planned to use - before the SR's came out.

It appears that they had spaced the ribs further apart in anticipation of this stiffer film, but were then caught out a bit by needing to use more clysar ® at the bottom than they had planned, so more ribs had to be grafted in

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ETNZ are proposing that Artemis be allowed a dispensation.

 

I think letting them use illegal rudders in RR and Semi's then they have to be legal for the LVC final and AC would seem fair enough, get them out there, but don't let the dispensation have an impact on the actual results!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is not if they all formally agreed, but that IM was given the distinct impression that they did, which led him to go forward in forwarding all 37 points to the CG for the event permit...

 

why do people keep saying this?

 

if on a date a girl says something that leads the guy to believe it's on for that night

 

but from then on she insists they continue to negotiate

 

but he say's

 

"nah, why bother i've got your consent already"

 

and proceeds to force the act

 

anyone going to be surprised when she calls the cops?

 

anyone going to be surprised when he gets cuffed?

 

he should change his behaviour

 

and stop blaming the victim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ETNZ are proposing that Artemis be allowed a dispensation.

 

I think letting them use illegal rudders in RR and Semi's then they have to be legal for the LVC final and AC would seem fair enough, get them out there, but don't let the dispensation have an impact on the actual results!

 

Now that ETNZ have offered AR a chance to make it to the start line, Cayard is in the unfortunate position of trying to make it happen.

I'm sure he would prefer to be able to bleat about how its everyone elses fault that he is useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point is not if they all formally agreed, but that IM was given the distinct impression that they did, which led him to go forward in forwarding all 37 points to the CG for the event permit...

 

why do people keep saying this?

 

if on a date a girl says something that leads the guy to believe it's on for that night

 

but from then on she insists they continue to negotiate

 

but he say's

 

"nah, why bother i've got your consent already"

 

and proceeds to force the act

 

anyone going to be surprised when she calls the cops?

 

anyone going to be surprised when he gets cuffed?

 

he should change his behaviour

 

and stop blaming the victim

 

That was eloquent but I think you should have just said:

 

The USCG testified that attaching this meaningless piece of paper was, well... meaningless.

 

That anyone, let alone the RD, thought that this would be enough to override Cup Protocol is an idiot. The fact that the USCG had submitted this opinion well before the IJ convened is just an embarrassment to AC management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

ETNZ are proposing that Artemis be allowed a dispensation.

 

I think letting them use illegal rudders in RR and Semi's then they have to be legal for the LVC final and AC would seem fair enough, get them out there, but don't let the dispensation have an impact on the actual results!

 

Now that ETNZ have offered AR a chance to make it to the start line, Cayard is in the unfortunate position of trying to make it happen.

I'm sure he would prefer to be able to bleat about how its everyone elses fault that he is useless.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

ETNZ are proposing that Artemis be allowed a dispensation.

 

I think letting them use illegal rudders in RR and Semi's then they have to be legal for the LVC final and AC would seem fair enough, get them out there, but don't let the dispensation have an impact on the actual results!

 

Now that ETNZ have offered AR a chance to make it to the start line, Cayard is in the unfortunate position of trying to make it happen.

I'm sure he would prefer to be able to bleat about how its everyone elses fault that he is useless.

+1

 

I just realised it's really LR that has to make the decision on this though, in all probability they are more likely to be fighting out the early rounds with Artemis than ETNZ, unless Artemis can actually get something sorted before the Semi's. Will be interesting to see how they view the situation considering this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

ETNZ are proposing that Artemis be allowed a dispensation.

 

I think letting them use illegal rudders in RR and Semi's then they have to be legal for the LVC final and AC would seem fair enough, get them out there, but don't let the dispensation have an impact on the actual results!

 

Now that ETNZ have offered AR a chance to make it to the start line, Cayard is in the unfortunate position of trying to make it happen.

I'm sure he would prefer to be able to bleat about how its everyone elses fault that he is useless.

+1

 

I just realised it's really LR that has to make the decision on this though, in all probability they are more likely to be fighting out the early rounds with Artemis than ETNZ, unless Artemis can actually get something sorted before the Semi's. Will be interesting to see how they view the situation considering this.

 

What realisation was that?

 

What decision do LR need to make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm surprised nobody has posted the decision yet:

 

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JN075.pdf

 

Summary: ETNZ, LR and USCG were correct, notice 189 attempted to alter the Class Rules in a manner that is not allowed under the Protocol, it is not a "regulation" and is not enforceable, the RD is required to provide feedback from all entrants to USCG if he deems the event "unsafe".

 

It's interesting reading actually and should help some of the dubious "doubters" in this thread understand the basic premise of "rules".

 

Normally I don't criticize first time posters for being "newbs", but this has been discussed for the past 50 minutes in two other threads. The IJ made the most conservative ruling possible, AFAICT, putting the onus back on the teams and the organizers to come to an agreement that would lead to agreement. From what I can tell, the decision reverts everything back to the original protocol, so it was a cherry picking where longer rudders and larger elevators are required, but wider beam was allowed. So, from what I can tell, AR's original rudders will be compliant. The 100KG issue may be a bigger problem for them, but we will have to wait and see on that one.

By the way, it will be very interesting to see what AR's response is.

Well I don't feel criticised so you were nice (thanks). I posted here because this thread seemed to have the momentum (I've been following it for the last 10 pages or so). This thread also seemed to have the largest collection of people who just "didn't get it" and the ruling, when read in full, will probably help them.

 

There was never any "cherry picking", that's deliberately emotive language (via PC I think?) that doesn't help people understand the basic principles and interpret the facts. Both ETNZ and LR said "you can't change any of the Class Rules without unanimous consent" and they have been proven to be correct.

 

I agree with the rest of your summary, we are reverted to the original rules and the teams can negotiate together any additional recommendations. We know that they'll likely quickly negotiate ~34 or 35 of them, the rest remains to be seen.

It's still 37, stabilizers just can't extend beyond Bmax. AR still need a rudder they don't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realised it's really LR that has to make the decision on this though.

 

my feeling too

 

etnz + OR tend to play hard ball, not that they like it, just the way their intensity plays out,

 

like big business trying for a dodgy tax-break, if they don't get it they will get over it

 

but IM, AR + LR are not comfortable with hard ball

 

they tend to chat too much

 

and then get mighty pissed off when they cop 1 in the face

 

an unfortunate side-effect of all the money and side contracts that wuss said was essential for the growth of the sport....

 

hopefully that could be turned round with a new defender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

ETNZ are proposing that Artemis be allowed a dispensation.

 

I think letting them use illegal rudders in RR and Semi's then they have to be legal for the LVC final and AC would seem fair enough, get them out there, but don't let the dispensation have an impact on the actual results!

 

Now that ETNZ have offered AR a chance to make it to the start line, Cayard is in the unfortunate position of trying to make it happen.

I'm sure he would prefer to be able to bleat about how its everyone elses fault that he is useless.

+1

 

I just realised it's really LR that has to make the decision on this though, in all probability they are more likely to be fighting out the early rounds with Artemis than ETNZ, unless Artemis can actually get something sorted before the Semi's. Will be interesting to see how they view the situation considering this.

 

My thinking is that AR will be heads-&-tails slower than both ETNZ and LR, or less likely, faster than both if they stumbled across something those guys had not considered. But as for now, we do see that LR has been behind ETNZ (unless LR has something up their sleeve for the Semis or LV finals), so your comment would have SOME merit, that AR would have more likelihood to knock LR out of the LV finals than the threat to ETNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My thinking is that AR will be heads-&-tails slower than both ETNZ and LR, or less likely, faster than both if they stumbled across something those guys had not considered. But as for now, we do see that LR has been behind ETNZ (unless LR has something up their sleeve for the Semis or LV finals), so your comment would have SOME merit, that AR would have more likelihood to knock LR out of the LV finals than the threat to ETNZ.

 

What is it now, 24 days?

To complete the fitout, splash it, test it, break some stuff and then have the crew and NO learn how to sail it.

AR competitive? I just can't see it given the time that OR, LR and TNZ have taken thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted? From AR

 

--

 

RESPONSE TO JURY DECISION

Alameda, CA - July 11, 2013

 

Artemis Racing is disappointed that the Jury's decision leaves uncertainty. Artemis Racing is here to compete and remains confident that a solution will be found allowing for a safe regatta that all can compete in.

 

Our team is working hard and we are currently in the midst of completing the structural testing of our boat. This should be completed by weeks end. Final assembly of the boat will take place next week with the goal of getting on the water in ten days time. Artemis Racing has been working intensively for two months and we are eagerly looking forward to racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My thinking is that AR will be heads-&-tails slower than both ETNZ and LR, or less likely, faster than both if they stumbled across something those guys had not considered. But as for now, we do see that LR has been behind ETNZ (unless LR has something up their sleeve for the Semis or LV finals), so your comment would have SOME merit, that AR would have more likelihood to knock LR out of the LV finals than the threat to ETNZ.

 

What is it now, 24 days?

To complete the fitout, splash it, test it, break some stuff and then have the crew and NO learn how to sail it.

AR competitive? I just can't see it given the time that OR, LR and TNZ have taken thus far.

 

They will be lucky to make it to the start line.

If and when they do, they will wallow around the course looking more like an IACC than an AC72.

Lets just hope they don't crash the thing. That would be terrible, even without a casualty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised nobody has posted the decision yet:

 

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JN075.pdf

 

Summary: ETNZ, LR and USCG were correct, notice 189 attempted to alter the Class Rules in a manner that is not allowed under the Protocol, it is not a "regulation" and is not enforceable, the RD is required to provide feedback from all entrants to USCG if he deems the event "unsafe".

 

It's interesting reading actually and should help some of the dubious "doubters" in this thread understand the basic premise of "rules".

Normally I don't criticize first time posters for being "newbs", but this has been discussed for the past 50 minutes in two other threads. The IJ made the most conservative ruling possible, AFAICT, putting the onus back on the teams and the organizers to come to an agreement that would lead to agreement. From what I can tell, the decision reverts everything back to the original protocol, so it was a cherry picking where longer rudders and larger elevators are required, but wider beam was allowed. So, from what I can tell, AR's original rudders will be compliant. The 100KG issue may be a bigger problem for them, but we will have to wait and see on that one.

By the way, it will be very interesting to see what AR's response is.

 

 

Well I don't feel criticised so you were nice (thanks). I posted here because this thread seemed to have the momentum (I've been following it for the last 10 pages or so). This thread also seemed to have the largest collection of people who just "didn't get it" and the ruling, when read in full, will probably help them.

 

There was never any "cherry picking", that's deliberately emotive language (via PC I think?) that doesn't help people understand the basic principles and interpret the facts. Both ETNZ and LR said "you can't change any of the Class Rules without unanimous consent" and they have been proven to be correct.

 

I agree with the rest of your summary, we are reverted to the original rules and the teams can negotiate together any additional recommendations. We know that they'll likely quickly negotiate ~34 or 35 of them, the rest remains to be seen.

 

 

It's still 37, stabilizers just can't extend beyond Bmax. AR still need a rudder they don't have.

 

 

What do you mean by "It's still 37"?

 

All teams are free to ignore all 37.

 

However it's likely that they'll get together and agree at least 34 quite quickly.

 

The other 3 are debatable and it's generally considered that ETNZ and LR will reject at least 2 (because they think they'll benefit OTUSA).

 

What do you mean by "It's still 37"?

 

Edit: you need to read the decision. AR DO HAVE SUITABLE RUDDERS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted? From AR

 

--

 

RESPONSE TO JURY DECISION

Alameda, CA - July 11, 2013

 

Artemis Racing is disappointed that the Jury's decision leaves uncertainty. Artemis Racing is here to compete and remains confident that a solution will be found allowing for a safe regatta that all can compete in.

 

Our team is working hard and we are currently in the midst of completing the structural testing of our boat. This should be completed by weeks end. Final assembly of the boat will take place next week with the goal of getting on the water in ten days time. Artemis Racing has been working intensively for two months and we are eagerly looking forward to racing.

 

FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why is AR still complaining? Its their job to design and build a class compliant safe boat. Why are they so hard headed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partisan? PC is spouting nonsense - again.

 

Artemis Racing has been working intensively for two months and we are eagerly looking forward to racing

 

Some teams have been working hard for 2 years and have been ready for 2 months!

 

And all without breaking men or machines!

 

Get on with it already...

 

Oh and how's that investigation coming along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

My thinking is that AR will be heads-&-tails slower than both ETNZ and LR, or less likely, faster than both if they stumbled across something those guys had not considered. But as for now, we do see that LR has been behind ETNZ (unless LR has something up their sleeve for the Semis or LV finals), so your comment would have SOME merit, that AR would have more likelihood to knock LR out of the LV finals than the threat to ETNZ.

 

What is it now, 24 days?

To complete the fitout, splash it, test it, break some stuff and then have the crew and NO learn how to sail it.

AR competitive? I just can't see it given the time that OR, LR and TNZ have taken thus far.

 

They will be lucky to make it to the start line.

If and when they do, they will wallow around the course looking more like an IACC than an AC72.

Lets just hope they don't crash the thing. That would be terrible, even without a casualty

 

AR actually did manage to sail an AC72 around for many days without flipping, then, on the boat broke. They were not embarrassing themselves before that with piss-poor maneuvers, or representing a hazard to anyone. They managed to gain experience in operating an AC72. Of course, they will have to learn how to foil an AC72, but it is not like they will be starting from scratch with the boat, overall.

 

Will they be as smooth as ETNZ or LR with their maneuvers? Most likely not. But they do have a set of crew second to none, they will have a significant degree of experience grinding, trimming the wing, running the platform, etc. NO is probably the absolute first person any team would want to take the helm with a very short preparation time.

 

TT has spent a TON of money on their program, including the design and engineering, even if the foiling part of it came late, they have the advantage of seeing what works with ETNZ, LR, and OR, and they may just have an innovation or two up their sleeve that they were able to dedicate some resources to that would have otherwise been used to develop the basic starting point they get to have with the understanding of other teams' designs.

 

So, more likely than not, they will not be competitive. But they COULD, given the fact that any one of these teams could come up with an innovation the others did not come up with, and the fact that they both have significant experience, and they benefit from knowing what the other teams have done.

 

FINALLY, they benefit from not having to plan for higher wind limits, as lower wind limits will be mutually agreed upon.

 

Is it so hard to just hold on and see how they do before everyone determines that they are a hazard and an embarrassment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised nobody has posted the decision yet:

 

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JN075.pdf

 

Summary: ETNZ, LR and USCG were correct, notice 189 attempted to alter the Class Rules in a manner that is not allowed under the Protocol, it is not a "regulation" and is not enforceable, the RD is required to provide feedback from all entrants to USCG if he deems the event "unsafe".

 

It's interesting reading actually and should help some of the dubious "doubters" in this thread understand the basic premise of "rules".

Normally I don't criticize first time posters for being "newbs", but this has been discussed for the past 50 minutes in two other threads. The IJ made the most conservative ruling possible, AFAICT, putting the onus back on the teams and the organizers to come to an agreement that would lead to agreement. From what I can tell, the decision reverts everything back to the original protocol, so it was a cherry picking where longer rudders and larger elevators are required, but wider beam was allowed. So, from what I can tell, AR's original rudders will be compliant. The 100KG issue may be a bigger problem for them, but we will have to wait and see on that one.

By the way, it will be very interesting to see what AR's response is.

 

Well I don't feel criticised so you were nice (thanks). I posted here because this thread seemed to have the momentum (I've been following it for the last 10 pages or so). This thread also seemed to have the largest collection of people who just "didn't get it" and the ruling, when read in full, will probably help them.

 

There was never any "cherry picking", that's deliberately emotive language (via PC I think?) that doesn't help people understand the basic principles and interpret the facts. Both ETNZ and LR said "you can't change any of the Class Rules without unanimous consent" and they have been proven to be correct.

 

I agree with the rest of your summary, we are reverted to the original rules and the teams can negotiate together any additional recommendations. We know that they'll likely quickly negotiate ~34 or 35 of them, the rest remains to be seen.

 

It's still 37, stabilizers just can't extend beyond Bmax. AR still need a rudder they don't have.

 

What do you mean by "It's still 37"?

 

All teams are free to ignore all 37.

 

However it's likely that they'll get together and agree at least 34 quite quickly.

 

The other 3 are debatable and it's generally considered that ETNZ and LR will reject at least 2 (because they think they'll benefit OTUSA).

 

What do you mean by "It's still 37"?

 

Edit: you need to read the decision. AR DO HAVE SUITABLE RUDDERS.

 

Actually unless I misunderstand it completely ONLY the class rule changes to the boats were contested the other 34 recommendations for better or worse will still stand.

It's just a case of whether we have none, some or all of the rudder changes by unanimous agreement, I can't see all except under special dispensation to allow Artemis to get out there, but with some caveats about what can be used and when it can be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GauchoGreg: I agree.

 

They're a professional racing team irrespective of one's opinions on team management.

 

We all need to give the guys on the boat a chance to compete. They know the risks and can hopefully balance them appropriately (i.e. without too much undue team/management/sponsor pressure).

 

I think the sailors probably have the same fear that we all have - that at best they won't be competitive and at worst they won't be safe - but I believe there's not a single sailor amongst us that hope for an uncompetitive or unsafe event.

 

Let's get these boats wet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted? From AR

 

--

 

RESPONSE TO JURY DECISION

Alameda, CA - July 11, 2013

 

Artemis Racing is disappointed that the Jury's decision leaves uncertainty. Artemis Racing is here to compete and remains confident that a solution will be found allowing for a safe regatta that all can compete in.

 

Our team is working hard and we are currently in the midst of completing the structural testing of our boat. This should be completed by weeks end. Final assembly of the boat will take place next week with the goal of getting on the water in ten days time. Artemis Racing has been working intensively for two months and we are eagerly looking forward to racing.

 

I wish they would quit this PR spin crap.

 

-1- PC has previously stated late June, which then became early July - so 'getting on the water in 10 days time' (22nd July) - BS.

-2- 'Artemis is here to compete' - haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

-3- What is this 'solution for allowing a safe regatta for all' that AR speak off?

 

Remember the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually unless I misunderstand it completely ONLY the class rule changes to the boats were contested the other 34 recommendations for better or worse will still stand.

It's just a case of whether we have none, some or all of the rudder changes by unanimous agreement, I can't see all except under special dispensation to allow Artemis to get out there, but with some caveats about what can be used and when it can be used.

 

AR have rudders that comply with original class spec, they can use those no?

 

Edit: yeah they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem now

 

is that wuss and his old mate PC

 

think they been done

 

but i don't think the adults can waste any more time listening to their conspiracy theories

 

wuss and PC wrote this rule

 

time they lived by it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually unless I misunderstand it completely ONLY the class rule changes to the boats were contested the other 34 recommendations for better or worse will still stand.

It's just a case of whether we have none, some or all of the rudder changes by unanimous agreement, I can't see all except under special dispensation to allow Artemis to get out there, but with some caveats about what can be used and when it can be used.

 

AR have rudders that comply with original class spec, they can use those no?

 

Edit: yeah they can.

No they can't, they must comply with the class rule and voluntarily comply with the safety recommendations of area etc. The only way they can have the area and not exceed in the bmax is asymmetry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually unless I misunderstand it completely ONLY the class rule changes to the boats were contested the other 34 recommendations for better or worse will still stand.

It's just a case of whether we have none, some or all of the rudder changes by unanimous agreement, I can't see all except under special dispensation to allow Artemis to get out there, but with some caveats about what can be used and when it can be used.

 

AR have rudders that comply with original class spec, they can use those no?

 

Edit: yeah they can.

No they can't, they must comply with the class rule and voluntarily comply with the safety recommendations of area etc. The only way they can have the area and not exceed in the bmax is asymmetry

 

"Voluntarily" is key here. It's not an enforceable rule.

 

That's not a word that the Jury used, nor the Coast Guard. It's a word that AC management used in their press release and is NOT binding.

 

If AR can not "voluntarily" comply this does NOT exclude them from the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just realised it's really LR that has to make the decision on this though.

 

my feeling too

 

etnz + OR tend to play hard ball, not that they like it, just the way their intensity plays out,

 

like big business trying for a dodgy tax-break, if they don't get it they will get over it

 

but IM, AR + LR are not comfortable with hard ball

 

they tend to chat too much

 

and then get mighty pissed off when they cop 1 in the face

 

an unfortunate side-effect of all the money and side contracts that wuss said was essential for the growth of the sport....

 

hopefully that could be turned round with a new defender

Nope - PC is well capable of playing hardball when he needs to. He has just been on the wrong side of the ledger so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Actually unless I misunderstand it completely ONLY the class rule changes to the boats were contested the other 34 recommendations for better or worse will still stand.

It's just a case of whether we have none, some or all of the rudder changes by unanimous agreement, I can't see all except under special dispensation to allow Artemis to get out there, but with some caveats about what can be used and when it can be used.

 

AR have rudders that comply with original class spec, they can use those no?

 

Edit: yeah they can.

No they can't, they must comply with the class rule and voluntarily comply with the safety recommendations of area etc. The only way they can have the area and not exceed in the bmax is asymmetry

 

"Voluntarily" is key here. It's not an enforceable rule.

 

That's not a word that the Jury used, nor the Coast Guard. It's a word that AC management used in their press release and is NOT binding.

 

If AR can not "voluntarily" comply this does NOT exclude them from the event.

Yes, but if they don't voluntarily comply the RD will not allow the race to proceed. He must be in compliance with his MEP.

 

The requirements of both the MEP and class rule still hold. Its just the permissive aspects (allowing extra weight and extensions beyond Bmax) that don't.

 

AR cannot race with either of its current rudders without a dispensation from the class rules. They won't get a dispensation from the safety requirements in the MEP.

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.

I am also surprised to see that the tiebars from the king post to the front beam still terminate midway along the beam... at the same failure point of AR1... considering the catastrophic failure of the beam in AR1 i would have expected a redesign... if you look at the arrangement of ETNZ and LR the tiebars terminate virtually at the beam to hull joint...

 

The inboard location of the ties is to match the inboard position of the back stays .. the bracing is also terminated inboard to deal with the compression arising from the back stay and king post tie .. there are no bending loads applied to the rear beam with this arrangement ..

 

I don't think the AR engineers are so incompetent that they would messed up such a simple system .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but if they don't voluntarily comply the RD will not allow the race to proceed. He must be in compliance with his MEP.

 

The requirements of both the MEP and class rule still hold. Its just the permissive aspects (allowing extra weight and extensions beyond Bmax) that don't.

 

AR cannot race with either of its current rudders without a dispensation from the class rules. They won't get a dispensation from the safety requirements in the MEP.

 

You need to read the decision. I refer you to the USCG testimony and the IJ summary.

 

The IJ explicitly considered the risk of the unilateral cancellation of the MEP (by the USCG) to be insignificant. They were compelled by the testimony of the USCG to believe that the safety of the event would be the ultimate responsibility of the skippers. The IJ went further to require the RD and the GGYC to provide all team statements to the USCG if safety was brought into question (which is obviously to avoid the situation where the USCG is coerced into revoking the MEP via bias input because clearly ETNZ and LR have evidence that their boats are safe).

 

Please read the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually unless I misunderstand it completely ONLY the class rule changes to the boats were contested the other 34 recommendations for better or worse will still stand.

It's just a case of whether we have none, some or all of the rudder changes by unanimous agreement, I can't see all except under special dispensation to allow Artemis to get out there, but with some caveats about what can be used and when it can be used.

 

AR have rudders that comply with original class spec, they can use those no?

 

Edit: yeah they can.

No they can't, they must comply with the class rule and voluntarily comply with the safety recommendations of area etc. The only way they can have the area and not exceed in the bmax is asymmetry

 

Safety recommendations that alter the design rule are unenforceable, no one can force Artemis to use anything except rudders that comply to the original rules or rudders that comply to a rule all teams including Artemis have agreed to.

They can be suggested, but they can't be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the AR engineers are so incompetent that they would messed up such a simple system .

Ummm...huhwhat?

 

Artemis+Racing+-+Capsize+AC72+-+02.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Not really, just stop and think what happened.

 

I didn't mean to be insensitive, I admit that I didn't consider the full implications of the event before I posted my quip.

 

Sorry for any offense caused to those affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think the AR engineers are so incompetent that they would messed up such a simple system .

Ummm...huhwhat?

 

Artemis+Racing+-+Capsize+AC72+-+02.jpg

Clean - You seem very talkative recently. Have you given a reason for the no show of the TNZ vid from your NZ visit?

Would be good to know if it is still an option or whether it has been put in the classified box!

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but if they don't voluntarily comply the RD will not allow the race to proceed. He must be in compliance with his MEP.

 

The RD has no authority to prevent the race from proceeding if the boats are class-rules compliant. That's what the IJ has just decided. The MEP is now IM's mess to get sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

Compliant but

 

DSC_0090_zpsfecc1080.jpg

 

lol :D

 

True, true.

They sure as hell won't be foiling using those spades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Not really, just stop and think what happened.

A boat that started it's life on the water with a structural failure, ended it's life on the water with a structural failure, which resulted in a fatality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't look like the liptons is doing it

 

suggest adding rum

 

5341_l.jpg

 

  • 6 Lipton tea bags or 2 tbs loose-leaf tea
  • 1 cup (220g) caster sugar
  • 1 cup mint leaves, plus extra to serve
  • 1 1/2 cups (375ml) white rum
  • Ice cubes, to serve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain something to me, I have been reading but still don't understand.

 

PC says they have a set of rudders (call these set A) that are compliant to the rules before the safety recommendations.

 

And they were in the process of cannibalizing a set (set B) to match the recommendations that: are longer (1), have larger flaps (2), and can extend outside of BMax (3). Yes?

 

And the outcome of the jury decision is that Murray didn't have the authority to enforce the recommendations that concern (1),(2) and (3) above. Yes?

 

So my question is, why does Artemis say they don't have the right set of rudders? Does (1), (2) or (3) still apply meaning that set A do not qualify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Posted? From AR

 

--

 

RESPONSE TO JURY DECISION

Alameda, CA - July 11, 2013

 

Artemis Racing is disappointed that the Jury's decision leaves uncertainty. Artemis Racing is here to compete and remains confident that a solution will be found allowing for a safe regatta that all can compete in.

 

Our team is working hard and we are currently in the midst of completing the structural testing of our boat. This should be completed by weeks end. Final assembly of the boat will take place next week with the goal of getting on the water in ten days time. Artemis Racing has been working intensively for two months and we are eagerly looking forward to racing.

 

FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why is AR still complaining? Its their job to design and build a class compliant safe boat. Why are they so hard headed?

6a00d8341c6e1553ef00e54f3ca0f68833-800wi

Cheers m8 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my question is, why does Artemis say they don't have the right set of rudders? Does (1), (2) or (3) still apply meaning that set A do not qualify?

 

Because Stephen Barclay seems to believe the IJ ruling can be both "respected" and disregarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my current understanding of PC's nonsensical squeals

 

is that he has box legal rudders with small assym stabs

 

BUT

 

he feels his boat would be safer with the big syms that IM was trying to make legal for the entire class by unilaterally altering the box rule under the guise of safety

 

GD has said as far as he is concerned PC can race with the big syms if that's what it takes to get them on the water

 

in that case it doesn't make sense for PC to keep saying people are trying to force his team out does it?

 

and that's where the conspiracy theories come in

 

to try and explain why safe boats were being declared unsafe as a way of making non-legal boats legal

 

the big take out of the recent GD videos is that he says they haven't won anything until 1 of the team backs up its words with actions

 

and sails a legal boat

 

he seems to think they may try to ignore the IJ's ruling

 

or seek to get it over-turned

 

hence clean's comment about "how would someone over-turn an IJ ruling"

 

will be interesting to see how the other teams respond to the ruling

 

so far it seems only etnz has made a substantive response

 

LR was on the water so maybe we can expect more from them soon

 

but what about the other 2

 

will OR front for numerous interviews, take questions from the floor say they are happy to let AR use whatever they want to get on the water?

 

will PC say thank you for getting once again a get-out-of-jail pass, or will he complain that he's being given what he asked for and not what he wanted???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LR on the water is the most emphatic response possible after not showing up for their first 2 races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So my question is, why does Artemis say they don't have the right set of rudders? Does (1), (2) or (3) still apply meaning that set A do not qualify?

 

Because Stephen Barclay seems to believe the IJ ruling can be both "respected" and disregarded.

The issue, BillyO, is that AR has never foiled. To foil stably with their new boat, they'll need a set of T rudders. They apparently started building illegal T rudders (to meet the RD's illegal Rule change) so now they don't know WTFTA.

 

Set A, as you call them, will not allow them to foil. WTFTA - Where the fuck they are

Edited by Sailbydate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So my question is, why does Artemis say they don't have the right set of rudders? Does (1), (2) or (3) still apply meaning that set A do not qualify?

 

Because Stephen Barclay seems to believe the IJ ruling can be both "respected" and disregarded.

The issue, BillyO, is that AR has never foiled. To foil stably with their new boat, they'll need a set of T rudders. They apparently started building illegal T rudders (to meet the RD's illegal Rule change) so now they don't know WTFTA.

 

Set A, as you call them, will not allow them to foil. WTFTA - Where the fuck they are

 

So you're saying that their brand spanking new rudders will not allow them to fully foil? But didn't Artemis say that they were designing Boat 2 to fully foil after the orapocalypse and long before the safety recommendations??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

I don't think that is the issue. I think what PC is now complaining about is Barclay's voluntary-mandatory compliance to the class changes incorporated in the current MEP, to which, according to ACEA's release, Artemis cannot comply.

 

Unfortunately the happy band who breathed a sigh of relief after the IJ ruling and proclaimed ruddergate done and dusted haven't yet processed ACEA's response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i suspect sailbydate hasn't watched PC+NO's most recent AR video

 

they show 1 pair of box rule T rudders and say their other set is at the shop getting turned into IM's non-box, 0.32m2 symm rudders

 

but whatever

 

they have what they need to sail

 

but to foil? who knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, but if they don't voluntarily comply the RD will not allow the race to proceed. He must be in compliance with his MEP.

 

The RD has no authority to prevent the race from proceeding if the boats are class-rules compliant. That's what the IJ has just decided. The MEP is now IM's mess to get sorted.

 

Maybe AR should lodge a protest over Stephen Barclay's bizarre statement that they were accepting and ignoring the IJ decision simultaneously. The behaviour of ACEA and ACRM just gets stranger and stranger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

Not sure I have any cause for complaint as to IM's reaction but ACEA's seems entirely out to lunch. If anyone could post a bio of Stephen Barclay I'd be interested to read it (and yes I did try searching, albeit only for a few minutes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how's it going to pay out? If ACEA insist on voluntary compliance (??) with the 37, do we end up back with the IJ? Will ACEA not run racing for non complying teams? Will we get a UDI, and challenging teams go and do their own thing (unlikely, given who's CoR).

 

Will there be a stand off? Who will blink first? Who should be polishing up their CV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

voluntary compliance

predetermined mediation results

 

 

[The President of Buranda plans a speech urging the Scots and Irish to fight against "British colonialism".]

Jim Hacker: Humphrey, do you think it is a good idea to issue a statement?

Sir Humphrey: Well, Minister, in practical terms we have the usual six options:

  • One: do nothing.
  • Two: issue a statement deploring the speech.
  • Three: lodge an official protest.
  • Four: cut off aid.
  • Five: break off diplomatic relations.
  • And six: declare war.
Hacker: Which should be it?

Sir Humphrey: Well:
  • If we do nothing, that means we implicitly agree with the speech.
  • If we issue a statement, we'll just look foolish.
  • If we lodge a protest, it'll be ignored.
  • We can't cut off aid, because we don't give them any.
  • If we break off diplomatic relations, then we can't negotiate the oil rig contracts.
  • And if we declare war, it might just look as though we were over-reacting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regatta Director Iain Murray said, “I am immediately reaching out to the Coast Guard and the teams.

 

“Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa are complying with both the AC72 Class Rule and the Safety Rules. Artemis Racing, who is still preparing its AC72, has previously advised that they can not immediately comply with both. Exactly how this decision impacts Artemis Racing is something we need to look at through our discussion with the teams.”

 

I thought the IJ just decided that the MEP attachment is not a regulation under protocol 16. So what are the "Safety Rules" that IM is talking about? Aren't they the rules that technically don't exist following the IJ decision? If he didn't have the authority to amend the class rules then he certainly didn't have the authority to amend the protocol. If the teams voted to amend the protocol then what are the "Safety Rules"? Don't we just have the protocol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as per other thread AR have good small box legal T rudders, nothing like the + rudders on big red

 

and forget competitive

 

today, after 8 months sailing a boat that was a proven design when they got it, we saw LR sailing a pretty ordinary race with plenty of unforced errors in very benign conditions

 

AR can't expect to be that good this year even if they launch tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

???? what's the second race they missed?

LR on the water is the most emphatic response possible after not showing up for their first 2 races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

???? what's the second race they missed?

LR on the water is the most emphatic response possible after not showing up for their first 2 races.

They didn't, Hoom just misread the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, my bad :o

 

I had it in my mind they had missed LR vs Artemis somewhere in there.

But that was this morning & LR were certainly there for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, my bad :o

 

I had it in my mind they had missed LR vs Artemis somewhere in there.

But that was this morning & LR were certainly there for it.

No worries ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So my question is, why does Artemis say they don't have the right set of rudders? Does (1), (2) or (3) still apply meaning that set A do not qualify?

 

Because Stephen Barclay seems to believe the IJ ruling can be both "respected" and disregarded.

The issue, BillyO, is that AR has never foiled. To foil stably with their new boat, they'll need a set of T rudders. They apparently started building illegal T rudders (to meet the RD's illegal Rule change) so now they don't know WTFTA.

 

Set A, as you call them, will not allow them to foil. WTFTA - Where the fuck they are

 

I don't think that is the case. I believe the "Set A" you are talking about are not the old skimming rudders from Boat 1, but rather a new set that we have not seen used, rudders made for Boat 2. I could be wrong about that, but I believe that is the issue.

 

By the way, I believe the bigger issue, at this point, is the 100KG situation. I would be interested to hear if GD would give them that exception, too. I would think he would. If anything, they have an even better argument for that, as they had to make a bunch of changes throughout the boat for the "safety equipment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i suspect sailbydate hasn't watched PC+NO's most recent AR video

 

they show 1 pair of box rule T rudders and say their other set is at the shop getting turned into IM's non-box, 0.32m2 symm rudders

 

but whatever

 

they have what they need to sail

 

but to foil? who knows...

 

And this to what I just said. Thanks I thought I remembered actually seeing the original box-rule compliant "T" rudders designed for Boat 2, but forgot where. Now you refreshed my memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear SWS,

 

As I don't know much about this AC I allways love to read you. I now understand why AR is so weak, late and and may not be able to win this Cup: GD.

 

I am waiting to hear more from you.

 

Cheers,

 

Dupont.

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.

I am also surprised to see that the tiebars from the king post to the front beam still terminate midway along the beam... at the same failure point of AR1... considering the catastrophic failure of the beam in AR1 i would have expected a redesign... if you look at the arrangement of ETNZ and LR the tiebars terminate virtually at the beam to hull joint...

 

The inboard location of the ties is to match the inboard position of the back stays .. the bracing is also terminated inboard to deal with the compression arising from the back stay and king post tie .. there are no bending loads applied to the rear beam with this arrangement ..

 

I don't think the AR engineers are so incompetent that they would messed up such a simple system .

Seems to me the vertical component of the backstay load is still applying a bending load to the rear cross-beam. No (or very little) bending in the transverse plane, but still plenty of bending in the vertical plane...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

from the recent 14min AR video

 

AR do have original rule compliant assym rudders

 

and

 

they have new bigger IM sym? rudders coming

 

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

 

attachicon.gifARassym.jpg

 

i can see they are trying rear hard

 

but they are a year behind the other teams

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Speaking of illegal adjustment of rudders...

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Grant dalton said they take a picture and send by phone. He likes the 5 min rule idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites