• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

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

thetruth

Luna Rossa 72

3,208 posts in this topic

With no one with half a clue and all the shit going on how long to you give the well dressed boys from Italie? And they are just dripping with talent are't they.............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With no one with half a clue and all the shit going on how long to you give the well dressed boys from Italie? And they are just dripping with talent are't they.............................

 

If carnage, capzize's, pitchpoles and mayhem brings in the audience's as with the extreme40's then this could be the most watched AC ever. Who care's bring it on.....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With no one with half a clue and all the shit going on how long to you give the well dressed boys from Italie? And they are just dripping with talent are't they.............................

 

If carnage, capzize's, pitchpoles and mayhem brings in the audience's as with the extreme40's then this could be the most watched AC ever. Who care's bring it on.....................

......As long as no one gets hurt of coursexx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tutto pronto ad Auckland (NZL): tra poco vedremo il grande catamarano della sfida italiana alla XXXIV America's Cup La Nuova Zelanda e Auckland tornano a incrociare la storia di Luna Rossa, dopo i fasti e le emozioni del 2000 e le fatiche del 2003, la nuova sfida del team di Patrizio Bertelli alla Coppa America passa nuovamente dalla "città delle vele". E' previsto infatti per venerdi prossimo 26 ottobre ad Auckland il varo di Luna Rossa AC72 (c'è curiosità come al solito per il nome, o almeno il nickname che tradizionalmente viene dato agli scafi delle sfide): il primo e unico esemplare italiano della nuova gigantesca classe Coppa America prevista per l'edizione numero 34 in programma nel 2013 a San Francisco (USA) con il consueto prologo della Louis Vuitton Cup per gli sfidanti. Da Repubblica.it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone remind me how it's OK for the Italian boat (hulls at least) can be built outside of Italy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With no one with half a clue and all the shit going on how long to you give the well dressed boys from Italie? And they are just dripping with talent are't they.............................

 

If carnage, capzize's, pitchpoles and mayhem brings in the audience's as with the extreme40's then this could be the most watched AC ever. Who care's bring it on.....................

......As long as no one gets hurt of coursexx

 

You think someone getting hurt will hurt viewership? haha. What was nascar before Sr. died?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting into Auckland on Thursday on unrelated by very nicely timed business.

 

Hopefully I've left my bad juju over the Pacific somewhere as I was in San Fran last week and gave the boys on Oracle a shout out an hour or so before it all went arse over tit for them.

 

Bring on the dueling tractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landini v MF

 

See what I mean? Top stuff, cobber. More action there than OR's 8 days hobby horsing on Ol' Dobbin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luna Rossa wing went aloft for the first time today at their base on the edge of Westhaven.

 

Can't tell you if it went on/in the boat or not. Just caught a glimpse as I drove out of Auckland around 1700 hours. This was the view from the Wynyard Quarter Web Cam 51 minutes later.

 

For those not familiar with the neighborhood, the ETNZ base in the foreground is situated on the western edge of the Viaduct Basin. The Luna Rossa base is on the opposite side of the narrow neck of land once known as the Tank Farm. It fronts onto the eastern side of Westhaven Harbour. That's the Westhaven Marina in the background.

post-39820-0-67361300-1350883127_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour Day here in NZ so a public holiday today. The Viaduct was busy this morning with the age group end of the International Triathlon series. But Wynyard Quarter was dead this morning - bit cold and windy. No activity this morning at LR base but clearly stood the mast up briefly this afternoon/evening. Maybe stepping up activity for the big launch on Friday evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour Day here in NZ so a public holiday today. The Viaduct was busy this morning with the age group end of the International Triathlon series. But Wynyard Quarter was dead this morning - bit cold and windy. No activity this morning at LR base but clearly stood the mast up briefly this afternoon/evening. Maybe stepping up activity for the big launch on Friday evening.

 

Yeah! Seems to be about the same timeframe as prelim preps as ETNZ. They spent several days on mast step and launching practice ahead of their formal christening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#craneanarchy

looks like the same mobile that ETNZ have been using too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-23477-0-16614500-1350892036_thumb.jpgnow everyone are the all blacks

 

except the swedes

 

who at least resisted the urge to go blue and yellow

 

tweaked and bigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking quite ETNZ.

I guess to be expected but I kind of expected their own twist to it.

 

Rocker looks more hollow than ETNZ, maybe less freeboard forward?

 

Rear element shrink wrap needs more shrinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find it is exactly the same. As Dalts put it LR 'would build an absolutely identical boat from every nut, bolt and layer of carbon fiber.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the back half of the wing has been wrapped in black plastic to keep something left to unvail on launch day.

 

Doesn't appear to have ETNZ's drainage gills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rear element shrink wrap needs more shrinking.

or they've covered the rear in garbage bags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you will find it is exactly the same. As Dalts put it LR 'would build an absolutely identical boat from every nut, bolt and layer of carbon fiber.'
Oh, did not know there was such a quote :o

 

I'd been expecting they'd take the ETNZ design & tweak it for their own preferences eg deck layout/freeboard/wing profile etc.

Or that it'd be a more risky/conservative version of the ETNZ boat 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

 

That was the whole idea of the agreement between TNZ and LR. Two identical boats that they can two boat test changes, foil configurations etc.

 

The agreement runs till 31st Dec 2012 when all teams must engage seperate designers. After that LR can make whatever modifications they like, within the Protocol and Class Rules, to their AC72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find it is exactly the same. As Dalts put it LR 'would build an absolutely identical boat from every nut, bolt and layer of carbon fiber.'

But perhaps they have now taken some early lessons from ETNZ testing and incorporated those - makes it an "ETNZ 1.5 version" boat - would make sense, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR could always buy a 'stock' design from ETNZ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the back half of the wing has been wrapped in black plastic to keep something left to unvail on launch day.

 

Doesn't appear to have ETNZ's drainage gills.

 

if they have blacked the wing they may also have blacked a lot of the hull

and then peel to reveal on launch day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-23477-0-16614500-1350892036_thumb.jpgnow everyone are the all blacks

 

except the swedes

 

who at least resisted the urge to go blue and yellow

 

tweaked and bigger

 

No boards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-44257-0-11507000-1350891700_thumb.jpg

 

Thanks, Benny - your picture?

 

BTW, FV's Michele Tognozzi will be at the event. And Cathay has been named LR's official airline

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good scoop KJ and NZbenny! Thanks. Been watching for that forever - but missed it anyway :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

makes sense that all that black will be peeled back to white

 

72.jpg

Could be. Pictures are grainy but it looks like the hulls are wrapped too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

makes sense that all that black will be peeled back to white

 

72.jpg

Could be. Pictures are grainy but it looks like the hulls are wrapped too.

 

The sooner both 72s are out in the Rangitoto channel, the better.

 

Recent events suggest this TNZ/LR partnership was a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a reminder of the prior jury decision:

 

(1) TNZ cannot line up against LR (sail collaboratively or 'race') as this would make LR a 'surrogate yacht' and prevent TNZ from building a second boat

 

also

 

(2) LR cannot share performance information with TNZ as this would breach 33.4. TNZ can (apparently) share performance info with LR (one-way) until Jan 1st.

 

It will be interesting to see if there are any more jury challenges to this partnership once it goes to the in-water phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unanimous advice on Italian sites (and mine): CAREFUL!!! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrome finish on the hulls and wing under the black plastic perhaps?

 

Owww - tacky! Whatever next? Fox-tails, flames?

 

I say...

123_p_prada-fabric-and-leather-tote-handbags-black-1300648553491.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a reminder of the prior jury decision:

 

(1) TNZ cannot line up against LR (sail collaboratively or 'race') as this would make LR a 'surrogate yacht' and prevent TNZ from building a second boat

 

also

 

(2) LR cannot share performance information with TNZ as this would breach 33.4. TNZ can (apparently) share performance info with LR (one-way) until Jan 1st.

 

It will be interesting to see if there are any more jury challenges to this partnership once it goes to the in-water phase.

 

I think they can practise race against each other but cannot share performance data other than what they can ascertain from observations and use of commercially available electronic devices

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep wing looked impressive from the bridge, very ummm black!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they can practise race against each other but cannot share performance data other than what they can ascertain from observations and use of commercially available electronic devices

 

The jury was pretty clear that sailing in "collaboration" makes the other boat a surrogate, and that this is separate from sharing performance information (which is a 33.4 problem not a surrogate yacht problem). Of course there is room to debate what "sailing in collaboration" means, but I would certaintly think lining up together would be a pretty clear problem.

 

 

Jury JN024

 

OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer:

(a) if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4.

 

( b ) for both OR and CB the other Competitor’s AC72 would meet the definition of ‘Surrogate Yacht’ (Article 1.1 (xx)). Using such Surrogate Yacht for training or for testing and development as described in Article 29.4 would constitute the acquisition of an AC72. While this does not breach any Article of the Protocol in itself, this would then prohibit either Competitor from acquiring, building or otherwise obtaining another AC72, as limited by Article 29.2(a).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

no problems for or there then? glad they sorted that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

no problems for or there then? glad they sorted that

 

Substitute TNZ for OR, and LR for CB (competitor B ) . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a reminder of the prior jury decision:

 

(1) TNZ cannot line up against LR (sail collaboratively or 'race') as this would make LR a 'surrogate yacht' and prevent TNZ from building a second boat

 

also

 

(2) LR cannot share performance information with TNZ as this would breach 33.4. TNZ can (apparently) share performance info with LR (one-way) until Jan 1st.

 

It will be interesting to see if there are any more jury challenges to this partnership once it goes to the in-water phase.

 

Incorrect.

 

(1) TNZ cannot line up against LR (sail collaboratively or 'race') as this would make LR a 'surrogate yacht' and prevent TNZ from building a second boat

 

18. The Jury Decision in AC11, and specifically paragraphs 16 and 21 when read in conjunction, does not prohibit two Competitors from engaging in training or practice racing together. This similarly applies to both Article 29.4 and 33.4.

 

 

(2) LR cannot share performance information with TNZ as this would breach 33.4. TNZ can (apparently) share performance info with LR (one-way) until Jan 1st.

 

19. However, should Competitor B (the „second person‟ in Article 33.4), provide Competitor A („the first person‟ in Article 33.4) with design or performance information that will assist them in interpreting or understanding any information they may glean by observation alone, then Protocol Article 33.4 will be breached.

 

 

20. The information referred to in paragraph 19 above does not include the design information that was transmitted between the Competitors as part of their Agreement, but it would include information about the training or practice racing, however transmitted, such as:

(i) the sails, foils or other changeable equipment that will be used or were used;

(ii) the set up of the rig, hull, sails, spars, controls, foils, etc.;

(iii) any performance data from the boat; and

(iv) any wind, wave or other relevant conditions actually experienced by the yacht during the activity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they can practise race against each other but cannot share performance data other than what they can ascertain from observations and use of commercially available electronic devices

 

The jury was pretty clear that sailing in "collaboration" makes the other boat a surrogate, and that this is separate from sharing performance information (which is a 33.4 problem not a surrogate yacht problem). Of course there is room to debate what "sailing in collaboration" means, but I would certaintly think lining up together would be a pretty clear problem.

 

 

Jury JN024

 

OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer:

(a) if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4.

 

( b ) for both OR and CB the other Competitor’s AC72 would meet the definition of ‘Surrogate Yacht’ (Article 1.1 (xx)). Using such Surrogate Yacht for training or for testing and development as described in Article 29.4 would constitute the acquisition of an AC72. While this does not breach any Article of the Protocol in itself, this would then prohibit either Competitor from acquiring, building or otherwise obtaining another AC72, as limited by Article 29.2(a).

The Jury answer which you've conveniently omitted in your citing is this:

 

OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer: Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two

Competitors’ yachts.

 

ETNZ and LR can practice against each other right up to New Year's Eve 2012: they just can't share performance information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they can practise race against each other but cannot share performance data other than what they can ascertain from observations and use of commercially available electronic devices

 

The jury was pretty clear that sailing in "collaboration" makes the other boat a surrogate, and that this is separate from sharing performance information (which is a 33.4 problem not a surrogate yacht problem). Of course there is room to debate what "sailing in collaboration" means, but I would certaintly think lining up together would be a pretty clear problem.

 

 

Jury JN024

 

OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer:

(a) if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4.

 

( b ) for both OR and CB the other Competitor’s AC72 would meet the definition of ‘Surrogate Yacht’ (Article 1.1 (xx)). Using such Surrogate Yacht for training or for testing and development as described in Article 29.4 would constitute the acquisition of an AC72. While this does not breach any Article of the Protocol in itself, this would then prohibit either Competitor from acquiring, building or otherwise obtaining another AC72, as limited by Article 29.2(a).

The Jury answer which you've conveniently omitted in your citing is this:

 

OR Question 3: OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer: Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two

Competitors’ yachts.

 

ETNZ and LR can practice against each other right up to New Year's Eve 2012: they just can't share performance information.

 

How many practice days will ETNZ have left by the time Luna is up and running ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they can practise race against each other but cannot share performance data other than what they can ascertain from observations and use of commercially available electronic devices

 

The jury was pretty clear that sailing in "collaboration" makes the other boat a surrogate, and that this is separate from sharing performance information (which is a 33.4 problem not a surrogate yacht problem). Of course there is room to debate what "sailing in collaboration" means, but I would certaintly think lining up together would be a pretty clear problem.

 

 

Jury JN024

 

OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer:

(a) if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4.

 

( b ) for both OR and CB the other Competitor’s AC72 would meet the definition of ‘Surrogate Yacht’ (Article 1.1 (xx)). Using such Surrogate Yacht for training or for testing and development as described in Article 29.4 would constitute the acquisition of an AC72. While this does not breach any Article of the Protocol in itself, this would then prohibit either Competitor from acquiring, building or otherwise obtaining another AC72, as limited by Article 29.2(a).

The Jury answer which you've conveniently omitted in your citing is this:

 

OR Question 3: OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer: Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two

Competitors’ yachts.

 

ETNZ and LR can practice against each other right up to New Year's Eve 2012: they just can't share performance information.

 

How many practice days will ETNZ have left by the time Luna is up and running ?

ETNZ have 18 left as of today - surprisingly, only 4 less than OR :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they can practise race against each other but cannot share performance data other than what they can ascertain from observations and use of commercially available electronic devices

 

The jury was pretty clear that sailing in "collaboration" makes the other boat a surrogate, and that this is separate from sharing performance information (which is a 33.4 problem not a surrogate yacht problem). Of course there is room to debate what "sailing in collaboration" means, but I would certaintly think lining up together would be a pretty clear problem.

 

 

Jury JN024

 

OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer:

(a) if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4.

 

( b ) for both OR and CB the other Competitor’s AC72 would meet the definition of ‘Surrogate Yacht’ (Article 1.1 (xx)). Using such Surrogate Yacht for training or for testing and development as described in Article 29.4 would constitute the acquisition of an AC72. While this does not breach any Article of the Protocol in itself, this would then prohibit either Competitor from acquiring, building or otherwise obtaining another AC72, as limited by Article 29.2(a).

The Jury answer which you've conveniently omitted in your citing is this:

 

OR Question 3: OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer: Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two

Competitors’ yachts.

 

ETNZ and LR can practice against each other right up to New Year's Eve 2012: they just can't share performance information.

 

How many practice days will ETNZ have left by the time Luna is up and running ?

ETNZ have 18 left as of today - surprisingly, only 4 less than OR :)

 

I bet you didn't write that.......

So few words have not yet described the gulf that lies between the Kiwis & Oraclenzaurus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope LR and ETNZ enjoy a long NZ summer having productive practice races and learning more about their boats. It will be productive and entertaining.

 

I expect that ETNZ have been very helpful to the LR cmapiagn to date, and now they're on the water that assistance will be reciprocated.

 

The Citation above is also incorrect - it should read:

 

OR Question 3: OR question 3: Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration?

 

Jury Answer: No. Oracle Racing (OR) does not have a boat and Competitor B (CB) should investigate the cracking noises first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18. The Jury Decision in AC11, and specifically paragraphs 16 and 21 when read in conjunction, does not prohibit two Competitors from engaging in training or practice racing together. This similarly applies to both Article 29.4 and 33.4.

 

Jury Answer: Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two

Competitors’ yachts.

 

You both are, I believe, missing the key point that 33.4 and 29.4 are completely seperate and independent points.

 

Yes, they are allowed to race (or line up) by the protocal (it is not forbidden by 33.4) . . . BUT if they do then TNZ can't build a second boat, because they have become each others surrogates by 29.4. The only exception is if they get official permission from ACEA to race.

 

Indio is simply reading badly. The full text of JN 24 is quite clear. Racing is allowed but two competitors racing make them each other's surrogates:

 

JN24 QUESTION 3

38. Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration? They conduct a two boat test program to develop their design. Each yacht would not sail more than 30 days and this arrangement would conclude prior to 1st January 2013.

39. Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two Competitors’ yachts but if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4. Also, for both OR and CB the other Competitor’s AC72 would meet the definition of ‘Surrogate Yacht’ (Article 1.1 (xx)). Using such Surrogate Yacht for training or for testing and development as described in Article 29.4 would constitute the acquisition of an AC72. While this does not breach any Article of the Protocol in itself, this would then prohibit either Competitor from acquiring, building or otherwise obtaining another AC72, as limited by Article 29.2(a).

 

Kiwi_Jon's quoted text from JN47 is much more tricky. You have to read pp22 (below) to make it clear. PP22 says that JN47 does not revise or clearify the previous decisions. That means that point 39 still stands. So how do you then interpertat pp18 that KJ quotes. It says in plain language that training and racing is not prohibited. But it does not revise or clearify point 39 above, so, as clearly stated in prior JN24, the boats become surrogates. 29.4 does not ban training or racing with LR but it does make it unattractive if TNZ wants to build a second boat.

 

22. The discussion paragraphs of this Decision do not provide a clarification or revision of AC11, which was requested by Artemis Racing. They provide confirmation of the AC11 Decision and some additional comments on Article 33.4 in the context of the AC11 Decision to further assist Competitors.

 

The trickest point of all is in jn33 pp17. It suggests that it is open to judgement and interpertation when training becomse a surrogate. But if I were AR or OR, I would ask why are they lining up if they are not developping their AC72.

 

On the 33.4 point KJ and I agree. They can share design information up to Jan 1st, but not performance information from sailing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18. The Jury Decision in AC11, and specifically paragraphs 16 and 21 when read in conjunction, does not prohibit two Competitors from engaging in training or practice racing together. This similarly applies to both Article 29.4 and 33.4.

 

Jury Answer: Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two

Competitors’ yachts.

 

You both are, I believe, missing the key point that 33.4 and 29.4 are completely seperate and independent points.

 

Yes, they are allowed to race (or line up) by the protocal (it is not forbidden by 33.4) . . . BUT if they do then TNZ can't build a second boat, because they have become each others surrogates by 29.4. The only exception is if they get official permission from ACEA to race.

 

Indio is simply reading badly. The full text of JN 24 is quite clear. Racing is allowed but two competitors racing make them each other's surrogates:

 

JN24 QUESTION 3

38. Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration? They conduct a two boat test program to develop their design. Each yacht would not sail more than 30 days and this arrangement would conclude prior to 1st January 2013.

39. Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two Competitors’ yachts but if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4. Also, for both OR and CB the other Competitor’s AC72 would meet the definition of ‘Surrogate Yacht’ (Article 1.1 (xx)). Using such Surrogate Yacht for training or for testing and development as described in Article 29.4 would constitute the acquisition of an AC72. While this does not breach any Article of the Protocol in itself, this would then prohibit either Competitor from acquiring, building or otherwise obtaining another AC72, as limited by Article 29.2(a).

 

Kiwi_Jon's quoted text from JN47 is much more tricky. You have to read pp22 (below) to make it clear. PP22 says that JN47 does not revise or clearify the previous decisions. That means that point 39 still stands. So how do you then interpertat pp18 that KJ quotes. It says in plain language that training and racing is not prohibited. But it does not revise or clearify point 39 above, so, as clearly stated in prior JN24, the boats become surrogates. 29.4 does not ban training or racing with LR but it does make it unattractive if TNZ wants to build a second boat.

 

22. The discussion paragraphs of this Decision do not provide a clarification or revision of AC11, which was requested by Artemis Racing. They provide confirmation of the AC11 Decision and some additional comments on Article 33.4 in the context of the AC11 Decision to further assist Competitors.

 

On the 33.4 point KJ and I agree. They can share design information up to Jan 1st, but not performance information from sailing.

39. Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two Competitors’ yachts but if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4.

I read what I wanted to read - the qualification against 33.4. I didn't see the "Also, for both..... You're quite right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18. The Jury Decision in AC11, and specifically paragraphs 16 and 21 when read in conjunction, does not prohibit two Competitors from engaging in training or practice racing together. This similarly applies to both Article 29.4 and 33.4.

 

Jury Answer: Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two

Competitors’ yachts.

 

You both are, I believe, missing the key point that 33.4 and 29.4 are completely seperate and independent points.

 

Yes, they are allowed to race (or line up) by the protocal (it is not forbidden by 33.4) . . . BUT if they do then TNZ can't build a second boat, because they have become each others surrogates by 29.4. The only exception is if they get official permission from ACEA to race.

 

Indio is simply reading badly. The full text of JN 24 is quite clear. Racing is allowed but two competitors racing make them each other's surrogates:

 

JN24 QUESTION 3

38. Would ORACLE Racing (OR) and Competitor B (CB) remain compliant with the Rules if OR and CB sail their AC72 Yachts in collaboration? They conduct a two boat test program to develop their design. Each yacht would not sail more than 30 days and this arrangement would conclude prior to 1st January 2013.

39. Yes. There is no Article that prohibits the conducting of mere practice races between two Competitors’ yachts but if there is an arrangement to share performance information then there is likely to be a breach of Article 33.4. Also, for both OR and CB the other Competitor’s AC72 would meet the definition of ‘Surrogate Yacht’ (Article 1.1 (xx)). Using such Surrogate Yacht for training or for testing and development as described in Article 29.4 would constitute the acquisition of an AC72. While this does not breach any Article of the Protocol in itself, this would then prohibit either Competitor from acquiring, building or otherwise obtaining another AC72, as limited by Article 29.2(a).

 

Kiwi_Jon's quoted text from JN47 is much more tricky. You have to read pp22 (below) to make it clear. PP22 says that JN47 does not revise or clearify the previous decisions. That means that point 39 still stands. So how do you then interpertat pp18 that KJ quotes. It says in plain language that training and racing is not prohibited. But it does not revise or clearify point 39 above, so, as clearly stated in prior JN24, the boats become surrogates. 29.4 does not ban training or racing with LR but it does make it unattractive if TNZ wants to build a second boat.

 

22. The discussion paragraphs of this Decision do not provide a clarification or revision of AC11, which was requested by Artemis Racing. They provide confirmation of the AC11 Decision and some additional comments on Article 33.4 in the context of the AC11 Decision to further assist Competitors.

 

The trickest point of all is in jn33 pp17. It suggests that it is open to judgement and interpertation when training becomse a surrogate. But if I were AR or OR, I would ask why are they lining up if they are not developping their AC72.

 

On the 33.4 point KJ and I agree. They can share design information up to Jan 1st, but not performance information from sailing

 

This could end up being a very " expensive " practice series down the road . Lawyers take your marks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see the "Also, for both..... You're quite right.

 

Thanks, but you may be premature . . . I am still struggling with some of the wording in the JN33 decision. I thought I understood this when SEIS and I debated it, but it seems very confused now.

 

Specifically the following seems directly inconsistent with the JN24 in my post above, and to support your and KJ's position. JN 24 (above post) says clearly that racing together creates surrogates, while the below jn33 says it may not, And JN47 says that it does not offer any clarification or revision. So, I am left feeling they have produced two directly contradictory decisions and not resolved them.

 

JN33

 

17 It is only when they gain information that can be used for the development of their AC72 that the first sentence of Article 29.4 is satisfied and an AC72 Yacht is acquired. It follows that it is possible for a Competitor to acquire an AC72 when training with another Competitor, but it is also possible to avoid doing so.

18.If two Competitors agree to train together (including practice racing against each other) but do not by that act alone share information that cannot be gained by observation from a permitted external position (using instruments if necessary), they do not acquire an AC72 Yacht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'll be expecting to see is LR using straight boards for a while.

 

ETNZ might not be able to get exact performance numbers but it should be quite easy to get a good idea of if their VPP is right or not on overall performance difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

 

Not really straight boards, let's say AR's "J" ones. Significant rocker should mean some lift contribution is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

 

Not really straight boards, let's say AR's "J" ones. Significant rocker should mean some lift contribution is required.

 

Really, with limited number of boards, and access to TNZ's current test data, you think they would be building 'foil lite' boards? Why?

 

Don't you think they desperately need to learn how to foil. - that is their primary sailing challenge/mission They can be careful with the wind speed on their sailing days and with wing power as they learn, in order to be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its ETNZ hull B practically. Looks quite weird in that black wrap shit, hope it reveals a beautiful white hull soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, with limited number of boards, and access to TNZ's current test data, you think they would be building 'foil lite' boards? Why?

 

Don't you think they desperately need to learn how to foil. - that is their primary sailing challenge/mission They can be careful with the wind speed on their sailing days and with wing power as they learn, in order to be safe.

 

You may well be right, but it seems to me that - with ETNZ being so far ahead on the curve - they should concentrate on low-risk learning for quite a while without rushing it - they already totaled an SL33 wing.

Also, I'm sure actual performance with foil-assist-optimized boards as compared to S/Ls would be of mutual interest.

 

After all, their realistic mission in AC34 is to beat AR and be a valid sparring partner for ETNZ, no?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes my shot. Took a detour heading into westhaven marina. To my eye the boat and the aft of the wing were covered in a black vinyl/shrink wrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the TNZ/LR protocol racing question . . . there seems to me to be an unresolved conflict in the jury decisions . . . but lets say we go with the later decision (which KJ likes). The essence of it is that TNZ and LR can line up and race if and only if they do not share any performance information off the boats that could not be collected by a chase boat at the required minimum 200m stand off distance.

 

Of the face of it that seems simple.

 

But it really means that there can be no pictures or video taken off the boats while sailing, none taken from closer than 200m. Otherwise, those pics could reveal board settings or wind speed (from instrument displaces in the pics) or any of the other information specifically not allowed. And that restriction would seem to apply right thru the start of the LVC, because it is to prevent development of the boats, not just the design of the boats. So, no vids or pics from off the boat or from closer than 200m. #1 How is that going to work with the desire for on board cameras in the, and #2 will be sponsors be happy between now with only distance photos and not the great close-up action shots we have gotten used to.

 

Also it means no sharing of flat whites between the TNZ and LR team members. Sailors talk and there has to be an absolute total wall about what goes on while sailing. And no talking to the press about how it was sailing - not talk about masthead wind speeds or how it felt on the boards or any other even qualitative information that could not have been observed from 200m. That's also going to be a bit of a downer from a sponsor/PR perspective.

 

They need to be really careful here. Because the bright line is 'no information that could not be gathered from a chase boat at 200m', and AR/OR will be waiting for any sign that this line has been crossed even qualitatively

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, their realistic mission in AC34 is to beat AR and be a valid sparring partner for ETNZ, no?

 

:) if you say so. I would dream of winning if I was Italian.

 

You know more about boards than I do. It just seemed to me that foiling is the key experience curve that needs to be gotten down as quickly and as far as possible.

 

Do remember that LR have to design their own boards after Jan 1st.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, their realistic mission in AC34 is to beat AR and be a valid sparring partner for ETNZ, no?

 

:) if you say so. I would dream of winning if I was Italian.

 

You know more about boards than I do. It just seemed to me that foiling is the key experience curve that needs to be gotten down as quickly and as far as possible.

 

Do remember that LR have to design their own boards after Jan 1st.

 

In my view, it isn't so much the straight line speed when foiling that will matter, it is the control during the turns that will be critical. This isn't like they are going to sail miles in one direction on the same jibe. Could be they will never sail more than half a mile on the same jibe at any one time. Even a mile isn't all that much. But of course, Kiwi's have a massive advantage, and it is basically over already (or so many seem to think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, it isn't so much the straight line speed when foiling that will matter, it is the control during the turns that will be critical.

And during bear away too, isn't it ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think they desperately need to learn how to foil. - that is their primary sailing challenge/mission

I have no idea what their priorities are, but if I were 2 boat testing, I would want one to be sailing in non foiloing mode and the other up on foils in order to see which is faster around the course. I don't think GD was bluffing when he said that they didn't know what would be fastest. It seems to me that ETNZ has spent all its time learning how to get the most out of the boat when foiling and havn't yet tested a non foiling configuration, which would need different boards. It would make a lot of sense for LR to start with a non foiling configuration rather than spending initial time playing catch up and maybe not be so useful for 2 boat testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think they desperately need to learn how to foil. - that is their primary sailing challenge/mission

I have no idea what their priorities are, but if I were 2 boat testing, I would want one to be sailing in non foiloing mode and the other up on foils in order to see which is faster around the course. I don't think GD was bluffing when he said that they didn't know what would be fastest. It seems to me that ETNZ has spent all its time learning how to get the most out of the boat when foiling and havn't yet tested a non foiling configuration, which would need different boards. It would make a lot of sense for LR to start with a non foiling configuration rather than spending initial time playing catch up and maybe not be so useful for 2 boat testing.

 

Now don't go interjecting logic into a perfectly dysfunctional conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think they desperately need to learn how to foil. - that is their primary sailing challenge/mission

I have no idea what their priorities are, but if I were 2 boat testing, I would want one to be sailing in non foiloing mode and the other up on foils in order to see which is faster around the course. I don't think GD was bluffing when he said that they didn't know what would be fastest. It seems to me that ETNZ has spent all its time learning how to get the most out of the boat when foiling and havn't yet tested a non foiling configuration, which would need different boards. It would make a lot of sense for LR to start with a non foiling configuration rather than spending initial time playing catch up and maybe not be so useful for 2 boat testing.

 

Yes I agree with that .. The chances are that LR will launch a foil assist version to test against ETNZ ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends how friendly they are really.

 

If both teams are interested in the speed difference round a course between non-foiling vs foiling & ETNZ is the 'senior' partner you'd expect the 'junior' partner LR would be the one who might be willing to 'sacrifice' a pair of boards to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think they desperately need to learn how to foil. - that is their primary sailing challenge/mission

I have no idea what their priorities are, but if I were 2 boat testing, I would want one to be sailing in non foiloing mode and the other up on foils in order to see which is faster around the course. I don't think GD was bluffing when he said that they didn't know what would be fastest. It seems to me that ETNZ has spent all its time learning how to get the most out of the boat when foiling and havn't yet tested a non foiling configuration, which would need different boards. It would make a lot of sense for LR to start with a non foiling configuration rather than spending initial time playing catch up and maybe not be so useful for 2 boat testing.

 

 

I think they already know, they should have a stack of data from their sl33 testing that would only need to be validated for the 72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 days of cracker weather predicted in Auckland, LR would be very well served getting that baby in the water today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The other site" shows two impressive photos by oceanphotography.co.nz.

Thanks. I just know they won't keep it black but it does look pretty wicked in that livery

 

Sites are saying 6pm local on Friday eve, (6am Italy time?) and that Bertelli will be there for it. Will be 2PM Thursday SF time, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The other site" shows two impressive photos by oceanphotography.co.nz.

Thanks. I just know they won't keep it black but it does look pretty wicked in that livery

 

Sites are saying 6pm local on Friday eve, (6am Italy time?) and that Bertelli will be there for it. Will be 2PM Thursday SF time, right?

7am Italy time, daylight saving time is (finally) over here the following Sunday.

West Coast time: 10pm, Thursday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Thanks, Rennie

 

Images by Chris Cameron, and Oceanphotography

 

First attempt at a wing comparison

 

2rz8mxe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lead element twist (same alternate hinged ribs), but oddly the big PRADA sign doesn't show the break/lip for the plain flap

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the hulls have a complete wrap

 

even the hull luna rossa in red in billowing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The other site" shows two impressive photos by oceanphotography.co.nz.

Thanks. I just know they won't keep it black but it does look pretty wicked in that livery

 

Sites are saying 6pm local on Friday eve, (6am Italy time?) and that Bertelli will be there for it. Will be 2PM Thursday SF time, right?

 

 

Bertelli and his wife arrived in Akld yesterday (Tuesday). Thursday 10.30am press conference, Friday 6.30pm launch (followed by dancing!) Time = NZT (12 hours ahead of London time)

 

Prada brings a level of style, in many respects to this cup. It is this style that won the hearts of NZ fans when the cup was held here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boats will be identical for at least the first half dozen sails. You really think they will hit the water sprinting without even taking time to learn the platform and figure out all the usual new boat stuff?

If everything is perfect and no build issues are found I expect they will run the program as follows:

 

Day 1 - Max 5-8kts wind. Softly, softly. Long session towing. Check everything. 2-3 hour sail and back to the dock for a full debrief.

Day 2 - Max 10/12 knts wind. Load up platform with masthead screecher and fly a hull upwind. Some manoeuvres with sails up and down, and a bit of tacking and gybing.

Day 3/4 - Max 15kt wind. Focus on foils and systems. Crew work. Some loaded up bearaways. Long straight line speed and balance calibration. Short foiling periods.

Day 5-8 - Up to 30kts wind. Ramp up confidence in simulated race conditions. Buoy roundings, acceleration, low/high speed manoeuvres, sails up/down. Learning time to foil, heel angles, sheet tensions. Refining systems on board. Ensure targets and actuals are identical to ETNZ observed numbers. Some aero work.

Days 9-15 - Beginning of experimentation and testing of comparison ideas with ETNZ - within the rules boundaries of course.

 

Reconfigure and refining time off.

 

Days 16-20 - Sailing in all conditions. Practicing in the mode which has been determined as fastest. Experiment with new foils and sail refinements.

Days 21-25 - All conditions - seek out choppier water for full-on race simulations.

Days 26-28 - Full aero kit out, last ideas run.

Days 29-30 - 5am to 9pm racing simulation. Success determined if they come off the water at 9pm, leave the boat on the swing, and back out again next day without doing anything but give it a hose off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder who will get the helm first. Could even be Cammas.

I think I'd pick Draper.

I'm a huge Iker fan, but his first SF showing was pretty dismal.

Of course there are other potential reasons for that other then just the helmsman.

I don't understand how they plan to integrate Franck Iker, Chris and Paul.

According to the LR site:

FC is "Coach" - yeah right - like you wouldn't let him have a steer. I'm also interested to see how he fits in when he doesn't have the final say...or does he?

Iker is "Helmsman/Afterguard" - I don't doubt his inshore tactical value, but he hasn't demonstrated that it translates or the AC format yet.

Chris and Paul are both still listed as "Helmsman".

Does anyone know if they're all in Auckland yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't there a rule that they're not allowed to cover hulls etc?
Yes, though I think they could most likely successfully argue they aren't hiding the shape, just the logos/colour scheme?

 

Hmm nope.

http://mediacenter.a...34-Protocol.pdf

31 SHROUDING

Competitors’ yachts shall not be shrouded at any time. Use of protective wrapping

during shipment, placing a yacht in a building or shelter with a solid floor for storage or to

carry out maintenance or modifications, or the use of protective covers while sanding or

painting shall not constitute shrouding.

 

They almost certainly are carrying out maintenance or modifications though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't there a rule that they're not allowed to cover hulls etc?
Yes, though I think they could most likely successfully argue they aren't hiding the shape, just the logos/colour scheme?

 

Hmm nope.

http://mediacenter.a...34-Protocol.pdf

31 SHROUDING

Competitors’ yachts shall not be shrouded at any time. Use of protective wrapping

during shipment, placing a yacht in a building or shelter with a solid floor for storage or to

carry out maintenance or modifications, or the use of protective covers while sanding or

painting shall not constitute shrouding.

 

They almost certainly are carrying out maintenance or modifications though.

 

I wonder if this is relevant prior to the yacht being launched, especially considering that they are almost certainly picking it up and placing it on a solid floor and moving it in and out out of the shed while practicing lifting it, besides we all know it's a direct copy of ETNZ and is being launched in a couple of days so for another team to complain would pretty much be the pinnacle of pettiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if this is relevant prior to the yacht being launched, especially considering that they are almost certainly picking it up and placing it on a solid floor and moving it in and out out of the shed while practicing lifting it, besides we all know it's a direct copy of ETNZ and is being launched in a couple of days so for another team to complain would pretty much be the pinnacle of pettiness.

Don't put it past the AR-OR civil union. Remember their co-ordinated protest over ETNZ-LR...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the time been this colaboration is a real bonus for both teams. The LV final will be closser and the race to watch rather than the Cup itself ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the time been this colaboration is a real bonus for both teams. The LV final will be closser and the race to watch rather than the Cup itself ;)

AR would be feeling like a Swedish hooker in a sandwich: stuffed!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the time been this colaboration is a real bonus for both teams. The LV final will be closser and the race to watch rather than the Cup itself ;)

AR would be feeling like a Swedish hooker in a sandwich: stuffed!!

 

At least Artemis would have women. Hot women

 

You guys have sheep. Baaaaa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With no one with half a clue and all the shit going on how long to you give the well dressed boys from Italie? And they are just dripping with talent are't they.............................

 

If carnage, capzize's, pitchpoles and mayhem brings in the audience's as with the extreme40's then this could be the most watched AC ever. Who care's bring it on.....................

......As long as no one gets hurt of coursexx

 

You think someone getting hurt will hurt viewership? haha. What was nascar before Sr. died?

 

a lot more popular, fuckhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the time been this colaboration is a real bonus for both teams. The LV final will be closser and the race to watch rather than the Cup itself ;)

AR would be feeling like a Swedish hooker in a sandwich: stuffed!!

 

At least Artemis would have women. Hot women

 

You guys have sheep. Baaaaa.

Lamb chops - God created them for BBQs and lamb curries!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With no one with half a clue and all the shit going on how long to you give the well dressed boys from Italie? And they are just dripping with talent are't they.............................

 

If carnage, capzize's, pitchpoles and mayhem brings in the audience's as with the extreme40's then this could be the most watched AC ever. Who care's bring it on.....................

......As long as no one gets hurt of coursexx

 

You think someone getting hurt will hurt viewership? haha. What was nascar before Sr. died?

 

a lot more popular, fuckhead

 

Nascar's viewership was nothing compared to the post senior era. People watch nascar for the crashes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would LR hide their wing and hulls?

 

Maybe a special silver/chrome paint job?

 

Maybe some new sponsors (Cathay +)?

 

Maybe viagra - promoting a stiff platform!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would LR hide their wing and hulls?

 

they're italian

 

a virgin paint-job isn't good enough for the unveiling

 

the veil makes it extra-virgin

 

as opposed to the poor old artemis ac72

 

fucked before launch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites