• 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.

Wess

Can anyone please explain the ACEA release post IJ ruling

121 posts in this topic

Absent the politics, can anyone explain the ACEA presser yesterday?

 

The IJ ruled that IM can't use the MEP or other games to change the class rules without consent of all per the protocol. That puts NZ and LR in driver seat w re ruddergate and the weight limit. IJ also rules that IM/GGYC/OR etc... need to carry the view of all teams to USCG w re MEP so in theory IM can't play games there either. While he would say its unsafe absent all 37 changes, LR and NZ would say its fine with the 35. In theory even OR is in a box here having also said they are fine w the 35. This seemed like game over and complete victory for NZ and LR. But then came the ACEA presser???

 

 

The ACEA seemed to indicate it wanted the teams to comply voluntarily with the 37 safety recommendations anyway despite what the IJ ruled and that this was the only way forward for the event. Huh? LR and NZ already rejected that path and the IJ agreed with them. Or does ACEA see it as an optional thing? But how can that be?? If a team voluntarily complies with the 37 recommendations (added weight and modified rudderss) they don't comply with the clas rule? How could they get measured in? Is that not a slam dunk DSQ?

 

* How can a team voluntarily comply with all 37 of IMs and still comply with the class rule which the IJ just set back to the original standard?

 

I'm lost.

 

Help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't explain it. It is bizarre at best and brinksmanship at worst.

I hope the IJ hasnt left town just yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they trying to force a cancellation of the event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what GD meant when he said they may have won the IJ

 

but it meant nothing until the facts on the ground started changing

 

?and changed a mindset from those that appear to think that IJ rulings don't apply to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a question of logic really...

 

The MEP has an attachment of 17 recommendations which include 2 that relate to design rules:


1. Maximum weight increased by 500 Kg
2. New Rudder rules (symmetric etc) whhich was later modified such that the original rules were re-instated (asymetric etc).

 

The IJ ruled that these 2 were not to be considered design rules. In effect this means that the recommendations are just that - recommendations.

 

Therefore, to comply a boat would need to weigh less or equal to the class rule and therefore complies with 1 above (which is a maximum, not a minimum); and that it must comply with the original rudder rules and will therefore also comply with the modified recommendation 2 above.

 

Therefore, ET and LR that we know of, comply with all 17 recommendations. QED

 

The other two boats may or may not have problems with the design rules which they must comply while also complying with all 17 recommendations.

 

The net effect is that the 17 recommendations re-inforce the design rules in question, not change them! What causes the confusion is that some parts of the recommendations cannot not be complied with within the design rules, but they remain only recommendations!

 

Thus ACEA or whomever can state to the CG that the 17 recommendations can stay and that at least half the fleet already comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what GD meant when he said they may have won the IJ

 

but it meant nothing until the facts on the ground started changing

 

?and changed a mindset from those that appear to think that IJ rulings don't apply to them?

Guess I am seeing/asking same thing. Really not trolling but this seems so blatent that it begs the claims of ethical lapses and/or that IM/OR/AR are trying to cheat. Not saying that is so but the presser just seems to beg for that claim to be made.

 

I just don't get it. The IJ ruling and even USCG comments, along with the NZ and AR races (and even OR comments that they are fine either way), all seemed to pave the way to a fair event that could go forward. There was even a path proposed to allow AR to sail. There is nothing I can think of to be gained for ACEA with the statement other than to continue to try to force a competitive disadvantage onto LR and NZ (or an advantage for OR)?? Doubt that/don't want to believe that but what else is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

this is what GD meant when he said they may have won the IJ

 

but it meant nothing until the facts on the ground started changing

 

?and changed a mindset from those that appear to think that IJ rulings don't apply to them?

Guess I am seeing/asking same thing. Really not trolling but this seems so blatent that it begs the claims of ethical lapses and/or that IM/OR/AR are trying to cheat. Not saying that is so but the presser just seems to beg for that claim to be made.

 

I just don't get it. The IJ ruling and even USCG comments, along with the NZ and AR races (and even OR comments that they are fine either way), all seemed to pave the way to a fair event that could go forward. There was even a path proposed to allow AR to sail. There is nothing I can think of to be gained for ACEA with the statement other than to continue to try to force a competitive disadvantage onto LR and NZ (or an advantage for OR)?? Doubt that/don't want to believe that but what else is there?

One pill makes you larger one pill makes you small. Go ask Alice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Barclay is saying is that ETNZ v LR can happen without a change to the MEP. Presumably he doesn't believe Murray has the time to revise the MEP before Saturday, and he's clearly got so much ego that he can't admit to being so soundly smacked down by the Jury. Not sure why that's so tough for the guy; maybe he's really short or something.

 

Real issue is that, once again, Barclay and ACEA communications chief Tim Jefferies are completely and totally incompetent when it comes to speaking to the public. I mean, unbelievably bad.

 

Jefferies is an old friend of Coutts; yet another guy with huge problems appearing human and competent off the race course. Barclay just seems like yet another bitter fucking Kiwi working for The Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Barclay is saying is that ETNZ v LR can happen without a change to the MEP. Presumably he doesn't believe Murray has the time to revise the MEP before Saturday, and he's clearly got so much ego that he can't admit to being so soundly smacked down by the Jury. Not sure why that's so tough for the guy; maybe he's really short or something.

 

Real issue is that, once again, Barclay and ACEA communications chief Tim Jefferies are completely and totally incompetent when it comes to speaking to the public. I mean, unbelievably bad.

 

Jefferies is an old friend of Coutts; yet another guy with huge problems appearing human and competent off the race course. Barclay just seems like yet another bitter fucking Kiwi working for The Man.

Clean - How can NZ/LR happen Sat without changing the MEP? If they race as is (with the 37 changes) then their rudders take them out of measurement with class rules, no? With 189 now pulled as directed by the IJ and the measurement committee directed back to original class rules NZ and LR have to go back to class legal rudders to measure in for Sat, no? And that makes them out of compliance with IM's 37 (they comply w 35 or 37 but not 37 of 37).

 

I agree that the MEP does not need to change prior to the race - USCG said as much - but I just don't see how any boat can comply with IMs 37 AND comply with class rules now that 189 is pulled.

 

What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated, ETNZ and LR presently satisfy both conditions. Unbelievably, it's OR that would be penalized, because:

 

- if SB/ACEA's "voluntary compliance with the 37 points" is also maintained, the asymmetrical orange stabilizer's surface has got to increase from the present, claimed 0.22 m2 (but it seems to me it's significantly less) to 0.32 m2 keeping the same span. The result would be a very blunt stabilizer, with an aspect ratio lower than ETNZ/LR's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so there is some nuance in the rudder rules that allows a team to meet both the IM 37 recommendations AND also the original class rules. Did not realize that. I thought what IM proposed made the original class legal rudder no longer class legal. Thanks.

 

Given that the ACEA presser is a non-event, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it seems that SB is confirming that TNZ-AR measure and that the new regulations would have been implemented to make OR-AR legal. Obviously for safety....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my simplicity, if I am wrong I will no doubt be quickly put right. Are not the elevator areas MINIMUM areas, one can have larger ones if one wishes, for whatever reason. Therefore if the rules go back to the smaller minimum it makes no diff. to those boats having the larger elevators which were mandated by IM but quashed by the IJ, they can keep them or trim them down towards, or to, the old minimum if they wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, yes Jefferies is a long time friend of Coutts. But so is Barclay, Barclay and Coutts went to University in NZ together doing an engineering.

 

And yes Barclay is short and yes he is a very bitter little man!

 

As its only me second post,

I'll fuck off now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

There is no "old minimum" - if anything, the Rule makes it difficult to have large stabilizers what with the max. beam and distance from transom stipulations.

 

It's only IM37 that introduces the 0.32 m2 minimum - clearly tailored after ETNZ/LR's stabilizers that had to go asymmetrical and move rudder post in order to achieve it, and yet had to make do with a low aspect ratio. But it was part of their "tractor" safe approach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So OR are basically going to be forced to build copies of the ETNZ rudders and match their location too.

The insurance quotation for the event 'sans-37' must be eye-wateringly large.

Either that or someone hasn't understood the hymn sheet.

:blink: mind boggling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could just be a clumsy attempt to save face but: The headline could equally have read 'the event can't go ahead unless the teams voluntarily accept the recommendations'

 

This thing isn't over yet.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, yes Jefferies is a long time friend of Coutts. But so is Barclay, Barclay and Coutts went to University in NZ together doing an engineering.

 

And yes Barclay is short and yes he is a very bitter little man!

 

As its only me second post,

I'll fuck off now.

 

Russell Coutts went to university? You're joking, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, yes Jefferies is a long time friend of Coutts. But so is Barclay, Barclay and Coutts went to University in NZ together doing an engineering.

 

 

The CEO hiring all his mates is a recipe for disaster in my experience (and alas I have some experience on that particular point). You might think it leads to a happy integrated team. Well, maybe, sometimes. An unwillingness to make necessary choices that are bound to offend someone and a management team with an inflated sense of entitlement is another possible outcome.

 

Apart from cocking up AC34, what else is on Barclay's CV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Yes, but teams also renounce the "in excess of max. beam, 1.4 m max. span, 0.85 m from transom" concessions of redlined Rule

 

And, what do you think this RC FB entry portents?

 

The Americas Cup Jury decision is out, basically reinstating the original Class Rule. I suspect there will be some new rudder wings on our boats pretty soon and no doubt more conspiracy theories that we must have known the rules would revert back?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Yes, but teams also renounce the "in excess of max. beam, 1.4 m max. span, 0.85 m from transom" concessions of redlined Rule

This is where it hurts for OR, and perhaps AR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought I was going to look back at Ernesto and CNEV as examples of fairness and effective organization...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Larry a billionaire? I wouldn't hire him to white wash my fence.

 

 

He would not do it himself.

 

He would hire Becky Thatcher and have her sign a non-disclosure agrement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

Quite clear summary. Additionally, it seems to me that OR's rudders are right aft and against the rear crossbeam, so that moving them forward would be complicated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Larry a billionaire? I wouldn't hire him to white wash my fence.

 

 

Simple time management my friend.

 

If he was paid to whitewash your fence, his earning potential would be limited by how much fence he could whitewash.

 

However, if he screwed up bad enough, you might consider paying him to stay the fuck away from your fence. In this case, he could stay the fuck away from many fences at the same time and still have his day free to do whatever the fuck he wants. His earning potential would be limitless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the more forward position of OR main foil obliges them to have more lift from the rudders ?

Which obliges them to position their rudders aft at the max of the rule and have it wider than the stern ?

 

So they are left with either increasing the cord and making more drag or increasing the width of their stern and weighting more ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

 

You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."

 

How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

OK, so now you guys lost me again. Its back to the class rules. Where does a class rule or agreed 35 of 37IM recommendations say 0.32 ms. If OR or AR want so run something that big and can still meet the class rules fine, but nowhere does it say that NZ or LR have to, right?? They can (and I thought have) run safely with smaller than 0.32 ms and would want to again given smaller is faster, no?

 

How can they force NZ and LR to run with 0.32 ms rudders post IJ ruling and when they don't, does not IM have to go back to USCG to get a new MEP (in theory bringing with him as directed by the IJ claims from LR and NZ that they can and have run smaller SA rudders safely)?

 

Edit to add... what she said above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absent the politics, can anyone explain the ACEA presser yesterday?

 

The IJ ruled that IM can't use the MEP or other games to change the class rules without consent of all per the protocol.

It strikes me that dealing with ACRM/ACEA is a lot like dealing with the North Koreans.

 

The same kooky arrogance and blindness to reality, while the country goes down the tubes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems as though the ACEA is saying that although they can not change the design rules per the IJ ruling they are entitled to overlay the design rules with safety rules that affect the design of boats.

 

Did the IJ specifically prohibit the ACEA from implementing safety rules that affect the design of boats?

 

Maybe they should have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that so long as the MEP contains all 37, then teams have to meet the lowest-common-denominator, most-restrictive constraints of BOTH: the MEP ~and~ the original DR. It's the bastardized 'third-way' result.

 

Neither OR nor AR already has rudders that can do that.

 

TS said at the very end of his video that OR's symmetrical .32 rudder could be changed out to an assym if that's what the IJ decision's result led to. RC said much the same, the next day. GS said yesterday they have no problem no matter what. I see no reason to doubt any of them. Even despite if a few here can't figure how..

 

GD suggests a dispensation of some kind to accommodate AR's timing issues (OR has no timing issues) but even though GD, RC and PC would be happy with that, LR has not yet agreed it - even when asked the question directly. It is also difficult to imagine how it would not be effectively a DR change for just one boat; an argument LR might press.

 

What GD cannot control, but IM might be able and willing to do regardless, is drop the min area from the MEP. That would allow both OR and AR to run with their original-rule compliant rudders, surely what both want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that so long as the MEP contains all 37, then teams have to meet the lowest-common-denominator, most-restrictive constraints of BOTH: the MEP ~and~ the original DR. It's the bastardized 'third-way' result.

 

Neither OR nor AR already has rudders that can do that.

 

TS said at the very end of his video that OR's symmetrical .32 rudder could be changed out to an assym if that's what the IJ decision's result led to. RC said much the same, the next day. GS said yesterday they have no problem no matter what. I see no reason to doubt any of them. Even despite if a few here can't figure how..

 

GD suggests a dispensation of some kind to accommodate AR's timing issues (OR has no timing issues) but even though GD, RC and PC would be happy with that, LR has not yet agreed it - even when asked the question directly. It is also difficult to imagine how it would not be effectively a DR change for just one boat; an argument LR might press.

 

What GD cannot control, but IM might be able and willing to do regardless, is drop the min area from the MEP. That would allow both OR and AR to run with their original-rule compliant rudders, surely what both want.

What authority does IM have, how does he operationalize the MEP? The IJ ruled the measurement committee should be directed to ignore 189. Why do you believe IM has any authority to tell teams how to design and build their boats w regards to rudder SA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.

Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.

As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."

 

How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .

The reasoning is, I suppose, that one can build a .32m2 without changing the design rule, therefore, the RD can impose it as a safety requirement. Just so happens that ERNZ and LR already did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.

Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.

As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR :)

Actually, if (big if) my read of the situation is correct, it hurts OR, and doesn't effect ETNZ or LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

 

IM talked yesterday specifically about needing to 'close the gaps' between the MEP and the IJ's decision. So I'm sure that's what he'll be working to do. I doubt that either AR or OR are already building big assyms. The 'third-way' won't have much of a shelf life and so GD's very kind 'dispensation' won't even be needed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is Larry a billionaire? I wouldn't hire him to white wash my fence.

 

You couldn't possibly afford him anyway so your point is moot.

 

 

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

 

Other effects of "a stubby foil" (greater chord) were mentioned by Xlot in a different thread:

 

Dunno: the ET/LR "STABILIZER" appears to have such a low aspect ratio that one would need a large change in AoA (and therefore in rudder stock angle) to get a meaningful variation in lift. The top part of the rudder has a fairly wide chord flush with the hull, doesn't seem compatible with such a rake variation.

Conversely, this would explain why LR's wheelies are less severe than OR's: low aspect ratio stabilizers are much less prone to stall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR. It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it. The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP. Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions. Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

 

IM talked yesterday specifically about needing to 'close the gaps' between the MEP and the IJ's decision. So I'm sure that's what he'll be working to do. I doubt that either AR or OR are already building big assyms. The 'third-way' won't have much of a shelf life and so GD's very kind 'dispensation' won't even be needed..

Oh come on. Just one thread without spin. One. Just one. Please!

 

I do not see any basis that IM has to disqualify a boat that does not meet an MEP rule of rudders have SA of 0.32 ms or similar

 

Please just a simple yes or no.

 

* Post IJ ruling do you believe IM can DSQ a boat or even have the measurement committee ask or examine the SA of a rudder relative to a 0.32 m2 SA criteria and cause a boat to not be measured in as a result?

 

Yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.

Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.

As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR :)

Actually, if (big if) my read of the situation is correct, it hurts OR, and doesn't effect ETNZ or LR.

If OR-AR had been able to comply successfully with the old rules they would have use the security to bend the rules. Are they working on asym now ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR. It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it. The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP. Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions. Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.
Not sure I see the distinction. As RD, surely he can only run races that 'comport to the conditions' of the Safety Plan regs in the MEP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."

 

How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .

The reasoning is, I suppose, that one can build a .32m2 without changing the design rule, therefore, the RD can impose it as a safety requirement. Just so happens that ERNZ and LR already did.

 

Thanks. But since the safety recommendations had to be withdrawn, isn't the current situation as if they never existed, and only the original rules apply? IIUC, the complete MEP (RN189) was invalidated.

 

But, the situation may be as follows:

 

- the MEP still (kind of) applies - to not have to cancel the next races and because no changed MEP in place yet

- ETNZ and LR, both complying with the original rules and the safety recommendations in today's default MEP, are allowed to race now

- AR would not be eligible to race now, since the old rules in combination with the default MEP are still in place

- ETNZ offers the dispensation to give AR the chance to race now

- IM has to submit a changed MEP application (preferably applying due diligence and seek all teams' written (!) approval for his safety recommendations according to the approval routines as per the protocol)

 

If that's the way it is, do you think the new MEP (reverting to 100% old class rules w/o any changes) could be available until AR is ready to race? If so, no issue!

If not, the dispensation could be effective until the new MEP is available. No issue either (if LR and OR agree on the dispensation too).

 

Following this (female) logic I still don't understand why there's so much ado about the "third way".

 

 

EDIT: Just wading through the "Jury Decision" thread (220 unread posts. Really???), and there are also some good and less good explanations. We'll see what's really going on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.

Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.

As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR :)

 

3. NEUTRAL MANAGEMENT

 

(ii) not unreasonably favor (sic) the interests of any Competitor over another.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."

 

How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .

The reasoning is, I suppose, that one can build a .32m2 without changing the design rule, therefore, the RD can impose it as a safety requirement. Just so happens that ERNZ and LR already did.

 

Mandating a constraint where non previously existed is a Rule change - IJ said 'use due process or forget it'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BA is apparently not expecting any 'third-way' either: http://blog.sfgate.com/americascup/2013/07/12/americas-cup-ruling-could-clear-way-for-racing/

 

my bold

--

 

...

New Zealand’s Dalton urged the teams “to put down their weapons and get on with it.”

Oracle in their sights

It is widely assumed, though, that the protests were also aimed at Oracle Team USA. The defender has been using the new rudder wings on both its boats since the safety recommendations were put in place.

 

Ben Ainslie, an Oracle skipper, said his team will simply go back to smaller rudder wings. The process shouldn’t take more than a few days, he said. Oracle has plenty of time: The America’s Cup finals begin Sept. 7, and no Oracle boat is required to sail in the regatta leading up to the Cup races themselves.

 

“We were complying before the (Artemis) accident in May,” Ainslie said. “The situation has been blown out of proportion a little bit.”

Any talk among the other challengers that Murray’s rudder-wing proposal might benefit Oracle was “a classic America’s Cup conspiracy theorist’s dream,” Ainslie said.

 

He said it’s possible the smaller wings could make his team’s boats even faster. The shore crew has to rebalance the boats on its foils. “It just depends on the configuration you adopt,” Ainslie said.

 

---

 

GS, from here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10897529

"We don't have an issue complying with the class rule and we will be ready to race under the rules affirmed by the jury."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

 

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

 

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism.

 

Cheers,

 

Earl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR. It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it. The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP. Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions. Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

So you think they're reaching for the abort button?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD suggests a dispensation of some kind to accommodate AR's timing issues (OR has no timing issues) but even though GD, RC and PC would be happy with that, LR has not yet agreed it - even when asked the question directly. It is also difficult to imagine how it would not be effectively a DR change for just one boat; an argument LR might press.

 

If popular opinion is to be beleived and ETNZ have a speed edge over LR (should know today), then LR potentially have a lot more to lose by giving AR and even break...

AR have had the benefit of observation of the merits of all AC72's on the track. There is a good chance that AR could come out of the shed and be quicker than LR in a reasonably short time.

AR were very impressive with their speed and almost immediate foiling on their AC45, I would be surprised if they don't match that with the AC72

 

I'm sure LR would love to at least make the LV final and they have the most to risk by giving AR a "leg up"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

 

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism.

 

Cheers,

 

Earl

 

Thanks for the clarification. At first glance then "Stabilizers" seems the appropriate term, however as their AOA is trim-able, albeit by pivoting the rudder stock, maybe they are a hybrid mash-up...

 

Elevizers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ as their AOA is trim-able

 

Just as a matter of interest, we know AR and OTUSA have used trimtabs, we know OTUSA has been moving their rudder stock with motors. Have ETNZ or LR had either of these 'adaptions'.

We know this how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

 

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism.

 

Cheers,

 

Earl

 

Thanks for the clarification. At first glance then "Stabilizers" seems the appropriate term, however as their AOA is trim-able, albeit by pivoting the rudder stock, maybe they are a hybrid mash-up...

 

Elevizers?

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move. But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move. But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

A "a much greater change"? How do you figure that? The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought I was going to look back at Ernesto and CNEV as examples of fairness and effective organization...

 

Thats bullshit, Evil Ernie was still way worse than this, not that I am at all happy with the current behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^+1

 

I cheered when OR cleaned up Alinghi and handed EB the reality check he sorely needed in the Court room and on the water.

 

Only another Billionaire like LE had the resources to take on a true tyrant and LE deserves credit for doing so.

 

 

 

I still think things can settle down and a fair event can occur.

 

As GD said, it's not the IJ ruling that's so important, it's what happens from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move. But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

A "a much greater change"? How do you figure that? The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?

 

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ as their AOA is trim-able

 

Just as a matter of interest, we know AR and OTUSA have used trimtabs, we know OTUSA has been moving their rudder stock with motors. Have ETNZ or LR had either of these 'adaptions'.

We know this how?

 

True, we (or I) don't know for sure.

 

I am just guessing based on OR's video of their operation. Others could be using entirely different systems, although I guess the options are fairly limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. At first glance then "Stabilizers" seems the appropriate term, however as their AOA is trim-able, albeit by pivoting the rudder stock, maybe they are a hybrid mash-up...

 

Elevizers?

No, it's "adjustable stabilizers" (google check). All civil jets have them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move. But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

A "a much greater change"? How do you figure that? The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?

 

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

Correct SWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your review of Barclay's release you overlooked his saying:

 

"A decision today by the International Jury upheld protests by Emirates Team New Zealand and Italy’s Luna Rossa Challenge that the Regatta Director alone could not change some of the regatta rules, even if he was acting in the best interests of all the sailors".

 

That's not at all what the jury decision said. It made no mention of in whose interests the Regatta Director was or wasn't acting.

 

Another deliberate Barclay attempt to confuse/mislead??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

 

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

 

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record

 

Yes he is either mentally unhinged or a paid troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move. But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

 

A "a much greater change"? How do you figure that? The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

Correct SWS.
Not true where it counts. Sure, the distance traveled at the bottom will be much greater than at the top, but the change in angle will remain constant at any point along the shaft. Proasailor got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Absent the politics, can anyone explain the ACEA presser yesterday?

 

The IJ ruled that IM can't use the MEP or other games to change the class rules without consent of all per the protocol.

It strikes me that dealing with ACRM/ACEA is a lot like dealing with the North Koreans.

 

The same kooky arrogance and blindness to reality, while the country goes down the tubes.

+1

 

post-23477-0-24429000-1373679720_thumb.jpgpost-23477-0-24429000-1373679720_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move. But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

A "a much greater change"? How do you figure that? The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

Correct SWS.
Not true where it counts. Sure, the distance traveled at the bottom will be much greater than at the top, but the change in angle will remain constant at any point along the shaft. Proasailor got it right.

 

Thank you! Think of it this way: the stabilizer is at a fixed angle relative to the rudder, say 90 degrees for example. If the rudder angle changes two degrees, the stabilizer is still fixed at 90 degrees relative to it, so it too will change two degrees, and this is true regardless of how far the stabilizer is from the pivot point. Or imagine a "ladder" of stabilizers, all fixed at 90 degrees to the rudder - they all remain parallel to each other and change at exactly the same angle.

 

Hey! How about two stabilizers on each rudder? :) Both with short chords and short spans. Probably a rule against that?

 

Speaking of the imbalanced load caused by asymmetrical rudders (this thread?), take a look at Coutts bouncing on the stabilizer at 4:12 in this video: http://vimeo.com/69710443

Pretty alarming flex, actually! Not that it will break, but I can imagine a severe twisting load induced by an asymmetric rudder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS I give up

 

and I read every post on this forum!!!

 

The more I read the more I am confused!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

 

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record

 

For goodness sake Stinger, just give up and admit you were wrong.

Not only did the rules state unambiguously that IM couldn't do what he did, but there was already a precedent set by the IJ when they rules in favour of ETNZ's training foils.

 

The vast majority of people here (including a very good proportion of Americans) understood that what IM tried to do was not only against the protocol, but was not an appropriate thing to do.

 

You are normally quite a different sort of poster from SWS, but this issue seems to have you whipped up into a lather.

 

SWS is still here trolling on about how ETNZ is anti-safety despite the fact that I could EASILY make OR much safer with a few thousand dollars worth of kit that would remain within the class rules.

The only conclusion I can therefore draw is that he is happy for OR to be safer as long as it doesn't compromise their speed.

 

So, step back from the keyboard, take a few deep breaths and return to normal service rather than being SWS' avatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 

It's eighth grade geometry - the angle of the dangle (rudder) plus 90 degrees is IDENTICAL to the angle of the elevator/stabilizer (+- whatever _fixed_ pitch the elevator/stabilizer/winglet was set at, relative to the rudder, when it was constructed).

 

from 2:06 in this video:

 

rudder_angle.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean - How can NZ/LR happen Sat without changing the MEP? If they race as is (with the 37 changes) then their rudders take them out of measurement with class rules, no? With 189 now pulled as directed by the IJ and the measurement committee directed back to original class rules NZ and LR have to go back to class legal rudders to measure in for Sat, no? And that makes them out of compliance with IM's 37 (they comply w 35 or 37 but not 37 of 37).

 

I agree that the MEP does not need to change prior to the race - USCG said as much - but I just don't see how any boat can comply with IMs 37 AND comply with class rules now that 189 is pulled.

 

What am I missing?

The Barclay statement is a disclaimer in intent and content, to safeguard their butts in case there's another PP and injury before there is any unanimous agreement on the Class Rule changes, because they now no longer have any control over the contentious changes to the Class Rules. As things stand, ALL 7 recommendations requiring changes to the Class Rules are no longer enforceable, hence the call for "voluntary compliance to Safety Rules". Except they can't race with rudders & elevators which were designed to comply with the Murray Class Rules.

 

The MEP is still valid, until the CG decides that the event is no longer safe because of the inability of the Sponsors (GGYC/ACRM) to comply with all the safety undertakings in their Safety Plan. In time, all the Competitors will revalidate the Class Rules changes they had already unanimously approved, and the contentious ones will be discarded. This then means that the AC72 Class Rules existing before Murray released his RN189 (this is red-lined amended Class Rules) are now in force.

 

1: CR 8,2 is back in force: no part of the rudder shall be less than 1m (illegally changed to 0.85m by RD) from the stern;

2: The Rudder "elevator" spans can now no longer extend beyond the beam - by necessity, this may result in asymmetric elevators or symmetric designs, as long as they don't extend beyond the beam.

3: No minimum elevator areas, because there were none specified in the original C/Rules. Competitors may approve minimum elevator areas previously recommended for "safety", or not;

4: Hand-holds and foot straps while illegal will probably stay on the boats, although personally I believe part of the competitiveness is the efficiency of crework: if a cremember is careless and goes overboard, tough titties!!

5: Max of 3 softsails back in force, including max weight allowed under CR Cl 26;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Clean - How can NZ/LR happen Sat without changing the MEP? If they race as is (with the 37 changes) then their rudders take them out of measurement with class rules, no? With 189 now pulled as directed by the IJ and the measurement committee directed back to original class rules NZ and LR have to go back to class legal rudders to measure in for Sat, no? And that makes them out of compliance with IM's 37 (they comply w 35 or 37 but not 37 of 37).

 

I agree that the MEP does not need to change prior to the race - USCG said as much - but I just don't see how any boat can comply with IMs 37 AND comply with class rules now that 189 is pulled.

 

What am I missing?

The Barclay statement is a disclaimer in intent and content, to safeguard their butts in case there's another PP and injury before there is any unanimous agreement on the Class Rule changes, because they now no longer have any control over the contentious changes to the Class Rules. As things stand, ALL 7 recommendations requiring changes to the Class Rules are no longer enforceable, hence the call for "voluntary compliance to Safety Rules". Except they can't race with rudders & elevators which were designed to comply with the Murray Class Rules.

 

The MEP is still valid, until the CG decides that the event is no longer safe because of the inability of the Sponsors (GGYC/ACRM) to comply with all the safety undertakings in their Safety Plan. In time, all the Competitors will revalidate the Class Rules changes they had already unanimously approved, and the contentious ones will be discarded. This then means that the AC72 Class Rules existing before Murray released his RN189 (this is red-lined amended Class Rules) are now in force.

 

1: CR 8,2 is back in force: no part of the rudder shall be less than 1m (illegally changed to 0.85m by RD) from the stern;

2: The Rudder "elevator" spans can now no longer extend beyond the beam - by necessity, this may result in asymmetric elevators or symmetric designs, as long as they don't extend beyond the beam.

3: No minimum elevator areas, because there were none specified in the original C/Rules. Competitors may approve minimum elevator areas previously recommended for "safety", or not;

4: Hand-holds and foot straps while illegal will probably stay on the boats, although personally I believe part of the competitiveness is the efficiency of crework: if a cremember is careless and goes overboard, tough titties!!

5: Max of 3 softsails back in force, including max weight allowed under CR Cl 26;

 

wehn you say 'comply with' dont you really mean 'fully exploite"

 

ETNZ and LR do comply currantly, supposably

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wuss will be happy

 

he gets to put really, really tiny stabs on OR's rudders so it will go really fast

 

and JS better learn to sail the thing flat

 

maybe he can try the NO system and watch videos of etnz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wuss will be happy

 

he gets to put really, really tiny stabs on OR's rudders so it will go really fast

 

and JS better learn to sail the thing flat

 

maybe he can try the NO system and watch videos of etnz

Jiminy doesn't agree with spending too much time on the water - he's said so!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind ruddergate, here comes uddergate.

 

For 155 years, farmers from all over the country have brought their dairy cattle to the Great Yorkshire Show in the hope of winning a prized rosette for Daisy.
cowRosette_2616522b.jpg
Size and shape, it seems, are everything when it comes to a prize dairy cow’s udder, and farmers are suspected of either using superglue to block up teats, making the udders fill up, or inflating them with air Photo: ALAMY

But the bucolic tranquillity of the nation’s premier agricultural show has been shattered this year by suspicions that farmers have cheated by tampering with — of all things — udders.

The results of the dairy cattle competitions have been suspended after vets carrying out ultrasound scans on two cows’ udders found anomalies which must be analysed to verify whether cheating has taken place.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/10177258/Mystery-of-superglued-udders-grips-farm-show.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 

It's eighth grade geometry - the angle of the dangle (rudder) plus 90 degrees is IDENTICAL to the angle of the elevator/stabilizer (+- whatever _fixed_ pitch the elevator/stabilizer/winglet was set at, relative to the rudder, when it was constructed).

 

from 2:06 in this video:

 

rudder_angle.png

 

 

This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued, but thanks, that was my understanding from the outset, I probably didn't express it well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

 

I am not sure that is correct.

 

The RD's job is to run a fair and safe regatta.

 

The RD's job is not to run a regatta for all 4 boats.

 

The RD, by his own admission, endorses that LR/ET are safe under old / new rules.

 

The RD can go back to the CG with an amended 35 point safety plan and the caveat that the MEP only covers ET / LR.

 

The CG will grant an MEP under these conditions, being as the 2 removed safety recommendations made no difference to ET / LR.

 

Once Or / AR have demonstrated they are safe under the rules to the RD, he can go back to the CG and amend the MEP.

 

 

 

The AC is very much a design competition and the RD can hardly cancel the event because in his opinion 50% of the fleet have designed boats that aren't safe!! No he must run the event for the 50% of the fleet that have brought along a safe design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 

It's eighth grade geometry - the angle of the dangle (rudder) plus 90 degrees is IDENTICAL to the angle of the elevator/stabilizer (+- whatever _fixed_ pitch the elevator/stabilizer/winglet was set at, relative to the rudder, when it was constructed).

 

from 2:06 in this video:

 

rudder_angle.png

 

 

This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued, but thanks, that was my understanding from the outset, I probably didn't express it well.

 

Oh no, sorry! You expressed it fine, I was agreeing with you. Just elaborating for the benefit of those who believed otherwise. It was me who perhaps didn't say it very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

 

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

 

 

Rewriting history again SR - just as you tried to do for months with ETNZ appeal to the IJ over MC's foil (mis-) interpretation, not to mention your heroic efforts over the last weeks!

 

Why don't we just make it a truism of 34th AC that ETNZ cause all the problems - and then get lucky in front of the IJ. Happy with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 

This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued.......

 

You can say that again!

 

Now back to my question. Yes we know what OTUSA is/were doing with their 'motors', are ETNZ/LR moving their fixed stabilisers via the bearings/rudderstocks? What makes you think they are/need to/would benefit from?

 

Come to think of it someone said GD? had discussed how they would be 'fixed' for the MC prior to racing. I guess you could take that as an indication they had something to 'fix' - then agian they may have been talking about their competitors :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

 

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

 

 

Rewriting history again SR - just as you tried to do for months with ETNZ appeal to the IJ over MC's foil (mis-) interpretation, not to mention your heroic efforts over the last weeks!

 

Why don't we just make it a truism of 34th AC that ETNZ cause all the problems - and then get lucky in front of the IJ. Happy with that?

 

Rewriting history? Oh gee, there it is. I even remembered the '163' correctly. Para's 163 to 167 do address the question and 165 gets especially nit-picky.

 

IS THE COAST GUARD PERMIT A LAW OR REGULATION UNDER ARTICLE 16?

 

163. There was considerable debate amongst the Parties as to whether the conditions of

the Marine Event Permit in including the Safety Recommendations amounted to 'laws and regulations' in relation to Protocol Article 16.

 

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

 

As to the rest? Take a flying fuck, nav ;) What you claim is hardly gospel either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a little bizarre when you say the issue was "nitpicky" when it was the crux of the entire matter and the focus of most of the deliberations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, maybe nitpicky is not the best description; but agreed on the rest, which was my point too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

 

I am not sure that is correct.

 

The RD's job is to run a fair and safe regatta.

 

The RD's job is not to run a regatta for all 4 boats.

 

The RD, by his own admission, endorses that LR/ET are safe under old / new rules.

 

The RD can go back to the CG with an amended 35 point safety plan and the caveat that the MEP only covers ET / LR.

 

The CG will grant an MEP under these conditions, being as the 2 removed safety recommendations made no difference to ET / LR.

 

Once Or / AR have demonstrated they are safe under the rules to the RD, he can go back to the CG and amend the MEP.

 

 

 

The AC is very much a design competition and the RD can hardly cancel the event because in his opinion 50% of the fleet have designed boats that aren't safe!! No he must run the event for the 50% of the fleet that have brought along a safe design.

word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, maybe nitpicky is not the best description; but agreed on the rest, which was my point too.

your boys got schooled by the ij mate. live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

 

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

 

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

<<<yawn!!>>> have that South African village caught up with you yet?? You're trying waaayy too hard to fit in: you'll never become one of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

 

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

drop the hatchet man. your side wrote the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

 

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

Same poodle, same master. Perhaps you should have kept Oronato ? -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's too much unnecessary conjecture above, I had to skip most of it after I read this correct, complete and absolute explanation.

 

Read it carefully, it leaves no room for doubt. Anything not discussed in this explanation is irrelevant. If events transpired differently this description would be the one the upheld in a court of law.

 

Summary: you can comply with both but you can't utilise the maximum allowances in the Recommendations because you're limited to the maximums in the Rules.

It's just a question of logic really...

 

The MEP has an attachment of 17 recommendations which include 2 that relate to design rules:

 

1. Maximum weight increased by 500 Kg

2. New Rudder rules (symmetric etc) whhich was later modified such that the original rules were re-instated (asymetric etc).

 

The IJ ruled that these 2 were not to be considered design rules. In effect this means that the recommendations are just that - recommendations.

 

Therefore, to comply a boat would need to weigh less or equal to the class rule and therefore complies with 1 above (which is a maximum, not a minimum); and that it must comply with the original rudder rules and will therefore also comply with the modified recommendation 2 above.

 

Therefore, ET and LR that we know of, comply with all 17 recommendations. QED

 

The other two boats may or may not have problems with the design rules which they must comply while also complying with all 17 recommendations.

 

The net effect is that the 17 recommendations re-inforce the design rules in question, not change them! What causes the confusion is that some parts of the recommendations cannot not be complied with within the design rules, but they remain only recommendations!

 

Thus ACEA or whomever can state to the CG that the 17 recommendations can stay and that at least half the fleet already comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

....

 

Reg changes benefiting Oracle is arguable, meaining resonable people could disagree on weather or not Oracle might be signicantly advantaged by the change (weather that was the intent is irelavent)

 

You seem to be saying that becos it is knot currantly knowabel, ETNZ should have shut up and sat on their hands until it was knowabel - as eventualy it probly will be.

 

At the AmCup award seremony, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 

This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued.......

 

You can say that again!

 

Now back to my question. Yes we know what OTUSA is/were doing with their 'motors', are ETNZ/LR moving their fixed stabilisers via the bearings/rudderstocks? What makes you think they are/need to/would benefit from?

 

Come to think of it someone said GD? had discussed how they would be 'fixed' for the MC prior to racing. I guess you could take that as an indication they had something to 'fix' - then agian they may have been talking about their competitors :)

 

 

presumably? etnz - LR have had a similar system from day one

 

i don't think we've seen any elevators/trim tabs on any of their hori-stabs

 

both OR and AR started with movable elevators rather than upper rudder stock adjust, probably as their designs were not conceived as foilers from the drawing board

 

OR appear to have taken the PP repair downtime to change from an elevator system to a rudder tilt system

 

AR just have never been up to speed in this design game and even with the longest lead time appear to have missed the chance to build rudder-tilt into big blue

 

which is going to make their 1-week? launch, tweak, race plans even harder

 

if that 5min finishing rule doesn't get changed AR may never get a point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's too much unnecessary conjecture above, I had to skip most of it after I read this correct, complete and absolute explanation.

 

Read it carefully, it leaves no room for doubt. Anything not discussed in this explanation is irrelevant. If events transpired differently this description would be the one the upheld in a court of law.

 

Summary: you can comply with both but you can't utilise the maximum allowances in the Recommendations because you're limited to the maximums in the Rules.

 

It's just a question of logic really...

 

The MEP has an attachment of 17 recommendations which include 2 that relate to design rules:

 

1. Maximum weight increased by 500 Kg

2. New Rudder rules (symmetric etc) whhich was later modified such that the original rules were re-instated (asymetric etc).

 

The IJ ruled that these 2 were not to be considered design rules. In effect this means that the recommendations are just that - recommendations.

 

Therefore, to comply a boat would need to weigh less or equal to the class rule and therefore complies with 1 above (which is a maximum, not a minimum); and that it must comply with the original rudder rules and will therefore also comply with the modified recommendation 2 above.

 

Therefore, ET and LR that we know of, comply with all 17 recommendations. QED

 

The other two boats may or may not have problems with the design rules which they must comply while also complying with all 17 recommendations.

 

The net effect is that the 17 recommendations re-inforce the design rules in question, not change them! What causes the confusion is that some parts of the recommendations cannot not be complied with within the design rules, but they remain only recommendations!

 

Thus ACEA or whomever can state to the CG that the 17 recommendations can stay and that at least half the fleet already comply.

 

You are joking I hope? ^ More wrong than right

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites