Archived

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

Pesky's Pole

Mapfre docked 2 points for altering yacht

Recommended Posts

Dumb asses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion started off under the "Sails" thread

Tunnel Rat, on 17 Apr 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:snapback.png

Mapre have been penalised by two points for not informing the VCA about the repairs to the outrigger and the battens in the bow!

 

http://www.volvoocea...tj-20150416.pdf

 

Do you think Iker will be happy?

 

Nothing yet on the other cases which are Vestas Wind application to use the Pre-Race J3, Dong's request to use the Pre-Race main and SCA request to use a Pre-Race FR0

Interesting.

Seem to be very serious infringements of multiple rules and seemingly, if fixing the battens to the hull was deemed not necessary repairs by the jury they can only have been done to make the boat different and stronger than all the others. If they used spare battens whch they would otherwise have carried, this strengthing was done without even adding weight.
Questions that will raise, (see items 3 and 4 of the conclusions).

1) Will Mapfre have to be converted back to one-design and have the extra longitudinals removed before the next races? Surely the other competitors must protest if they are not sailing against an equal boat.

2) How come Mapfre is not disqualified? or at least dsq from the last leg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the Boat Yard had already removed the battens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2) How come Mapfre is not disqualified? or at least dsq from the last leg?

 

 

 

Check out Conclusion #5. The jury concluded it wasn't with the intent to improve performance... which I guess is why they didn't go all the way to DSQ. Although I agree with your rationale for thinking based on #'s 3 and 4 that it must have been done to make the boat better. And it's hard to say a racing boat is made better without saying you improved its performance. So there's a paradox in the conclusions.

 

Which leads me to think they started with the punishment ("this seems like something we should dock them 2 points for") and then wrote conclusions to support that punishment... partly because no one on Mapfre was going to ever actually SAY they did it to improve performance and no one could directly prove that they did it for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the logic of the jury but this is becoming more like the Olympic games than a round the world race where traditionnaly crew needs boat fixing/tweaking capabilities. It goes away from rewarding seamanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Mapfre speaks up.........

 

http://desafiomapfre.com/xabi-es-una-penalizacion-desmedida-para-una-falta-puramente-administrativa/

 

This morning has published the resolution of a protest Race Committee to the Spanish team for not asking permission to perform the repairs -a an outrigger (outrigger) and another from the bow, carried on board during the last fifth stage, the hardest and set in the Southern Ocean.
The rule of the Volvo Ocean 65 class requires that if a team consider making a repair must immediately inform the Authority of the Volvo Ocean Class 65 (VCA). Following the report of a meter, Jack Lloyd, director of regata-, presented the protest to understand that the Spanish team did not report on time and in the form required for both repairs. However, the International Jury has recognized in its report that repairs performed by the "MAPFRE" were not made with the intention of improving the performance of the boat. And in fact did not increase speed but quite the opposite.
As explained by the pattern of the next stage, Xabi Fernández, at the press conference of patterns that was held this morning in Itajaí (noon in Spain), "It has been a hard day and quite complicated for us. First, in the previous stage we fought hard, as we always do. We had good conditions in the Southern Ocean, but of course with strong winds and always having to drive to the fullest, because the other teams do too. But I also believe that one of the things we did was to maintain the safety, boat and crew, provided the latter above all. When we have problems on board or thought we could have them, we have to face them and find a solution soon. "
"We as offshore sailors, we have the experience and the obligation to deal with problems as they come avoiding unnecessary risks, and that I think is an added value that we have as a team and all offshore sailors. From experience, at the expense of many problems and lost points in the past, learn and are more prepared, "said Xabi.
"I believe we acted properly, gave solution to two problems we had on board, reduced risk and would do it a thousand times. I stress that results from being well prepared and experienced, as we were well prepared if you had to make an emergency stop in Ushuaia (Argentina), since in the last three or four times we have been there we have always had problems and so we had to part of the ground crew on standby ready and waiting in Ushuaia with all materials ready to repair. "
That said, Fernandez said on behalf of his team to consider "totally excessive for possible administrative offense we have committed" penalty and added that "we will try to reverse our team advisers to try to take back these two points they have taken from us. "
"As you know we are finishing stages all close together, four vessels in an hour last time. We fought a lot for a point to lose now two points in this way, it is too much and is completely out of action ", has ruled the Basque Olympic champion.
"We take note of these bureaucratic issues for the future, but we disagree with the solution you have given to this. We will continue fighting hard, though of course lose two points in the overall mean much, "concluded Xabi Fernández.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems a self inflicted wound if ever there was one (ok, Vestas, but lets skip that).

If you see one of the bits is wrong, or about to go wrong, break, explode, etc. you can either

1.Call it in and ask for a judgement call/blessing to fix it from Race Authority or

2. fix it, and call it in or

3. let it break, then call it in.

 

Under all three scenarios, calling it in seems like the no brainer.

By contrast, NOT calling it in, makes you look bad and conspiracy theorists run the show from there.

They are being spanked for not calling it in.

Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couchsurfer wrote.... "the Spanish team did not report on time and in the form required for both repairs. However, the International Jury has recognized in its report that repairs performed by the "MAPFRE" were not made with the intention of improving the performance of the boat. And in fact did not increase speed but quite the opposite."

 

OK THAT makes me nervous.

Either they reported it- or they didn't.

If these guys are getting shanked because they didn't fill out the right form, that is BS.

If they didn't report it AT ALL, its on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

......^^....that comment's a quote of Mapfre. Quite on the contrary,,,I think although the 'repair' didn't speed up the boat,,,it's sole function was to give the crew added confidence in their ability to push the boat. I don't blame them a bit for this after their last experience,,,but also see how it would make a substantive difference on how much they're willing to -push- things :mellow:

 

it sounds like the only 'report' was the video we all saw...not a word ahead of time to the organizers

 

...from Volvo..........http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/news/8761_The-jury-decides.html

 

The Spanish team MAPFRE were given a two-point penalty on Thursday by the ISAF-appointed independent jury for rules breaches during Leg 5 of the Volvo Ocean Race.

After hearing evidence from Race Management and the team on Wednesday, the jury, headed by Bernard Bonneau, ruled that the Spanish team had applied repairs and alterations on the hull and on an outrigger without informing the Volvo Ocean 65 Class Authority (VCA) and therefore broke the Volvo Ocean 65 class rules as well as the race rules.

The Volvo Ocean 65 class rules require that if a team considers that a repair is necessary, it shall inform the VCA immediately.

Bonneau added that the five-strong jury had decided that the work was not done with the purpose of improving the performance of the Spanish team during Leg 5 and their second place in the stage stands.

The ruling, however, means that their overall points total is now 20 after five legs and they thus drop from fourth to fifth in the standings.

The team had earlier argued in the hearing through their rules advisor, Luis Sáenz Mariscal, that in both cases with their bow and outrigger, skipper Iker Martínez had made the reinforcements because of fears that both were damaged.

Sáenz Mariscal added that the outrigger had broken on previous occasions in the race and the crew had heard a bang from the bow and feared it was delaminating.

He said that in Southern Ocean conditions, Martínez feared that the boat and crew were in danger if the measures were not taken. He said the crew had not informed the VCA, but had openly shared video content showing repairs to Race Control in Alicante, Spain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

....I have to admit to wondering WTF?! when I saw this repair....relatively early in the leg,,,,way too minor if there's an actual structural issue :wacko: I can only think it would allow a bit more confidence to push harder, but overall it's likely a bit of PTSD from the crew's last terrifying experience. :mellow: I don't blame them.

 

The story behind @desafioMAPFRE loosing 2 points for rule infringements: http://bit.ly/the-jury-decides #VOR

CCz33SIWgAIDME-.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couchsurfer wrote.... "the Spanish team did not report on time and in the form required for both repairs. However, the International Jury has recognized in its report that repairs performed by the "MAPFRE" were not made with the intention of improving the performance of the boat. And in fact did not increase speed but quite the opposite."

 

OK THAT makes me nervous.

Either they reported it- or they didn't.

If these guys are getting shanked because they didn't fill out the right form, that is BS.

If they didn't report it AT ALL, its on them.

Any one paying attention to the daily feeds or the various episodes saw what they were doing with the battens. They did a whole segment showing Iker Martinez up forward with his miner light on and glue gun and battens in hand. They told the whole world what they were doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Couchsurfer wrote.... "the Spanish team did not report on time and in the form required for both repairs. However, the International Jury has recognized in its report that repairs performed by the "MAPFRE" were not made with the intention of improving the performance of the boat. And in fact did not increase speed but quite the opposite."

 

OK THAT makes me nervous.

Either they reported it- or they didn't.

If these guys are getting shanked because they didn't fill out the right form, that is BS.

If they didn't report it AT ALL, its on them.

Any one paying attention to the daily feeds or the various episodes saw what they were doing with the battens. They did a whole segment showing Iker Martinez up forward with his miner light on and glue gun and battens in hand. They told the whole world what they were doing.

 

 

 

I think the point is that you're meant to ask before you do a repair....

......especially since there was nothing critical going on. :mellow:

 

 

 

....makes me wonder what other strict OD's these lads have sailed :rolleyes: .....

"We've been penalised for an administrative problem & we're losing 2 pts" - Xabi Fernández, @desafioMAPFRE #VOR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any details on the bow delamination? Did it actually delaminate? I've got my doubts they went through the trouble of putting battens in that area and getting ground crew on standby in Ushuaia if there wasn't a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any details on the bow delamination? Did it actually delaminate? I've got my doubts they went through the trouble of putting battens in that area and getting ground crew on standby in Ushuaia if there wasn't a problem.

 

 

...methinks it's PTSD from last round...it would be terrifying to have had that going on. The slightest groan and I know I'd be back in Auckland :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any details on the bow delamination? Did it actually delaminate? I've got my doubts they went through the trouble of putting battens in that area and getting ground crew on standby in Ushuaia if there wasn't a problem.

 

They did it as a prophylactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...sounds like Iker's away. I wonder if this was his call? :unsure:

....http://desafiomapfre.com/en/xabi-a-disproportionate-penalty-for-a-simple-administrative-error/

 

 

The resolution of a protest made by the Regatta Committee to the Spanish team for not asking for permission before undertaking repairs to an outrigger, and another to the bow, during the fifth and toughest leg of the race in the Southern Ocean, was published this morning.

The Volvo Ocean 65 class rule requires a team to immediately inform the Volvo Ocean 65 Class Authority (VCA) if a team considers a repair necessary. A report from one of the measurer’s Jack Lloyd (Race Director) led to the presentation of the protest which upholds that the Spanish team did not provide sufficient notice in the manner required about both their repairs. However, the International Jury has recognised in their report that the repairs undertaken by MAPFRE were not made to improve the performance of their boat. In fact they did not increase the boat speed, quite the contrary.

As Skipper of the next leg of the race Xabi Fernández explained in the skippers press conference, held this morning in Itajaí (midday in Spain), “it has been a tough day and quite a complicated one for us. Firstly, in the last leg we fought really hard, as we always have done. We had good conditions in the Southern Ocean but naturally with strong winds, and we had to push to the limit as the rest of the teams were doing the same. But I also think that we kept our safety paramount: that of the boat and the crew above everything else. When we have problems on board or we think we might have, we need to deal with them and find an immediate solution.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bow was ultrasounded on arrival in Itajai and there was not sign of delam or core sheer failure. The only thing that needed doing was the battens removed and the paint touched up. The other issue was that the reinforcement made to the outrigger was nowhere near where the outrigger had broken and been repaired. The simple solution to not breaking the outriggers is to use then in the range they are designed to be used within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple facts as presented are that they modified the boat with the motive of making it stronger because they were worried it would break up if they sailed it fast in the southerm ocean! If they (rightly or wrongly) thought it was not strong enough and had not modified it one can only assume they would have been too scared to sail it fast and would have finished with a worse position. If they were worried, they always had the option to sail slower.

If it is really proved the boat had no structural issues, then more fool them. but they should be disqualified, at least from that leg. It is supposed to be a one design race and you don't modify a one-design boat in the middle of a race leg to make you more confident to sail it faster than the other guys can!

I can imagine that with only 6 boats left racing, VOR is not too keen to disqualify or greatly upset any team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of part of the whole one design deal. See a way to improve shape of sail, dock points. Repair something broken, dock points. Used the wrong sandpaper, dock points.

 

One hand shakes the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2) How come Mapfre is not disqualified? or at least dsq from the last leg?

 

 

 

Check out Conclusion #5. The jury concluded it wasn't with the intent to improve performance... which I guess is why they didn't go all the way to DSQ. Although I agree with your rationale for thinking based on #'s 3 and 4 that it must have been done to make the boat better. And it's hard to say a racing boat is made better without saying you improved its performance. So there's a paradox in the conclusions.

 

Which leads me to think they started with the punishment ("this seems like something we should dock them 2 points for") and then wrote conclusions to support that punishment... partly because no one on Mapfre was going to ever actually SAY they did it to improve performance and no one could directly prove that they did it for that reason.

 

Yeah, conclusion 5 is just plain ridiculous. Why do all that work if there is you do not perceive any benefit for you from it? Totally defies all logic.

 

However I now expect logic defying decisions. SCA sail request denied, DF sail request allowed????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple facts as presented are that they modified the boat with the motive of making it stronger because they were worried it would break up if they sailed it fast in the southerm ocean! If they (rightly or wrongly) thought it was not strong enough and had not modified it one can only assume they would have been too scared to sail it fast and would have finished with a worse position. If they were worried, they always had the option to sail slower.

 

If it is really proved the boat had no structural issues, then more fool them. but they should be disqualified, at least from that leg. It is supposed to be a one design race and you don't modify a one-design boat in the middle of a race leg to make you more confident to sail it faster than the other guys can!

 

I can imagine that with only 6 boats left racing, VOR is not too keen to disqualify or greatly upset any team!

 

 

I understand the team being paranoid,,but certainly agree the modification would have allowed them to push the boat. As far as the penalty goes, I think it was reasonable and substantial in this close race

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The simple facts as presented are that they modified the boat with the motive of making it stronger because they were worried it would break up if they sailed it fast in the southerm ocean! If they (rightly or wrongly) thought it was not strong enough and had not modified it one can only assume they would have been too scared to sail it fast and would have finished with a worse position. If they were worried, they always had the option to sail slower.

 

If it is really proved the boat had no structural issues, then more fool them. but they should be disqualified, at least from that leg. It is supposed to be a one design race and you don't modify a one-design boat in the middle of a race leg to make you more confident to sail it faster than the other guys can!

 

I can imagine that with only 6 boats left racing, VOR is not too keen to disqualify or greatly upset any team!

 

 

I understand the team being paranoid,,but certainly agree the modification would have allowed them to push the boat. As far as the penalty goes, I think it was reasonable and substantial in this close race

 

So lets bolt on a foil! Only a 2 point penalty. Still one-design!

 

VOR Rules OK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's a pretty full account from jury and Gabbe....

 

Didn't quite follow that jury guy's reasoning when he moved from "normally disqualification" to "we decided 1 point for that"!

 

Beggars belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Couch for tracking down more of the info.

 

Speculation aside, bottom line is that MAPF penalized 2 points for not following proper procedure in reporting the repair they reported via video, and not reporting the outrigger repair.

 

They sailed a fine leg, and were well prepared for contingencies (DF got the most benefit there).

 

Sounds like they were penalized for contempt of court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody got any news about mapfres mast? They got it down yesterday and it is still under some work. Word is that there's a bar thr links the 2nd spreaders that keeps breaking, and nobody nows why... They didn't sail today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody got any news about mapfres mast? They got it down yesterday and it is still under some work. Word is that there's a bar thr links the 2nd spreaders that keeps breaking, and nobody nows why... They didn't sail today

 

...thought there was a twitter that mentioned something,,but I thought it was old,,,can't find it now.

 

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of masts yet :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Couch for tracking down more of the info.

 

Speculation aside, bottom line is that MAPF penalized 2 points for not following proper procedure in reporting the repair they reported via video, and not reporting the outrigger repair.

 

They sailed a fine leg, and were well prepared for contingencies (DF got the most benefit there).

 

Sounds like they were penalized for contempt of court.

Am I correct that MAPF prepared for these modifications in NZ without telling anyone or getting permission? If that's the case then the bottom line isn't ~just~ one of reporting. Not that either mod looks outrageously evil but EAFP can backfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I correct that MAPF prepared for these modifications in NZ without telling anyone or getting permission? If that's the case then the bottom line isn't ~just~ one of reporting. Not that either mod looks outrageously evil but EAFP can backfire.

 

 

 

...not sure,,,but the strange thing is,those 3 strips would have done little to nothing if they were actually needed! :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Couch for tracking down more of the info.

 

Speculation aside, bottom line is that MAPF penalized 2 points for not following proper procedure in reporting the repair they reported via video, and not reporting the outrigger repair.

 

They sailed a fine leg, and were well prepared for contingencies (DF got the most benefit there).

 

Sounds like they were penalized for contempt of court.

Am I correct that MAPF prepared for these modifications in NZ without telling anyone or getting permission? If that's the case then the bottom line isn't ~just~ one of reporting. Not that either mod looks outrageously evil but EAFP can backfire.

 

 

MAPF recorded and informed Race Control, but only "published" one, so not sure they "didn't tell anyone" (see fact 7), but they did prepare the battens in Auckland (Fact 5 below)

Facts Found

1. During Leg 5, MAPFRE repaired outrigger broken close to the attachment point to the hull. It was also modified by the addition of a strengthening splint approximately one metre long.

2. MAFRE did not inform the VCA before, at the time, or as soon as possible after the repair and reinforcement of the outrigger.

3. During leg 5, on March 22nd, MAPFRE glued and bolted 6 battens to the inside skin of the boat. The battens were placed longitudinally within the area formed by the forward ballast tank, Bulkhead A and Bulkhead B.

4. MAPFRE did not inform the VCA before or at the time or as soon as possible after the reinforcement of the hull.

5. The battens had been prepared during stopover in Auckland, prior to the start of leg 5, as part of a plan of a possible repair during the leg.

6. Prior to the start of leg 5, MAPFRE did not inform the VCA that it was considered that repairs may be necessary during the leg.

7. MAPFRE recorded both repairs and informed Race Control, but only the reinforcement of the hull was published by the Organizing Authority.

Conclusion

1. By failing to inform the VCA that it was considered that repairs may be necessary on the hull during leg 5, MAPFRE broke VO65 Class Rule C7.1.(k)

http://www.volvooceanrace.com/static/assets/content_v2/media/files/m38349_protest-decision-8-itj-20150416.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

MAPF recorded and informed Race Control, but only "published" one, so not sure they "didn't tell anyone" (see fact 7), but they did prepare the battens in Auckland (Fact 5 below)

Facts Found

...

5. The battens had been prepared during stopover in Auckland, prior to the start of leg 5, as part of a plan of a possible repair during the leg.

6. Prior to the start of leg 5, MAPFRE did not inform the VCA that it was considered that repairs may be necessary during the leg.

7. MAPFRE recorded both repairs and informed Race Control, but only the reinforcement of the hull was published by the Organizing Authority.

http://www.volvooceanrace.com/static/assets/content_v2/media/files/m38349_protest-decision-8-itj-20150416.pdf

 

Thanks for the link. Why are you "not sure they 'didn't tell anyone'"? Finding 6 states that they didn't inform VCA of the plan to modify the boat when they prepared for it in NZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They sent VOR HQ a video, but didn't email the VCA, apparently. VOR were happy to use the video but apparently that ain't 'informing'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

MAPF recorded and informed Race Control, but only "published" one, so not sure they "didn't tell anyone" (see fact 7), but they did prepare the battens in Auckland (Fact 5 below)

Facts Found

...

5. The battens had been prepared during stopover in Auckland, prior to the start of leg 5, as part of a plan of a possible repair during the leg.

6. Prior to the start of leg 5, MAPFRE did not inform the VCA that it was considered that repairs may be necessary during the leg.

7. MAPFRE recorded both repairs and informed Race Control, but only the reinforcement of the hull was published by the Organizing Authority.

http://www.volvooceanrace.com/static/assets/content_v2/media/files/m38349_protest-decision-8-itj-20150416.pdf

 

Thanks for the link. Why are you "not sure they 'didn't tell anyone'"? Finding 6 states that they didn't inform VCA of the plan to modify the boat when they prepared for it in NZ.

 

Finding 7 confuses me. They informed Race Control, but not the VCA, so they told "someone". We now know the Jury decided informing Race Control wasn't enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules say they must inform VCA. More so, they must seek permission. What part of that didn't they understand? The VCA is not the race office. This is quite clear, and any professional team will understand this, and understand why. Sending a video to the media desk is not informing the class authority for the VO65. And it most certainly is not a method of seeking permission to effect repairs for non-existent damage.

 

This sounds a great deal like the adage that it is easier to seek forgiveness than it is to seek permission. The boat was not, at the time the modifications were performed, or ever, damaged. So there was never any need to perform repairs. Had they applied to the VCA for permission to perform the modifications they would have been refused. They would have known this. Had they asked for permission to modify, and been refused, and then performed them anyway, that would have warranted a DSQ with about 5 seconds deliberation time. So they actually got off lightly by not asking in the first place.

 

The whole thing is just plain stupid. They clearly planned ahead of time to perform the modifications, must have known they were illegal, and hoped that they would get away with it. Not in the least bit smart. This comes under the heading of "What the hell were they thinking?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is just plain stupid. They clearly planned ahead of time to perform the modifications, must have known they were illegal, and hoped that they would get away with it. Not in the least bit smart. This comes under the heading of "What the hell were they thinking?"

+1

 

It also comes under the heading of "shouldn't happen at this level."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever.

 

Quick poll: Who did not cringe when MAPFRE published the bow repair videos?

After all the discussion about strict OD in the VOR it was bloody obvious that it would come under scrutiny. That they did not notify the various authorities as they were required to, and that apparently no damage was found in the bow area certainly does not help their case.

I have much fewer problems with this ruling than with the replacement sail decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever.

 

Quick poll: Who did not cringe when MAPFRE published the bow repair videos?

After all the discussion about strict OD in the VOR it was bloody obvious that it would come under scrutiny. That they did not notify the various authorities as they were required to, and that apparently no damage was found in the bow area certainly does not help their case.

I have much fewer problems with this ruling than with the replacement sail decisions.

 

 

agree. Was thinking this was a hit and run by Iker who's away again,,,but it seems that all team plus shore team must have had the idea the mod was going to happen.... astounding. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volvo quickly losing all credibility.

So you prepare a certain contingency at sea by taking spare parts. Good seamanship so far.

You break boat you repair with materials you had the forsight to take with you. Good seamanship again.

You lose two points. Wtf

Mr marketing manager at Volvo when your sales nos in Australia are down this year at least you know why you are down one new v40 order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volvo quickly losing all credibility.

So you prepare a certain contingency at sea by taking spare parts. Good seamanship so far.

You break boat you repair with materials you had the forsight to take with you. Good seamanship again.

You lose two points. Wtf

Mr marketing manager at Volvo when your sales nos in Australia are down this year at least you know why you are down one new v40 order.

Yep, it is still ocean race not a dinghy race.

If shit hits the fan then you are alone in the ocean. RIB don't pick you up in 2minutes.

 

Jury is right that they didn't inform correctly, but penalty is quite rough for it.

 

Let sailors race, not lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volvo quickly losing all credibility.

So you prepare a certain contingency at sea by taking spare parts. Good seamanship so far.

You break boat you repair with materials you had the forsight to take with you. Good seamanship again.

You lose two points. Wtf

Mr marketing manager at Volvo when your sales nos in Australia are down this year at least you know why you are down one new v40 order.

I think the point is that they hadn't actually broken the boat at all.

 

No damage to the bow was found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Volvo quickly losing all credibility.

So you prepare a certain contingency at sea by taking spare parts. Good seamanship so far.

You break boat you repair with materials you had the forsight to take with you. Good seamanship again.

You lose two points. Wtf

Mr marketing manager at Volvo when your sales nos in Australia are down this year at least you know why you are down one new v40 order.

Yep, it is still ocean race not a dinghy race.

If shit hits the fan then you are alone in the ocean. RIB don't pick you up in 2minutes.

 

Jury is right that they didn't inform correctly, but penalty is quite rough for it.

 

Let sailors race, not lawyers.

 

What would you suggest as an appropriate penalty for a team that premeditates a strengthening strategy ashore, and affects it at sea, even though there was no reason to do the work (it cannot be a repair as there was no damage)?

If it didn't give them an actual performance advantage, it would have given them a psychological one.

 

And, why wouldn't they just notify the appropriate authorities?

 

I suspect the "lawyers" were consulted when the battens were prepared ashore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the jury came to a good desicion, perhaps a bit lenient even. Sure, if they had actually broken the boat, things may have been a bit different. But they simply reinforced the bow because they were "scared". In their video they didn't even seem concerned, they were just reinforcing the bow to be able to press harder.

 

Seems like they only gets punished for not asking permission to repair, not so much for modifying the boat outside the classrule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only was there no damage, the crew never even thought there was damage, or claimed they had repaired any damage. Right from the start this was a premeditated modification to the boat structure that made it stronger than the other boats they were racing against, in a one design class. He is very lucky not to get a DSQ. There is zero element of seamanship in this.

 

It is no different to Iker turning up to the next Olympics with his Nacra 17, and deciding that since the weather is pretty knarly he will bind a few bits of carbon to the beams to avoid breaking the boat when he pushes really hard. One can imagine just how dim a view the Olympic organisers would take of such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone remember a certain boat in the last VOR that pushed the interpretation of the rules with respect to a certain storm jib stay sail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone remember a certain boat in the last VOR that pushed the interpretation of the rules with respect to a certain storm jib stay sail?

 

Well that time they sought interpretation, and even though the advice given was later rendered invalid, they did stick to the process, and thus got away with it. So the real fault was with the VOR, which they admitted. Perhaps this experience gave Iker the idea that the rules were rather more flexible than they are. Now he knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyone remember a certain boat in the last VOR that pushed the interpretation of the rules with respect to a certain storm jib stay sail?

 

Well that time they sought interpretation, and even though the advice given was later rendered invalid, they did stick to the process, and thus got away with it. So the real fault was with the VOR, which they admitted. Perhaps this experience gave Iker the idea that the rules were rather more flexible than they are. Now he knows.

 

I remember. I think they're making him pay this time for that. Good on Alvi (and the others) for staying out of it. Nico's reaction then impressed me more than Kenny's.

 

Protests like these that resort to fine print are for AC fans and ghouls, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Any details on the bow delamination? Did it actually delaminate? I've got my doubts they went through the trouble of putting battens in that area and getting ground crew on standby in Ushuaia if there wasn't a problem.

 

They did it as a prophylactic.

 

 

Then that is highly illegal. End of story. What part of OD did they not get?

 

 

Do you have ultrasound equipment available in the southern ocean?

 

2012 Telefonica (skippered by Iker) limped to Ushuaia to fix delamination.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/boating/6650989/Telefonica-detour-to-Argentina-for-repairs

 

They probably tried to avoid same situation.

You must be really stubborn to NOT to do anything to avoid same pitstop in Ushuaia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Any details on the bow delamination? Did it actually delaminate? I've got my doubts they went through the trouble of putting battens in that area and getting ground crew on standby in Ushuaia if there wasn't a problem.

 

They did it as a prophylactic.

 

 

Then that is highly illegal. End of story. What part of OD did they not get?

 

 

Agreed. It's hard not to see this as an indictment of Iker, frankly. It is his job to know the rules. And while he may have PTSD from the Telefonica run last addition, he should have known the notification requirements. The irony is that we all saw it in near real time (bravo Volvo media operation - truly), but as JBSF points out, OD rules are rules. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then that is highly illegal. End of story. What part of OD did they not get?

Agreed. It's hard not to see this as an indictment of Iker, frankly. It is his job to know the rules. And while he may have PTSD from the Telefonica run last addition, he should have known the notification requirements. The irony is that we all saw it in near real time (bravo Volvo media operation - truly), but as JBSF points out, OD rules are rules. Period.

 

Yeah, it may even be a little worse than that. It appears that they believed that they had identified a flaw in the design before they started the leg. Then they developed a plan and produced parts ahead of time to modify the boat under way and didn't inform the fleet or the VOR. So, it looks like a conspiracy to modify their OD boat to specific advantage. That they applied the fix before there was damage makes it really hard to justify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Then that is highly illegal. End of story. What part of OD did they not get?

Agreed. It's hard not to see this as an indictment of Iker, frankly. It is his job to know the rules. And while he may have PTSD from the Telefonica run last addition, he should have known the notification requirements. The irony is that we all saw it in near real time (bravo Volvo media operation - truly), but as JBSF points out, OD rules are rules. Period.

 

Yeah, it may even be a little worse than that. It appears that they believed that they had identified a flaw in the design before they started the leg. Then they developed a plan and produced parts ahead of time to modify the boat under way and didn't inform the fleet or the VOR. So, it looks like a conspiracy to modify their OD boat to specific advantage. That they applied the fix before there was damage makes it really hard to justify.

 

Surely assuming it is true that there was no delamination, the only reason why they were not DSQ is that Knut doesn't want to see the fleet reduced to 5?

 

Has anyone at VOR put out an official statement saying any independant inspector has checked the boat and confirmed that no delamination is present?

 

Even though not strictly relevant to this matter, don't forget SCA suffered this before the race and carries a repair. If Ikers boat really did delaminate I would have a slightly different view about what he did but on the facts as reported here on SA and on the VOR website, it seems very clear that his action (ill-considered to put it mildly) could only have been intended to help him win by having an advantage over the other one design boats which (from the SCA event) are known to be not impossible to delaminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

.........^^.......there was never any details about what was described as some sort of a bow delamination on SCA pre-race.

 

 

 

.....meanwhile, back on planet Iker.......sounds like hard times indeed :mellow:

 

Iker Martinez Puff, to suffer as virtual in the classifications of the @desafioMAPFRE every 3 hours, is now much harder to navigate! Go mapfre

CC_H_ecW0AEOXyK.jpg

 

 

I wonder if anyone checked the bow panels :huh::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a curious twist.

 

Mapfre applied for a reopening the protest case on the basis that there was new evidence. This evidence was an email sent on the 23rd of March to the skipper and the onshore manager.

 

However the IJ replied that the team had this email when the case was first heard, and thus it isn't new evidence. So the case isn't going to be reopened.

 

This almost sounds like an attempt to become a rerun of the storm jib case. However the email would appear to be the day after the time when they performed the modification to the boat. So it can hardly be granting permission or otherwise providing some wiggle room to allow it to proceed. The notice doesn't say who sent the email, or suggest the content - and given the application to reopen the case was done by text message :unsure: the IJ were hardly provided with much information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a curious twist.

 

Mapfre applied for a reopening the protest case on the basis that there was new evidence. This evidence was an email sent on the 23rd of March to the skipper and the onshore manager.

 

However the IJ replied that the team had this email when the case was first heard, and thus it isn't new evidence. So the case isn't going to be reopened.

 

This almost sounds like an attempt to become a rerun of the storm jib case. However the email would appear to be the day after the time when they performed the modification to the boat. So it can hardly be granting permission or otherwise providing some wiggle room to allow it to proceed. The notice doesn't say who sent the email, or suggest the content - and given the application to reopen the case was done by text message :unsure: the IJ were hardly provided with much information.

 

What is the "storm jib" case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a curious twist.

 

Mapfre applied for a reopening the protest case on the basis that there was new evidence. This evidence was an email sent on the 23rd of March to the skipper and the onshore manager.

 

However the IJ replied that the team had this email when the case was first heard, and thus it isn't new evidence. So the case isn't going to be reopened.

 

This almost sounds like an attempt to become a rerun of the storm jib case. However the email would appear to be the day after the time when they performed the modification to the boat. So it can hardly be granting permission or otherwise providing some wiggle room to allow it to proceed. The notice doesn't say who sent the email, or suggest the content - and given the application to reopen the case was done by text message :unsure: the IJ were hardly provided with much information.

Hadn't seen that. Link? Good to know. Wonder if the email was from the RC, or the VCA. Still, the video and letting the fleet know still isn't "proper notification."

 

Slowing the boat to do the repairs is not an attempt to gain an advantage. As SCA said, they risked the spare battens should the main battens be damaged in a gybe. I wonder if they notified the VCA that they also had contingency plans for an Ushuaia stop. The Jury found there was no benefit.

 

More and more, the IJ summary and http://desafiomapfre.com/en/xabi-a-disproportionate-penalty-for-a-simple-administrative-error/sounds accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Mapfre didn't follow the appropriate reporting procedure, there is also an issue with ISAF VP Chris Atkins serving on this Jury.

 

There is an active Regulation 35 complaint against Atkins, which was filed on March 2. I know, because I filed it.

 

 

Annnndddd......

 

Complaint dismissed.

 

 

Decision 1

Decision 2 (to publish results).

 

 

4 Conclusion

 

4.1 A conflict of interest is defined as follows in the Regulations: “34.1 A conflict of interest exists when an ISAF Race Official has, or reasonably appears to have, a personal or financial interest, which could affect the official’s ability to be impartial.”

 

4.2 There is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Atkins has or will benefit personally or financially from the relationship between Abu Dhabi and ISAF.

 

4.3 A further question is whether there is a perceived conflict of interest, which, by ignoring it, Mr. Atkins committed “gross misconduct”. We are of the view that, based on the facts as presented to us, there is not a perceived conflict of interest. We are not aware of any of the competitors or people connected with the event having made such an allegation or complaint, or having raised a concern in this regard. We do not decide under what circumstances it can be gross misconduct to serve as a race official where there is not an actual, but only a perceived, conflict of interest. A bona fide error of judgement will seldom be “gross misconduct”.

 

4.4 We note the ruling of the Conflicts of Interest Working Party dated 8 May 2015 which comes to the same conclusion that Mr. Atkins does not have a conflict of interest in serving on the international jury for the Volvo Ocean Race. We do not rely on the view expressed in that ruling (as we came to the same conclusion on our own), but note that it could not be misconduct for Mr. Atkins to hold the view (and act on that view) that there is no conflict of interest (even if there was) if others, particularly the Conflict of Interest Working Party, held the same view.

 

4.5 We are therefore of the view, based on the facts before us, that there is no evidence that Mr. Atkins committed “gross misconduct”. It is therefore not necessary for us to conduct a further investigation or hold a hearing.

 

5 DECISION 5.1 There is no evidence of gross misconduct by Mr. Chris Atkins and there is no case for him to answer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites