eurochild

Wind Limits - Where are they

Recommended Posts

The F50s are not going to self right and they bust bits when they lie down on the job. Can't  recall for sure there have been so many bow stuffs and capsizes in Season 1 of their "league," but iirc none capsized and sailed off.  Pedestals kept busting even with just rough use. So props to Te Aihe.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Very telling about the AC75 is that TNZ wants the limit to 24 kts, lower than the initial 25 kts in Bermudas.

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Ah ah, w'll talk about it when it reaches 50kts + in a race and self rights. But, still, it will capsize in 10 kts.

I'm quite sure an F50 will capsize in 10 kts if you make a fuck up, and at risk of repeating myself the  50+ kts claimed is tide assisted SOG in other words it's an impressive speed that means little in terms of VMG on the race course..

It's unlikely to happen 'cos RC won't want to risk his "fastest sailboats " being humiliated but a straight race  between the two boat types on a AC course would be very entertaining to watch. Having watched both the ETNZ 50 and 75 train in the back paddock my money would definately be on the 75 by a big margin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Yes, this is the first version of AC35 prot, later diminished at 24 kts, iirc.Capture.PNG.0f0d8825a2130777f1d968364e84b3b1.PNG

So what’s “very telling” about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ex-yachtie said:

So what’s “very telling” about that?

The supposedly tough AC75 necessary for Auckland will sail in smaller conditions than the AC50 and F50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

The supposedly tough AC75 necessary for Auckland will sail in smaller conditions than the AC50 and F50.

Oh. That must make the IACC class particularly fragile then. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Ah ah, w'll talk about it when it reaches 50kts + in a race and self rights. But, still, it will capsize in 10 kts.

Who cares about 50 knots if its stupid. I'd rather see great racing and boats finishing races upright, with no injured crew and with all of their grinding pedestals as opposed to survival like Cowes was. How stupid turning sailing into some crash derby. 

As your friend Stingray keeps pointing out, Oracle was apparently the fastest boat in Bermuda in the wrong direction, but hey, what ever floats your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

"And at 8 knots our hula kicks in" :)

images.jpg.d6d926e365d4600883e34ad0fb720b29.jpg

Except that's USA 53, Young America, not NZL 82. The only thing that kept that boat afloat was the main boom wedging into the scoop transom. Of course, AUS 35 broke in half in a similar fashion off San Diego and went straight to the bottom.

It's usually sea state that breaks boats, not wind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, accnick said:

Except that's USA 53, Young America, not NZL 82. The only thing that kept that boat afloat was the main boom wedging into the scoop transom. Of course, AUS 35 broke in half in a similar fashion off San Diego and went straight to the bottom.

It's usually sea state that breaks boats, not wind.

You are correct.

517-2625_Team_New_Zealands_NZL82_stops_dead_in_the_water_after_breaking_their_mast_during_race_four_the_Ameri.jpg.29f34ce7da4447c8bf242fce6b304de5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the reason you are trolling is what ?

 

because you found out the rules were published before the due date to the teams .. but they were not happy with them so its going to arbitration

or

perhaps your not happy with any of the ranges they want to set

or

your just basically a troll

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

You are correct.

517-2625_Team_New_Zealands_NZL82_stops_dead_in_the_water_after_breaking_their_mast_during_race_four_the_Ameri.jpg.29f34ce7da4447c8bf242fce6b304de5.jpg

Race 4, 2003.

This is exactly what Forourselves is talking about in post #294. The winds were 20-22 knots gusting higher, but the sea state and wave period on the Gulf that day were pretty horrendous for boats about 24m long.

This is why setting wind limits without inclusion of sea state into the calculation yields a false sense of security. In Bermuda, the seas in Great Sound are relatively flat no matter what the winds due to the short fetch and fairly insignificant tidal current.

In SF, 22 knots of wind against the tide and 22 knots of wind with the tide yield wildly different conditions.

Giving the Regatta Director discretion to consider sea state in the decision to start a race is almost essential for safe racing, no matter what wind limits are ultimately set.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, accnick said:

Except that's USA 53, Young America, not NZL 82. The only thing that kept that boat afloat was the main boom wedging into the scoop transom. Of course, AUS 35 broke in half in a similar fashion off San Diego and went straight to the bottom.

It's usually sea state that breaks boats, not wind.

That and having 20 ton keels on boats made of eggshells...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accnick said:

Race 4, 2003.

This is exactly what Forourselves is talking about in post #294. The winds were 20-22 knots gusting higher, but the sea state and wave period on the Gulf that day were pretty horrendous for boats about 24m long.

This is why setting wind limits without inclusion of sea state into the calculation yields a false sense of security. In Bermuda, the seas in Great Sound are relatively flat no matter what the winds due to the short fetch and fairly insignificant tidal current.

In SF, 22 knots of wind against the tide and 22 knots of wind with the tide yield wildly different conditions.

Giving the Regatta Director discretion to consider sea state in the decision to start a race is almost essential for safe racing, no matter what wind limits are ultimately set.

they have multiple race courses depending on sea state and wind direction

easy for them to hide from sea state in 24knts

image.thumb.png.0a0d41d5c03f8159b9488230bb938793.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lickindip said:

they have multiple race courses depending on sea state and wind direction

easy for them to hide from sea state in 24knts

image.thumb.png.0a0d41d5c03f8159b9488230bb938793.png

 

True.

Then the conundrum becomes determining the precise criteria for deciding which racing area to use on a given day. Wind direction, wind velocity, and sea state all have to be inputs into the decision. That decision is a big responsibility, as it may impact on the outcome of racing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, accnick said:

True.

Then the conundrum becomes determining the precise criteria for deciding which racing area to use on a given day. Wind direction, wind velocity, and sea state all have to be inputs into the decision. That decision is a big responsibility, as it may impact on the outcome of racing.

and thats why they have a race director or whatever he/she is called

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, accnick said:

True.

Then the conundrum becomes determining the precise criteria for deciding which racing area to use on a given day. Wind direction, wind velocity, and sea state all have to be inputs into the decision. That decision is a big responsibility, as it may impact on the outcome of racing.

It sure did in SF. And sea state wasn't measured directly iirc, but used a formula of current and wind? Not much current in any of the tracks for ac36, but short period swell could affect some of them. And there is fetch, which was not relevant in the last two matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, accnick said:

Giving the Regatta Director discretion to consider sea state in the decision to start a race is almost essential for safe racing, no matter what wind limits are ultimately set.

Don't forget that we can consider that the RD decided the AC34 winner. I don't agree here, the decision should be based on the wind limit knowing that we took into account the sea conditions when taking it. It's also the captain decision to put his boat at risk or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

It's also the captain decision to put his boat at risk or not.

For the Prada Cup look to the Principal Race Officer to sign off on the matter of safety if conditions are marginal.

Same for the AC finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

It's also the captain decision to put his boat at risk or not.

 

35 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

For the Prada Cup look to the Principal Race Officer to sign off on the matter of safety if conditions are marginal.

Same for the AC finals.

Piscilla, I think you missed Tornado Rat's sarcasm font. He's got a great sense of cynical humour, you know...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up FB I just misread it as a distinct lack of understanding.

I should wear my glasses more often it’s a vanity thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a quick look at historic wind data.  I couldn't find gust data only average windspeed.

But lets say you get periods of +5 knots over windspeed on any given day. 

Here is what your wind limts give you for March for potentially affected days.

                      2019     2018     2017

20 knots:     1            6            6

24 knots:     0            1            0

If you want to assume you may get gusty periods of +10 knots on a given day.

                      2019     2018     2017

20 knots:     13          15          17

24 knots:     4            7            7

There is absolutely nothing scientific about my methodology,  but it does show the potentially huge difference in disruption between the two proposed limits in an Auckland environment.  Basically Auckland is a very variable venue, but in March it very rarely gets particularly hairy (in fact outside a genuine storm system coming though, the 2003 event was probably at the upper limits of normal and I am sure gusts then would have been well over 24 knots given the 20-22 knots discussed earlier).

It's also worth noting that was the windspeed average over 6 hour periods so expect some siginificant variability, I also didn't bother trying to line the six hour period with the racing window, it was pretty apparent though that days that had one instances usually had more than one instance.

Basically if they choose 24 knots disruption to racing may not even happen once, if they choose 20 knots it's probably inevitable that we get a few days disruption.

I'm actually curious as to what exactly Luna Rossa's ratiionale for 20 knots is, the only answer I can think of is the potential relative performance of the various boats, they don't look particularly dangerous in the 20 - 24 knot wind range from what we have seen so far.  They of course have access to a whole lot of data we don't (maybe there boat IS on the edge of flying apart in 21 knots!) but if they are going to fight about it, it would be nice to at least know why they are fighting...

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2019 at 2:57 PM, accnick said:

True.

Then the conundrum becomes determining the precise criteria for deciding which racing area to use on a given day. Wind direction, wind velocity, and sea state all have to be inputs into the decision. That decision is a big responsibility, as it may impact on the outcome of racing.

Quite so, and you should know.

Still, there is a point where agreed rules and limits are not sufficient.

Guidance, yes. Hard cutoffs, not so much.

Leave some breathing room for your experienced Race Director to make the call.

Your later post said it succinctly: "Giving the Regatta Director discretion to consider sea state in the decision to start a race is almost essential for safe racing, no matter what wind limits are ultimately set."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams presently have to try to answer 4 questions:

1) What will the wind limit be ?

2) When will it be decided ?

3) When do we have to begin constructing B2 ?

4) If we construct B2 opposite to B1 how can we modify B1 if necessary ? I would say that Flipper' hull has been conceived to be modified, at least the bulb.

Some premisses,

Bertelli is stubborn, is ready to go to the arbitration panel, knows it takes 3 months, so we can guess he will not accept one more knot in the mediation process, therefore if TNZ is as opiniated the result is end of march.

If the result is end of march only 28 more days and we know the concepts that work and those who don't in Cagliari, so could it be worth to wait a month to lauch B2 ? Ok, you will tell me they will be sandbagging, but still...

I guess that the arbitration will settle it around 22 knots, but what does is mean if the RC decides to prevent some races "due to sea conditions" ? mainly after hearing repetitively that different race courses allow racing wherever the wind is coming from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Teams presently have to try to answer 4 questions:

1) What will the wind limit be ?

2) When will it be decided ?

3) When do we have to begin constructing B2 ?

4) If we construct B2 opposite to B1 how can we modify B1 if necessary ? I would say that Flipper' hull has been conceived to be modified, at least the bulb.

Some premisses,

Bertelli is stubborn, is ready to go to the arbitration panel, knows it takes 3 months, so we can guess he will not accept one more knot in the mediation process, therefore if TNZ is as opiniated the result is end of march.

If the result is end of march only 28 more days and we know the concepts that work and those who don't in Cagliari, so could it be worth to wait a month to lauch B2 ? Ok, you will tell me they will be sandbagging, but still...

I guess that the arbitration will settle it around 22 knots, but what does is mean if the RC decides to prevent some races "due to sea conditions" ? mainly after hearing repetitively that different race courses allow racing wherever the wind is coming from.

It's fair for all teams at least, nobody knows what the final wind limits are! 

Not that they ever did, from the sounds of it this argument has been ongoing for some time, hence why we haven't had any announcements until forced to by the final date for agreement passing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the lower limit comes not just from LR, but from all challengers. Could it be their training areas are less windy than ALK?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Xlot said:

I understand the lower limit comes not just from LR, but from all challengers. Could it be their training areas are less windy than ALK?

 

LR represents all challengers. 
 

ETNZ want a lower wind limit (by 0.5knts) than the challengers. I suspect that all teams recognise and agree that races should start in foiling conditions. ETNZ are probably best positioned to know what that is (because they’ve sailed more), but 0.5knts is hardly worth arguing over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently ET and the challenger of record are at a bit of a quandary . ET wants a upper limit of 24 kts and the COR wants 20 kts for the prelim and 22 kts for the finals . More news to follow I’m sure . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, maxmini said:

Apparently ET and the challenger of record are at a bit of a quandary . ET wants a upper limit of 24 kts and the COR wants 20 kts for the prelim and 22 kts for the finals . More news to follow I’m sure . 

An unexpectedly low maximum limit from the COR to be sure! Pretty sure that is not what everyone was thinking when they were all complaining about how long it was taking for them to agree...

It's a shame we didn't have this information weeks ago, it would have saved us from having to listen to all the blather about it being ETNZ wanting an advantage and holding things up.

ETNZ are almost certainly gunning for 24 knots because it will result in significantly less disruption to the event from the local weather.  I'm actually a little surprised at Luna Rossa, they always mince on about how it's all about creating a great event and fairness etc... yet they are seemingly quite deliberately trying to use this to gain a performance advantage, surely none of the teams are actually scared to sail in 24 knots are they???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Boybland said:

An unexpectedly low maximum limit from the COR to be sure! Pretty sure that is not what everyone was thinking when they were all complaining about how long it was taking for them to agree...

It's a shame we didn't have this information weeks ago, it would have saved us from having to listen to all the blather about it being ETNZ wanting an advantage and holding things up.

ETNZ are almost certainly gunning for 24 knots because it will result in significantly less disruption to the event from the local weather.  I'm actually a little surprised at Luna Rossa, they always mince on about how it's all about creating a great event and fairness etc... yet they are seemingly quite deliberately trying to use this to gain a performance advantage, surely none of the teams are actually scared to sail in 24 knots are they???

I think the complaints about the higher wind limit are to prevent NZ from having a performance advantage.  The winds are lower in the earlier races and the challengers need to win those in order to make it to the finals. They just don't want to have a disadvantage going against a NZ boat that could be designed for higher winds than they have seen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

I think the complaints about the higher wind limit are to prevent NZ from having a performance advantage.  The winds are lower in the earlier races and the challengers need to win those in order to make it to the finals. They just don't want to have a disadvantage going against a NZ boat that could be designed for higher winds than they have seen.

Well we have some noisy posters here who will ascribe the challengers' move to a lack of balls.

I wouldn't take it that far but I agree the challengers are playing it safe in trying to limit the playing field. Although common sense suggests they must have planned for performing in 30 knots if called for. 

Early days here and i believe this reflects a lack of performance information at the top end of the scale. Still, its also implicit that the challengers are wary of the home team's past mastery of a higher wind ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

I think the complaints about the higher wind limit are to prevent NZ from having a performance advantage.  The winds are lower in the earlier races and the challengers need to win those in order to make it to the finals. They just don't want to have a disadvantage going against a NZ boat that could be designed for higher winds than they have seen.

Kind of makes sense, although given that even 24 knots is pretty low and 7 knots is pretty high for the venue and the venue is highly variable I doubt it's going to make the difference they think it will. 

The boat that wins any part of the racing is going to have to be able to perform across the entire wind range, given the length of racing the likelyhood of encountering both the minmum and maximum are pretty high, even in the finals.

ETNZ know the conditions better than anyone, they certainly don't look to be designing for one high end corner of the rules, that bottom is definitely designed for assisting liftoff in sub 10 knots.

One thing I will say is Luna Rossa is concievably designed for very light winds, that keel has to be related to liftoff or control in light conditions and that trick mainsail may well be very efficient but not really the kind of complexity you want once you get overpowered, how far can they even ease that internal boom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sail-world.com/news/225182/Americas-Cup-parties-fail-to-agree-on-wind-limits

"Over the 2002/03 Louis Vuitton Cup and America's Cup, 26 of the 73 days (35.6%) were lost due to the weather not being with the prescribed wind limits. "

7 to 19 knots for the Louis Vuitton, no limits for the Cup itself apparently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boybland said:

https://www.sail-world.com/news/225182/Americas-Cup-parties-fail-to-agree-on-wind-limits

"Over the 2002/03 Louis Vuitton Cup and America's Cup, 26 of the 73 days (35.6%) were lost due to the weather not being with the prescribed wind limits. "

7 to 19 knots for the Louis Vuitton, no limits for the Cup itself apparently.

And that seems like crazy shit. Why not the same range for the class, not the race? In bda OR pissed themselves laughing watcHing bits fall off the boats, only to underestimate the weather bell curve for the match. Etnz won over a wide range, and that's how they've imagined this regatta. One set of foils, control over a wide variation of conditions. 

Sounds like sailing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, barfy said:

And that seems like crazy shit. Why not the same range for the class, not the race? In bda OR pissed themselves laughing watcHing bits fall off the boats, only to underestimate the weather bell curve for the match. Etnz won over a wide range, and that's how they've imagined this regatta. One set of foils, control over a wide variation of conditions. 

Sounds like sailing to me.

I agree, it sounds like nonsense to me as well, yet here we are in 2019 with the COR pushing for 20 and 22...

I personally don't really care that much which boat gains advantage from the windrange, what do I do care about is not sitting around for days waiting for a narrow band of wind to become available!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Varan said:

And the answer is 22 kts, so deal with it.

Really? Arbitration on this matter is finished? And that limit is for the acws, the chall series, and the match? 

Excellent that it's been worked out so quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Varan said:

Yep.

 

Bitches always compromise. You heard it first here. 

Maybe...sportsmen want a fair fight, take it up the middle? (As dalts says)

Heard it first here, means you're talking shit cuz.

Let's wait for judges, bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, barfy said:

Maybe...sportsmen want a fair fight, take it up the middle? (As dalts says)

Heard it first here, means you're talking shit cuz.

Let's wait for judges, bitch.

Got me. Holiday cheers

 

 

And a few too many beers.

Wind limits do piss me off a bit. Why? To design another one trick pony. Seriously.. the wind will be between 0 and 35, it is mother nature's call. More than that, okay, we call it because we cannot afford your lawyers. But come on, 20 versus 24, wtf. Totally understand LR's view.. not that different than ETNL designing for SF only to see things change, but it is the nature of the best.

Okay, I already forgot what we talking about..

But... still betting the answer is 22.

Peace.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Varan said:

Got me. Holiday cheers

 

 

And a few too many beers.

Wind limits do piss me off a bit. Why? To design another one trick pony. Seriously.. the wind will be between 0 and 35, it is mother nature's call. More than that, okay, we call it because we cannot afford your lawyers. But come on, 20 versus 24, wtf. Totally understand LR's view.. not that different than ETNL designing for SF only to see things change, but it is the nature of the best.

Okay, I already forgot what we talking about..

But... still betting the answer is 22.

Peace.

 

Good bet. And I'll crack another beer.

I just don't get changing wind limits from the chall to the match.

20 to 24? Ya not much init. 35, maybe a tad fresh. I do think these boats will be just fine, if not spectacular in 23 knots. As @Boybland mentioned, we'llloose a few days to over 20, depending on the criteria.

Happy holidays to you and yours !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2019 at 7:46 PM, Varan said:

Got me. Holiday cheers

And a few too many beers.

Wind limits do piss me off a bit. Why? To design another one trick pony. Seriously.. the wind will be between 0 and 35, it is mother nature's call. More than that, okay, we call it because we cannot afford your lawyers. But come on, 20 versus 24, wtf. Totally understand LR's view.. not that different than ETNL designing for SF only to see things change, but it is the nature of the best.

Okay, I already forgot what we talking about..

But... still betting the answer is 22.

Peace.

There is a pretty good case to be made for 24 knots before the start for all the prelims and the Match.

We can only hope the arb panel has a reasonable take on the matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

Check out the new LR high wind video.  What ever that wind speed is too high.

How so? If they felt out of control they would have simply lowered or reefed the sail and headed for home. There was no pressure like there would be in an actual race, yet they felt happy enough to go for a blast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

 [   .  .  .  ]  If they felt out of control they would have simply lowered or reefed the sail and headed for home.  [  .  .  .  ]

I doubt the mainsails can be reefed; there is too much internal complexity.  Is there any press showing a boat with a reefed mainsail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comment from Gladwell, October 19th:

"Wind limits are unlikely to be imposed in Auckland due to the issues that arrive when an absolute threshold is exceeded by just 0.1kt. There is the ability to shift one of five course options and to one less affected area for safety reasons, making wind limits redundant.  [  .  .  .  ]  Further the AC75's with their soft mainsail could either make that reef-able or have a heavy weather mainsail. Jibs also come in three sizes, so rig reduction at the top end of the wind range is possible in a way that was not with the hard wingsails of the AC50 and AC72 eras."

Wouldn't it be great  if the arbitration panel chucked this picayune  20kn vs. 24kn  dispute and returned a decision that there will be no Match Conditions mandated (upper) wind limit?  The RC (an unbiased agent) should hold the sole power to start or cancel a race based on weather conditions.  The ghost of Andrew Simpson may be inappropriate concerning these foiling monohulls which are much less likely (?) to catastrophically break apart in a capsize than the wingsail catamarans used since 2010.

Here's a good read for those on this thread who actually want to get a handle on what this wind limits dispute is about:
Robert Davis

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, axolotl said:

I doubt the mainsails can be reefed; there is too much internal complexity.  Is there any press showing a boat with a reefed mainsail?

If not shuttle able to reef then they could have dropped and got towed... Point is they didn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rh3000 said:

How so? If they felt out of control they would have simply lowered or reefed the sail and headed for home. There was no pressure like there would be in an actual race, yet they felt happy enough to go for a blast.

I agree, surely if they felt it was too high they would have simply cancelled further testing.

I guess it could just be a freak gust caught on camera and higher than the prevailing, but that isn't really what it looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boybland said:

I agree, surely if they felt it was too high they would have simply cancelled further testing.

I guess it could just be a freak gust caught on camera and higher than the prevailing, but that isn't really what it looks like.

To me the capsize was caused by the leeward foil leaving the water while the boat was going slow, then it crashed down with more vertical than forward motion so it stalled.

The righting moment depends on the continuous laminar flow over the leeward foil so with no righting moment the boat fell over.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

AM looks to be very upset that the "conditions of the race" have not yet been released.  They claim it is all between NZ and LR and the other teams have nothing to do with it.

 

https://apnews.com/4ac9a291ea9a4bc9de21072efbefb648

I think they should lobby their representative to accept the 24knt limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

AM looks to be very upset that the "conditions of the race" have not yet been released.  They claim it is all between NZ and LR and the other teams have nothing to do with it.

 

https://apnews.com/4ac9a291ea9a4bc9de21072efbefb648

Which is exactly how it should be. My advice - get in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

AM looks to be very upset that the "conditions of the race" have not yet been released.  They claim it is all between NZ and LR and the other teams have nothing to do with it.

 

https://apnews.com/4ac9a291ea9a4bc9de21072efbefb648

And? thats how mutual consent between Defender and CoR works. They can be upset all they like, but being upset isn't going to win you the Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really surprising the ETNZ don't have this sorted out one way or another. This is exactly the kind of thing that they despised as a challenger.  Hopefully gets decided soon as it's not a fair look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fundamentally there’s a difference between LR and the other challengers and ETNZ. 
 

The good news is that it seems like every challenger is out for their best interests and are actually genuine participants and not ETNZ lackeys. 
 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Well, something more interesting than that, I think. I don't want to spend the time going through the Protocol documents but this statement is very telling...

Quote

By way of background, the America's Cup Deed of Gift requires racing rules and conditions to be agreed by mutual consent between the Defender and Challenger but with the modern day America's Cup involving multi challengers this is  modified by the Protocol under which all teams enter.  

This is the first I've heard of this - even from all the guys around here who claim to know this stuff inside and out. The concept of "multi challengers" as a group essentially being the CoR (with LR being the rep of that group) is a radical change that can cause (is obviously causing) all kinds of problems.

So, either these challengers don't know about this nuance in the Protocol - or LR is not sharing the sandbox. Either way, this is (yet again) not a smart move by ETNZ.

One of you DeedJunkies should pull up this language so we can see exactly what ETNZ is referring to here. Something's not passing the smell test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

You mean that LR is disorganized..    Following quote from AM article:

“Our first thought was, well guys, you’ve had 2 1/2 years to sort this out, why on Earth would you wait until the 11th hour to determine this?” said Hutchinson, who serves as a grinder. He also said American Magic was unhappy to read various reports that said it and INEOS Team UK had any say in the matter.

“To be crystal clear, these decisions are between the Challenger of Record and defender, and we have zero say in it,’ Hutchinson said. “It’s a bit of an insult to be tarred with the same brush. To that point, for the life of me, I don’t know what the holdup is. It’s pretty simple: Come to an agreement and get on with it.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smackdaddy said:

Well, something more interesting than that, I think. I don't want to spend the time going through the Protocol documents but this statement is very telling...

This is the first I've heard of this - even from all the guys around here who claim to know this stuff inside and out. The concept of "multi challengers" as a group essentially being the CoR (with LR being the rep of that group) is a radical change that can cause (is obviously causing) all kinds of problems.

So, either these challengers don't know about this nuance in the Protocol - or LR is not sharing the sandbox. Either way, this is (yet again) not a smart move by ETNZ.

One of you DeedJunkies should pull up this language so we can see exactly what ETNZ is referring to here. Something's not passing the smell test.

Nothing new to see here. The protocol has sorted it, since 1970. The match conditions are agreed by the Defender & Challenger, or COR (first club to issue a NOC, in the case of multiple challenges received) CORC (committee) if no Challenger wants the COR job.

And why would you want the job? It's a poisoned chalice - at best, a distraction. In fact, I'm pretty sure no COR has EVER won, The Cup.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point they should probably just get AM and INEOS to each pick a number between 20 and 24 and average the result and round it to the nearest knot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..

"

The Defender does not deal with the other Challengers direct on such issues but works on the basis that the Challenger of Record is presenting the collective position of the Challengers when undertaking such negotiations, not just the view of its own sailing team, Luna Rossa. In fact, in the various negotiations Emirates Team New Zealand has had with the Challenger of Record there have been many practical examples where the COR has made specific reference to the views of the other Challengers when taking a particular stance.

Emirates Team New Zealand was therefore very surprised to learn that the current stance of the Challenger of Record in relation to wind limits does not reflect the collective position of all Challengers."

And

2 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

“To be crystal clear, these decisions are between the Challenger of Record and defender, and we have zero say in it,’ Hutchinson said. “

But it seems like TH has had input, which is how the rule read. But input not taken. And LR says just the normal noises of a war campaign. Fair enough, maybe to keep the other challs and etnz off balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Nothing new to see here. The protocol has sorted it, since 1970. The match conditions are agreed by the Defender & Challenger, or COR (first club to issue a NOC, in the case of multiple challenges received) CORC (committee) if no Challenger wants the COR job.

And why would you want the job? It's a poisoned chalice - at best, a distraction. In fact, I'm pretty sure no COR has EVER won, The Cup.

Best to ignore...

Just the troll continuing to demonstrate ignorance and cluelessness... Evidently it's every second weekend when he doesn't have custody that he comes out from under his bridge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, and as I've ALWAYS said: Mutual consent per the DoG exists ONLY between Challenger and Defender (LR and ETNZ) However LR has the added responsibility of taking the other Challenging teams input into consideration when taking a stance. 

This has nothing to do with ETNZ and everything to do with a communication breakdown between the Challengers. ETNZ as the Defender has taken a position based on their knowledge of the conditions Auckland provides to ensure a great event. 

At least this puts the whole "Poodle" thing to bed. These teams are serious about winning, they are independent and they are genuine in their intentions, unlike what happened last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Forourselves said:

As always, and as I've ALWAYS said: Mutual consent per the DoG exists ONLY between Challenger and Defender (LR and ETNZ) However LR has the added responsibility of taking the other Challenging teams input into consideration when taking a stance. 

This has nothing to do with ETNZ and everything to do with a communication breakdown between the Challengers. ETNZ as the Defender has taken a position based on their knowledge of the conditions Auckland provides to ensure a great event. 

At least this puts the whole "Poodle" thing to bed. These teams are serious about winning, they are independent and they are genuine in their intentions, unlike what happened last time.

Well, this is just flat wrong (yet again). Who wrote the protocol, dude? LR?

Pushing the responsibility of representation of all challengers onto the CoR not only goes against what you've been screaming at the top of your lungs for the last year (obviously you didn't know what you were talking about as usual) - but it potentially hobbles the CoR in relation to its negotiations with the Defender, just as we're seeing now. In other words, it potentially gives ETNZ an unfair negotiating advantage that they are now trying to use with this KiWhingeTM release.

If, as RobG pointed out, the following is the extent of the definition in the protocol (is there more clarification/delineation of this article somewhere in the doc?):

Quote

Protocol article 1.2 says:

The Initial Challenger of Record shall represent all challengers…

LR, not the Emiratis, has very wide latitude in determining what that "representation" looks like. In other words, TH's comment about not having control over this decision is exactly right - even in light of the language above. The CoR makes the final call on behalf of itself and all challengers, regardless of what those challengers might or might not have to say. And TH gets that and just wants it the two decision makers to make a damn decision.

However, with this KiWhingeTM release, the Emiratis are trying to do an end-around to weaken LR's negotiating position. And the KiWhingersTM here and elsewhere are now putting the blame on LR? As I said, all the way round - bitch move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Evidently it's every second weekend when he doesn't have custody that he comes out from under his bridge...

divorce sucks...

 

 

 

 

 

for us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, smackdaddy said:

 KiWhingersTM

so your telling us its a "troll mark "

hint ..  we already knew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

so your telling us its a "troll mark "

hint ..  we already knew

Please don't feed it, given time it will loose interest and go away, might take a while though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, smackdaddy said:

LR, not the Emiratis, has very wide latitude in determining what that "representation" looks like.

Not really, when written in a legal document words generally mean exactly what they actually mean, these kind of arguments come up again and again in the AC, however when it gets to the court the dictionary always wins regardless of how ridiculous the result of this might actually be!

Still I'd be pretty interested to hear a lawyer's argument that representation doesn't have to take into account the interests, desires or opinions of the person being represented, especially considering that is literally their own job description...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boybland said:

I'd be pretty interested to hear a lawyer's argument that representation doesn't have to take into account the interests, desires or opinions of the person being represented, especially considering that is literally their own job description...

At least in many states in the USA, a lawyer does not have to consult with their clients on certain matters.  The lawyer must always take the clients' interests into account, but not necessarily their desires and fuck their opinions ;)

amazingly (and we hould all mark the date), spamdaddy is right that LR has a wide latitude to decide what it means to 'represent' all challengers.  It's such an incredibly vague term that they can  do what they want.  If I were LR I would simply argue that here, 'represent' means 'stand in for' all the other challengers rather than imposing any kind of fiduciary duty on LR to somehow represent their best interests as well as its own.  

 

here's more on how it works in a legal scenario rather than a weird charitable sporting trust one:https://newenglandinhouse.com/2012/07/16/in-lawyer-client-relationship-who-makes-the-decisions/

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

...amazingly (and we hould all mark the date), The Honorable Smackdaddy is right that LR has a wide latitude to decide what it means to 'represent' all challengers. ...

Of course I'm right...as usual. Your calendar should be pretty full of Xs by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, smackdaddy said:

Of course I'm right...as usual. 

Delusional. Even a broken clock is certain to be right twice a day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, smackdaddy said:

Of course I'm right...as usual. Your calendar should be pretty full of Xs by now.

there's just one, and it's not an x

but your ex did send it to me

 

2723870_0.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of LR's latitude to represent the challengers - it isn't the main issue, which is LR's insistence on a stupidly low wind limit. I don't think they'll get it up in arbitration though. The Defender's wishes should carry more weight - being they are the cup holder, and it's not as though they're trying to push through a ridiculous wind range - it's quite reasonable for the venue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

Regardless of LR's latitude to represent the challengers - it isn't the main issue, which is LR's insistence on a stupidly low wind limit. I don't think they'll get it up in arbitration though. The Defender's wishes should carry more weight - being they are the cup holder, and it's not as though they're trying to push through a ridiculous wind range - it's quite reasonable for the venue.

No. Hutchinson nailed the actual main issue...

Quote

"Like most of these things, as a challenger, what we want to avoid is being surprised. Withholding the match conditions is exceptionally disappointing as a competitor. They’ve had 2 to 2 1/2 years to sort it out. It’s consistent with most of the negotiations between Luna Rose and Team New Zealand.”

This is just more under-the-table shenanigans to extend uncertainty and buy time. That obviously gives the Emirati's (who obviously need it right now) an advantage...LR is just playing into that hand, I suppose hoping to gain a similar advantage over the other challengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

Of course AM want this resolved, but it is LR which is holding it up, not ETNZ.

Wrong again. That's why there is mediation. When two parties have to reach an agreement and are unable to do so - it's not one party or the other "holding it up"...it's both parties "holding it up". So ETNZ is just a guilty or innocent as LR. That's just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hutch's argument about having 2+ years to sort this out is a bit stupid. ETNZ needed to get a boat in the water to validate the simulator, so setting a wind limit 2 years ago would have been stupid. ETNZ's process has been fine as are the limits they want. LR is just being a stick in the mud. Terry's angst should be directed to LR - that's the way it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, smackdaddy said:

under-the-table shenanigans to extend uncertainty and buy time.

your attempt at deductive reasoning is .. lets just say unlikely to be correct

if it goes to arbitration neither have full control over the outcome

so your accusation of corruption is difficult to justify .. the only possibility of that being the case is they both agree on a limit before arbitration finalises and even then its still a tenuous accusation

based i suspect mainly on projection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants a 20 kt limit should fuck off over there, and when they get there, they should fuck off some more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites