[Tom O'Keefe]

CheeseBurger, on Jan 22 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

Tom O, on Jan 22 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Icecube, on Jan 22 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

Naviguesser, on Jan 22 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

Icecube, on Jan 22 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

Yes, no doubt about that. But it doesn't detract from the fact that the 'sail' is built in Switzerland.

Only if you can build it from parts supplied from somewhere else, which is not true in this case. The 'assembled' 'sail' can only be made from these specific custom-'constructed' US-made panels.

I agree, but Oracle's argument has been the 'sail' must be made in Switzerland. If Alinghi took panels from another boat, albeit a rather large one, i'm sure they could still make a 'sail' suited to their boat. [color="#4169E1"][/color]I'm not sure you understand the concept of load path fiber orientation. Only if the larger boat had sails with very close to the same dimensions as Alinghi would this work.[color="#0000FF"][/color]

I'm sorry but i'm of the opinion that Oracle have opened up a can of worms, and i'm also of the opinion that it be either everything or nothing constructed in the home country. And if i were in charge, i'd want to see all sailors and designers etc also from the home country. Just my opinion.

[color="#4169E1"][/color]I believe it will be proved that USA is very close to already meeting your everything made in country and have the data to prove it.[color="#0000FF"][/color]

Also Alinghi sails are very close to being done in Switzerland.
Why are customs sails more important that custom idraulics? Who decides?

In this case the advantage of the Defender comes out in full:
- To win this battle, BOR must demonstrate that Alinghi is not CiC AND USA is 100% CiC
- To win this battle, Alinghi must only demonstrate that BOR boat is not 100% CiC. Finding one single Mexican built bolt is enough. If both boats are disqualified, Alinghi keeps the cup.

Alinghi can require BOR to be CiC even on parts that are not CiC on A5!!!
BOR gave Alinghi a very good argument to attack BOR, should Alinghi loose on the water.

I also liked the arguent that SNG as trustee should be given access to all BOR document to fulfill their trustee obbligations to verify that USA is CiC. :lol:

I agree the sails arrive in Switzerland very close to finished.
If Team Alinghi bought a bunch of Carbonfiber thread bundles, Mylar and glue from North in Minden and transported these raw materials sperately to Switzerland and the cut, alligned and bonded everything together in Switzerland, I would agree with you that there is not much difference between sails and hydraulics to trim them. But, that's not the case. Furthermore if USA has Italian hydraulics in the boat and the court deemed them non-CiC, the most probable decision the court would hand down would be to fit US domestic components in place of the Italian components. USA might suffer a small weight penalty due to the change. But, I believe they would still be able to compete and not give up as much as Alinghi giving up 3DL.
So, I disagree with your opinion.
Your reasoning applies if there is any rouling BEFORE the race. I doubt it.
After the race, BOR will not be able to replace anything if found non-CiC.

Please notice that the phrase "So, I disagree with your opinion" is not acceptable in this forum. Please replace it with a personal insult of your choice B) :lol: .
And, now we get back to the reason that BMWO filed this motion while still negotiating the Singapore MC. It was to meet the courts deadline for filings to be heard prior to the race. The court may choose not to hear the case prior to race day. But, they are also not going to disqualify either party for rulings they chose to make after the fact. At the most they say make these corrections and race again. IMHO

[Naviguesser]

CheeseBurger, on Jan 22 2010, 12:00 PM, said:

Your reasoning applies if there is any rouling BEFORE the race. I doubt it.
After the race, BOR will not be able to replace anything if found non-CiC.

Please notice that the phrase "So, I disagree with your opinion" is not acceptable in this forum. Please replace it with a personal insult of your choice B) :lol: .

Yes, and that is precisely why SNG is playing this like they are: they get to use 3DL sails and would like that to equal the few nuts and bolts that might not be CiC on DZ. Very sporting!

Looks like you might be missing a few pickles there CB! (Does this constitute a sufficient personal insult? :lol: )

[Peelman]

One of the big things I think is missing is that the blanks are not blanks. They are panels as they have been molded to a design/flying shape. Without that molding in the USA they can't be 3D's anymore than a hull molded in USA for the Swiss.

[Finnfart]

I just gave this thing a cursory read and won't rehash the obvious weaknesses and strengths.

The main strength is something I've been arguing for a while. It is going to force JK to officialize that further litigation will come after the match.

The part that really strikes me as part of the chess match is that SNG demanding the race be ASAP was IMO the most likely outcome of the hardball tactics he faced in Singapore. We don't know just how hard the ball was since the agreement is still under NDA, but we do know as admitted by BOR, that the WHOLE negotiation was carried out under threat of the filing. There may even have been jucier stuff in the agreement. Not nice at all!

But if EB was going to refuse, what are his alternatives?

His only one is demand the match. Further incented by the idea that BOR wants a delay.

I smell the Briar Patch.

Given the expense and uncertainty, isn't it obvious that it is best for BOR (frankly for both sides) to have the match over with? It makes their litigation concrete in a way that is impossible pre-match.

Pre match, EVERYTHING is Hypothetical since there is still no demonstrated 'lesser result'.
Pre match, there is no declared boat for measurement and CIC.

Add to that the HUGE moral impetus granted to whoever wins, and it becomes clear that this is a likely winner for BOR.

The converse applies somewhat equally to SNG, but not as much because of the declared boat, and not as much because I believe they think they are slower, and thus don't expect the moral impetus.

[DRTB]

Finnfart, on Jan 22 2010, 09:21 PM, said:

I just gave this thing a cursory read and won't rehash the obvious weaknesses and strengths.

The main strength is something I've been arguing for a while. It is going to force JK to officialize that further litigation will come after the match.

The part that really strikes me as part of the chess match is that SNG demanding the race be ASAP was IMO the most likely outcome of the hardball tactics he faced in Singapore. We don't know just how hard the ball was since the agreement is still under NDA, but we do know as admitted by BOR, that the WHOLE negotiation was carried out under threat of the filing. There may even have been jucier stuff in the agreement. Not nice at all!

But if EB was going to refuse, what are his alternatives?

His only one is demand the match. Further incented by the idea that BOR wants a delay.

I smell the Briar Patch.

Given the expense and uncertainty, isn't it obvious that it is best for BOR (frankly for both sides) to have the match over with? It makes their litigation concrete in a way that is impossible pre-match.

Pre match, EVERYTHING is Hypothetical since there is still no demonstrated 'lesser result'.
Pre match, there is no declared boat for measurement and CIC.

Add to that the HUGE moral impetus granted to whoever wins, and it becomes clear that this is a likely winner for BOR.

The converse applies somewhat equally to SNG, but not as much because of the declared boat, and not as much because I believe they think they are slower, and thus don't expect the moral impetus.

Well that settles one thing for sure. You're not RC. :lol:

[MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS]

Peelman, on Jan 22 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

One of the big things I think is missing is that the blanks are not blanks. They are panels as they have been molded to a design/flying shape. Without that molding in the USA they can't be 3D's anymore than a hull molded in USA for the Swiss.

TRUE BRO

THE WHOLE THING GOES TO THAT THE NY COURT CHANGED THE DEED OF GIFT ILLEGALLY AND THAT ALLOWED SWISS /SNG TO BE ABLE TO STEAL THE AC

IF THE DEED OF GIFT WASNT AMENDED BY NY COURT -NO SWISS-- ARM OF THE SEA


ALSO HEXCEL-CORE -THAT THE HULLS ON THE DEATH TRAP ARE MADE OF--- IS USA CONSTRUCTED NOT SWISS

THE SDT IS ILLEGAL AS IS THE SNG FAKE LAKE YACHT CLUB

SNG IS IN THEIR FINAL STAGES OF LOSING ON ALL COUNTS

[FuckYou]

Here is the argument that Alinghi should bring:

The sails are made of panel elements. The raw materials for those panels comes from Japan. The cloth for those panels is made in Canada (or whereever). The panels are mold constructed in Nevada. The panels are shipped to Switzerland and a sail is constructed there.

Most all components of our yacht and their yacht are made the same way. The raw materials come from one nation, the intemidate parts are constructed in another nation and the final system is constucted in Switzerland/US.

BOR does this too. Their steel comes from a factory in China, it is formed into a connecting rod bearing in Germany, shipped to the US where it is constructed into an engine.

Where we draw the line and where they draw the line may be slightly different. But until now, the line has not been drawn with clarity. However, it remains that both yachts have many components and raw materials not 'constructed in country'. BMWO would like the court to draw the line just after their engine parts and just before our sails. That is not fair.

[MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS]

ccruiser, on Jan 22 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS, on Jan 22 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

HE SAYS THE SECTIONS ARRIVED

SO NOT CONSTRUCTED IN SWISS CHEESE LAND

Wonder what it would take if they were not using preformed panels? Bet its more than a hundred and sixty hours.

BRO THEY CANT DO THEM --GOOD POINT

THATS MY POINT ALSO SINCE NORTH SAILS DID THE JOINT VENTURE WITH THEM -ALIGNHI

HOW LEGAL IS THAT OR CIC -D OF G COMPLIANT

MY 2 JPGS OF THE DEC SHOWS THE NORTH WENT TO SWISS / SNG / ALIGNHI AND GUIDED THEM THRU A PATENTED PROCESS

THE OLD AC SAILS PAST IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE SAILS NOW ARE AS COMPLEX AND CRITICAL AS ANYTHING ELSE ON THE BOATS

WITHOUT THE SUPER HI TECH SAILS THE REST WONT WORK

SO ITS INTEGRAL TO THE BOAT -/SYSTEM---CONSTRUCTION =CIC---IMO

[DRTB]

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS, on Jan 22 2010, 09:26 PM, said:

Peelman, on Jan 22 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

One of the big things I think is missing is that the blanks are not blanks. They are panels as they have been molded to a design/flying shape. Without that molding in the USA they can't be 3D's anymore than a hull molded in USA for the Swiss.

TRUE BRO

THE WHOLE THING GOES TO THAT THE NY COURT CHANGED THE DEED OF GIFT ILLEGALLY AND THAT ALLOWED SWISS /SNG TO BE ABLE TO STEAL THE AC

IF THE DEED OF GIFT WASNT AMENDED BY NY COURT -NO SWISS-- ARM OF THE SEA


ALSO HEXCEL-CORE -THAT THE HULLS ON THE DEATH TRAP ARE MADE OF--- IS USA CONSTRUCTED NOT SWISS

THE SDT IS ILLEGAL AS IS THE SNG FAKE LAKE YACHT CLUB

SNG IS IN THEIR FINAL STAGES OF LOSING ON ALL COUNTS

IT'S TIME MAHGUAH SMOKE PIPE OF PEACE WITH SNG BEFORE EVERY LAST SHARD OF CHIEF LARRY BILLY ONE HAIR'S ILLEGAL CANOE IS INSPECTED FOR CONSTRUCTED ON RESERVATION. HE CHEAT BIG TIME AND WHEN PLUG REMOVED FROM TUB ALL HOPE DISAPPEAR DOWN DRAIN ALONG WITH MAHGUAH SOS.

[kiwin]

the essence of any sail is :

• its shape
  
• the strenghening reinforcement required for it to retain the shape when under load in use

with the 3dl process both of these are set in concrete when the sil is laminated in minden nevada. The process of assembling the sail from pieces has little or no effect on the above. While alinghi claim in the MOL that there is some broadseaming when assembling and gluing the parts together I sincerely doubt that this is the case as

• the sails will be designed with a specified overlap for the glued joint. More overlap is more weight. I guess the excess could be cut off?
  
• the reinforcing carbon fibres must meet up with their counterparts in the adjacent panel to resolve the stress. If the shape is messed with during assembly these will misalign increasing the probability of instability or failure.

[FuckYou]

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS, on Jan 22 2010, 09:26 PM, said:

SNG IS IN THEIR FINAL STAGES OF LOSING ON ALL COUNTS

May be true. But you told us YOU were going to get it back. WTF? You are a big mouthed shit talking injin without anything to back it up. Where is your lawsuit you squaw fucking drunk? What did the court say when you showed up with your ridiculous Indian rights nonsense? Don't you have a gambling casino to rob today?

[street_Gang]

FuckYou, on Jan 22 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

Here is the argument that Alinghi should bring:

The sails are made of panel elements. The raw materials for those panels comes from Japan. The cloth for those panels is made in Canada (or whereever). The panels are mold constructed in Nevada. The panels are shipped to Switzerland and a sail is constructed there.

Most all components of our yacht and their yacht are made the same way. The raw materials come from one nation, the intemidate parts are constructed in another nation and the final system is constucted in Switzerland/US.

BOR does this too. Their steel comes from a factory in China, it is formed into a connecting rod bearing in Germany, shipped to the US where it is constructed into an engine.

Where we draw the line and where they draw the line may be slightly different. But until now, the line has not been drawn with clarity. However, it remains that both yachts have many components and raw materials not 'constructed in country'. BMWO would like the court to draw the line just after their engine parts and just before our sails. That is not fair.

The precedents from past AC regattas will probably be taken into consideration as well, but BOR will have some explaining to do on the hydraulics, and some other items if the line comes close to build vs construct or hull vs, appendages and consumables. Clarity will be beneficial for both teams.

[Finnfart]

FuckYou, on Jan 22 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Here is the argument that Alinghi should bring:

The sails are made of panel elements. The raw materials for those panels comes from Japan. The cloth for those panels is made in Canada (or whereever). The panels are mold constructed in Nevada. The panels are shipped to Switzerland and a sail is constructed there.

Most all components of our yacht and their yacht are made the same way. The raw materials come from one nation, the intemidate parts are constructed in another nation and the final system is constucted in Switzerland/US.

BOR does this too. Their steel comes from a factory in China, it is formed into a connecting rod bearing in Germany, shipped to the US where it is constructed into an engine.

Where we draw the line and where they draw the line may be slightly different. But until now, the line has not been drawn with clarity. However, it remains that both yachts have many components and raw materials not 'constructed in country'. BMWO would like the court to draw the line just after their engine parts and just before our sails. That is not fair.

+1

Very well put.

But the court, when faced with the abmbiguity of "after the engine parts, and before the Sails" will recognize that it is either all or nothing.

That is why I argued in the other thread that whatever either sails on day 1 is going to have to be their setup for the series... in terms of wings vs. soft sails, and in terms of size of reachers and mains.

Courts almost always reach for the definable points on a continuum and this one only has endpoints.

Dangerous territory I'd say.

[jorgensen-online]

Finnfart, on Jan 22 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

I just gave this thing a cursory read and won't rehash the obvious weaknesses and strengths.

The main strength is something I've been arguing for a while. It is going to force JK to officialize that further litigation will come after the match.

The part that really strikes me as part of the chess match is that SNG demanding the race be ASAP was IMO the most likely outcome of the hardball tactics he faced in Singapore. We don't know just how hard the ball was since the agreement is still under NDA, but we do know as admitted by BOR, that the WHOLE negotiation was carried out under threat of the filing. There may even have been jucier stuff in the agreement. Not nice at all!

But if EB was going to refuse, what are his alternatives?

His only one is demand the match. Further incented by the idea that BOR wants a delay.

I smell the Briar Patch.

Who knows about the negotiations, we may never know, the only result was Ernesto said no at the end.

The future can cut hard for SNG in the coming days, if BOR has a problem that causes a repair period and essentially stops their training, SNG will say, too bad, see you on the 8th. If SNG has an problem needing significant repair, I think their they have left themselves very vulnerable, from here on out they have to conserve the boat., till maybe the last race or the first, it will be hard to deny sailing on the 8th even if conditions are not to their liking.

[SloopJohnB]

hobie18rich, on Jan 23 2010, 05:03 AM, said:

3Dl sails.
Made in Nevada.
Assembled in SWI.
Raced in VLC
DSQ'd in New York.

Priceless



Mastercard advert.

[Icecube]

kiwin, on Jan 22 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

the essence of any sail is :

• its shape
  
• the strenghening reinforcement required for it to retain the shape when under load in use

with the 3dl process both of these are set in concrete when the sil is laminated in minden nevada. The process of assembling the sail from pieces has little or no effect on the above. While alinghi claim in the MOL that there is some broadseaming when assembling and gluing the parts together I sincerely doubt that this is the case as

• the sails will be designed with a specified overlap for the glued joint. More overlap is more weight. I guess the excess could be cut off?
  
• the reinforcing carbon fibres must meet up with their counterparts in the adjacent panel to resolve the stress. If the shape is messed with during assembly these will misalign increasing the probability of instability or failure.

As i'm sure you know, when a 3DL is baked it shrinks, and on a panels these size it shrinks quite a bit. So to get the correct shape the sailmakers must compensate for the shrinkage in the broadseams. Further, as i'm sure you know after reading the Pattison affidavit, the sailmakers have to trim the edges to a specific size before joining any panels and this size can be altered before joining but following analysis of previous sails. So the pieces they receive are not necessarily what they create.

[Icecube]

Finnfart, on Jan 22 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

FuckYou, on Jan 22 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Here is the argument that Alinghi should bring:

The sails are made of panel elements. The raw materials for those panels comes from Japan. The cloth for those panels is made in Canada (or whereever). The panels are mold constructed in Nevada. The panels are shipped to Switzerland and a sail is constructed there.

Most all components of our yacht and their yacht are made the same way. The raw materials come from one nation, the intemidate parts are constructed in another nation and the final system is constucted in Switzerland/US.

BOR does this too. Their steel comes from a factory in China, it is formed into a connecting rod bearing in Germany, shipped to the US where it is constructed into an engine.

Where we draw the line and where they draw the line may be slightly different. But until now, the line has not been drawn with clarity. However, it remains that both yachts have many components and raw materials not 'constructed in country'. BMWO would like the court to draw the line just after their engine parts and just before our sails. That is not fair.

+1

Very well put.

But the court, when faced with the abmbiguity of "after the engine parts, and before the Sails" will recognize that it is either all or nothing.

That is why I argued in the other thread that whatever either sails on day 1 is going to have to be their setup for the series... in terms of wings vs. soft sails, and in terms of size of reachers and mains.

Courts almost always reach for the definable points on a continuum and this one only has endpoints.

Dangerous territory I'd say.

I agree fully, dangerous territory indeed.

[Tornado Cat]

va bene, on Jan 22 2010, 08:22 AM, said:

BalticBandit, on Jan 22 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

MR.CLEAN, on Jan 22 2010, 11:41 AM, said:

I think BMW's reply to this is due next week some time.

OK so looking at this quickly

It breaks down into 4 sections

• The GGYC Complaint is unfair
  
• 3DL sails have been used by BOTH sides in previous AC regattaes And they aren't Constructed in Minden
  
• GGYC's Wing Mast isn't a sail so it can't be used
  
• You should just let us race

#1 further breaks down into

• They can't offer to give us more time to build new sails because the Court ordered us to race on Feb 8
  
• They didn't tell us soon enough that our sails were not CiC compliant
  
• They can't do this as part of enforcing the original DoG because this is a NEW DoG violation
  
• You should let us race

#2 breaks down into

• Previous ACs have allowed both sides to use 3DLs
  
• 3DLs were invented outside the USA
  
• the shape of the sails is controlled by the 3 seams we use to join them and Minden just gives us "panels".
  
• Joining and Finishing is really "constructing

#3 breaks down into
GGYC says sails have to be part of the boat and sails are soft

• The wing is not soft so it must not be a sail so it can't be on the boat
  
• GGYC didn't properly tell us what kind of boat we were racing against
  
• The Original America's challenge race in Britain was done with British sails
  
• A bunch of other AC challengers used MATERIALS from other countries

#4 breaks down into

• The court says we have to race on Feb 8, so you have to let us race regardless of whether our sails are legal
  
• This is a NEW violation of the Deed Of Gift rather than the eariler violation were were convicted of, so GGYC has to start a whole new lawsuit rather than just saying we still are violating the DoG
  
• Did we mention they didn't tell us they were going to do this in time?
  
• Did we mention you should just let us race?

Another case of where EB hasn't listened to his legal team's advice and is telling them what to put in the complaint - namely the whole kitchen sink of his aggrieved narcisistic entitlements.

No where. Absolutely no where, is there any admission of the OBLIGATIONS that SNG has to bring a Deed Compliant boat to the line.

No where do they actually come out and claim that their boat is 100% CiC compliant.

why would that be???

excellent analysis

It is not an excellent analysis it is just a good summary.

As far as for the comments, did BB had magic mushrooms since the last days?
- what about this OBLIGATION that SNG has to bring a Deed compliant boat to the line? Where did he read that in the Deed ? coming from his imagination or an obscure NY document?
- 100 % Deed compliant boat is not even proposed by Bor. RC told it publicly !!!
The only person coming back on a regular basis saying USA17 is 100% compliant, on this forum, is BB !!!. Even Bor realizes that it is not the case!

So, I have not seen a serious argument from the Bor fans yet. It looks like they are amazed by the fact that SNG could counterattack.
And what about the stupid tontos that were joking about the wing and the 2 masts ? Get back to earth ! :D

[xfire]

Icecube, on Jan 22 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

As i'm sure you know, when a 3DL is baked it shrinks, and on a panels these size it shrinks quite a bit. So to get the correct shape the sailmakers must compensate for the shrinkage in the broadseams. Further, as i'm sure you know after reading the Pattison affidavit, the sailmakers have to trim the edges to a specific size before joining any panels and this size can be altered before joining but following analysis of previous sails. So the pieces they receive are not necessarily what they create.

That has to be bullshit. 98% of 3DL sails have no broadseams. Any predictable shrinkage would be accommodated in the designers CAD file.shrikange

[Naviguesser]

FuckYou, on Jan 22 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Here is the argument that Alinghi should bring:

The sails are made of panel elements. The raw materials for those panels comes from Japan. The cloth for those panels is made in Canada (or whereever). The panels are mold constructed in Nevada. The panels are shipped to Switzerland and a sail is constructed there.

Most all components of our yacht and their yacht are made the same way. The raw materials come from one nation, the intemidate parts are constructed in another nation and the final system is constucted in Switzerland/US.

BOR does this too. Their steel comes from a factory in China, it is formed into a connecting rod bearing in Germany, shipped to the US where it is constructed into an engine.

Where we draw the line and where they draw the line may be slightly different. But until now, the line has not been drawn with clarity. However, it remains that both yachts have many components and raw materials not 'constructed in country'. BMWO would like the court to draw the line just after their engine parts and just before our sails. That is not fair.

Actually it is a simple point of demarcation - anything off the shelf, available to anyone for any other application of that same component can be allowed. Conversely, anything custom fabricated and solely applicable to that boat must be CiC.

[Lifted Tack]

Icecube, on Jan 22 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

Finnfart, on Jan 22 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

FuckYou, on Jan 22 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Here is the argument that Alinghi should bring:

The sails are made of panel elements. The raw materials for those panels comes from Japan. The cloth for those panels is made in Canada (or whereever). The panels are mold constructed in Nevada. The panels are shipped to Switzerland and a sail is constructed there.

Most all components of our yacht and their yacht are made the same way. The raw materials come from one nation, the intemidate parts are constructed in another nation and the final system is constucted in Switzerland/US.

BOR does this too. Their steel comes from a factory in China, it is formed into a connecting rod bearing in Germany, shipped to the US where it is constructed into an engine.

Where we draw the line and where they draw the line may be slightly different. But until now, the line has not been drawn with clarity. However, it remains that both yachts have many components and raw materials not 'constructed in country'. BMWO would like the court to draw the line just after their engine parts and just before our sails. That is not fair.

+1

Very well put.

But the court, when faced with the abmbiguity of "after the engine parts, and before the Sails" will recognize that it is either all or nothing.

That is why I argued in the other thread that whatever either sails on day 1 is going to have to be their setup for the series... in terms of wings vs. soft sails, and in terms of size of reachers and mains.

Courts almost always reach for the definable points on a continuum and this one only has endpoints.

Dangerous territory I'd say.

I agree fully, dangerous territory indeed.

How about this then. Both boats are DSQ'd for CIC issues. SNG therefore becomes in breach for failing to show up with a deed compliant vessel.

Bada boom, bada bing.

[Naviguesser]

Icecube, on Jan 22 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

As i'm sure you know, when a 3DL is baked it shrinks, and on a panels these size it shrinks quite a bit. So to get the correct shape the sailmakers must compensate for the shrinkage in the broadseams. Further, as i'm sure you know after reading the Pattison affidavit, the sailmakers have to trim the edges to a specific size before joining any panels and this size can be altered before joining but following analysis of previous sails. So the pieces they receive are not necessarily what they create.

I don't recall reading that they cut the panels to size before joining them in Switzerland, do you? Please provide a reference to this assembly step.

[Tom O'Keefe]

Icecube, on Jan 22 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

Finnfart, on Jan 22 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

FuckYou, on Jan 22 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Here is the argument that Alinghi should bring:

The sails are made of panel elements. The raw materials for those panels comes from Japan. The cloth for those panels is made in Canada (or whereever). The panels are mold constructed in Nevada. The panels are shipped to Switzerland and a sail is constructed there.

Most all components of our yacht and their yacht are made the same way. The raw materials come from one nation, the intemidate parts are constructed in another nation and the final system is constucted in Switzerland/US.

BOR does this too. Their steel comes from a factory in China, it is formed into a connecting rod bearing in Germany, shipped to the US where it is constructed into an engine.

Where we draw the line and where they draw the line may be slightly different. But until now, the line has not been drawn with clarity. However, it remains that both yachts have many components and raw materials not 'constructed in country'. BMWO would like the court to draw the line just after their engine parts and just before our sails. That is not fair.

+1

Very well put.

But the court, when faced with the abmbiguity of "after the engine parts, and before the Sails" will recognize that it is either all or nothing.

That is why I argued in the other thread that whatever either sails on day 1 is going to have to be their setup for the series... in terms of wings vs. soft sails, and in terms of size of reachers and mains.

Courts almost always reach for the definable points on a continuum and this one only has endpoints.

Dangerous territory I'd say.

I agree fully, dangerous territory indeed.

It's only scary to those who did not plan for CiC from the beginning.

[TropeKal]

I should have posted what i was replying to... It would seem you have taken this out of context.
Im not talking in the broader sense, but more specifically to an earlier post

[kiwin]

Icecube, on Jan 23 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

kiwin, on Jan 22 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

the essence of any sail is :

• its shape
  
• the strenghening reinforcement required for it to retain the shape when under load in use

with the 3dl process both of these are set in concrete when the sil is laminated in minden nevada. The process of assembling the sail from pieces has little or no effect on the above. While alinghi claim in the MOL that there is some broadseaming when assembling and gluing the parts together I sincerely doubt that this is the case as

• the sails will be designed with a specified overlap for the glued joint. More overlap is more weight. I guess the excess could be cut off?
  
• the reinforcing carbon fibres must meet up with their counterparts in the adjacent panel to resolve the stress. If the shape is messed with during assembly these will misalign increasing the probability of instability or failure.

As i'm sure you know, when a 3DL is baked it shrinks, and on a panels these size it shrinks quite a bit. So to get the correct shape the sailmakers must compensate for the shrinkage in the broadseams. Further, as i'm sure you know after reading the Pattison affidavit, the sailmakers have to trim the edges to a specific size before joining any panels and this size can be altered before joining but following analysis of previous sails. So the pieces they receive are not necessarily what they create.

so you don't believe that the vast majority of the essence of construction these sails was performed in the US?