117 replies to this topic

[nav]

They're at it again.... http://noticeboard.a...12/07/PI_15.pdf


Asking tricky questions - but gaining no certainty!


Questions:


1. The word “adjusted” is used throughout the AC72 Class Rule in 6.3, 7.2, 8.6, 9.6, 10.2(,
10.2©(i)(a), 10.2©(i)(,12.12(d), 19(1), 27.2(a)(ii). If an item is deflected solely due to its
interaction with wind and water and returns to its original shape when the loads are removed, is
this deflection considered an adjustment?

2. Is an appendage with its components allowed under AC72 Class Rule 8.6, 9.6 and 27.2 if it is
designed to deflect solely due to its interaction with wind and water while sailing and if it returns to
its original shape when the loads are removed?

Answers:


1. It would depend on the arrangement of the item. Adjustment does not necessarily require an action
from the crew. For example, stretch of rigging as a result of wind loads would most likely not be
considered adjustment, whilst a contrivance that uses its interaction with wind and/or water to
move or deflect trim tabs or moveable winglets may be considered adjustment.

2. It would depend on the arrangement of the appendage. Refer answer to Q.1.

[~HHN92~]

They're at it again.... http://noticeboard.a...12/07/PI_15.pdf


Asking tricky questions - but gaining no certainty!


Questions:


1. The word "adjusted" is used throughout the AC72 Class Rule in 6.3, 7.2, 8.6, 9.6, 10.2(,
10.2©(i)(a), 10.2©(i)(,12.12(d), 19(1), 27.2(a)(ii). If an item is deflected solely due to its
interaction with wind and water and returns to its original shape when the loads are removed, is
this deflection considered an adjustment?

2. Is an appendage with its components allowed under AC72 Class Rule 8.6, 9.6 and 27.2 if it is
designed to deflect solely due to its interaction with wind and water while sailing and if it returns to
its original shape when the loads are removed?

Answers:


1. It would depend on the arrangement of the item. Adjustment does not necessarily require an action
from the crew. For example, stretch of rigging as a result of wind loads would most likely not be
considered adjustment, whilst a contrivance that uses its interaction with wind and/or water to
move or deflect trim tabs or moveable winglets may be considered adjustment.

2. It would depend on the arrangement of the appendage. Refer answer to Q.1.

This sounds like they have a NASCAR judge workng on this ruling. Next thing you know they will be handing the teams the special ACEA approved foils before they go out on the water, like springs and shocks at Daytona and Talladega.

[seis]

I think the sense of the answer is very clear.

It is legal an appendage without trim tabs or moveable winglets, even if it's deflected solely due to its
interaction with wind and water and returns to its original shape when the loads are removed .

But it's not legal an appendage that includes trim tabs or moveable winglets, even it they are adjusted solely by their interaction with wind and water.

EDIT:
Ergo, OK for the "solid, single-piece" daggerboards autodeflected, but no autodeflected winglets on the rudders

[Monster Mash]

Seis
These are non-statements.

1. It would depend on the arrangement of the item. Adjustment does not necessarily require an action
from the crew. For example, stretch of rigging as a result of wind loads would most likely not be
considered adjustment, whilst a contrivance that uses its interaction with wind and/or water to
move or deflect trim tabs or moveable winglets may be considered adjustment.

2. It would depend on the arrangement of the appendage. Refer answer to Q.1.

[dumper]

the rumour is that one of the top four teams has a grinding pod on the back beam. i think its artemis
http://www.sailingwo...ewport-erickson

[~Stingray~]

JULY 10, 2012 5:55AM
The Return of Commercial Sail – UT Wind Challenger & Retracting Rigid Wing Sails
http://open.salon.co...igid_wing_sails

[~Stingray~]

Has this Jury Notice from July 4 been posted already? Para 32 is potentially interesting
http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN041.pdf

[nav]

Has this Jury Notice from July 4 been posted already? Para 32 is potentially interesting
http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN041.pdf

I hadn't seen it yet.

Interesting (but predictable) that ETNZ and LR say (essentially) that The Protocol, allows no revision of Jury decisions - while AR and 'OTUSA' (is that official now?) say that it does allow for revision...


3. NEUTRAL MANAGEMENT

(a) GGYC (in its capacity as trustee), Challenger of Record (in its capacity as Challenger
of Record) the Event Authority, ACRM, the Regatta Director, and all Officials, while
complying with the rules referred to in Article 13, shall:
(i) (ii)
(x
act in the best interests of all Competitors collectively, consistent with Article 2,
in organizing and managing the Event, and in developing the rights referred to
in Article 4.1©; and
not unreasonably favor the interests of any Competitor over another.
If a Competitor, the Event Authority, or the Regatta Director believes a decision
breaches the principles of Article 3(a) they may seek a review by the Jury. If the Jury
finds a breach of this Article has occurred, it may revise the decision as it considers
just and equitable for all Competitors and consistent with the objectives set out in
Article 2.




The view of the Jury is
that when one Competitor takes advantage of an opportunity provided by the
Rules governing an event and another does not, it does not follow that this is
'unfair'. Unless a breach of the Rules has been established, it is not for the Jury
to correct any perceived imbalance created. This is the nature of any competition,
not least the America's Cup. Indeed, some Competitors consider there are
examples of Artemis Racing having done similar things, for example, the use of a
trimaran for rig testing.





DECISION

.......In the absence of Artemis

Racing establishing a clear breach under Article 3, it would not be just and
equitable to revise any such Decision.

31. The Application for a review under Article 3( of the Protocol of previous Case
Decisions is dismissed.

[~Stingray~]

from the JN:
The view of the Jury is
that when one Competitor takes advantage of an opportunity provided by the
Rules governing an event and another does not, it does not follow that this is
'unfair'. Unless a breach of the Rules has been established, it is not for the Jury
to correct any perceived imbalance created. This is the nature of any competition,
not least the America's Cup. Indeed, some Competitors consider there are
examples of Artemis Racing having done similar things, for example, the use of a
trimaran for rig testing.

This part caught my eye too; strikes as quite pointed - maybe the IJ has tired of AR's pressing the case? It's almost a suggestion that the legitimacy of AR's tri usage is (just as) open to clarification.

[nav]

(Ooops. Should have included... 15.13. Any decision and/or award of the Jury shall be final and binding.)

^^^ Yes SR, seems a bit that way - but they will still consider an oral argument (could co$t AR though) that there needs to be further 'clarification' of their earlier (3) decisions.

I sure found them difficult - I remember pages of Seis and others trying to understand the significance.

[~Stingray~]

Yep, their language is confoundingly confusing.

[dumper]

will they have hiking straps or will they just sit there? like would they want to get every bit of righting moment?

[eric e]

we didn't see any hiking on a5 or dz

and i don't see how the grinders could hike from their pits...

so i'd say

no hiking

[nav]

we didn't see any hiking on a5 or dz

and i don't see how the grinders could hike from their pits...

so i'd say

no hiking

Pits?
In post #428 (as below) on the TNZ Launching AC72 next Saturday w00t thread, you'll see in the middle photo what looks like padding has been added to the rail - for hiking?

Das boot.

[~HHN92~]

we didn't see any hiking on a5 or dz

and i don't see how the grinders could hike from their pits...

so i'd say

no hiking

Pits?
In post #428 (as below) on the TNZ Launching AC72 next Saturday w00t thread, you'll see in the middle photo what looks like padding has been added to the rail - for hiking?

Das boot.

Depending on conditions and activity I would think they might hike like they did on DZ and A5.

[nav]

Hoist limits questioned and clarified....

http://noticeboard.a...12/08/PI_18.pdf

[nav]

Don't mess with those rudders!

Measurement Committee
Interpretation No. 19
AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22nd of February, 20 12

Rule Reference:
AC72 Class Rule 8.6 and 9.6 infer that appendages may be made of more than 1 component. This is
supported by rule 27.2© that discusses “surfaces” of an appendage, as opposed to a single surface of an
appendage.

8.6 Rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets, that can be adjusted
while racing. However, a movable or retractable device whose sole purpose is the removal of weed or
debris is permitted.
9.6 Daggerboards shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets that can be
adjusted while racing; however, a movable or retractable device the sole purpose of which is the
removal of weed or debris is permitted.
27.2 Except for repair of, or replacement for, unintended damage, the measurement certificate ceases to
be valid if there is any change to: c/ the shape of the appendage surfaces;

Question:
A rudder has near horizontal winglets whose angle to the near vertical component of the rudder is fixed when
racing. When not racing, the angle of these winglets can be adjusted so only the pitch of the winglets will
change. The immersed volume, weight and center of gravity of the rudder would not measurably change.
Does the measurement certificate remain valid if between races this angle is adjusted but the surface shape of
each component of the rudder does not change?

Answer:
No. Adjusting the angle of one surface of an appendage relative to another surface of that appendage
constitutes a change to the shape of the appendage surfaces, and invalidates the yacht's measurement
certificate in accordance with AC72 Class Rule 27.2 ©.

This interpretation is issued in accordance with Rule 3 of the AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22 February, 2011.
Nick Nicholson, Chairman - for the Measurement Committee
29thAugust 2012

[Hastings]

Here is Alex Thomson in the English Channel. Getting ready for the Vendee.

How about someone loans him some foils?

Could be hard to make a latte on that boat?

Attached Files

•  Alex Thomson, Vendee Practice, Oct 2012.jpg   86.19K   15 downloads