2364 replies to this topic

[Barnyb]

Great, where did you get this pic?

sail-world

http://www.sail-worl...gle-foil/103466

[Kiwing]

Wow the heat is going on. ETNZ must be feeling the blow torch!

How does OR feel watching and waiting.

How great is this some teams flying and some teams showing how hard it really is.

Doesn't it look simple, if we only had ETNZ and LR to watch it would seem a piece of cake!!

[hoom]

Ironically to me that pic looks the most photoshopped of all the foiling pics
There is a halo around the wing & hulls that looks like a bad masking job
Probably just an over-aggressive sharpen filter though...

[~Stingray~]

SailWorld likely got it from the LR tweet, so yes it may have had a touch of care.

Still, it is hard to see any hole - perhaps it was because the L was deep?

http://instagram.com/p/Rjyug-Jlg1/

Confounding cat 'cum' confounding Carlo!

[hoom]

Well you don't see the hole on any of the ETNZ foiling pics either other than that one from straight ahead.
Well actually now that I've seen that my interpretation of the foil wake in a bunch of the pics has changed & I think I do see it in some shots.

[Terry Hollis]

Wow the heat is going on. ETNZ must be feeling the blow torch!

Why on earth do you think that ?? .. ETNZ probably designed the launch foils for LR .

[Landlockedlubber]

Wow the heat is going on. ETNZ must be feeling the blow torch!

Why on earth do you think that ?? .. ETNZ probably designed the launch foils for LR .

But without the 'speed vortex'............

[SimonN]

Is it really so surprising that LR are foiling on day 1? They don't need to go through the same discovery process that ETNZ needed to do. So long as they have the load data from ETNZ, if they were hitting the numbers they would have a fair bit of confidence all was well. Good job though, to get the boat to this stage.

[Barnyb]

Launch day foils 9same on both sides. Pretty vanilla looking. thought they were fakes at first.

Attached Files

•  Oct 2012 f 121.JPG   159.14K   228 downloads

[hoom]

Is it really so surprising that LR are foiling on day 1? They don't need to go through the same discovery process that ETNZ needed to do. So long as they have the load data from ETNZ, if they were hitting the numbers they would have a fair bit of confidence all was well.

Indeed.

Regarding the launch foils:
The profile looks awfully like a plank with cardboard to a point either side.
But then they've put Ls on it...
Presumably some sort of poke at Oracle?

[~Stingray~]

Those L's are much like what I expect ETNZ to emerge with. Could be wrong though!

Still curious about the baptismal ETNZ foils -could they be what LR is now running?

And as to the rules on that possibility, well my brain loses laminar flow without even getting deep into that chance.

[Barnyb]

....... The boat is beautiful. In the evening spring sun it glistens and shines. Technically we have seen its sister-ship foiling around the Hauraki Gulf for the last few months. This boat is essentially the same although there are deliberate design differences. They have built different foils, jibs, genekers and other items. The different designs will bring out differences in performance which can be compared (all within the protocol) over the summer months in Auckland. The wings and platform are identical as TNZ 72 except for the vinyl adhesive that provides the chrome finish. The cost of the vinyl is weight. TNZ sports a Duraprox costing which incorporates the colour. LR has a Duraprox coating, then a chrome vinyl adhesive, then a clear Marine Shield coating. Talk had the wing 30kg heavier than TNZ’s. 30 kg’s up high has a performance cost....





interesting comments re the chrome finish I found

[hoom]

Well the ETNZ launch 'foils' didn't stick out through the bottom bearing -> were definitely dummies.

It could be quite funny if they put dummy Ls on at the launch but because they go through the bearing they count towards the limit.
You'd expect the measurers to be reasonable about that though.

I don't expect ETNZ to come out with Ls. Maybe a bit of rework to enable a more efficient setup upwind though.

[maxmini]

Well the ETNZ launch 'foils' didn't stick out through the bottom bearing -> were definitely dummies.

It could be quite funny if they put dummy Ls on at the launch but because they go through the bearing they count towards the limit.
You'd expect the measurers to be reasonable about that though.

I don't expect ETNZ to come out with Ls. Maybe a bit of rework to enable a more efficient setup upwind though.

Stranger things have happened . It is the AC after all

[~Stingray~]

I predict major rules arguments ahead with the coming collaboration sailings. OR and AR have somehow failed to convince the Jury so far that intent matters more than 'literality' in the words, and maybe they will continue to fail; but I bet the effort is only just beginning.

It's a lot like ETNZ is planning on benefitting from design testing three boats instead of the two that the rules intended, right?

No idea who's in charge of that for AR, could be Erkelens?, or for OTUSA, my guess is Slater?, but there just has to be a storm brewing over Lake Auckland

The head-bashing fun will commence on all levels, probably.

[Rennmaus]

If I wore a tin foil hat I'd say that the initial plan was for OR to sell its design to AR, including the following collaboration. Apparently they haven't taken into account that other teams' design may be more sought after, and all of a sudden it was ETNZ benefiting from the rules. If the rules were drafted to avoid close collaboration, why were they so poorly worded?

We will see what storms are brewing over Lake Hauraki. There may be others brewing over the Bay as well. It's the AC after all.

[~Stingray~]

Agreed about AC storms abrewin'!

The argument about if the language really is 'poorly worded' or not, may well be the crux of the matter.

I have no idea who will be arguing over what. AR's persistence over PI 21 does suggest willingness to take the intent on though, and OR's recent setback might too? I hope what Patrizio said in Auckland was more out of flying-above-it blissfull ignorance than from any detailed rules knowledge. The recent KL article was hopeful on that point too.

[kiwi_bob]

I had, up till this week considered Prada to be an "also ran" and a nice funding boost for ETNZ however this boat looks very slick and they are already seemingly diverging and going thier own way development wise. It's brilliant for the cup and they are my 2nd favourite team but I wonder how much sharing will actually go on and when it will stop. Both teams know that they will have to defeat each other at some point to achieve thier ultimate goals - have they said what the date is that they say "see you on the race course" and stop talking to each other? When they leave Auckland I'm guessing. In the meantime I'm betting they aren't sharing all thier design thoughts...

[Indio]

If I wore a tin foil hat I'd say that the initial plan was for OR to sell its design to AR, including the following collaboration. Apparently they haven't taken into account that other teams' design may be more sought after, and all of a sudden it was ETNZ benefiting from the rules. If the rules were drafted to avoid close collaboration, why were they so poorly worded?

We will see what storms are brewing over Lake Hauraki. There may be others brewing over the Bay as well. It's the AC after all.

I doubt there's much OR-AR can do about the ETNZ-LR collaboration agreement now that the Jury has cleared the amended agreement. AR kept pushing shit uphill and got slapped with Euro10k in costs and got told to go away. They can't go to any jurisdiction outside the Jury or they get disqualified from the Regatta, and they can't appeal any decision of the Jury's.

Jim Farmer is ETNZ's legal eagle and he's one of the best in the business. Hamish Ross is the ACRM's legal counsel, and ACRM pretty much came in in support of ETNZ's position over PI22. ACRM was suprisingly frank in their submission that " the history of the America's Cup had many examples of technical innovations exploiting provisions of the Class Rule not considered when it was drafted “and is often accompanied by determined efforts on the part of other competitors to outlaw the innovation. Innovation of one competitor is rule breaking to another.”

The only area where there is an opportunity for fireworks is in OR's repairs. AR's desperate attempt to question the Jury's authority and qualification will get trounced - and I hope they get slapped with another Euro10k costs ruling.

[Barnyb]

If I wore a tin foil hat I'd say that the initial plan was for OR to sell its design to AR, including the following collaboration. Apparently they haven't taken into account that other teams' design may be more sought after, and all of a sudden it was ETNZ benefiting from the rules. If the rules were drafted to avoid close collaboration, why were they so poorly worded?

We will see what storms are brewing over Lake Hauraki. There may be others brewing over the Bay as well. It's the AC after all.

I doubt there's much OR-AR can do about the ETNZ-LR collaboration agreement now that the Jury has cleared the amended agreement. AR kept pushing shit uphill and got slapped with Euro10k in costs and got told to go away. They can't go to any jurisdiction outside the Jury or they get disqualified from the Regatta, and they can't appeal any decision of the Jury's.

Jim Farmer is ETNZ's legal eagle and he's one of the best in the business. Hamish Ross is the ACRM's legal counsel, and ACRM pretty much came in in support of ETNZ's position over PI22. ACRM was suprisingly frank in their submission that " the history of the America's Cup had many examples of technical innovations exploiting provisions of the Class Rule not considered when it was drafted “and is often accompanied by determined efforts on the part of other competitors to outlaw the innovation. Innovation of one competitor is rule breaking to another.”

The only area where there is an opportunity for fireworks is in OR's repairs. AR's desperate attempt to question the Jury's authority and qualification will get trounced - and I hope they get slapped with another Euro10k costs ruling.

This is my reading of the situation as well except for the wing repairs on OR. I am sure it is stuffed and while they may push to get it "repaired" I think they will get a hard time from the MC.

As for challengers working together - it has always happened. Except when the BNZ Challenge (1987) helped the Aussies defend (as this would help NZ if it satyed in Aust) But NZ got roundly spanked for helping a defender.

[Indio]

The chrome finish on LR provides a very deceptive perception, and serves up a nice camouflage feature - intended or not. The photo below is a nice example: the reflection of the water softens the lines of the hulls, making them a lot less "boxy" in the way ETNZ's slap you in the eye with the solid black hulls.
Looking at those hulls, one could be forgiven for thinking they're completely different from ETNZ's.
 LunaRossaAC72varo12cb_26843.jpg   348.58K   183 downloads

[nav]

You're saying Prada knows that black is not slimming?

[maxmini]

I had, up till this week considered Prada to be an "also ran" and a nice funding boost for ETNZ however this boat looks very slick and they are already seemingly diverging and going thier own way development wise. It's brilliant for the cup and they are my 2nd favourite team but I wonder how much sharing will actually go on and when it will stop. Both teams know that they will have to defeat each other at some point to achieve thier ultimate goals - have they said what the date is that they say "see you on the race course" and stop talking to each other? When they leave Auckland I'm guessing. In the meantime I'm betting they aren't sharing all thier design thoughts...

With LR foiling on day one when it took ET 4 days to figure it out themselves I think the cooling off process has already started . ET has a big chrome bump in the road to AC 34 .

[Kiwi xtreme]

GD said LR had allot of flair and thats something that ETNZ can never be (to many sponsors?) I love the boat and the attitude of this team. I hope they do well and help ETNZ win the cup. No doubt that they have the same view of what the next cup will be like if they win

[Ross 780]

LR first day of sailing with supposedly one daggerboard and foiling doesn't make sense from a structured learning/ testing/ development risk management programme perspective.

Before they left the dock they knew three critical facts. One you can capsize it , two you can break it if is loaded/stressed incorrectly and third they knew the model they have can foil.

On the first day you would want to get to know the characteristics and foibles of LR. You don't want to push it and break something. You need to build team co ordination and feel on responding to different changes in sailing conditions. We have all worked up a new boat and crew. Given you only have 30 days on the water, what better time to do some different foil testing while learning about the cat. You have the standard on one hull aka ETNZ styled board and you experiment with the other hull. So you spend the day sailing up and down measuring performance of one against the other. Filming the different characteristics of the wake etc. Before you come back in you remove the test boards

On foiling why would you take the risk on day one and with only one daggerboard supposedly present. Most of the crew probably have never foiled. If you were going to try, and knowing that an out of control incident is likely catastrophic wouldn't you want to replicate the setup of the guys who have been successful, before you try. This reduces the risk. After all you know it can be done with your type of boat and your boss only intends on building one.The supposed photo of foiling has to have been doctored. Why didn't LR team release it.

One of Oracles failings leading to the capsize was the lack of a structured, prudent, testing development programme, with tight governance and control. Somebody should have pulled the pin on sailing that day. The Luna Rosa team would have seen that. Why would you behave in a similar way and do something very challenging on day one.

[coxcreek]

Oh well, where has Cartier Bresson's decisive moment gone? The sniper version of photography. Now it is a modern version of a Gatling from a chopper. Just spray, some of them will hit the mark.
Just joking. There are superb images coming from this approach.

[Barnyb]

LR first day of sailing with supposedly one daggerboard and foiling doesn't make sense from a structured learning/ testing/ development risk management programme perspective.

Before they left the dock they knew three critical facts. One you can capsize it , two you can break it if is loaded/stressed incorrectly and third they knew the model they have can foil.

On the first day you would want to get to know the characteristics and foibles of LR. You don't want to push it and break something. You need to build team co ordination and feel on responding to different changes in sailing conditions. We have all worked up a new boat and crew. Given you only have 30 days on the water, what better time to do some different foil testing while learning about the cat. You have the standard on one hull aka ETNZ styled board and you experiment with the other hull. So you spend the day sailing up and down measuring performance of one against the other. Filming the different characteristics of the wake etc. Before you come back in you remove the test boards

On foiling why would you take the risk on day one and with only one daggerboard supposedly present. Most of the crew probably have never foiled. If you were going to try, and knowing that an out of control incident is likely catastrophic wouldn't you want to replicate the setup of the guys who have been successful, before you try. This reduces the risk. After all you know it can be done with your type of boat and your boss only intends on building one.The supposed photo of foiling has to have been doctored. Why didn't LR team release it.

One of Oracles failings leading to the capsize was the lack of a structured, prudent, testing development programme, with tight governance and control. Somebody should have pulled the pin on sailing that day. The Luna Rosa team would have seen that. Why would you behave in a similar way and do something very challenging on day one.

Ross 780. Agree with most of your post. There is a massive downside to stuffing it, particularly on day one. However, I did see it foil on the last run in the channel and I did produce the photo that verified the foil. Would not say it was the smooth foil like we have come ot expect from TNZ but hey, it was day one for LR and TNZ took 2 days to foil.

I appreciate that the italians recognise the downside however, they were itching to get on the water and these are not a bunch of greenhorns . Foiling is a measure of their spunk and the confidence they have in their boat, their campaign and the design team. Claiming a thing has been photoshopped is a common one liner here in SA. A joke line when some parties are in denial.

Suggest you wait till Wed or the next LR sailing day and follow the webcam and watch yourself.

An interesting thing PB said the other day was that "accidents happen when people get too confident"

[Rohanoz]

Gotta love these forums. I watched them for about half an hour, trying to, and then posted a few screenshots of LR clearly foiling and then flopping and we get responses ranging from 'photoshopped' thru to 'no foils so they can't have been'.

Public link to the Spencer webcam. Watch it yourself next time before you start posting bullshit.

[hoom]

With LR foiling on day one when it took ET 4 days to figure it out themselves

ETNZ took 4 sailing days to admit it foils.
There were rumors earlier & one of the days was mostly lost with damage.

Before they left the dock they knew three critical facts. One you can capsize it , two you can break it if is loaded/stressed incorrectly and third they knew the model they have can foil.

Assuming that LR didn't depart from the ETNZ design much they know that the engineering is sound.
By my understanding only the hulls were made in Italy, rest of the components were built by same guys who did ETNZ, probably from same moulds -> build quality should be same or better if its the 2nd components out of the moulds.
They just needed to confirm the build quality/make sure it hits the same loadings to ETNZ in load tests then they are good to go.

LR has been foiling on their SL33s, presumably have practiced with similar setup to what they have on the AC72 so I don't buy the stuffing it argument.
It was a pretty light day so there was little risk & they will have had observations/tips on how the ETNZ boat handles in a bearaway/how ETNZ have coped.

[sunseeker]

LR first day of sailing with supposedly one daggerboard and foiling doesn't make sense from a structured learning/ testing/ development risk management programme perspective.

Before they left the dock they knew three critical facts. One you can capsize it , two you can break it if is loaded/stressed incorrectly and third they knew the model they have can foil.

On the first day you would want to get to know the characteristics and foibles of LR. You don't want to push it and break something. You need to build team co ordination and feel on responding to different changes in sailing conditions. We have all worked up a new boat and crew. Given you only have 30 days on the water, what better time to do some different foil testing while learning about the cat. You have the standard on one hull aka ETNZ styled board and you experiment with the other hull. So you spend the day sailing up and down measuring performance of one against the other. Filming the different characteristics of the wake etc. Before you come back in you remove the test boards

On foiling why would you take the risk on day one and with only one daggerboard supposedly present. Most of the crew probably have never foiled. If you were going to try, and knowing that an out of control incident is likely catastrophic wouldn't you want to replicate the setup of the guys who have been successful, before you try. This reduces the risk. After all you know it can be done with your type of boat and your boss only intends on building one.The supposed photo of foiling has to have been doctored. Why didn't LR team release it.

One of Oracles failings leading to the capsize was the lack of a structured, prudent, testing development programme, with tight governance and control. Somebody should have pulled the pin on sailing that day. The Luna Rosa team would have seen that. Why would you behave in a similar way and do something very challenging on day one.

Yup Luna Rosa doesn't know what they are doing and they should not foil again for weeks.

Nice to also know thst you know everything about Oracle's training program and where all the mistakes are. Suggest you ring up Russell and let him know.

For certain the only team that does everything right 100% of the time is ETNZ. Clapton isn't God, Dalton is.

[sunseeker]

If fact, GD now means God Dalton.

[Rennmaus]

Interview with PB and MS:

<<America's Cup: Luna Rossa - Questions from the NZ sailing media

Last Thursday week, before the launch of Luna Rossa's America's Cup Challenger in Auckland, Team Patron, Patrizio Bertelli, and skipper Max Sirena, held a media conference in the Sofitel for New Zealand media.

Most of the key New Zealand sailing media were there. Almost without exception they have all covered the America's Cup since at least 1987 with some going back a lot further back than that.

There were a mix of sailing and general sports media present.

Following is a record of the conference with the general sports media questions stripped out.

Bear in mind that Mr Bertelli only spoke in Italian requiring the questions to be translated from English into Italian and then the response translated back from Italian into English. Max Sirena answered directly in English, the answers maybe lost a little fluency, and certainly responses on the provisions of the America's Cup Protocol should not be taken literally.

The conference opened with Mr Bertelli taking questions from Peter Montgomery.

Is Patrizio apprehensive about what he is taking on?

Bertelli: We still have to discover a lot about these boats, we don't know their limits yet. They might turn out to be dangerous which is our only real concern

Our big concern is that if you damage tour wingsail for any reason while training, then you just stop training.
Normally if you have some trouble with your mast or sails you can work overnight to replace it, but you can't do that with the wingsail.

If you really push the boats to the limit you may wind up doing what Oracle did. Not having spare wing sails and other components does leave the team a bit constrained when practicing manoevers.

Is Patrizio comfortable about using the Team New Zealand technology?

Bertelli: The reason we struck a technical cooperation with Team New Zealand was time. We started very late. We decided to save time and hit the ground running. Since we have two virtually identical boats that could be beneficial in terms of comparing performances.

We will be able to sail together from next week. We have deliberately design some components which are different.

What are the different design components?

Bertelli: It is the foils which are different and so are the jibs and some of the sails are different, but the hulls and wingsails are the same.

Grant Dalton has criticised these boats quite heavily. If Luna Rossa won the America's Cup would Mr Bertelli continue with these boats?

(much more)>>

[Tornado-Cat]

LR first day of sailing with supposedly one daggerboard and foiling doesn't make sense from a structured learning/ testing/ development risk management programme perspective.

Before they left the dock they knew three critical facts. One you can capsize it , two you can break it if is loaded/stressed incorrectly and third they knew the model they have can foil.

On the first day you would want to get to know the characteristics and foibles of LR. You don't want to push it and break something. You need to build team co ordination and feel on responding to different changes in sailing conditions. We have all worked up a new boat and crew. Given you only have 30 days on the water, what better time to do some different foil testing while learning about the cat. You have the standard on one hull aka ETNZ styled board and you experiment with the other hull. So you spend the day sailing up and down measuring performance of one against the other. Filming the different characteristics of the wake etc. Before you come back in you remove the test boards

On foiling why would you take the risk on day one and with only one daggerboard supposedly present. Most of the crew probably have never foiled. If you were going to try, and knowing that an out of control incident is likely catastrophic wouldn't you want to replicate the setup of the guys who have been successful, before you try. This reduces the risk. After all you know it can be done with your type of boat and your boss only intends on building one.The supposed photo of foiling has to have been doctored. Why didn't LR team release it.

One of Oracles failings leading to the capsize was the lack of a structured, prudent, testing development programme, with tight governance and control. Somebody should have pulled the pin on sailing that day. The Luna Rosa team would have seen that. Why would you behave in a similar way and do something very challenging on day one.

I don't have a clue if the picture was PS, but I don't subscribe to what you write. The conditions were light and, perhaps, the boat was just well tuned and ready to fly. Why would the refuse.
When I learnt to fly the powered parachute, the first test was supposed to try it in the field. However when I saw the conditions were perfect I pushed on the throttle, left the field for a short flight. Why not ?

[Tornado-Cat]

If fact, GD now means God Dalton.

Arrh........, now that Larry is the underdog you see Russell as the Devil and Grant as God.

[dogwatch]

(much more)>>

Essential reading.

[ice9a]

The argument about if the language really is 'poorly worded' or not, may well be the crux of the matter.

The basic contradiction built into the protocol is that #1 they did not want teams closely cooperating but #2 they wanted to be able to sell a shared design package. RC and PC had thought they had written it tight enough to prohibit what NZ/LR plan, but the jury disagreed. However the jury decisions are paper thin and a bit inconsistent themselves. The bright line they seem to have tried to draw is 'no information shared that could not be observed from 200m'. Unless TNZ and LR are extremely careful, there will be opportunities to challenge whether that bright line has been crossed. The community is so small (especially in Auckland that any talk or photos off the boat, shared with anyone (media, supplier, etc), could as well be shared with the other team and immediately cross the bright line.

[ncs]

Assuming that LR didn't depart from the ETNZ design much they know that the engineering is sound.

FWIW, ETNZ's main structural and hydraulic designers are Italian.

[MR.CLEAN]

The bright line they seem to have tried to draw is 'no information shared that could not be observed from 200m'. Unless TNZ and LR are extremely careful, there will be opportunities to challenge whether that bright line has been crossed.

200m is nothing if you have the right tool for the job.

[hoom]

FWIW, ETNZ's main structural and hydraulic designers are Italian.

For clarity I was not intending to slight Italian engineering, simply pointing out that the ETNZ design has been out sailing & not breaking -> sound engineering.

[Hastings]

Max Sirena's analysis of the Batmobile pitchpole. From RG's transcript of the Bertelli/Sirena press conference:

"The main issue with Oracle is that when they started pushing hard on foils in the breeze, they went without the right tools. When you have so much distortion on the platform, the angle of the tip of the foil (the horizontal foil) and the rudder winglets which are like elevators. So the range of the angle between the tip of the foil and the angle of the rudder has to be similar when they are foiling. By having a lot of torsion in the platform every time when the foil and the winglet are touching the water they are pushing against the other float, so they create a moment which is why they actually capsized" (Sirena, 2012)

[ncs]

FWIW, ETNZ's main structural and hydraulic designers are Italian.

For clarity I was not intending to slight Italian engineering, simply pointing out that the ETNZ design has been out sailing & not breaking -> sound engineering.

Agreed. Didn't detect any slighting.

[MR.CLEAN]

Max Sirena's analysis of the Batmobile pitchpole. From RG's transcript of the Bertelli/Sirena press conference:

"The main issue with Oracle is that when they started pushing hard on foils in the breeze, they went without the right tools. When you have so much distortion on the platform, the angle of the tip of the foil (the horizontal foil) and the rudder winglets which are like elevators. So the range of the angle between the tip of the foil and the angle of the rudder has to be similar when they are foiling. By having a lot of torsion in the platform every time when the foil and the winglet are touching the water they are pushing against the other float, so they create a moment which is why they actually capsized" (Sirena, 2012)

Jimmy disagreed...his interview will be up soon.

[Landlockedlubber]

Jimmy disagreed...his interview will be up soon.

So you did get Jimmy to admit he F*kd the Flipping Thing?

[MR.CLEAN]

yeah

[Landlockedlubber]

yeah

COOL. Can't wait.

[eric e]

^
good, now we've got that out of the way

i think it's hardly fair to blame him

when he was given some experimental spaghetti

that when thrown against the wall

didn't stick

[Landlockedlubber]

^
good, now we've got that out of the way

i think it's hardly fair to blame him

when he was given some experimental spaghetti

that when thrown against the wall

didn't stick

True. But....( and guessing..)
If he is skippering a 30kt flipping sb, surely he' s not going to admit it. He's gonna say Mea Culpa in 'strine accent.

If it was a crew fault he'll say a Them and Mea Culpa.

Depends on how good the questions of course. ;-)

[flojo]

The bright line they seem to have tried to draw is 'no information shared that could not be observed from 200m'. Unless TNZ and LR are extremely careful, there will be opportunities to challenge whether that bright line has been crossed.

200m is nothing if you have the right tool for the job.

Or one of these:
 neo300.JPG   32.08K   25 downloads

[ice9a]

The bright line they seem to have tried to draw is 'no information shared that could not be observed from 200m'. Unless TNZ and LR are extremely careful, there will be opportunities to challenge whether that bright line has been crossed.

200m is nothing if you have the right tool for the job.

Or one of these:
 neo300.JPG   32.08K   25 downloads

No. The 200m observation has to be from another vessel, it cannot be from the air.


Protocol 37.2 The Competitors are prohibited from engaging in any of the following in an attempt to gain information about another Competitor:
....

(f) use of satellites, aircraft, and/or other means to observe or record from above another Competitor’s yacht;
....

This in fact makes ANY aerial footage (from any distance) of the boats when they are lined up (even media generated) potential cause for AR to protest, because it potentially offers information not available by the allowed means and thus crosses the jury's bright line. I suspect the jury would find a way to disallow this protest, perhaps as still not providing 'enough' information to be 'significantly' useful, but it does show how fragile the current situation is.

[nav]

yeah

COOL. Can't wait.

You will probably continue to wait, 'cause while Clean can pop up here to tell us what photo editing suite the proffesionals do or don't use and to suggest spy cams he is apparently using this to edit his JS interview...

[~Stingray~]

Good interview with Patrizio Bertelli by Pierre at Vsail

http://www.vsail.inf...e-americas-cup/

[MR.CLEAN]

yeah

COOL. Can't wait.

You will probably continue to wait, 'cause while Clean can pop up here to tell us what photo editing suite the proffesionals do or don't use and to suggest spy cams he is apparently using this to edit his JS interview...

Typing a post takes 30 seconds.

JS Interview takes:

Import and encode: 2 hours. Edit: 2 hours. Render: 90 minutes. Compress/encode/deinterlace: 4.5 hours. Upload: 2 hours, and that's with a decent connection. My computer has basically been useless for 9 hours today...but at least the video is done!

oh...core i5 processor 2.88 gig...SSD

[~Stingray~]

Another good interview
--

by Michelle Slade

© Nigel Marple curtesy Luna Rossa Challenge
121105_Erickson
Steve Erickson, Luna Rossa’s Sailing Team Manger, is in charge of Luna Rossa’s technical and sailing development program and works in close co-operation with the Design Team. Following the recent launch of its AC72, Erickson got us caught up on next steps for the Team which relocated to New Zealand after the World Series events in San Francisco this summer.
http://www.sailingwo...-rossas-big-cat

[nav]

yeah

COOL. Can't wait.

You will probably continue to wait, 'cause while Clean can pop up here to tell us what photo editing suite the proffesionals do or don't use and to suggest spy cams he is apparently using this to edit his JS interview...

Typing a post takes 30 seconds.

JS Interview takes:

Import and encode: 2 hours. Edit: 2 hours. Render: 90 minutes. Compress/encode/deinterlace: 4.5 hours. Upload: 2 hours, and that's with a decent connection. My computer has basically been useless for 9 hours today...but at least the video is done!

oh...core i5 processor 2.88 gig...SSD

Alright then, good job. (that's why you earn the big buck$!)

Let's have it.

[onimod]

Another good interview
--

by Michelle Slade

© Nigel Marple curtesy Luna Rossa Challenge
121105_Erickson
Steve Erickson, Luna Rossa's Sailing Team Manger, is in charge of Luna Rossa's technical and sailing development program and works in close co-operation with the Design Team. Following the recent launch of its AC72, Erickson got us caught up on next steps for the Team which relocated to New Zealand after the World Series events in San Francisco this summer.
http://www.sailingwo...-rossas-big-cat

Steve Erickson, Luna Rossa’s Sailing Team Manger:

Who’ll be helming the 72?
Franck Cammas is here helping us with that, mostly because he’s had a lot of big catamaran experience. He’ll steer early on and the rest will play out over the course of our time in NZ.

[Kiwing]

Is LR out there sailing?

[amc]

I just checked the web cam and the crane is operating but no boat so far I think they said Wednesday was the next sailing day

[Kiwing]

I just checked the web cam and the crane is operating but no boat so far I think they said Wednesday was the next sailing day

Thanks amc

[MR.CLEAN]

yeah

COOL. Can't wait.

You will probably continue to wait, 'cause while Clean can pop up here to tell us what photo editing suite the proffesionals do or don't use and to suggest spy cams he is apparently using this to edit his JS interview...

Typing a post takes 30 seconds.

JS Interview takes:

Import and encode: 2 hours. Edit: 2 hours. Render: 90 minutes. Compress/encode/deinterlace: 4.5 hours. Upload: 2 hours, and that's with a decent connection. My computer has basically been useless for 9 hours today...but at least the video is done!

oh...core i5 processor 2.88 gig...SSD

Alright then, good job. (that's why you earn the big buck$!)

Let's have it.

Can't upload at the house - will be streaming in the morning. First look will be at www.justin.tv/onthewateranarchy. you can subscribe to my channel to get notified when the stream goes live. Otherwise watch the front page.

Now back to your shiney italian program

[southseasbill]

The bright line they seem to have tried to draw is 'no information shared that could not be observed from 200m'. Unless TNZ and LR are extremely careful, there will be opportunities to challenge whether that bright line has been crossed.

200m is nothing if you have the right tool for the job.

Or one of these:
 neo300.JPG   32.08K   25 downloads

No. The 200m observation has to be from another vessel, it cannot be from the air.


Protocol 37.2 The Competitors are prohibited from engaging in any of the following in an attempt to gain information about another Competitor:
....

(f) use of satellites, aircraft, and/or other means to observe or record from above another Competitor’s yacht;
....

This in fact makes ANY aerial footage (from any distance) of the boats when they are lined up (even media generated) potential cause for AR to protest, because it potentially offers information not available by the allowed means and thus crosses the jury's bright line. I suspect the jury would find a way to disallow this protest, perhaps as still not providing 'enough' information to be 'significantly' useful, but it does show how fragile the current situation is.

Looks like one of these could get around the rules. Just about fast enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawolf_class_submarine

[Boybland]

One question about this information sharing thing?
What about generally published information given directly to the media?
It would seem that every team has already shared loads of not readily available information with every other team through their media releases.
Is there anything that prevents a team from making performance data basically public knowledge as PR/Media material.

[~Stingray~]

There's just no doubt AR will press hard on the Jury; the ETNZ/LR collab plans make the LR boat ETNZ's third, for all intents and purposes design/test-wise.

The reach on the boards interpretation rulings have turned to ETNZ's favor so far but dang - the above is a Big Can 'o Worms.

That all assumes AR and or TUS have the smarts to effectively dissect original intent from poor verbage as an effective argument.

[jaysper]

One question about this information sharing thing?
What about generally published information given directly to the media?
It would seem that every team has already shared loads of not readily available information with every other team through their media releases.
Is there anything that prevents a team from making performance data basically public knowledge as PR/Media material.

I've been wondeering if this was possible for a while now.
On ya for mentioning it!

[ice9a]

One question about this information sharing thing?
What about generally published information given directly to the media?
It would seem that every team has already shared loads of not readily available information with every other team through their media releases.
Is there anything that prevents a team from making performance data basically public knowledge as PR/Media material.

I've been wondeering if this was possible for a while now.
On ya for mentioning it!

TNZ & LR are specifically vulnerable to protest because (a) they share the same design (and vpp info) and ( b ) they plan to line up and race. Since AR & OR have different designs and have not shared vpps they will not be under as close scrutiny even if they line up.

The jury has set the bright line as to what TNZ & LR cannot do as: "share information that cannot be gained by observation from a permitted external position (using instruments if necessary)" . . . "the sharing of information regarding, for example, specific equipment being used, the set-up of the boat and the conditions in which each boat is sailing" . . . ."information regarding the wind speed and direction, the sails being used, the foils being used, the settings for sails and foils, rig tension, etc."

That's basically all we know now.

If LR shared information of the above type with the media, I am sure AR would protest. Whether AR would win we just don't know.

Most importantly we don't know if the jury believes that essentially ALL of the above information needs to be shared before the line is broken (eg the whole set-up of the boat and its sailing conditions) or if some subset of that information (like perhaps just the foil setting) is enough to communicate 'significant performance information'.

Its a little odd that quite a bit of the specific information the jury mentions is in fact observable (wind speed & direction and sails and foils being used). I would have thought they would have focused on the specific non-observable information that should not be shared.

[hoom]

I believe PR photos etc made public by teams are fair game.

[KiwiJoker]

I believe PR photos etc made public by teams are fair game.

OK, so what about leading marine photographer Carlo Borlenghi, who also happens to be team photographer for Luna Rossa, sailing and photographing aboard the ETNZ 72? http://www.sail-worl...-Zealand/103301

[hoom]

37.2. The Competitors are prohibited from engaging in any of the following in an attempt to gain
information about another Competitor:
(a) any illegal act;
( the use of eavesdropping devices;
© accessing communication frequencies allocated to other teams;
(d) the unauthorized entry into any computer system;
(e) interception of information emanating from telemetry, instruments, computers, etc.;
(f) without the prior consent of the affected Competitor, use of satellites, aircraft, and/or
other means to observe or record from above another Competitor’s yacht;
(g) except when permitted to sail an AC45 yacht as part of an AC World Series regatta,
without the prior consent of the affected Competitor, navigating a vessel within 200m
of another Competitor’s yacht for the purpose of observing it; and Refer amendment 9
(h) the acceptance of any information from a third party that a Competitor is prohibited
from obtaining directly

and

37.3. This Article shall not restrict the lawful and permitted activities of any media representative
accredited by the Event Authority, provided the media representative shall not, other than
by way of public dissemination through a Media Organization, provide to any Competitor
any information that a Competitor is prohibited from obtaining directly.

also

47.6. Competitors may not enter into any exclusive arrangement with any media, which has the
effect of preventing access by any media authorized by the Event Authority. Competitors
may provide still and moving images of their Team to any media provided it has not done
so on an exclusive basis so as to prevent or limit the Event Authority’s authorized
broadcaster or media from using any image of the Team.

[Landlockedlubber]

Typing a post takes 30 seconds.

JS Interview takes:

Import and encode: 2 hours. Edit: 2 hours. Render: 90 minutes. Compress/encode/deinterlace: 4.5 hours. Upload: 2 hours, and that's with a decent connection. My computer has basically been useless for 9 hours today...but at least the video is done!

oh...core i5 processor 2.88 gig...SSD




Can't upload at the house - will be streaming in the morning. First look will be at www.justin.tv/onthewateranarchy. you can subscribe to my channel to get notified when the stream goes live. Otherwise watch the front page.

Now back to your shiney italian program

Waiting Waiting

[Indio]

There's just no doubt AR will press hard on the Jury; the ETNZ/LR collab plans make the LR boat ETNZ's third, for all intents and purposes design/test-wise.

The reach on the boards interpretation rulings have turned to ETNZ's favor so far but dang - the above is a Big Can 'o Worms.

That all assumes AR and or TUS have the smarts to effectively dissect original intent from poor verbage as an effective argument.

You're flogging a dead horse here. Thanks to the 9 "hypothetical" questions raised by OR in their coordinated applications (with AR) against the ETNZ-LR collaboration agreement, ETNZ & LR were able to amend their agreement to be fully compliant with the Protocol. The IJ has passed the ETNZ-LR amended agreement as fully Protocol-legal, leaving OR and AR with very little grounds for continuing their objections. Even AR is reduced to adopting the dubious tactical value of questioning the IJ's authority to make decisions!!

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

[Kiwi Spy]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

[dogwatch]

^

Not so strange when the Defender has chosen the CoR.

[Landlockedlubber]

^

Not so strange when the Defender has chosen the CoR.

Is PC not better known for calling 'Proper Course', rather steering one?

[Tony-F18]

Can't blame him really, the relationships between teams are complex.
Ultimately all of these teams are not friends but competitors.

[Indio]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

Artemis Racing has become the classic poodle CoR with the same DNA as CNEV. But even CNEV never actually sided with the defender against the challengers, the way AR jumps every time OR cracks the whip. Selecting AR as CoR was a self-preservation act by OR on two fronts:
1: The withdrawal of Club Nautico di Roma left only 2 credible challengers: AR and ETNZ. Coutts did not want ETNZ as CoR for obvious reasons, and his WSL pal Cayard was with AR, so it was a chance to kill 2 birds with one swoop;
2: Any other CoR would have cost Larry money to prop up - AR was financially strong enough to pay their way.

In hindsight, the selection of AR as CoR should have given us all a strong hint that the "20+" challengers they had been touting were already in jeopardy as early as May 2011.

The irony is AR could pick up a few tips on how to be a very effective CoR from the CoR in AC32 - one BMW Oracle Racing.

[SimonN]

Some of you have very short and selective memories. ETNZ went to the jury in an attempt to be appointed COR after AR got the job in accordance with the protocol. GD did all he could to become COR, so how you can say ETNZ didn't want it is beyond me.

[MR.CLEAN]

you people have worse memories than me

[sunseeker]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

When in previous times have two challengers colluded to cleverly circumvent the number of hulls (ands sails) that could be built and tested, with and against each other?

Flat out, you kiwi's are just plain cheating.

There is no honor among thieves.

Please Richard, drop this holier than thou approach. You used to be better than that.

[greenteamfan]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

When in previous times have two challengers colluded to cleverly circumvent the number of hulls (ands sails) that could be built and tested, with and against each other?

Flat out, you kiwi's are just plain cheating.

There is no honor among thieves.

Please Richard, drop this holier than thou approach. You used to be better than that.

It is what it is! All of this will shrink in to memory next summer. Remember when JS messed up the start with DoGzilla? Well if this happens again there wont be enough time to come back. The AC will be decided by mistakes not boat speed simple as...

[Terry Hollis]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

When in previous times have two challengers colluded to cleverly circumvent the number of hulls (ands sails) that could be built and tested, with and against each other?

Flat out, you kiwi's are just plain cheating.

That's a bit strong .. The jury is there so if the other contestants believe someone is breaking the rules that OR wrote they can do something about it .. so far the Jury has ruled in ETNZ's favor ..

[eric e]

Some of you have very short and selective memories. ETNZ went to the jury in an attempt to be appointed COR after AR got the job in accordance with the protocol. GD did all he could to become COR, so how you can say ETNZ didn't want it is beyond me.

ok my bad, deleted

[Kiwi Spy]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

When in previous times have two challengers colluded to cleverly circumvent the number of hulls (ands sails) that could be built and tested, with and against each other?

Flat out, you kiwi's are just plain cheating.

There is no honor among thieves.

Please Richard, drop this holier than thou approach. You used to be better than that.

Not trying to point score at all. It never ceases to amaze me with this Cup as to how much the roles seemed to have been turned inside out. Remember the catch phrase of the 2007 Challengers Commission (or whatever it was called) "To relieve the Defender of the burden of holding the America's Cup". Or the likes of Ernie Taylor heading up the Challenger Committee in 1992 and 1995. It used to be that the Challengers stood as one against the Defender and were led by the Challenger of Record, now it is a majority vote (or rather tied vote) with the Defender and COR on one side and the other two Challengers on the other, and the COR is probably harder on the other two Challengers than the Defender.

And then there is ACRM which seems to be sailing straight down the middle, where before ACM and its predessors were very much in the Defender's pocket. Not so now.

RG

[eric e]

didn't america complain bitterly when fay ambushed them with his DOG challenge?

but still do the same to alinghi?

didn't they then also cleverly exploit a "loophole" to built a tri with longer floats than "allowed" in the DOG in challenging alinghi?

didn't artemis cleverly exploit a "loophole" to get around the surrogate yacht definition to test their wing on the orma 60 tri?

i know dennis called the kiwis cheaters when they built their 12mtr from frp instead of alloy

but was still happy to race a winged cat against a soft-sailed monohull...

holier-than-thou is just one of the acts that is the AC play

[MR.CLEAN]

Typing a post takes 30 seconds.

JS Interview takes:

Import and encode: 2 hours. Edit: 2 hours. Render: 90 minutes. Compress/encode/deinterlace: 4.5 hours. Upload: 2 hours, and that's with a decent connection. My computer has basically been useless for 9 hours today...but at least the video is done!

oh...core i5 processor 2.88 gig...SSD




Can't upload at the house - will be streaming in the morning. First look will be at www.justin.tv/onthewateranarchy. you can subscribe to my channel to get notified when the stream goes live. Otherwise watch the front page.

Now back to your shiney italian program

Waiting Waiting

http://www.justin.tv/onthewateranarchy/b/338303387

[Rapscallion]

Good on him. I enjoy these new boats But in saying that I would watch it if there were 15 teams in TP 52's I just love the sport. I don't like reaching starts tho.... I am concerned that trying hard to attract new viewers they may alienate some actual sailing fans. If the people who they are trying to attract have such a low attention span, they will leave in droves when its all over to the next cool thing. Leaving only the enthusiasts left.

2 Cents

I think they're alienating the real sailing fans in their mindless pursuit of more TV eyeballs for ACEA to hog off to advertisers, sponsors, etc.

I started racing optis when I was about 10 years old, and i have been racing ever since. Personally, watching the AC45s race was the best sailing I have seen on TV ever. I think they could have put foils on the AC 45s and it would have been better from a TV perspective... simply due to the larger fleet. An AC 45 and an AC 72 look the same size on a TV screen...

Let the monohull guys complain... I sold my keelboat and bought a 32' cat... and I haven't had this much fun sailing since I climbed into that opti decades ago.

[WetHog]

didn't america complain bitterly when fay ambushed them with his DOG challenge?

but still do the same to alinghi?

How is what Fay did with his DoG challenge the same as what BMWO did with theirs? Seems like Fay was trying to take advantage of the fact that DC didn't line up a COR and that the Cup community was in the midst of a boat change, while BMWO was trying to prevent the Defender from rigging the AC to suit their needs by allowing the Defender to participate in the LV, and possibly determine the outcome, while using a made up Yacht Club to get their way. If GD and his Italian brothers from another mother win AC34 I am sure they will "craft" things to suit themselves as well.

Regardless, the modern history of the AC is what it is. Rich people trying to get an advantage any chance they get. Doesn't matter if its Americans, Kiwi's, Italians, etc...

WetHog

[Estar]

37.3. This Article shall not restrict the lawful and permitted activities of any media representative
accredited by the Event Authority, provided the media representative shall not, other than
by way of public dissemination through a Media Organization, provide to any Competitor
any information that a Competitor is prohibited from obtaining directly.

This would seem to answer the question. The media can release anything publicly (thru a media organization). But they cannot give information, that has not been released publicly, to a team.

This sort of clause has in other contexts already been found full of loopholes . . . .two in particular: (1) if there really is information you want to share, but not release publicly, you set up a media organization, with an obscure website that no-one knows exists except the two teams, and you 'publicly release' the information there; and (2) much of the information that would be useful to share (between LR & TNZ with their common platforms) is of no use to OR & AR in any case, so LR & TNZ can get the benefit of sharing by simply making it public.

Whether inhouse photogs are 'media' in this context is an interesting question. By the wording of the above I presume the jury will find that if they have media creds issued by the event authority then they are media.

As to 'cheating' . . . the protocol was written with an internal contradiction. What TNZ & LR are doing is clearly against the intent of the protocol. Whether it is against the protocol as literally written is about a 50/50 call given the internal contradiction. The jury is trying to make the best of a messy situation and allowing TNZ & LR to proceed creates a more logically consistent path forward than trying to stop them (The jury basically said as much in one of their 'discussion' points). That's basically the point I made, before the jury decisions, when Seis and I discussed this all months ago.

[hughw]

Assuming that LR didn't depart from the ETNZ design much they know that the engineering is sound.

FWIW, ETNZ's main structural and hydraulic designers are Italian.

Didn't know that Will Brooks was Italian ?! ( Alinghi, Mascalzone, Prada composite engineer, and most of my boats too....)

[Rennmaus]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

Artemis Racing has become the classic poodle CoR with the same DNA as CNEV. But even CNEV never actually sided with the defender against the challengers, the way AR jumps every time OR cracks the whip. Selecting AR as CoR was a self-preservation act by OR on two fronts:
1: The withdrawal of Club Nautico di Roma left only 2 credible challengers: AR and ETNZ. Coutts did not want ETNZ as CoR for obvious reasons, and his WSL pal Cayard was with AR, so it was a chance to kill 2 birds with one swoop;
2: Any other CoR would have cost Larry money to prop up - AR was financially strong enough to pay their way.

In hindsight, the selection of AR as CoR should have given us all a strong hint that the "20+" challengers they had been touting were already in jeopardy as early as May 2011.

The irony is AR could pick up a few tips on how to be a very effective CoR from the CoR in AC32 - one BMW Oracle Racing.

Indeed the CoR that was speaking for all challengers by agreeing to the "Lex Coutts".

[scassani]

Kiwi Spy writes: "And then there is ACRM which seems to be sailing straight down the middle, where before ACM and its predessors were very much in the Defender's pocket. Not so now."

If future competitors see the importance of this independence to the quality of an America's Cup competion, the status afforded ACRM in AC34 may prove to be a legacy rarely matched in sport: A Defender who is entitled, legally, to shape aspects of the race to suit his changing needs foregoes this unique advantage, thereby making himself accountable as any other competitor. Now that we have an alternative to the Cups history of well earned dominance before the boats are in the water, the next Defender will have a lesson of his choosing. Shall he repeat the legally recognized participants mistake of interjecting a recognized authority into the Cup competition or will he continue the practice, knowing all along that granting such authority to ACRM is disretionary on the part of the Defender and, once granted, is not the Defender's to change?

As best I can tell, America's Cup races have not been juried in the manner the sailing community entrusts to ACRM, with its current staffing. Schuyler's perpetual competition among nations has never been just another yacht race and so subject to the regulations that commonly apply, including how disputes among the participants are to be resolved. Bear in mind though that granting a Challenger the status of 'challenger of record' is an artifact of today's competition. Any future competition could be settled by the Defender and a Challenger, singular. With two parties engaged there is no role for ACRM, save to measure LWL and other technical issues that demand independent hands hold the ruler. A dispute over a competitor presenting his boat for measurement ("Here is where the hull leaves the water!") and a dispute as to how to read the language that describes such a presentation are not the same. ACRM's welcome to speak to the latter comes at the invitation of GGYC and the Swedish challenger. Whether such oversight will come again and so pass from special authority to common practice will wait on the decision of a future Defender and likley, how he makes his choice of Challenger.

[kiwi_jon]

didn't america complain bitterly when fay ambushed them with his DOG challenge?

but still do the same to alinghi?

How is what Fay did with his DoG challenge the same as what BMWO did with theirs? Seems like Fay was trying to take advantage of the fact that DC didn't line up a COR and that the Cup community was in the midst of a boat change, while BMWO was trying to prevent the Defender from rigging the AC to suit their needs by allowing the Defender to participate in the LV, and possibly determine the outcome, while using a made up Yacht Club to get their way. If GD and his Italian brothers from another mother win AC34 I am sure they will "craft" things to suit themselves as well.

Regardless, the modern history of the AC is what it is. Rich people trying to get an advantage any chance they get. Doesn't matter if its Americans, Kiwi's, Italians, etc...

WetHog

Not quite WH. DC wanted more control of how, when and where the 28th defence of the Cup was to be held. He had the Cup and he wasn't handing it back. While SDYC and DC were bickering they hadn't announced the next defence so Fay challenged with a Deed of Gift challenge. This galvanised SDYC into action and they announced that the 28th defence would be held in 1990 in 12mtrs and opened up entries and ignored Fays challenge. SDYC even went to the point of petitioning the NYSC to get the DoG changed to include the 12mtr as the AC class boat. This was turned down as not being the intent of the Deed.

The challengers started talking about a new class of yacht for the AC so SDYC told them to come up with a design and they would run with that. Meanwhile Fay took his challenge to court who rightly ruled his challenge was legitimate. AC28 became the big boat challenge, several challengers were prepared to compete in big boats but SDYC refused. AC29 was held in 1992 in IACC yachts.

There are more than a few parallels to what happened after AC32.

[Indio]

Some of you have very short and selective memories. ETNZ went to the jury in an attempt to be appointed COR after AR got the job in accordance with the protocol. GD did all he could to become COR, so how you can say ETNZ didn't want it is beyond me.

ETNZ did want to be CoR - Coutts didn't want them, hence they engineered the receipt of AR's application at 1 second past midnight. GGYC, courtesy of Ehman, ignored ETNZ's requests for clarification before being forced to do so by the IJ - who roundly criticised them for it.

And therein the antagonism from OR-AR to ETNZ was born.....

[Indio]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

When in previous times have two challengers colluded to cleverly circumvent the number of hulls (ands sails) that could be built and tested, with and against each other?

Flat out, you kiwi's are just plain cheating.

There is no honor among thieves.

Please Richard, drop this holier than thou approach. You used to be better than that.

. You must have gone to the same comprehension lessons as Simon....or skipped the same.

[Indio]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

Artemis Racing has become the classic poodle CoR with the same DNA as CNEV. But even CNEV never actually sided with the defender against the challengers, the way AR jumps every time OR cracks the whip. Selecting AR as CoR was a self-preservation act by OR on two fronts:
1: The withdrawal of Club Nautico di Roma left only 2 credible challengers: AR and ETNZ. Coutts did not want ETNZ as CoR for obvious reasons, and his WSL pal Cayard was with AR, so it was a chance to kill 2 birds with one swoop;
2: Any other CoR would have cost Larry money to prop up - AR was financially strong enough to pay their way.

In hindsight, the selection of AR as CoR should have given us all a strong hint that the "20+" challengers they had been touting were already in jeopardy as early as May 2011.

The irony is AR could pick up a few tips on how to be a very effective CoR from the CoR in AC32 - one BMW Oracle Racing.

Indeed the CoR that was speaking for all challengers by agreeing to the "Lex Coutts".

The needs of the mass versus the one - Marxism at work, for a change . In any event, BMWOR did not act against a challenger - it was a compromise with the stubborn defender.

[Rennmaus]

Looks like Artemis is making a lot of compromises then.

[pjfranks]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

When in previous times have two challengers colluded to cleverly circumvent the number of hulls (ands sails) that could be built and tested, with and against each other?

Flat out, you kiwi's are just plain cheating.

There is no honor among thieves.

Please Richard, drop this holier than thou approach. You used to be better than that.

You are joking. OR/AC Alphabet offered to sell their design to teams from the start of AC34. Was that dishonest? I don't think so. It was just to encourage teams to join the game. GGYC should be pleased that TNZ attracted LR into the game. You should be pleased too.

[Tornado-Cat]

Some of you have very short and selective memories. ETNZ went to the jury in an attempt to be appointed COR after AR got the job in accordance with the protocol. GD did all he could to become COR, so how you can say ETNZ didn't want it is beyond me.

I wonder whether you can't understand what you read or what you write. If it was for both,.... you could have it right sometimes.

[Indio]

Looks like Artemis is making a lot of compromises then.

For AR's and OR's benefit. QED...

[Koukel]

It used to be that the Challengers stood as one against the Defender and were led by the Challenger of Record,

Then the Kiwis started giving spare parts to the Aussies.

Koukel

[Indio]

It used to be that the Challengers stood as one against the Defender and were led by the Challenger of Record,

Then the Kiwis started giving spare parts to the Aussies.

Koukel

It's called ANZAC. "ORAR" sounds contrived.

[Boybland]

What is really abhorrent is the CoR behaving like a defender rather than as the advocate for the challengers.

When in previous Cups have the Challenger of Record and the Defender both complained about the rest of the Challengers and then the AC Organisers come in and back the "rogue" Challengers, and they Jury goes "rogue" Challengers way?

Hard to see why Artemis wanted to be COR - have they ever supported the majority of the Challengers against the Defender? That's the role of the COR isn't it?

Strange times

RG

When in previous times have two challengers colluded to cleverly circumvent the number of hulls (ands sails) that could be built and tested, with and against each other?

Flat out, you kiwi's are just plain cheating.

There is no honor among thieves.

Please Richard, drop this holier than thou approach. You used to be better than that.

Teams have trained against each other in past events, heck some of them even trained with the defender in Valencia.

They haven't circumvented anything as simplistic as the number of boats or sails, if they were the only rules they would be so in line with them we wouldn't even be talking about it.
The rules in dispute are the data sharing and surrogate ones that have been worded or at least interpreted in a way where one physical boat can somehow be counted as two separate boats belonging to two separate people even when only being actually used by one of them (rather strange if you think about it in a purely physical sense).

The irony of the whole thing is that those rules were put in place specifically to try and make it cheaper and what ETNZ and LR are doing is try and to make it cheaper... But hey once the rules are written you work them any way you can.