Jump to content


Jury Notices & Decisions Thread

Bring them all here...

  • Please log in to reply
5712 replies to this topic

#1 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:59 AM

Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

Attached File  JN052.pdf   169.23K   119 downloads

#2 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,039 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:38 AM

Thanks for starting this thread. I think your reasoning for it being a non runner is incorrect. The AR argument seems to be that while the jury has the powers you point out under 15.4(f), those powers do not extend to changing the class rules. AR are arguing that the jury decision is not an interpretation but a change in the rules. If they successfully argue that, then the decision in case AC16(JN051) is void.

I don't think it will succeed, but I can see the angle they are coming from. Where this will get interesting is that I am sure that ETNZ will submit that this wasn't a change in the rules, and, I suspect, so will LR. The question is what, if anything, OR will submit. I sense some real dirty tricks coming on, because what they are really trying to do is to screw ETNZ. This could get interesting!

#3 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,517 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:11 AM

remember

everyone wants to keep the AC out of the courts this time

unless, like ernie, there's some gaming to be done

Attached File  israeli_commander_plans_military_maneuver.jpg   147.57K   101 downloads

#4 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:29 AM

Talk about a last-ditch stand. Under the Protocol there is no higher authority to appeal to so Artemis is flicking it back at the Jury together with copies to every party they can conjure up. The only parties they missed were MSP, Sailing Anarchy and the New York Times!

"The Application was filed on 22nd October 2012 by AR on jurycomms@americascup.com and sent to the Trustee, the Competitors, America’s Cup Race Management (ACRM), America’s Cup Event Authority (ACEA), the Chief Measurer and the Umpire Team Director (‘the Parties’)."

As I see it, the Jury could have rejected this appeal out of hand. "Our ruling is final!" However they have opened he door to a new round of submissions. It will be interesting to see what GGYC (the Trustee) has to say. And I suspect that Luna Rossa will weigh in with something more substantive this time.

I have a tough time seeing this as a change in the rules; thus, case dismissed!

#5 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:36 AM

Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.
This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.
If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.

#6 sunseeker

sunseeker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:46 AM

Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.
This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.
If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.


No just like designers have to design and builders have to build, rules guys have to submit stuff like this. It's just what they do.

#7 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:50 PM

Jury Decision being contested by AR:


DECISION
59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.
60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.
61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

Attached File  JN051.pdf   183.14K   25 downloads

#8 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:59 PM

AR says that the Jury changed the rule when they said that ETNZ was right when they said that the MC changed the rule when they made a interpretation that AR asked for in the first place....

But they are wrong! :wacko:

Just wait.

#9 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,224 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:53 AM

I can't understand why those lawyers make all that money when they are no where near as smart as we are . Just crazy I tell you :)

#10 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:01 AM

Desperate times call for desperate measures basically. Just get on with it and settle this on the water.... I hate this crap It brings the whole sport into disrepute

#11 Monster Mash

Monster Mash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,739 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:15 AM

Jury Decision being contested by AR:


DECISION
59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.
60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.
61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

Attached File  JN051.pdf   183.14K   25 downloads


?

#12 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:24 AM

Desperate times call for desperate measures basically.


The desperation comes from OR who has their wrist up AR's butt pushing them. ORTUSA will have a response supporting AR's application very shortly: then we'll have ORTUSA lodging an application seeking relief for their repairs to OR17/1....

.... I hate this crap It brings the whole sport into disrepute

:lol: :lol: ..that sentiment went down the toilet about 20 years ago...

#13 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,488 posts

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:09 AM


Jury Decision being contested by AR:


DECISION
59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.
60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.
61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

Attached File  JN051.pdf   183.14K   25 downloads


?


measurement water plane

#14 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

AR's appeal against the Jury's decision in favour of ETNZ's application against PI22 stinks of desperation. They're clearly hanging their hat on 15.4:The Jury shall act both as a jury under the RRSAC and as an arbitral body, with the following powers:
(a) to resolve all matters of interpretation of the Rules other than the class rules in Article 13.1© except as provided in Article 15.4(f);
....
(f) where the Jury finds the Measurement Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction or broken a Rule, it may substitute its determination for the Measurement Committee’s;

15.4(f) provides the authority for the Jury to order the withdrawal of PI22 and substitute the MC's interpretation with their own - and AR have the audacity to claim the Jury "exceeded its jurisdiction"!

Given their current predicaments, I wonder whether ORTUSA will bother supporting the poodle in an action with potentially more downsides than upsides...

#15 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 03:11 PM

The amusing part would be to see the poodle prevent his master from designing what he may now need. :D

#16 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 29 October 2012 - 02:16 AM


Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.
This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.
If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.


No just like designers have to design and builders have to build, rules guys have to submit stuff like this. It's just what they do.


How true. Melinda Erkelens' spending power from her days in OR and AC33 must have dropped a bit so she's racking up her billables to regain parity :)

#17 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:06 AM

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation
(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

#18 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:57 PM

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation
(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?
It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

#19 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:07 PM


Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation
(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?
It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.


Is this what you are looking for? It went up about 5 days ago IIRC

http://noticeboard.a...ge-Schedule.pdf

#20 ice9a

ice9a

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Interests:1

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:40 PM

Is this what you are looking for? It went up about 5 days ago IIRC

http://noticeboard.a...ge-Schedule.pdf


No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."

#21 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,488 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:53 PM

No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."


Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.

#22 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:07 PM


No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."


Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.




Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation
(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?
It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

I'd like to think the MC is working closely with, and answering queries from, ORTUSA over their repairs, and just haven't got around to releasing the information publicly. 29.10 certainly demands that MC written approval is obtained before commencing any repairs: I doubt that the MC or Jury will accept that any failure to obtain approval was "inadvertent".

I hope the MC's failure to provide the interpretations doesn't become an issue for ORTUSA and/or AR, though perhaps not so much for AR. Time is their enemy, and if there is an opportunity to seek more of it, the MC might be providing it....

#23 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,488 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:49 PM

I made a phone call and = 29.9 interpretation dated august 2nd.

It's not in the measurement interpretation folder, and not a numbered interpretation, for some reason.

#24 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:52 PM

I made a phone call and = 29.9 interpretation dated august 2nd.

It's not in the measurement interpretation folder, and not a numbered interpretation, for some reason.


Great effort to get that: thanks. Looks like everything in order for all repairs to proceed...

#25 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:31 AM

Measurement Committee
Interpretation No. 24 of AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22 February, 2011


Rule References:

25. MEASUREMENT CONDITIONS

25.1 The AC72 Yacht shall be brought to measurement condition to determine the measurement
weight. The measurement condition includes everything aboard the AC72 Yacht during a race
except the following:
(a) (b. ACRM personnel, guests and ACRM equipment that is not permanently installed on the AC72
Yacht;
(c. crew;
(d) crew clothing and equipment that is normally carried on the person while racing but limited to
a maximum of 6.00 kg per crewmember;
(e) soft sails (including soft sail bags, luff cables and hanks) ; and
(f)


25.2
the wing as it was weighed in wing measurement condition;
food and drinks.
MWP shall be determined when the AC72 yacht is floating in measurement condition and:
(a) all movable equipment is approximately centered, transversely and 11.000 m forward of the
stern plane;
(b. rudders and daggerboards shall be in their lowest possible positions (per rule 5.8);
(c. rudder and daggerboard cases shall be flooded to MWP, and net total flooded volume of all
cases combined shall be no greater than 50.0 liters; and
(d) no other part of the AC72 Yacht shall be flooded.


Question:

1. In measurement condition, may the rudders be placed on the platform?

Page 2 of 2

Answer:

1. For the purposes of determining measurement weight, the rudders may be placed on the platform in
the measurement condition of the AC72 Yacht (Refer PI 16).
For the purposes of determining compliance with the definition of hull in class rule 1.4 (k), the rudders
may be placed on the platform in the measurement condition of the AC72 Yacht (Refer PI 23).
For the purposes of determining MWP, the rudders shall be placed as required by rule 25.2.


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
5th November


#26 ITA602

ITA602

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Location:North Italy - Milan Area
  • Interests:Sail more & work less, snowboarding, reading a good book.

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:06 AM

Measurement Committee
Interpretation No. 24 of AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22 February, 2011



+1

#27 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:22 AM

Posted Image
Related to the thread ? remains to be seen. New Isaf leadership.

#28 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:11 PM

Ammendments... http://noticeboard.a...ment-No.-10.pdf

e.g.

Replace with:
15.1(e) be constructed of a netting of rhombus-shaped cells, of a size such that a cylinder with a diameter
of 0.050 m shall not easily pass through any cell of the netting while tensioned; or, be constructed
of NET Systems Ultra Cross SilverTM netting of nominal mesh size 0.050 m or less meeting the
requirements of (f) and (g) below;


#29 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:23 AM

Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

Attached File  JN052.pdf   169.23K   119 downloads


Any update on this?

#30 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:54 PM


Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

Attached File  JN052.pdf   169.23K   119 downloads


Any update on this?

Not yet. The IJ gave AR til the 13th November to reply to any replies from the other parties (ETNZ, LR, OR, ACRM) so I imagine we should see something in the coming week.

#31 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:16 PM

Amusing,

Remove:
6.5 The intersection of any hull, cross structure or rigging shall be at least 1.000 m forward of the stern plane, and shall be no further forward than the forward watertight bulkheads required under rule 6.12.
Replace with:
6.5 The intersection of any hull with cross structure or rigging shall be at least 1.000 m forward of the stern plane, and shall be no further forward than the forward watertight bulkheads required under rule 6.12.

Dated, nov 6th 2012, a few days after k2mav measurements of AR. Any relation ?

#32 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:58 AM

8 days past the deadline for AR's reply to any responses from the other 2 challengers and still no update from the Jury. Wonder whether the issues are more contentious than we think? Also interesting to note that this is Case AC18 and the previous one is Cas16: is there a Case17 we don't know about?

#33 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,517 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:12 AM

^
anything to do with etnz's visit from the measurers today?

#34 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:46 AM

^
anything to do with etnz's visit from the measurers today?

I think they needed to be re-measured after the recent mods,

#35 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,370 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:57 AM

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring? As long as they are compliant at the first LVC race does it really matter?
Or am I missing something?

#36 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:26 PM

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring? As long as they are compliant at the first LVC race does it really matter?
Or am I missing something?

I guess that it is prudent to know that your boat measures all the time .. if it is left till just before the LV series the measurers might find something that takes days or even longer to correct ..

#37 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,786 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:11 PM

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring?


They are going so fast they are subject to Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction.

Posted Image

#38 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,876 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:42 PM


^^

Reminds me of one of Steve Clark's boats (believe an I-14, am not too knowledgeable about monos), called Red Shift



#39 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • Location:Orkland

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:06 PM

Given the protest they probably actually failed the original measurement.

#40 Hastings

Hastings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,172 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:39 PM



No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."


Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.




Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation
(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?
It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

I'd like to think the MC is working closely with, and answering queries from, ORTUSA over their repairs, and just haven't got around to releasing the information publicly. 29.10 certainly demands that MC written approval is obtained before commencing any repairs: I doubt that the MC or Jury will accept that any failure to obtain approval was "inadvertent".

I hope the MC's failure to provide the interpretations doesn't become an issue for ORTUSA and/or AR, though perhaps not so much for AR. Time is their enemy, and if there is an opportunity to seek more of it, the MC might be providing it....


I wonder if this relates to the "favour" Comrade Huston wants from ..... what's their name again? ... the syndicate representing the RNZYS ?

#41 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,128 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:01 PM

.. Also interesting to note that this is Case AC18 and the previous one is Cas16: is there a Case17 we don't know about?

GD suggested in iirc a Tasker interview he might file a case, over the bases issue. Could be that?

#42 Hastings

Hastings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,172 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:39 PM


.. Also interesting to note that this is Case AC18 and the previous one is Cas16: is there a Case17 we don't know about?

GD suggested in iirc a Tasker interview he might file a case, over the bases issue. Could be that?


He wants $$$ compensation for the base switcheroo!

Until that is settled it would be expecting a lot to see TNZ dish out "favours" to the defender.

#43 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,128 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:56 PM

^ Nobody, PH included, is suggesting anybody 'dish out favors' to anyone else. The point is that some changes, like the spar flotation example I pointed to, might be of great value to everyone.

Increasing the number of spar sections may be a stretch of that same idea (being more expensive $ and time wise than flotation that would help ease the extra-spar necessity chances) but since it's 'just' a spar section then easing that restriction may also be a plausible and realistic benefit to all. The various XX,000 man hour numbers we have seen from differing sources surely included the entire wing - a far more complex endeavor than the spar alone.

The rule was there to help the potential 20m campaigns anyway; since none of them are in the game it may be less a competitive concern now than when envisioned.

GD is not about to hand out any imagined 'favors' but may consider that some changes would better guarantee even his own ability to survive all the way to a Cup victory. Remember ETNZ's sailing and their rescue performance, in Newport?

Oh that's right, you admitted you haven't seen even one AC45 regatta so how would you know how easily ETNZ wiped out even at that scale?

#44 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:51 AM

^ Nobody, PH included, is suggesting anybody 'dish out favors' to anyone else. The point is that some changes, like the spar flotation example I pointed to, might be of great value to everyone.
Increasing the number of spar sections may be a stretch of that same idea

^^^^
I guess the spin is around the spar flotation device...

A few quotes chosen from PH rants :

- "If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience."

- "There is going to come a time when the team which represents RNZYS is going to need a favor.....there was room to get Larry to make some sort of deal"


"The two teams that would benefit the most from a change in the wing rule, to allow more elements would RNZYS and Prada, especially Prada, because those two have essentially a Lego boat-wing. If they don't want to cut GGYC a break AND buy themselves something in the process, I don't care either. Frankly, I truly hope RNZYS busts up into little bits before Race One of the Louis Vuitton Cup."



I am not even sure OR was willing to bargain the wing or something else like, even more important for them TIME.

#45 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,128 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:22 AM

^ It's a very big stretch to think anyone takes a time extension fantasy seriously. You and Indio go on and on about it but the chances and hopes of it happening (even if the OR boatbuilders wish it were so) must be vanishingly remote for everyone else.

Your suggestion that the Capt K bs has any possible impact to the timeline is equally bizarre, given the already drawn out timeline of that case even before appeals, if even necessesary, get filed in his face.

#46 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:19 AM

^ It's a very big stretch to think anyone takes a time extension fantasy seriously. You and Indio go on and on about it but the chances and hopes of it happening (even if the OR boatbuilders wish it were so) must be vanishingly remote for everyone else.

Get your facts straight, dickhead! None of us is saying that OR would like to change the rules to buy themselves more time: we all know that OR's biggest problem IS time!! We've suggested that OR might want the Protocol amended over the repairs permitted and their potential impact on the status of the second boat.

#47 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:50 PM


^ It's a very big stretch to think anyone takes a time extension fantasy seriously. You and Indio go on and on about it but the chances and hopes of it happening (even if the OR boatbuilders wish it were so) must be vanishingly remote for everyone else.

Get your facts straight, dickhead! None of us is saying that OR would like to change the rules to buy themselves more time: we all know that OR's biggest problem IS time!! We've suggested that OR might want the Protocol amended over the repairs permitted and their potential impact on the status of the second boat.


Actually Indio, some of our more fanatical countrymen have been making pretty outrageous claims including this.

#48 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

Actually Indio, some of our more fanatical countrymen have been making pretty outrageous claims

I think no poster, wherever from, has ever made PH outrageous statement about the OR boat: "I truly hope RNZYS busts up into little bits".

#49 Hastings

Hastings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,172 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:35 PM

^ Nobody, PH included, is suggesting anybody 'dish out favors' to anyone else. The point is that some changes, like the spar flotation example I pointed to, might be of great value to everyone.


Sorry mate ... Comrade Huston was clearly calling on Dalts to offer OR a "favour."

Not sure what it was. But I assumed Peter was referring to the "only build 3 wings" requirement.

#50 Hastings

Hastings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,172 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:41 PM

GD is not about to hand out any imagined 'favors' but may consider that some changes would better guarantee even his own ability to survive all the way to a Cup victory.


Dalts understands the need to survive and does not need you and Huston to cry crocodile tears on his behalf.

If Dalts wants changes he can speak for himself.

#51 Hastings

Hastings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,172 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:45 PM


Actually Indio, some of our more fanatical countrymen have been making pretty outrageous claims

I think no poster, wherever from, has ever made PH outrageous statement about the OR boat: "I truly hope RNZYS busts up into little bits".


I agree! Peter is not having a good week. And this statement is outrageous.

Maybe he could delete (or explain) his statement?

#52 Kiwing

Kiwing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:18 PM

^^^

Is this for the Jury to decide too?

#53 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • Location:Auckland, New Zealand
  • Interests:Flying sea monsters

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:39 PM

^^^

Is this for the Jury to decide too?


Only if another competitor makes an official complain to Anarchy Comments Rules Management....

#54 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:35 PM

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

#55 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,128 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:33 PM

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

Color me an OR fan who is disappointed at the setback, for sure, but in no way pissed off or angry. They just have a big, early challenge ahead, much like what AR has had to overcome.

ETNZ is looking excellent, I really hope LR can catch up in relatively short order. Looking forward to seeing them full-out foiling their L's in a great downwinder, starting alongside ETNZ riding their S's.

#56 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:48 PM


Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

Color me an OR fan who is disappointed at the setback, for sure, but in no way pissed off or angry. They just have a big, early challenge ahead, much like what AR has had to overcome.

ETNZ is looking excellent, I really hope LR can catch up in relatively short order. Looking forward to seeing them full-out foiling their L's in a great downwinder, starting alongside ETNZ riding their S's.


Nicely stated!

After a couple of hours watching the Spencer web cam this week it seems to me that when it comes to boat speed, in light air at least, LR is on the pace. Vote is out on crew work and the heavy weather stuff. Too bad that ETNZ only has a few allocated sailing days left.

Given that this thread is about measurement . . . does anyone have news about ETNZ measurement on Wednesday? Do they have the chain saws out? And what about LR? Were they tape tested too? To what end?

And finally, when is the Jury going to explain to Artemis, non too gently I hope, that they are pissing to windward with their appeal against the appeal?

#57 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:16 AM



Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

Color me an OR fan who is disappointed at the setback, for sure, but in no way pissed off or angry. They just have a big, early challenge ahead, much like what AR has had to overcome.

ETNZ is looking excellent, I really hope LR can catch up in relatively short order. Looking forward to seeing them full-out foiling their L's in a great downwinder, starting alongside ETNZ riding their S's.


Nicely stated!

After a couple of hours watching the Spencer web cam this week it seems to me that when it comes to boat speed, in light air at least, LR is on the pace. Vote is out on crew work and the heavy weather stuff. Too bad that ETNZ only has a few allocated sailing days left.

Given that this thread is about measurement . . . does anyone have news about ETNZ measurement on Wednesday? Do they have the chain saws out? And what about LR? Were they tape tested too? To what end?

And finally, when is the Jury going to explain to Artemis, non too gently I hope, that they are pissing to windward with their appeal against the appeal?

I think they were simply re-measured for a new Measurement Certificate under AC72 Class Rule 27.2 following the "speed implant" mods, with the original Measurement Certificate invalided by the mods.

27.2 Except for repair of, or replacement for, unintended damage, the measurement certificate ceases to be valid if there is any change to:
(a) any information recorded on the AC72 Yacht’s measurement certificate, except that when not racing the following changes are permitted:
(i) rudder or rudder stock movement as a result of the adjustment of a selfaligning bearing mechanism, provided that the total adjustment between bearings shall not exceed 0.010 m, and provided that after the movement the rudder complies with rule 8;
(ii) changes to wing weight and wing CG, provided those changes are still within the limits of rule 10.12; and
(iii) changes in measurement weight or the distribution of measurement weight, provided that MWP would not change more than 0.004 m at the stern plane or stem plane, and provided that after the change, the AC72 Yacht still complies with the limits of rule 26(a).
(iv) changes in other numerical values recorded on the measurement certificate that are solely the result of changes permitted in (i), (ii) and (iii) above, provided that all the resultant changes still fall within the limits of the AC72 Class Rule.


The AC18 case is dragging on a bit for what should be a straight forward denial of AR's challenge to the Jury's authority to make the dumping PI22.

However, I fully expect AR to protest the ETNZ-LR training together under Proto 32.2

#58 Hastings

Hastings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,172 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:20 AM

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..


Peter has had a leaky head gasket this week and, later on, will likely regret saying he wants to see the tractor in shreds.

I have decided to overlook his outbursts because, on balance, he brings quite a bit to these threads.

For example, his analysis of the Canadian Fireplace challenge was quite intelligent and very revealing.

His "give us a favour" thing is odd. But was clearly posted on behalf of someone else. He was asked to insinuate the "favour" question into the discourse.

Unlike a couple of very disturbed characters that post here, I look forward to having a beer with Huston.

I think he is alright. Just frustrated with the OR situation.

#59 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,517 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:35 AM


Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

Color me an OR fan who is disappointed at the setback, for sure, but in no way pissed off or angry. They just have a big, early challenge ahead, much like what AR has had to overcome.

ETNZ is looking excellent, I really hope LR can catch up in relatively short order. Looking forward to seeing them full-out foiling their L's in a great downwinder, starting alongside ETNZ riding their S's.


you have been remarkable in your moderate tone stinger

a very mature stance

sorry about your dad

my mum battling the big C too

#60 ro!

ro!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,275 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:36 AM


Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..


Peter has had a leaky head gasket this week and, later on, will likely regret saying he wants to see the tractor in shreds.

I have decided to overlook his outbursts because, on balance, he brings quite a bit to these threads.

For example, his analysis of the Canadian Fireplace challenge was quite intelligent and very revealing.

His "give us a favour" thing is odd. But was clearly posted on behalf of someone else. He was asked to insinuate the "favour" question into the discourse.

Unlike a couple of very disturbed characters that post here, I look forward to having a beer with Huston.

I think he is alright. Just frustrated with the OR situation.


hastings and huston both think they speak for thier respective countries when in fact they don't...the mad prof and media management man are out on a limb when it comes to telling it like it is for the management and fans of tnz and or...

hastings with his sketchy Blackheart history and his hatred of the nz traitors and huston with his campaign for a sketchy canadian challenge and subsequent hatred of all things NZ....both out to lunch..

bitter and twisted...table for two...

#61 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,517 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:47 AM

^
should probably make that booking for 3 ro..

#62 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:54 AM

My most entertainning posters are for sure the sailer and Peter Huston,................. oops, I forget Sunseeker. Pravda. :D

#63 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:04 AM

What the hell? Its now 10 days past the deadline that AR had to respond to the submissions of the other teams!
How can it take this long? My finger nails are getting kinda short :P

#64 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,039 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:08 PM

I takes time because they have people all over the world and I suspect that for a decision this big they would want to bring everybody face to face. So, they get the AR comments, package them with those of the other teams and send it to each jury member. They read everything and only then do they get on a plane, at the first date that all the jury are free. I can easily see this taking 2-3 weeks, but hope it will be shorter.

The important thing is for the jury to be seen to be giving this the due care and attention it should have. If they decide against ETNZ, it would be a ruling that means the current boat cannot measure and, if the information is correct, it would need extensive modifications to get it to measure. On the other hand, to simply dismiss i=the case is also not on because the heart of the matter is that the jury exceeded their remit and power. They need to be seen to be giving that proper attention rather than just throwing it out.

#65 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 02:19 PM

I takes time because they have people all over the world and I suspect that for a decision this big they would want to bring everybody face to face. So, they get the AR comments, package them with those of the other teams and send it to each jury member. They read everything and only then do they get on a plane, at the first date that all the jury are free. I can easily see this taking 2-3 weeks, but hope it will be shorter.

The important thing is for the jury to be seen to be giving this the due care and attention it should have. If they decide against ETNZ, it would be a ruling that means the current boat cannot measure and, if the information is correct, it would need extensive modifications to get it to measure. On the other hand, to simply dismiss i=the case is also not on because the heart of the matter is that the jury exceeded their remit and power. They need to be seen to be giving that proper attention rather than just throwing it out.


Almost - but they are a little smarter than that. If you have anything for the jury, you refer to this list http://noticeboard.a...y/jurycomms.pdf and it goes to them all directly. No waiting for it to be packaged afaik. So wait for the AR response to arrive, or for the time to be up, (whichever comes first), confer, then publish!

#66 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:30 PM

The JN051 Case AC16 Decision on PI22 was published within a week of the deadline for responses.Case18 in which AR claims that the Jury's decision in Case16 "amended the AC72 Class Rule" and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction might be a reach under 15.4(a):

15.4 The Jury shall act both as a jury under the RRSAC and as an arbitral body, with the following powers:(a) to resolve all matters of interpretation of the Rules other than the class rules in Article 13.1© except as provided in Article

15.4(f);(f) where the Jury finds the Measurement Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction or broken a Rule, it may substitute its determination for the Measurement Committee’s;

I thought the Jury were very careful and thorough in their PI22 decision that the Measurement Committee exceeded its authority. Erkelens must need those billables...

#67 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,039 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:13 PM

Maybe I have this all wrong, by the accusation is that the ruling made has the effect of changing the class rules and that the jury is not allowed to change those rules. When they issued their ruling, they thought they were issuing an interpretaion. Fine, they are allowed to do that. The AR case is that the "interpretaion" actually changes the class rules, which the jury is not allowed to do. So the jury need to consider whether their interpretation does, in fact, cahnge the rule. That is a very different case from what some want to believe it is. It is easily believable that they didn't consider whether their ruling had the effect of changing the rules. They now have to examine that idea in a serious way as this is not the same question as they have been asked before. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they get outside advace from others who write and enforce class rules, either firmally or informally.

If the jury determine that their interpretation does change the rules, then they have to withdraw that ruling and ETNZ would have a serious problem.

#68 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:06 PM

Maybe I have this all wrong, by the accusation is that the ruling made has the effect of changing the class rules and that the jury is not allowed to change those rules. When they issued their ruling, they thought they were issuing an interpretaion. Fine, they are allowed to do that. The AR case is that the "interpretaion" actually changes the class rules, which the jury is not allowed to do. So the jury need to consider whether their interpretation does, in fact, cahnge the rule. That is a very different case from what some want to believe it is. It is easily believable that they didn't consider whether their ruling had the effect of changing the rules. They now have to examine that idea in a serious way as this is not the same question as they have been asked before. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they get outside advace from others who write and enforce class rules, either firmally or informally.

If the jury determine that their interpretation does change the rules, then they have to withdraw that ruling and ETNZ would have a serious problem.


I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.
ETNZ would be right royally screwed with piss all chance of successfully challenging for the cup.
Not only would they have to take the chainsaw to boat 1, but boat 2 would be seriously delayed and they would be unlikely to formulate a competitive design in the time left.

#69 Kiwing

Kiwing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:16 PM

^^
Unless boat 2 is heading the lesser foils way now!

#70 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:17 PM

The Jury's decision is, imo, the correct one in determining that "measurement condition" as defined in the Class Rule 1.4k did not include all the other components and equipment such as wing, soft sails, crew, etc: these components were only required for measuring MWP. Plain English comprehension interprets the words as written. The MC tried to introduce the "intention of the authors" of the Class Rule in their PI22, but the Jury threw that out, and substituted their (Jury's) interpretation of Class Rule as written for the MC's.

Now I'm not sure which part of the Jury's decision AR thinks amends the Class Rule: all they (Jury) did was interpret the words as written, consistent with previous rulings. The MC, otoh, did amend the Class Rule when they presumed the intention of the authors in reaching their PI22.

AR are not questioning the authority of the Jury to make the ruling they did on PI22. They're claiming the Jury "amended" the Class Rule by affirming that "measurement condition" excludes all the sailing and human inventory required to be aboard when measuring MWP. Quite simple, really...

#71 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:31 PM

^^ Nicely put.

In that the Jury's interpretation is closer to the written language - it would seem a very long stretch for AR to succeed with their claim that the MC's take on things was the correct one and that in setting that interpretation aside the Jury 'amended the rule'.

#72 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,488 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:53 PM


The AR case is that the "interpretation" actually changes the class rules, which the jury is not allowed to do. So the jury need to consider whether their interpretation does, in fact, change the rule.



The dilemma posed is this: (1) the class rule as written are ambiguous on an important point (how big can the foils be), BUT (2) the only way to amend the rules is by "unanimous consent of Competitors still competing", which they will never get on this issue.
The dilemma can be solved in only two ways.

(a) The Jury can state that that their judgment of what the plain language of the rule means is NOT an amendment. The jury rulings are final and cannot be appealed so that would be the end of it.
or
( b ) If on reflection, the jury agrees that the rule is so ambiguous that it's judgment on the meaning of the language in effect represents an amendment (which it is not allowed to make) then 15.4 b comes into effect " The Jury shall act ... as an arbitral body, with the ... powers to resolve disputes between Competitors, ...that cannot be resolved by the terms of any Rule;"

So, even of they agree with AR, the jury still makes the final decision on what this rule language means. It would seem to me that TNZ wins no matter how the jury decides this issue (whether the prior ruling is an amendment or an interpretation).




I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.


I don't see that. It would take away a clear point of advantage they now have, but I don't see it as requiring any sort of major redesign All they then do is go to the same smaller foils that everyone else will also have to be using. All it will mean is that they need more wind to be foiling. We see LR sailing on the TNZ platform with L foils like OR's just fine.

Out of curiosity - Does anyone have a fact on actually how much bigger TNZ's S foils are than the 10% benchmark? Are they 1% over or 100% over? As I mentioned elsewhere, the rules suggest you are best building bigger foils to start as you can make them smaller without any limit.


#73 Kiwing

Kiwing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:58 PM

^^
OR's float and ETNZ's are 180kgs!!

#74 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,488 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

^^
OR's float and ETNZ's are 180kgs!!


If that's the case then TNZ's probably also float. They are (roughly) 7m long* x .75m wide x 5cm (average) thick = .26 m^3 = 269kg of displaced water. So if they are only 180kgs they will float.

Edit * actually probably effectively a m or so longer than this when you add in the horizontal wing. This adds more volume and thus makes them even more 'floating' (307kgs of displaced water)

Edit 2: note if they are 180kgs, that means the construction is about (very very roughly) 50% carbon and 50% honeycomb (by volume)

#75 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,039 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:10 AM



I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.


I don't see that. It would take away a clear point of advantage they now have, but I don't see it as requiring any sort of major redesign All they then do is go to the same smaller foils that everyone else will also have to be using. All it will mean is that they need more wind to be foiling. We see LR sailing on the TNZ platform with L foils like OR's just fine.

This certainly is a bit confusing. LR has thrown a spanner in the works. I thought that ETNZ had stated that under the measurers original interpretation, they couldn't get their boat to measure at all because they needed the big foils to make it all comply. Maybe I misunderstood that and all it would mean is that they couldn't use the big foils. Or maybe GD was doing his usual thing of stating the extreme position in ordedr to continue the "hard done by" stance he seems to always take.

#76 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:28 AM




I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.


I don't see that. It would take away a clear point of advantage they now have, but I don't see it as requiring any sort of major redesign All they then do is go to the same smaller foils that everyone else will also have to be using. All it will mean is that they need more wind to be foiling. We see LR sailing on the TNZ platform with L foils like OR's just fine.


This certainly is a bit confusing. ...

Only to you...

#77 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,039 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:59 PM





I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.


I don't see that. It would take away a clear point of advantage they now have, but I don't see it as requiring any sort of major redesign All they then do is go to the same smaller foils that everyone else will also have to be using. All it will mean is that they need more wind to be foiling. We see LR sailing on the TNZ platform with L foils like OR's just fine.


This certainly is a bit confusing. ...

Only to you...

So inform us of the situation. If the ruling goes against ETNZ, can the boat still be measure with the current foils. I think not. Will it measure with smaller foils - we were told ariginally that it couldn't, but LR seem to suggest that th platform can measure with "OR" style foils (do we know for sure that LR is sailing in a measured format)

#78 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,488 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:07 PM

I thought that ETNZ had stated that under the measurers original interpretation, they couldn't get their boat to measure at all because they needed the big foils to make it all comply.


The measurement problem (under the original MC interpretation) was that the MC required the foils to be fully down, and in that position they displaced more than 10% of the total AC72's displaced volume, and thus broke class rule 1.4k (definition of hull).

But the boat (apparently) does measure when the foils are raised, as they then displace enough less volume to meet 1.4k.

That indicates that they would also be able to measure using smaller foils fully down. How much smaller they would have to be (than they are now) we don't know, but given that all the AC72's will weight pretty much the same, and thus displace pretty much the same amount of water, it would have to be pretty close to what OR/AR were/are using (I am assumming that OR/AR are/were using max size 'allowed' foil packages)


So inform us of the situation. If the ruling goes against ETNZ, can the boat still be measure with the current foils. I think not.

Agreed - no.

Will it measure with smaller foils

Certainly - yes, but how much smaller we don't know.

- we were told ariginally that it couldn't, but LR seem to suggest that th platform can measure with "OR" style foils (do we know for sure that LR is sailing in a measured format)

We don't know if LR's L foils measure or not. Someone should be able to do a photo comparison with OR to see if they look bigger or not. But essentially both boats should measure with foils the size OR has been using (if they lose in the jury, but as described above, I expect they will 'win').



#79 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:08 PM

Simon I think it's time for...


Love the way you demand definitive answers from others - yet have a '$ each way' on almost every issue yourself.

#80 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,039 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:17 PM

Simon I think it's time for...


Love the way you demand definitive answers from others - yet have a '$ each way' on almost every issue yourself.

I only demanded a definitive answer because Indio said i was the only one confused. If he isn't, he should be able to give a difinitive answer. Otherwise, his comment was typical of him, posting for effect with no substance. If he can give a difinitive answer, then maybe his dig at me was justified. (although Estar has now beaten him to it).

And i only go for an each way bet when we haven't got any idea what the real answer is. I cannot bring myslef to get caught up in all the patriotic wishful thinking that seems to give some people on here insights that nobody can really have.

#81 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:35 PM

If we look at LR foils, they look finer with a bigger V tip. We don't know if the measure or not, but I think that is one way to go if AR wins. Actually, it could make faster foils if they work properly.

#82 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,205 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:01 PM



Actually Indio, some of our more fanatical countrymen have been making pretty outrageous claims

I think no poster, wherever from, has ever made PH outrageous statement about the OR boat: "I truly hope RNZYS busts up into little bits".


I agree! Peter is not having a good week. And this statement is outrageous.

Maybe he could delete (or explain) his statement?


You know what Hastings, I'm having a great week. It's Thanksgiving over here, and I'm thankful for a great deal, great kids, sailing ect.

In the small scheme of things I'm thankful for Porsche USA sending me a letter out of the blue and and saying I was being offered a Panamera to drive for a while, just because. Maybe i was given this opportunity because they know I won't be parking it in a tent or a cave in China, nor scouring for used parts for a 1938 Ford engine.

And just because I am expressing myself in a manner you don't agree with, why does that make it a bad week for me? Seems the Ed saw our exchange and thought enough of what I said to put my comments on the home page. Consider he doesn't care at all about the Cup, or all that much about Oracle Racing.

And for sure Dalton doesn't need me to tell him anything. Go ahead, all you kiwi's, keep knocking the crap out of Oracle Racing, out of the way GGYC has elected to run this Cup. See what that does for the long term commercial prospects, or even the short term, which the team from RNZYS needs desperately in order to validate the decision by all the NZL government and all the sponsors to toss money at a sailing team in an event that isn't getting all that much attention.

As for my comment about the boat from RNZYS busting up....yeah, some more drama will bring more attention to the event, and tons of sympathy. If Dalton was smart he'd be appealing to the US audience, because it is massively bigger than the NZL audience, and there is a void to be filled because ACEA has done such a poor job reaching into the US yacht racing crowd, at least in a meaningful and enduring way.

And clearly you don't understand the nuances of the word favor, or favour, which ever spelling you prefer.

#83 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:17 PM

... I cannot bring myslef to get caught up in all the patriotic wishful thinking....


That's because you're a whinging pom living in Australia who has no heart in either country.

#84 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:49 PM

Porsche USA sending me a letter out of the blue and and saying I was being offered a Panamera to drive for a while, just because. Maybe i was given this opportunity because they know I won't be parking it in a tent or a cave in China

^^^^
Porsche designed the Panamera for the Chinese market, where rich execs like to be driven in long car in order to show how successful they are. You must know that Hastings.

#85 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:49 PM

Told ya....

DECISION

29. The Jury Decision in AC16 is a binding Arbitral award on all Parties and it stands
as issued on 7th October 2012. The Jury did not change a Class Rule in
substituting its determination in AC16.

30. The AR Application is dismissed.



http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN054.pdf

We love fat boards!

#86 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,244 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:56 PM

LOL

COSTS
31. Submissions on how the Jury should award costs in respect of all aspects of this
Case having regard to the Jury Guidelines on the Award of Costs and Expenses
(published 13th August 2011) may be made by all Parties through
jurycomms@americascup.com, no later than 18h00 Universal Time 30th
November 2012.

#87 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,876 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:59 PM


^^
Not going to read it but good. Except it appears IM's infamous secretary struck again: it's Luna Rossa FFS, rosa is pink in Italian



#88 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

Here's the best line - from the Pink Moon Team...

The AR Application was simply “ventilating
their disagreement” and should be dismissed.


Posted Image

Maybe next time Simon?

#89 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:19 PM

The real drive behind AR's application, and more worryingly for them, is their admission in paragraph 8:


"AR further submitted they have spent two years researching and designing their AC72 Yacht based on the volume limits depicted in CR 1.4(k) and the removal of such limits “renders much of that work meaningless, and sways the balance of foiling vs non-foiling in the favor of the foiling solution.” AR also claimed “this Amendment unnecessarily favors the interest of one competitor.”

As for costs, AR will be up for another Euro10-20,000 which I hope their puppeteer OR is helping pay.

It really is outrageous that the cOR is behaving like OR's whORe, instead of representing the challengers.

#90 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,128 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:29 PM

AR is behaving like a competitor, where's the surprise in that? Everyone is.

#91 Kiwing

Kiwing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:45 PM

Now people can get on a get their second boats under way!!

#92 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:49 PM

AR is behaving like a competitor, where's the surprise in that? Everyone is.

How? By regurgitating what OR feeds them? AR-OR should use the same lawyers and half their legal bills, judging from the contents and substance of their coordinated responses.

#93 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,128 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:24 PM

It makes perfect senses that the two competitors who understood the rules differently, btw the exact same way as what the MC understood them to mean too, would both challenge the decision. Both happen to be on the same side of this particular issue - again, it's just no surprise at all. Had LR been the only flier on it then ETNZ would also be on the side of AR and of OR. Shrug

I see no evidence at all of collaboration, or 'poodleness.' Their positions were both completely unsurprising and logical.

#94 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:50 PM

LOL

COSTS
31. Submissions on how the Jury should award costs in respect of all aspects of this
Case having regard to the Jury Guidelines on the Award of Costs and Expenses
(published 13th August 2011) may be made by all Parties through
jurycomms@americascup.com, no later than 18h00 Universal Time 30th
November 2012.


Decision is worth reading. Jury is exercising a firm hand.

And keeping its powder dry for future decisions:

"25. As the Jury did not change a CR, the issue of whether the Jury is permitted to do
so when substituting its determination under Article 15.4(f), as suggested by
ETNZ and the MC, does not arise. Therefore, this issue does not need to be
addressed in this Decision."

#95 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,517 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:59 PM

so when JuanK finds a weakness in the rules

and exploits it

all is good

but when he misses an opportunity

he calls foul

let's watch the video again

etnz in yellow and blue

ar in red

the jury as commentators



#96 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,414 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:05 PM


LOL

COSTS
31. Submissions on how the Jury should award costs in respect of all aspects of this
Case having regard to the Jury Guidelines on the Award of Costs and Expenses
(published 13th August 2011) may be made by all Parties through
jurycomms@americascup.com, no later than 18h00 Universal Time 30th
November 2012.


Decision is worth reading. Jury is exercising a firm hand.

And keeping its powder dry for future decisions:

"25. As the Jury did not change a CR, the issue of whether the Jury is permitted to do
so when substituting its determination under Article 15.4(f), as suggested by
ETNZ and the MC, does not arise. Therefore, this issue does not need to be
addressed in this Decision."


The strange thing was that the MC submission on that point was to state that the Jury could in fact change the Class Rule as they saw fit!?

#97 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:48 PM



LOL

COSTS
31. Submissions on how the Jury should award costs in respect of all aspects of this
Case having regard to the Jury Guidelines on the Award of Costs and Expenses
(published 13th August 2011) may be made by all Parties through
jurycomms@americascup.com, no later than 18h00 Universal Time 30th
November 2012.


Decision is worth reading. Jury is exercising a firm hand.

And keeping its powder dry for future decisions:

"25. As the Jury did not change a CR, the issue of whether the Jury is permitted to do
so when substituting its determination under Article 15.4(f), as suggested by
ETNZ and the MC, does not arise. Therefore, this issue does not need to be
addressed in this Decision."


The strange thing was that the MC submission on that point was to state that the Jury could in fact change the Class Rule as they saw fit!?


Yeah! What to make of that!

On the one hand MC claims the original Jury decision has "created a circular argument within the rule," and has introduced doubt to interpretation of numerous parts of the rule. Then they are specific that the Protocol gives the Jury license to substitute its determinations where it sees fit.

Helps to explain Clause 25, above, in the Jury's decision.

Is the MC trying to set up a case for Protocol modification? And is the Jury taking preemptive action by saying it has never happened?

#98 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 25 November 2012 - 12:06 AM

AR was sucked into interpreting the Class Ruls one way by their incestuous relationship with OR, and now that another competitor has successfully validated their own interpretation, AR is running off to teacher claiming:


28. AR in its Application and by separate email with the Jury raised the issue of the AC16 Decision favouring a Competitor. The Application did not seek a review under Protocol Article 3(B) or present any evidence of such favouring. The Jury
considers that, as no evidence was submitted in support of such a contention, the raising of the matter was inappropriate."

The Jury may be - understandably - getting a tad impatient with these frivolous applications by Erklens.

#99 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,039 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:48 AM

This feels like standard jury stuff, in as far as they find fault in part of the question which then allows them not to answer the question directly

#100 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:38 AM

This feels like standard jury stuff, in as far as they find fault in part of the question which then allows them not to answer the question directly

What question was that Simon? AR's email claim to the Jury that the AC16 decision favoured a competitor was treated by the Jury disdainfully as "inappropriate": in other words, don't waste our time with your fanciful accusations if you haven't got any evidence to support it. The Jury didn't have to answer a non-existent question.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users