Jump to content


Jury Notices & Decisions Thread

Bring them all here...

  • Please log in to reply
5712 replies to this topic

#1201 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:41 AM

 

 

What is it that some people want to hear from RC, or from the almost never-commenting LE, or about the apparent settlement to the Simpson family, that would change anything? Some kind of Mea Culpa to point to, that one could use to say 'I told you so' about multihulls, or the number of Challengers who pulled through, or the AC72 design, or ammunition to further the jihad against AR, or what?

RC is likely smart to be staying above the fray. I'm sure he'll let us know his perspective again in time; eventually Larry will weigh in too in his typically very big-time way.

HI Sting,

This is Larry and Russells event. We all know that. I want to hear from Russell on his views and opinions on how this is stacking up. I want to hear OTANZAC's side of the story. What do they make of these rule changes. I dont think thats too much to ask considering this was an event made for media.

Im not interested in a AR jihad, nor an OTANZAC jihad for that matter, I just want to know what they are thinking on this current situation as they are effected along with the rest of the teams.

I dont understand their stance on silence?

 

Well not much from any of the teams on specifics about the rule changes - probably for good reason. Probably all teams told to let those involved in managing the issue speak to it. 

 

As soon as RC speaks to specific issues it will turn into a public shit fight with grumpy. Look at the headlines coming out of the NZ rags - Grumpy now takes aim at AR. Hell RC can't even support a charity event in NZ in good faith without grumpy instigating trouble from the get go.

 

Look at the trolls already claiming changing the rules is OR cheating - the same people claiming they don't listen to the challengers when LR was the team behind the wind limit change. Where are the posters that said at the start of the safety discussions that grumpy trusted IM, but now he's towing the party line ? 

 

I guess he is, from all teams. 

Hi SWS, It almost wouldnt matter what he talks about, just say something, anything, talk about how your own programme is going, tell us how the two boat testing is going to work, anything would be better tham nothing. They havent spoken in weeks and with all that is going on i find it very very strange indeed.

 

Tell us about the 'summer of sailing', ....................... something?



#1202 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:46 AM

It seems ironic that the guys that signed off the rules now want them changed! - two weeks before kick off!



#1203 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:46 AM

Attached File  index.jpg   99.13K   69 downloads

 

JS to LE: "See this rudder thing Larry, it makes our boat foil a whole lot better, but the fucker doesn't measure, so I need you and Rusty to change the rules so it does, otherwise we're fucked."

 

GS to RC: "How the fuck do we make this measure Russ? It's your rule we're breaking isn't it?"

 

RC to GS: "I'm sure we can think of something."

 

GS to RC: "Is this OR or Alinghi mate? I've been here before and this may not end well."



#1204 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,036 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:58 AM

 

 

What is it that some people want to hear from RC, or from the almost never-commenting LE, or about the apparent settlement to the Simpson family, that would change anything? Some kind of Mea Culpa to point to, that one could use to say 'I told you so' about multihulls, or the number of Challengers who pulled through, or the AC72 design, or ammunition to further the jihad against AR, or what?

RC is likely smart to be staying above the fray. I'm sure he'll let us know his perspective again in time; eventually Larry will weigh in too in his typically very big-time way.

HI Sting,

This is Larry and Russells event. We all know that. I want to hear from Russell on his views and opinions on how this is stacking up. I want to hear OTANZAC's side of the story. What do they make of these rule changes. I dont think thats too much to ask considering this was an event made for media.

Im not interested in a AR jihad, nor an OTANZAC jihad for that matter, I just want to know what they are thinking on this current situation as they are effected along with the rest of the teams.

I dont understand their stance on silence?

 

Well not much from any of the teams on specifics about the rule changes - probably for good reason. Probably all teams told to let those involved in managing the issue speak to it. 

 

As soon as RC speaks to specific issues it will turn into a public shit fight with grumpy. Look at the headlines coming out of the NZ rags - Grumpy now takes aim at AR. Hell RC can't even support a charity event in NZ in good faith without grumpy instigating trouble from the get go.

 

Look at the trolls already claiming changing the rules is OR cheating - the same people claiming they don't listen to the challengers when LR was the team behind the wind limit change. Where are the posters that said at the start of the safety discussions that grumpy trusted IM, but now he's towing the party line ? 

 

I guess he is, from all teams. 

Hi SWS, It almost wouldnt matter what he talks about, just say something, anything, talk about how your own programme is going, tell us how the two boat testing is going to work, anything would be better tham nothing. They havent spoken in weeks and with all that is going on i find it very very strange indeed.

I agree in that it's always a matter of interest to get insights from the teams and the latest as to what they're up to.

 

That said, all of the teams have been quiet at various periods for various reasons, no teams excepted.

 

It could well be that OR is in a critical period with key developments and simply chooses to be quiet. As they sort out any developments I'd expect this to be the case, and I'd also not expect them to tip their hand at this point, along with any other team if in the same position. They have two additional months to optimize the design for a successful defense. These things are not that uncommon in the AC. 



#1205 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,036 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:02 AM

attachicon.gifindex.jpg

 

JS to LE: "See this rudder thing Larry, it makes our boat foil a whole lot better, but the fucker doesn't measure, so I need you and Rusty to change the rules so it does, otherwise we're fucked."

 

GS to RC: "How the fuck do we make this measure Russ? It's your rule we're breaking isn't it?"

 

RC to GS: "I'm sure we can think of something."

 

GS to RC: "Is this OR or Alinghi mate? I've been here before and this may not end well."

Pretty cold to play that card on Barts grave, but it comes as no surprise.



#1206 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,036 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:04 AM

It seems ironic that the guys that signed off the rules now want them changed! - two weeks before kick off!

Agreed, especially when grumpy is such a stand up guy on his word. Apparently not the case.

 

"The 37 safety recommendations involve Protocol changes, Class Rule changes (the design parameters for the boats), and Racing Rules of Sailing changes (how the races will be conducted).  The Regatta Director had received verbal commitment to the safety recommendations, however, when he asked for teams to sign off on each of the changes in writing, a couple of the teams refused."



#1207 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:08 AM

attachicon.gifindex.jpg

 

JS to LE: "See this rudder thing Larry, it makes our boat foil a whole lot better, but the fucker doesn't measure, so I need you and Rusty to change the rules so it does, otherwise we're fucked."

 

GS to RC: "How the fuck do we make this measure Russ? It's your rule we're breaking isn't it?"

 

RC to GS: "I'm sure we can think of something."

 

GS to RC: "Is this OR or Alinghi mate? I've been here before and this may not end well."

Pretty cold to play that card on Barts grave, but it comes as no surprise.

 

No, it's cold and fucken disrespectful that YOU'RE playing the card, you are one low mother fucker SWS.

 

I bet you look-up to see the gutter.



#1208 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,036 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:10 AM

 

attachicon.gifindex.jpg

 

JS to LE: "See this rudder thing Larry, it makes our boat foil a whole lot better, but the fucker doesn't measure, so I need you and Rusty to change the rules so it does, otherwise we're fucked."

 

GS to RC: "How the fuck do we make this measure Russ? It's your rule we're breaking isn't it?"

 

RC to GS: "I'm sure we can think of something."

 

GS to RC: "Is this OR or Alinghi mate? I've been here before and this may not end well."

Pretty cold to play that card on Barts grave, but it comes as no surprise.

 

No, it's cold and fucken disrespectful that YOU'RE playing the card, you are one low mother fucker SWS.

 

I bet you look-up to see the gutter.

 

Read your own post pea brain.



#1209 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:13 AM

attachicon.gifindex.jpg

 

JS to LE: "See this rudder thing Larry, it makes our boat foil a whole lot better, but the fucker doesn't measure, so I need you and Rusty to change the rules so it does, otherwise we're fucked."

 

GS to RC: "How the fuck do we make this measure Russ? It's your rule we're breaking isn't it?"

 

RC to GS: "I'm sure we can think of something."

 

GS to RC: "Is this OR or Alinghi mate? I've been here before and this may not end well."

Pretty cold to play that card on Barts grave, but it comes as no surprise.

 

You mean from Oracle? yes I agree totally that if they are using Bart's death to try and change the rules to gain competitive advantage is pretty cold but hardly a surprise.

Is foiling somehow considered a right in this design contest?  If that is the case why are there so many rules obviously deliberately intended to try and derail any attempts to do so...



#1210 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,036 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:36 AM

 

attachicon.gifindex.jpg

 

JS to LE: "See this rudder thing Larry, it makes our boat foil a whole lot better, but the fucker doesn't measure, so I need you and Rusty to change the rules so it does, otherwise we're fucked."

 

GS to RC: "How the fuck do we make this measure Russ? It's your rule we're breaking isn't it?"

 

RC to GS: "I'm sure we can think of something."

 

GS to RC: "Is this OR or Alinghi mate? I've been here before and this may not end well."

Pretty cold to play that card on Barts grave, but it comes as no surprise.

 

You mean from Oracle? yes I agree totally that if they are using Bart's death to try and change the rules to gain competitive advantage is pretty cold but hardly a surprise.

Is foiling somehow considered a right in this design contest?  If that is the case why are there so many rules obviously deliberately intended to try and derail any attempts to do so...

 

I clearly mean NZL3481's low blow implication on OR, and you know that. No surprise from him though.



#1211 JNavas

JNavas

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 913 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:37 AM

New Zealand challenges design rule change

 

America's Cup director plans to allow use of rudder elevators which Dalton says gives advantage to one team.

 

Team New Zealand are challenging the legality of moves from America's Cup organisers to push through changes that would effectively alter the design rule just two weeks before racing is due to start.

Despite the teams failing to reach an agreement on all the proposed safety recommendations after four days of mediation, regatta director Iain Murray said on the America's Cup website he plans to implement all 37 proposals.

"As regatta director, I have a clear task. For me, safety means safety for everyone. Full stop. I stand behind all of the original recommendations to increase safety for all of our sailors this summer," said Murray.

"If the recommendations are included by the Coast Guard in our marine event permit then I will issue a regatta notice harmonising the various rule documents to reflect the safety recommendations."

But Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa are questioning whether Murray has the authority to make arbitrary changes to these documents, and are preparing to lodge a protest with the international jury.

While there has been speculation the sticking point during mediation was that of moving the start times forward, which would further lighten the wind range, the Herald can reveal the only recommendation Team New Zealand is opposed to outright is the issue of rudder elevators.

"We got pretty close to resolving all the issues," Team New Zealand managing director Grant Dalton said.

"We're not opposed to any of the rules that are genuinely there for safety. It's really down to one point and that is rudder elevators. We don't believe this change is in the interest of safety, we think it's unnecessary and it gives potential advantage to another team, for complicated reasons which no one would understand."

Dalton refused to say which team would be advantaged by the change.

The inclusion of a clause in the safety recommendations that appeared to allow the use of rudder elevators, which are prohibited under the original design rules, raised eyebrows from the outset.

It is understood Cup defenders Oracle have been using rudder devices for some time to assist the stability of their boat, which is not illegal at this point as the boats are still in testing mode. But as the rules stand, they would have had to remove these devices for the America's Cup finals in September.

Given the fatal accident occurred in Artemis' non-foiling boat, the design concessions appear more as an opportunity for Oracle to get their modifications ruled legal in the name of safety. For Team New Zealand the answer is simple: if teams can't find a way to foil safely within the rules, then don't foil.

The Kiwi team feel they have conceded a lot on safety recommendations, particularly around wind limits. They made trade-offs in their AC72 design to ensure they had a boat that would be reliable in the conditions originally set down under the Protocol, only to find the goal posts shifted after the Artemis accident.

MORE: <http://www.nzherald....jectid=10892463>



#1212 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:40 AM

attachicon.gifindex.jpg

 

JS to LE: "See this rudder thing Larry, it makes our boat foil a whole lot better, but the fucker doesn't measure, so I need you and Rusty to change the rules so it does, otherwise we're fucked."

 

GS to RC: "How the fuck do we make this measure Russ? It's your rule we're breaking isn't it?"

 

RC to GS: "I'm sure we can think of something."

 

GS to RC: "Is this OR or Alinghi mate? I've been here before and this may not end well."

Pretty cold to play that card on Barts grave, but it comes as no surprise.

Agreed. OR should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to gain an advantage by using safety as a pathetic disguise. They're representing the good old US of A where everything is fantastic as long as you do things the USA way. God knows what the outcry would be if Alinghi tried something like that last time?

 

It's nice to know that in foiling mode currently their boats don't measure. Still they have 2 months to fix that. :lol: :lol: :lol:



#1213 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:43 AM

 

 

attachicon.gifindex.jpg

 

JS to LE: "See this rudder thing Larry, it makes our boat foil a whole lot better, but the fucker doesn't measure, so I need you and Rusty to change the rules so it does, otherwise we're fucked."

 

GS to RC: "How the fuck do we make this measure Russ? It's your rule we're breaking isn't it?"

 

RC to GS: "I'm sure we can think of something."

 

GS to RC: "Is this OR or Alinghi mate? I've been here before and this may not end well."

Pretty cold to play that card on Barts grave, but it comes as no surprise.

 

You mean from Oracle? yes I agree totally that if they are using Bart's death to try and change the rules to gain competitive advantage is pretty cold but hardly a surprise.

Is foiling somehow considered a right in this design contest?  If that is the case why are there so many rules obviously deliberately intended to try and derail any attempts to do so...

 

I clearly mean NZL3481's low blow implication on OR, and you know that. No surprise from him though.

If foiling is an issue for any team, why doesn't that team just take the rule as it was intended... and not foil. Problem solved.



#1214 koseyboy

koseyboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:51 AM


It seems ironic that the guys that signed off the rules now want them changed! - two weeks before kick off!


So verbally agreeing in principal to changes for safety only is now a legally binding agreement to change the rules.... Interesting...

#1215 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:53 AM

If OR hadn't already built two boats, GD could have sold them one that legally foiled. It's only had about 40 days of use, well maintained, black & red paint job. He could also throw in a free wing and free delivery for say NZD$120m?

 

Maybe Cayard is interested? They haven't produced a boat that measures yet, so does 2 half boats make a complete one? That would leave room for one more right?



#1216 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,227 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:53 AM


Funny thing, the mediation was supposed to be confidential, yet Grumpy can't keep his mouth shut.

 

Sorry, you are wrong, I learnt it before it was it was official, and not from GD or the kiwis.



#1217 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,515 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:54 AM

seems to me OR can only be tamed from it's bucking bronco role with a VERY exact angle of elevator T foil pitch

 

to enable speeds higher than etnz that angle has to be perfectly matched to the boat speed which is a function of the wind speed

 

OR want to be able to make the best guess as to the wind speed as late as possible and then set the rudder flap just before the racing

 

if they have to set it at dawn when the rudders go in their chances of perfectly picking the wind speed are low

 

with the result that the flap won't be set as well as it could be and the boat will either buck at the bow or have too much drag at the stern 

 

i don't see it has anything to do with AR's beam failure 

 

and little to do with safety either

 

as the single biggest thing they could do to improve safety is ban AR from taking to the water

 

since they aren't going to do that 

 

why should they be allowed to use bart's death to open a new development window, to try and gain a performance advantage, over teams that need to race in 2 weeks

 

CF is right chickenshit wuss is playing chicken with this so the lawyers should start preparing their case



#1218 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:58 AM

Apparently we need not worry about this ending up in the New York Courts which is a good thing .

 

 

 

“The IJ simply does not have the power to amend the Protocol or the Class Rules”. It was never the intention to ask the IJ to amend the Protocol and/or Class Rule. The mediation has now concluded and the Regatta Director will proceed to give effect, in accordance with the Protocol, to the 37 Safety Recommendations

 

For this edition of the America’s Cup, the International Jury has been empowered to resolve all disputes, and the teams have all agreed in writing not to resort to any court of law.

 

Historically, US Courts have been loath to get involved in sports where there is a properly constituted judicial body like the 34th America’s Cup International Jury. This Jury is the same as 33rd America’s Cup. Nobody, not even Mr. Friedman, has suggested that the 34th America’ Jury is not properly constituted.

 

 

 

As for rudder gate , if the system that they are talking about is so much of a advantage as GD claims why don't they do the same ? They can't possibly be that tough of an engineering problem can they ?



#1219 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:01 AM

If OR hadn't already built two boats, GD could have sold them one that legally foiled. It's only had about 40 days of use, well maintained, black & red paint job. He could also throw in a free wing and free delivery for say NZD$120m?

 

Maybe Cayard is interested? They haven't produced a boat that measures yet, so does 2 half boats make a complete one? That would leave room for one more right?

CIC won't allow it, but Hey!!...they can change the rules at will: just ask the GGYC employee acting as the Regatta Director.  :lol:



#1220 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:06 AM

Apparently we need not worry about this ending up in the New York Courts which is a good thing .

 

 

 

“The IJ simply does not have the power to amend the Protocol or the Class Rules”. It was never the intention to ask the IJ to amend the Protocol and/or Class Rule. The mediation has now concluded and the Regatta Director will proceed to give effect, in accordance with the Protocol, to the 37 Safety Recommendations

 

For this edition of the America’s Cup, the International Jury has been empowered to resolve all disputes, and the teams have all agreed in writing not to resort to any court of law.

 

Historically, US Courts have been loath to get involved in sports where there is a properly constituted judicial body like the 34th America’s Cup International Jury. This Jury is the same as 33rd America’s Cup. Nobody, not even Mr. Friedman, has suggested that the 34th America’ Jury is not properly constituted.

 

 

 

As for rudder gate , if the system that they are talking about is so much of a advantage as GD claims why don't they do the same ? They can't possibly be that tough of an engineering problem can they ?

 

No, but they're much more of a design & engineering challenge to produce one within the current rule and GD seems to be quite confident they're not very capable of it, hence he wants to keep the rule as is and so he has every right to be, just as if the roles were reversed.



#1221 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,227 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:06 AM

 

 

Your English comprehension still needs time to warm up. The GGYC employee in the role of RD cannot amend any rules on his own, as he's bluffing to do. But yes, he does have a vote which he's blatantly used to GGYC's advantage.

 

Why don't you address this comment in my post instead:

 

GGYC must have very serious doubts about OR's ability to defend successfully for them to be complicit in the blatant cheating attempt in the name of "safety".

(Indio rises to the bait, yet again.)

RD has no vote in the Competitor Forum, per 5.2.  Art 14.1 says a majority vote of the Competitor Forum is needed to change the Protocol, and...  speaking very slowly and clearly...  I M   h a s   no  v o t e   i n      t h e   C o m p e t i t o r    F o r u m.   (Of coures, we could get changes under 14.2, but that requires a) action by the NYSC or B) the appearance of a body other than NYSC somehow having jurisdiction over the DoG).

 

(Did somebody say this guy is a lawyer??  Nah, impossible.)

You're getting your long johns all soiled and tied up in knots - with you still in them. I've only ever been interested in any changes to the Protocol as they affect the CHALLENGERS. Ask someone at GGYC to explain this you:

25.3. ...The format of the ACCS agreed by the Challengers and the Regatta Director shall be revised by agreement of the majority of the Challengers and the Regatta Director if the format of the Match is amended.
 
Let me guess: widower or divorced?  B)

In fact you speak of the 25.3 for the ACCS (with or without modification of the match, there is an ambiguity in the article), while YK refers to the modification of the protocol with the 14.1



#1222 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:08 AM

 

 

 

Your English comprehension still needs time to warm up. The GGYC employee in the role of RD cannot amend any rules on his own, as he's bluffing to do. But yes, he does have a vote which he's blatantly used to GGYC's advantage.

 

Why don't you address this comment in my post instead:

 

GGYC must have very serious doubts about OR's ability to defend successfully for them to be complicit in the blatant cheating attempt in the name of "safety".

(Indio rises to the bait, yet again.)

RD has no vote in the Competitor Forum, per 5.2.  Art 14.1 says a majority vote of the Competitor Forum is needed to change the Protocol, and...  speaking very slowly and clearly...  I M   h a s   no  v o t e   i n      t h e   C o m p e t i t o r    F o r u m.   (Of coures, we could get changes under 14.2, but that requires a) action by the NYSC or B) the appearance of a body other than NYSC somehow having jurisdiction over the DoG).

 

(Did somebody say this guy is a lawyer??  Nah, impossible.)

You're getting your long johns all soiled and tied up in knots - with you still in them. I've only ever been interested in any changes to the Protocol as they affect the CHALLENGERS. Ask someone at GGYC to explain this you:

25.3. ...The format of the ACCS agreed by the Challengers and the Regatta Director shall be revised by agreement of the majority of the Challengers and the Regatta Director if the format of the Match is amended.
 
Let me guess: widower or divorced?  B)

In fact you speak of the 25.3 for the ACCS (with or without modification of the match, there is an ambiguity in the article), while YK refers to the modification of the protocol with the 14.1

Thank you. ;)



#1223 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:10 AM

If OR hadn't already built two boats, GD could have sold them one that legally foiled. It's only had about 40 days of use, well maintained, black & red paint job. He could also throw in a free wing and free delivery for say NZD$120m?

 

Maybe Cayard is interested? They haven't produced a boat that measures yet, so does 2 half boats make a complete one? That would leave room for one more right?

CIC won't allow it, but Hey!!...they can change the rules at will: just ask the GGYC employee acting as the Regatta Director.  :lol:

Should ACRM change it name to ORRSUM, being the Oracle Racing Rules Stuff Up Management?

 

IM is going to look like a fool when this is over.



#1224 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,227 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:12 AM

 

 

 

 

Your English comprehension still needs time to warm up. The GGYC employee in the role of RD cannot amend any rules on his own, as he's bluffing to do. But yes, he does have a vote which he's blatantly used to GGYC's advantage.

 

Why don't you address this comment in my post instead:

 

GGYC must have very serious doubts about OR's ability to defend successfully for them to be complicit in the blatant cheating attempt in the name of "safety".

(Indio rises to the bait, yet again.)

RD has no vote in the Competitor Forum, per 5.2.  Art 14.1 says a majority vote of the Competitor Forum is needed to change the Protocol, and...  speaking very slowly and clearly...  I M   h a s   no  v o t e   i n      t h e   C o m p e t i t o r    F o r u m.   (Of coures, we could get changes under 14.2, but that requires a) action by the NYSC or B) the appearance of a body other than NYSC somehow having jurisdiction over the DoG).

 

(Did somebody say this guy is a lawyer??  Nah, impossible.)

You're getting your long johns all soiled and tied up in knots - with you still in them. I've only ever been interested in any changes to the Protocol as they affect the CHALLENGERS. Ask someone at GGYC to explain this you:

25.3. ...The format of the ACCS agreed by the Challengers and the Regatta Director shall be revised by agreement of the majority of the Challengers and the Regatta Director if the format of the Match is amended.
 
Let me guess: widower or divorced?  B)

In fact you speak of the 25.3 for the ACCS (with or without modification of the match, there is an ambiguity in the article), while YK refers to the modification of the protocol with the 14.1

Thank you. ;)

;)



#1225 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:16 AM

Multiracial-Babies-Crying-300x199.jpg



#1226 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,227 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:19 AM

Friends, Sailors, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury the rules, not to praise them.
The speed that yachts have lives after them;

As does their fast grip on the silver ewer.
The safety is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with the rules. The noble Murray
Hath told you high wind foiling on a catamaran was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath Murray answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Murray and the rest, —
For Murray is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men,

Barclay, Ehman, Coutts, Ellison, all of them --
Come  to speak at high wind foiling's funeral.
It was my inspiration, fast and stable to me:
But Murray and Barclay and Ehman say it was dangerous;
And they are honorable men.

Molière,

 

tous les hommes de Coupe América ont été des personnes honorables.

 

Scapin



#1227 Offshore 1

Offshore 1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:27 AM

Apparently we need not worry about this ending up in the New York Courts which is a good thing .

 

 

 

“The IJ simply does not have the power to amend the Protocol or the Class Rules”. It was never the intention to ask the IJ to amend the Protocol and/or Class Rule. The mediation has now concluded and the Regatta Director will proceed to give effect, in accordance with the Protocol, to the 37 Safety Recommendations

 

For this edition of the America’s Cup, the International Jury has been empowered to resolve all disputes, and the teams have all agreed in writing not to resort to any court of law.

 

Historically, US Courts have been loath to get involved in sports where there is a properly constituted judicial body like the 34th America’s Cup International Jury. This Jury is the same as 33rd America’s Cup. Nobody, not even Mr. Friedman, has suggested that the 34th America’ Jury is not properly constituted.

 

 

 

As for rudder gate , if the system that they are talking about is so much of a advantage as GD claims why don't they do the same ? They can't possibly be that tough of an engineering problem can they ?

 

Maybe because TNZ doesn't need them?  Maybe because OR has shown they are having problems with pitch control? A better question is, why change anything?  What does it have to do with safety? - I haven't seen an explanation as to why it was even tabled.



#1228 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,849 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:38 AM


A better question is, why change anything?  What does it have to do with safety? - I haven't seen an explanation as to why it was even tabled.


How about this? Safety committee asks Oracle "what caused the October pitch pole?" OR answers, the rudders weren't long enough and there wasn't enough foil area. Plus, restricting the rudder foils to max beam means you have to make up for the lack of span with more chord, which is less efficient and which can cause earlier loss of control.

#1229 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:38 AM

yet Grumpy can't keep his mouth shut.......Until Grumpy tells what we are all too stupid to know....

So your position is:

1. He has said too much and
2. He has said too little

#1230 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:44 AM

As for rudder gate , if the system that they are talking about is so much of a advantage as GD claims why don't they do the same ?

It doesn't seem too hard to work out. If you have built a September boat with fine bows, your biggest vulnerability is during bear-away and the ability to set rudder lift to counteract that for the conditions up to the warning gun is a significant advantage. If you have built a boat with more volume in the bows, the advantage of adjustment is less because your vulnerability is less.

#1231 Offshore 1

Offshore 1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:48 AM


A better question is, why change anything?  What does it have to do with safety? - I haven't seen an explanation as to why it was even tabled.


How about this? Safety committee asks Oracle "what caused the October pitch pole?" OR answers, the rudders weren't long enough and there wasn't enough foil area. Plus, restricting the rudder foils to max beam means you have to make up for the lack of span with more chord, which is less efficient and which can cause earlier loss of control.

 

Bingo! and TNZ counters that they have done more sailing than OR in a wide range of conditions and haven't PP'd  You have to admit it reeks of OR designing to the extreme end of the scale and finding that they are having trouble controlling the beast.  Meanwhile TNZ and LR continue to plow up and down the harbour in their tractors.



#1232 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:52 AM

Apparently we need not worry about this ending up in the New York Courts which is a good thing .

 

 

 

“The IJ simply does not have the power to amend the Protocol or the Class Rules”. It was never the intention to ask the IJ to amend the Protocol and/or Class Rule. The mediation has now concluded and the Regatta Director will proceed to give effect, in accordance with the Protocol, to the 37 Safety Recommendations

 

For this edition of the America’s Cup, the International Jury has been empowered to resolve all disputes, and the teams have all agreed in writing not to resort to any court of law.

 

Historically, US Courts have been loath to get involved in sports where there is a properly constituted judicial body like the 34th America’s Cup International Jury. This Jury is the same as 33rd America’s Cup. Nobody, not even Mr. Friedman, has suggested that the 34th America’ Jury is not properly constituted.

 

 

 

As for rudder gate , if the system that they are talking about is so much of a advantage as GD claims why don't they do the same ? They can't possibly be that tough of an engineering problem can they ?

 

No, but they're much more of a design & engineering challenge to produce one within the current rule and GD seems to be quite confident they're not very capable of it, hence he wants to keep the rule as is and so he has every right to be, just as if the roles were reversed.

 

Possibly because he has to be racing in two weeks and currently has a functioning and as safe as it's going to get all things considered configuration...

Now all of a sudden he is basically required to implement a significant design change with no time to test but which has the potential to add significant performance gains as you can tune your boat for the conditions right up until a few minutes before start and which Oracle will get two months of uninterrupted testing to perfect...

 

Now why would someone be upset about that I wonder...



#1233 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:56 AM

I don't see OR as a September boat or a boat at the extreme end of the design envelope.

 

I see it as a skimmer that they modified to be a foiler and found that it didn't work.

 

OR's boat does not have the inherent balance required for a safe full foiler!

 

 

Their design is not right!



#1234 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:59 AM


A better question is, why change anything?  What does it have to do with safety? - I haven't seen an explanation as to why it was even tabled.


How about this? Safety committee asks Oracle "what caused the October pitch pole?" OR answers, the rudders weren't long enough and there wasn't enough foil area. Plus, restricting the rudder foils to max beam means you have to make up for the lack of span with more chord, which is less efficient and which can cause earlier loss of control.

Except Jiminy Spithill has already confessed to "driver error" for the pp, according to the Oompa Loompas.



#1235 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:10 AM

 


A better question is, why change anything?  What does it have to do with safety? - I haven't seen an explanation as to why it was even tabled.


How about this? Safety committee asks Oracle "what caused the October pitch pole?" OR answers, the rudders weren't long enough and there wasn't enough foil area. Plus, restricting the rudder foils to max beam means you have to make up for the lack of span with more chord, which is less efficient and which can cause earlier loss of control.

Except Jiminy Spithill has already confessed to "driver error" for the pp, according to the Oompa Loompas.

 


A better question is, why change anything?  What does it have to do with safety? - I haven't seen an explanation as to why it was even tabled.


How about this? Safety committee asks Oracle "what caused the October pitch pole?" OR answers, the rudders weren't long enough and there wasn't enough foil area. Plus, restricting the rudder foils to max beam means you have to make up for the lack of span with more chord, which is less efficient and which can cause earlier loss of control.

 

If we were having this conversation a week after Oracle PP'ed you might have a point...

How many months ago was that and they have quite happily gone sailing how many times without EVER asking for an adjustment to this rule on safety grounds.

If they had asked 6 months ago they might have got a completely different reaction from ETNZ, you simply can't change the basic dynamics of the boats unless all competitors have sufficient time to adapt to it.

Seriously how long does it take them to design and then build a set of rudders anyway? pretty sure they don't whip them up over night and racing is in what two weeks?  There only ONE team that can realistically benefit from this change and they can almost certainly get performance gains from it.



#1236 JNavas

JNavas

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 913 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:11 AM

Of note the Manned Marker Boats for VIP's and VIP Photog's Got the Axe

the Gates shall all now be Un-Manned

There goes some of the Best Pix that were to be had  :(

 

Not necessarily -- it would be easy to equip gates with robot cameras, or even just GoPro's.



#1237 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:15 AM

This is rediculous! Scrap the Class change rules! The teams have agreed on the "Safety recommendations" Its the class change rules that are the problem! Get rid of the class change rules and the competition gets back on the water! Simple! The teams were given a design box rule which was perfectly safe. ETNZ is testament to that! Other teams have made mistakes, that's obvious, but in life and sport you live with your mistakes and make the best of the situation you PUT YOURSELF in. You don't change the rules everyone else plays by because you made mistakes you don't wanna live with! If Oracle needs rudder elevators to control pitch and stability, its because they made a mistake with their design. Again, thats obvious! How? Because there's two teams who have had no safety issues who don't need them!

THE CLASS RULE DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE! Emirates Team New Zealand have already made huge concessions with lowering the wind limits, even though the protocol stated 33 knots top limit. They knew 15-20 knots was typical of San Fran, Nick holroyd said it himself, but they also knew their boat had to withstand 33 knots of windspeed, Now its over-engineered because the other teams took an unsafe risk and opted for speed over safety. As PC said, they ended up with a boat designed for San Diego WTF?? They got San Francisco mixed up with San Diego?? Oracle havent said much but IMO from the videos they obviously havent optimised their boat for turning or strong breeze. The safest team package to date is ETNZ. And they are the ones who people think are compromising safety?? They're just protecting their own interests. They are there to win the Americas Cup, just like everyone else, but because they gained an advantage through excellent campaign management and a good, reliable, safe design. Other teams want knock them back and gain an advantage through changing the rules to suit themselves. Funny thing is... its GD thats been called negative and grumpy and unsportsmanlike. Just absolute BS!



#1238 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:16 AM

What is it that some people want to hear from RC, or from the almost never-commenting LE, or about the apparent settlement to the Simpson family, that would change anything? ....
RC is likely smart to be staying above the fray

Well brought-up children are taught to clear up their own messes. AC34 was RC's vision, signed off by LE. Right now, it's a mess. If silence is RC's choice, standing back from that isn't smart, it's spineless.

There are other explanations, of which the most likely is that after that Auckland charity dinner, RC's pass to represent OR/ACEA in public was cancelled. The hapless SB has been left as one public face and the hopeless TE wheeled out of retirement as a backup. Neither, clearly, is in any way up to the job.

#1239 uflux

uflux

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Location:I'm watching you right now...
  • Interests:Windsurfing, Sailing...

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:41 AM

I just clicked to this in the thread above.

Seriously have Oracle been wasting their time trying to catch ETNZ's foiling performance with an illegal piece of kit. :blink:

 

"It is understood Cup defenders Oracle have been using rudder devices for some time to assist the stability of their boat, which is not illegal at this point as the boats are still in testing mode. But as the rules stand, they would have had to remove these devices for the America's Cup finals in September."

 

If true they probably really don't have a clue how the kiwis are doing it. They are up s**t creek without a foil...  :D



#1240 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,036 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:41 AM

This is rediculous! Scrap the Class change rules! The teams have agreed on the "Safety recommendations" Its the class change rules that are the problem! Get rid of the class change rules and the competition gets back on the water! Simple! The teams were given a design box rule which was perfectly safe. ETNZ is testament to that! Other teams have made mistakes, that's obvious, but in life and sport you live with your mistakes and make the best of the situation you PUT YOURSELF in. You don't change the rules everyone else plays by because you made mistakes you don't wanna live with! If Oracle needs rudder elevators to control pitch and stability, its because they made a mistake with their design. Again, thats obvious! How? Because there's two teams who have had no safety issues who don't need them!

THE CLASS RULE DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE! Emirates Team New Zealand have already made huge concessions with lowering the wind limits, even though the protocol stated 33 knots top limit. They knew 15-20 knots was typical of San Fran, Nick holroyd said it himself, but they also knew their boat had to withstand 33 knots of windspeed, Now its over-engineered because the other teams took an unsafe risk and opted for speed over safety. As PC said, they ended up with a boat designed for San Diego WTF?? They got San Francisco mixed up with San Diego?? Oracle havent said much but IMO from the videos they obviously havent optimised their boat for turning or strong breeze. The safest team package to date is ETNZ. And they are the ones who people think are compromising safety?? They're just protecting their own interests. They are there to win the Americas Cup, just like everyone else, but because they gained an advantage through excellent campaign management and a good, reliable, safe design. Other teams want knock them back and gain an advantage through changing the rules to suit themselves. Funny thing is... its GD thats been called negative and grumpy and unsportsmanlike. Just absolute BS!

Attached Files



#1241 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:51 AM

Gees SMALL WILLY SAILOR!! Ya must get sick of waking up in the morning and seeing that reflection in the mirror!



#1242 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,036 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:54 AM

Gees SMALL WILLY SAILOR!! Ya must get sick of waking up in the morning and seeing that reflection in the mirror!

 

Must be concerning to wake up every morning with the realization your countries mere survival depends on a sailboat race, but so be it.



#1243 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:56 AM

Gees SMALL WILLY SAILOR!! Ya must get sick of waking up in the morning and seeing that reflection in the mirror!

 

Must be concerning to wake up every morning with the realization your countries mere survival depends on a sailboat race, but so be it.

:lol:  The Oompa Loompas are running out of material. Here comes the regurgitation...



#1244 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:04 AM

Gees SMALL WILLY SAILOR!! Ya must get sick of waking up in the morning and seeing that reflection in the mirror!

 

Must be concerning to wake up every morning with the realization your countries mere survival depends on a sailboat race, but so be it.

Nah its not that concerning at all... Especially when we know the mighty American's are so rattled by a tiny country like ours they gotta jimmy the rules to give themselves a chance... thats very comforting.

 


Attached File  65611_542881239092068_360643378_n.jpg   37.54K   5 downloads



#1245 Samin

Samin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:39 AM

I cant believe there's still people on this forum defending Oracles attempt to change a major design parameter 2 weeks before the Regatta starts. Its completely impossible for the challenger's to make the changes even if they wanted too!

#1246 uflux

uflux

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Location:I'm watching you right now...
  • Interests:Windsurfing, Sailing...

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:42 AM

Gees SMALL WILLY SAILOR!! Ya must get sick of waking up in the morning and seeing that reflection in the mirror!

 

Must be concerning to wake up every morning with the realization your countries mere survival depends on a sailboat race, but so be it.

 

What does that even mean...???



#1247 Landlockedlubber

Landlockedlubber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:46 AM

Why not oblige hulls to have 'minimun' fwd volume. Why would that not add to safety?

My </= $0.02

#1248 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:58 AM

 

Gees SMALL WILLY SAILOR!! Ya must get sick of waking up in the morning and seeing that reflection in the mirror!

 

Must be concerning to wake up every morning with the realization your countries mere survival depends on a sailboat race, but so be it.

 

What does that even mean...???

He doesn't even know what it means



#1249 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:40 AM

From the Protocol:
 
14. PROTOCOL AMENDMENTS
14.1. GGYC and the Challenger of Record may amend this Protocol with the approval of a
majority of the Competitor Forum.
14.2. GGYC (as trustee) shall amend this Protocol if required to do so to meet the requirements
of any authority having jurisdiction over the Deed of Gift.
 
 
(q) Competitor Forum means a meeting of Competitors held from time to time under
Article 5.
 
 
From the Class Rule:
 
4. AMENDMENTS
The AC72 Class Rule may be amended at any time by unanimous consent of
Competitors still competing and the Regatta Director, except that:
(a) at any time the Measurement Committee, with the approval of the Regatta
Director, may amend the AC72 Class Rule with respect to media requirements;
and
(B) prior to March 1, 2011, the Measurement Committee, with the approval of the
Regatta Director and a majority of the Competitors, may amend the AC72 Class
Rule in any respect.
 
8.6 Rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets, that can be
adjusted while racing. However, a movable or retractable device whose sole purpose is the
removal of weed or debris is permitted.
 
 

Conclusion:

1. Without "unanimous consent of Competitors" you can not change the Class Rules

2. Without Majority of the competitor forum you can not change the protocol.

 

TNZ should stand its grounds. The problem is not TNZ doesn't support the changes. The problem is that the parties proposing the rules do not have the support to make the changes.



#1250 Ex-yachtie

Ex-yachtie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:00 AM

My guess is that ETNZ is focussed on OR far more than on anybody else,

 

That's because they're the only team who's going to race them.



#1251 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:09 AM

^

Is this a good moment to reminisce on RC's prediction that OR would not be racing ETNZ?

#1252 Ex-yachtie

Ex-yachtie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:36 AM

OK.  I try and read this stuff as much as I can.  Typically I stop scrolling down when I see new photos or videos.  Call me a browser.

 

My summary (trying desperately to hide my distaste for the potential of rule changes at a late stage) is that:

 

  • ETNZ have figured out a new system for storing power that meets all the rules (probably thanks to some Australian - the irony about Ben Lexen, winged keels and Peter van Oossanen probably aren't worth mentioning).
  • This enables them to control the angle of attack of their dagger board foils better (quicker?),
  • This helps them foil with greater stability and, along with extra time on the water, appears to be setting them apart from the other teams.
  • The rules allow wings on the rudders with limited adjustability.
  • In order to learn how to foil and catch up, Oracle has made and used rudders with wings that are wider than the rules allow.
  • The next few weeks of discussion will determine whether the wider, more adjustable rudders can be used during racing.

 

What I don't know is:

 

  • Are they currently using rudders that comply with the rules (within the beam of the hull)?

 

Is there anything I missed?



#1253 Ex-yachtie

Ex-yachtie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:38 AM

^

Is this a good moment to reminisce on RC's prediction that OR would not be racing ETNZ?

 

Perhaps he was pre-empting OR's decision to withdraw from the Cup due to safety concerns?



#1254 the paradox of thrift

the paradox of thrift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,376 posts
  • Location:Mos-Vegas
  • Interests:I like sailing

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:38 AM

^

Is this a good moment to reminisce on RC's prediction that OR would not be racing ETNZ?

 

Nah - nothing RC, PC or LE ever said is admissible in these threads. Only statements made by Grant Dalton are open to discussion.



#1255 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:21 AM

This is all a miss-quote/ miss-interpretation from RC.

 

He meant to say, and it should have been translated as:

 

"We (OR) do not assume we will be meeting TNZ. There are other teams and we are focusing on them all"



#1256 dun

dun

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:50 AM


A better question is, why change anything?  What does it have to do with safety? - I haven't seen an explanation as to why it was even tabled.


How about this? Safety committee asks Oracle "what caused the October pitch pole?" OR answers, the rudders weren't long enough and there wasn't enough foil area. Plus, restricting the rudder foils to max beam means you have to make up for the lack of span with more chord, which is less efficient and which can cause earlier loss of control.

Don't foil if unsafe, shattered boat situation arises...



#1257 YvesKlein

YvesKlein

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:17 AM

Would being able to add 100kg to the boat be considered changing the design ?  Are teams forced to do this ?

 

Like the allowable increase to weight, they could also leave elevators as optional.

Are you kidding??  Those adjustable-up-until-the-preparatory-warning-signal elevators are essential for safety.  Or did I misunderstand IM?



#1258 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:21 AM

From the Protocol:
 
14. PROTOCOL AMENDMENTS
14.1. GGYC and the Challenger of Record may amend this Protocol with the approval of a
majority of the Competitor Forum.
14.2. GGYC (as trustee) shall amend this Protocol if required to do so to meet the requirements
of any authority having jurisdiction over the Deed of Gift.
 
 
(q) Competitor Forum means a meeting of Competitors held from time to time under
Article 5.
 
 
From the Class Rule:
 
4. AMENDMENTS
The AC72 Class Rule may be amended at any time by unanimous consent of
Competitors still competing and the Regatta Director, except that:
(a) at any time the Measurement Committee, with the approval of the Regatta
Director, may amend the AC72 Class Rule with respect to media requirements;
and
( B) prior to March 1, 2011, the Measurement Committee, with the approval of the
Regatta Director and a majority of the Competitors, may amend the AC72 Class
Rule in any respect.
 
8.6 Rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets, that can be
adjusted while racing. However, a movable or retractable device whose sole purpose is the
removal of weed or debris is permitted.
 
 

Conclusion:

1. Without "unanimous consent of Competitors" you can not change the Class Rules

2. Without Majority of the competitor forum you can not change the protocol.

 

TNZ should stand its grounds. The problem is not TNZ doesn't support the changes. The problem is that the parties proposing the rules do not have the support to make the changes.

rudder problems, so what? if the boat is unsafe stay home and watch on the box.  :)



#1259 hump101

hump101

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Brittany, France
  • Interests:Naval Architecture structural engineering, speedsailing, offshore racing

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:26 AM

Is there anything I missed?

I think so, though I didn't want to get into this fight......

 

The technical issue is more fundamental.

 

ETNZ have a boat that is almost entirely supported on its single main foil. The rudder provides very little lift, just control forces, which are relatively small. As speed changes, lift changes. The main foil is correspondingly adjusted, as this is allowed, so the lift remains as  required. The lift on the rudder changes, but since this force is relatively small, the change in attitude on the boat is not problematic, and the local effects of free surface and small size provide a natural limit to motions. When it goes wrong, the boat will pivot about its main foil, potentially creating a high bow down pitch angle, so they've included sufficient buoyancy in the bows to cope.

 

OR have a boat where the lift is shared between the main foil and the rudder. The amount of lift provided by the rudder is still a small porportion of the total, but the rudder lift force is large compared to the rudder control force. As speed changes, lift changes. The main foil is correspondingly adjusted, but the rudder isn't. The change in force on the rudder is significant, and affects the attitude of the boat. A small rudder foil that is required to provide a lot of lift can only do so with a large angle of attack, so with a fixed angle, a large change in trim of the boat is required, hence poor control. When it goes wrong, the boat pivots about the rudder foil, and hence a reduced bow down pitch angle, and hence the boat can have lower volume bows to allow recovery.

 

I'm sure both teams have simulated both approaches. ETNZ decided that they would go for the former, at a price of bigger main foil, lower righting moment, and more aero drag, so they have better control over a wide range of speeds for a given rudder setting. OR decided on the latter as it provides a lower drag solution, but for a smaller range of speeds for a given rudder setting. Boat 1 was an extreme example of this, but boat 2 is less extreme.

 

However, OR have found that the range of speeds over which they have good control is too small using the maximum size of rudder foil allowed. Hence, when they are running in the narrow speed range, they look good, but as soon as this is not the case, they have large pitch angles. Using a larger rudder foil requires less boat trim to generate the change in force, and hence better control.

 

The problem OR face is if they were to move the main foils further aft and increase their size, they would then have a boat which, if it goes wrong, will not have enough buoyancy in the bow to recover from the large pitch angle that would occur with the bigger main foil. A potentially dangerous solution, and rebuilding the hulls is probably not feasible, since even if they had the time, the added weight is more than their program has in the bank. They aren't allowed new hulls. Furthermore, they have made corresponding design choices with their wing that also suggest the expectation of a narrow speed range, and moving to a higher drag foil solution would present them with power issues.

 

I suspect that OR may have been using a larger rudder foil recently to achieve the improvements we've been seeing, and consequently they already know that operating with class legal rudder foils is not a safe option for them, since if they set up the small rudder foils for lighter winds, and the winds increase during a race, they will have an unacceptably high probability of pitchpoling.

 

As such, the move to increase allowed rudder foil size and control is a real issue for OR, as without it they will have to choose between pulling out of certain races when conditions change, or risking the boat and crew by continuing. ETNZ and LR, on the other hand, don't have this issue, and in fact increasing the rudder foil size on their boats would not only increase drag, but also create control problems due to the size of the control force generated becoming too large.

 

Hence the current dicotomy. OR can quite legitimately claim that they need this change to improve the safety of their boat to acceptable levels. ETNZ/LR can quite legitimately claim that the issue is created by design choices. Since the AC is not just a design and sailing competition, but a design, sailing, and legal competition, we'll have to wait and see who has the best overall package.



#1260 uflux

uflux

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Location:I'm watching you right now...
  • Interests:Windsurfing, Sailing...

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:47 AM

Thanks for the input. Very very astute explanation... :)



#1261 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,515 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:49 AM

+1



#1262 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:10 PM

OR have a boat where the lift is shared between the main foil and the rudder.

I'm not disputing what you've written, as it matches the observable facts as far as I can tell. I'm just curious though how you know the sentence above to be true? It's critical to your argument.

#1263 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:18 PM

OR want to be able to make the best guess as to the wind speed as late as possible and then set the rudder flap just before the racing
 
if they have to set it at dawn when the rudders go in their chances of perfectly picking the wind speed are low



Are we sure about this? My reading is it would be analogous to switching daggerboards, thus requiring a different certificate*. Was there a consensus on the latest this could be done, something like the evening before?

* The rationale being that with the current rule elevators are forbidden. If they are present (and adjusted at any time after measuring) it's like putting in different rudders

The existing Measurers ruling is very clear that any adjustment to the T would invalidate the current certificate of the boat.


This time hoom beat me to it :) Was there a formal ruling in fact?

#1264 Blackman

Blackman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:23 PM

This pic (coming from the capting humour on the top of this page) seems to show that this rudder have a controlable (or settable if not during sailing) trailing edge like the moth main blade (and the hand of Jimmy seems also to indicate that you can curve this at will to provide the positive lift they need).  Using flap on this surface is not legal... and if it's the way they are able to foil actually, they are for sure in big trouble. Do anybody have better pics of the bottom of the OR rudder?

Attached Files



#1265 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:40 PM

* The rationale being that with the current rule elevators are forbidden.

8.6 Rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets, that can be adjusted while racing.

The second clause implies such components are permitted provided they cannot be adjusted while racing.

#1266 hump101

hump101

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Brittany, France
  • Interests:Naval Architecture structural engineering, speedsailing, offshore racing

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:41 PM

OR have a boat where the lift is shared between the main foil and the rudder.

I'm not disputing what you've written, as it matches the observable facts as far as I can tell. I'm just curious though how you know the sentence above to be true? It's critical to your argument.

Because when the OR boat is in the water, its static waterline, combined with its visible hullform when on a crane, shows that the vessel CoG is well aft of the main foil location. On the ETNZ boat, this is not the case. Their main foil is about where the CoG appears to be (actually slightly forward, but not by much).

 

As such, the resulting moment generated by the offset between main lifting foil vector and sum of sailing force vector on OR requires the rudder foil to provide a significant lifting force, plus also to provide the dynamic positive and negative control force, whilst on ETNZ the rudder foil provide very little lift force, just the control force element.



#1267 Strike3

Strike3

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:45 PM

I think we are getting a pretty clear view of the game now:

IM has placed his bet - all the amendments are going to be attached to the CG permit and he is going to ask the Jury to approve all the changes as they are required by the CG authority

ETNZ have yet to call their hand and it's not a straightforward call: Its seems clear that they could take this to the NY Court to try and overturn it:
-But the subsequent delay might let Artemis back in the game (without a delay AR are fully fucked and ETNZ have a clear run to the AC final subject to any disaster).
-ETNZ will also get a huge bucket of negative PR shit poured all over them - That's already started
-Finally have ETNZ got the cash to fund a delay?

-But if they don't fight this rudder elevator issue OR might gain a crucial advantage - They have some time and unlimited resources to optimise this change.

I think Dalts will play this to the wire but will eventually settle.

The big unknown is how the Jury will play their hand - They are nobody's patsies and might not go along with IM & SB - Then all bets are off!

#1268 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,515 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:45 PM

Attached File  OR rudder.jpg   314.98K   30 downloads



#1269 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:50 PM


* The rationale being that with the current rule elevators are forbidden.

8.6 Rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets, that can be adjusted while racing.

The second clause implies such components are permitted provided they cannot be adjusted while racing.

Would have a hard time arguing - but what about hoom's post (see my edit)?

#1270 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:51 PM

Because when the OR boat is in the water, its static waterline, combined with its visible hullform when on a crane, shows that the vessel CoG is well aft of the main foil location.

Thanks, very enlightening. Once in a while you read something on SAAC that makes up for all the crap and today, I award you "star of the day".

#1271 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,112 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:55 PM



* The rationale being that with the current rule elevators are forbidden.

8.6 Rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets, that can be adjusted while racing.

The second clause implies such components are permitted provided they cannot be adjusted while racing.
Right.

There are an awful lot of assumptions being made, including the notion that OR wants let alone needs anything changed, but very few facts to back any of it up.

While it's certainly possible that ETNZ has the least to gain from a rudders rule change, IM already stated that Safety trumps competitive concerns no matter what competitor(s), Full Stop. It might help if he explained the position that the change helps improve safety, as a counter to consider against GD's statement that it is 'unnecessary' and has nothing at all to do with safety.

And unless/until a GS or someone also starts going to the press, we also have no idea OR's position. For all we know so far (nothing) they may not give a toss either way.

#1272 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

Would have a hard time arguing - but what about hoom's post (see my edit)?

Don't know. I don't recall any such ruling but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. I'm not inclined to read the lot http://noticeboard.a...c72-class-rule/

#1273 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,515 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

maybe we can ask wuss his take on the wudders

 

or even AR's accident?

 

only joking

 

i know his vow of silence is serious



#1274 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

While it's certainly possible that ETNZ has the least to gain from a rudders rule change, IM already stated that Safety trumps competitive concerns no matter what competitor(s), Full Stop. It might help if he explained the position that the change helps improve safety, as a counter to consider against GD's statement that it is 'unnecessary' and has nothing at all to do with safety.

If safety trumps all why do none of the recommendations include a review of buoyancy calculations or a min bow volume?

 

Hell if safety truly trumps all he might as well issue a regulation that all races be in Optimists.



#1275 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:09 PM


Would have a hard time arguing - but what about hoom's post (see my edit)?

Don't know. I don't recall any such ruling but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. I'm not inclined to read the lot http://noticeboard.a...c72-class-rule/

Ah-ha!!

http://noticeboard.a...11/09/PI_19.pdf

#1276 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,515 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:13 PM

^

 

right

 

so it's a hell of an ask to now try and change that decision 2 weeks before racing

 

Adjusting the angle of one surface of an appendage relative to another surface of that appendage
constitutes a change to the shape of the appendage surfaces, and invalidates the yacht's measurement 
certificate in accordance with AC72 Class Rule 27.2 ©.


#1277 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:15 PM

Because when the OR boat is in the water, its static waterline, combined with its visible hullform when on a crane, shows that the vessel CoG is well aft of the main foil location.

Thanks, very enlightening. Once in a while you read something on SAAC that makes up for all the crap and today, I award you "star of the day".

Star_Award_Pic%5B1%5D.jpg

ab-so-f'n-loot-lee



#1278 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:20 PM


^
 
right


Great. So, where were we? Oh yes, is there a consensus on the deadline for switching certificates?

#1279 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:25 PM

Ah-ha!!

http://noticeboard.a...11/09/PI_19.pdf

Right, so people have been posting that the winglet could be set before launching for the day but not only that, it needs a certificate change. So at what point does a team have to finalise a tuning change that requires a certificate change. AFAIK they can do so daily but at what time?

#1280 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:31 PM


Is there anything I missed?

I think so, though I didn't want to get into this fight......

 

The technical issue is more fundamental.

 

[snip]

 

Hence the current dicotomy. OR can quite legitimately claim that they need this change to improve the safety of their boat to acceptable levels. ETNZ/LR can quite legitimately claim that the issue is created by design choices. Since the AC is not just a design and sailing competition, but a design, sailing, and legal competition, we'll have to wait and see who has the best overall package.

 

Fantastic explanation.  Thank you very much.



#1281 Blackman

Blackman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:37 PM

Still looking for close-up from red rudder from oracle. Looking at this old pic, I can really imagine that they already had rudders wider than the hull at this point...

Attached Files



#1282 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:38 PM

^^
Agree, porthos. But we would expect more from you - like an opinion on Cory Friedman's piece, is the IJ the final station or not?

#1283 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:42 PM


^
 
right


Great. So, where were we? Oh yes, is there a consensus on the deadline for switching certificates?

What is the deadline to get a cert for LV and AC?



#1284 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,515 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:51 PM

so if rudder T blade angle setting were to need new certification

 

does that mean daggers can be selected for the day too? 



#1285 Alpha FB

Alpha FB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:53 PM

 

OR have a boat where the lift is shared between the main foil and the rudder.

I'm not disputing what you've written, as it matches the observable facts as far as I can tell. I'm just curious though how you know the sentence above to be true? It's critical to your argument.

Because when the OR boat is in the water, its static waterline, combined with its visible hullform when on a crane, shows that the vessel CoG is well aft of the main foil location. On the ETNZ boat, this is not the case. Their main foil is about where the CoG appears to be (actually slightly forward, but not by much).

 

As such, the resulting moment generated by the offset between main lifting foil vector and sum of sailing force vector on OR requires the rudder foil to provide a significant lifting force, plus also to provide the dynamic positive and negative control force, whilst on ETNZ the rudder foil provide very little lift force, just the control force element.

 

So if this is such an issue, that causes problems controling the foiling, how do you explain the pronounced aft rake of the wingsail?  By your argument, they should be able to change the CoG and solve their problems by decreasing the mast rake...



#1286 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:01 PM

^

Has he not already answered that ? e.g.

The problem OR face is if they were to move the main foils further aft and increase their size, they would then have a boat which, if it goes wrong, will not have enough buoyancy in the bow to recover from the large pitch angle that would occur with the bigger main foil. A potentially dangerous solution, and rebuilding the hulls is probably not feasible, since even if they had the time, the added weight is more than their program has in the bank. They aren't allowed new hulls. Furthermore, they have made corresponding design choices with their wing that also suggest the expectation of a narrow speed range, and moving to a higher drag foil solution would present them with power issues.



#1287 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:04 PM

So according to the kiwis OR have been anticipating the rules change to adjustable foils months before Bart's death, and took the opportunity to strongarm IM into implementing them?

 

 

This conspiracy against ETNZ goes even deeper than we thought...



#1288 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,772 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:08 PM

^

 

The measurement interpretation is dated 29-Aug-2012 and there's a picture of JS and LE standing next to a rudder that implements the system. You don't have to be paranoid to string a few facts together in this instance.



#1289 Alpha FB

Alpha FB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:13 PM

^

Has he not already answered that ? e.g.

The problem OR face is if they were to move the main foils further aft and increase their size, they would then have a boat which, if it goes wrong, will not have enough buoyancy in the bow to recover from the large pitch angle that would occur with the bigger main foil. A potentially dangerous solution, and rebuilding the hulls is probably not feasible, since even if they had the time, the added weight is more than their program has in the bank. They aren't allowed new hulls. Furthermore, they have made corresponding design choices with their wing that also suggest the expectation of a narrow speed range, and moving to a higher drag foil solution would present them with power issues.

 

Reading between the lines I gather you're saying that they need to keep the CoG aft because of the lack of buoancy in the bows?  I can follow that...



#1290 hump101

hump101

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Brittany, France
  • Interests:Naval Architecture structural engineering, speedsailing, offshore racing

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:13 PM

So if this is such an issue, that causes problems controling the foiling, how do you explain the pronounced aft rake of the wingsail?  By your argument, they should be able to change the CoG and solve their problems by decreasing the mast rake...

Of course they can move the overall CoG forward by reducing wing rake, but not by enough to balance the overall CoG over their boards unless the wing was leaning forwards in an impractical manner. Then they would have to deal with the move in CoE of the wing, which would cause a different set of lateral balance issues, which is why the wing is raked aft now.



#1291 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,112 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:14 PM

So according to the kiwis OR have been anticipating the rules change to adjustable foils months before Bart's death, and took the opportunity to strongarm IM into implementing them?

 

 

This conspiracy against ETNZ goes even deeper than we thought...

 

Lol, way deeper.

 

There is also nothing at all against the rules if any team uses non-standard rudders during development, can't see how in the world the photo above, or any other photos of anybody's rudders on any day except on race day, is any indication of a vast conspiracy either.



#1292 Blackman

Blackman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:32 PM

So according to the kiwis OR have been anticipating the rules change to adjustable foils months before Bart's death, and took the opportunity to strongarm IM into implementing them?

 

 

This conspiracy against ETNZ goes even deeper than we thought...

 

Lol, way deeper.

 

There is also nothing at all against the rules if any team uses non-standard rudders during development, can't see how in the world the photo above, or any other photos of anybody's rudders on any day except on race day, is any indication of a vast conspiracy either.

The photo above is not an indication of cheating... but an indication that they cannot achieve performance staying within the rules! It's for me a good indication of a deep motivation to change the rules!



#1293 Blackman

Blackman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:36 PM

Will the new safety rule on winglets only allow to get wider and more settable T-rudders, or will it force everybody to use them? That have not been answered until now, and change the consequences a lot. If everybody have to get the new T-rudder parameteres, it will not only help OR/AR to foil better, but also desabilise the ETNZ/LR control system!



#1294 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,112 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:37 PM

 

So according to the kiwis OR have been anticipating the rules change to adjustable foils months before Bart's death, and took the opportunity to strongarm IM into implementing them?

 

 

This conspiracy against ETNZ goes even deeper than we thought...

 

Lol, way deeper.

 

There is also nothing at all against the rules if any team uses non-standard rudders during development, can't see how in the world the photo above, or any other photos of anybody's rudders on any day except on race day, is any indication of a vast conspiracy either.

The photo above is not an indication of cheating... but an indication that they cannot achieve performance staying within the rules! It's for me a good indication of a deep motivation to change the rules!

And you have every right to that opinion :)

 

But seriously: They, and any team, may be using all kinds of rudder tab or winglet shapes while in development mode, for any number of  reasons but including safety. To me it suggests very little about what their plans are for, come race time.



#1295 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:37 PM

I think GD is in danger of having ETNZ eliminated from competition. He is violating his contract. Also, has violated the gag order around the mediation.

 

The inclusion of the rudder rule in the 37 is a red herring, bait.

 

GD as taken the bait, and has put his team in a very bad position.

 

Forget the LVS, the elimination round has begun.



#1296 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,112 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:39 PM

Will the new safety rule on winglets only allow to get wider and more settable T-rudders, or will it force everybody to use them? That have not been answered until now, and change the consequences a lot. If everybody have to get the new T-rudder parameteres, it will not only help OR/AR to foil better, but also desabilise the ETNZ/LR control system!

 

from the Dana article edit, link

 

What is a rudder elevator?
Rudder elevators are winglets attached to the ends of the rudders and look similar to the tail flaps on a plane, or adjustable spoilers on the back of a race car.

 

What the design rule says
Rule 8.6 - rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets that can be adjusted while racing.

 

What will be allowed under the new safety recommendations:
1.3 Rudder Elevators
Minimum total area 0.32m2 per rudder.
Minimum depth of elevators on rudder span of 2.1m.
Maximum elevator span of 1.4m.
To be symmetrical in plan form and allowed to extend beyond maximum beam of yacht.
Permitted to be adjusted until warning signal.



#1297 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:43 PM

The photo shows absolutely nothing other than a rudder with a horizontal foil and some guys who could be talking about anything really.

 

If they can adjust the foil AoA during the testing period to find the optimum angle than I say good for them.



#1298 Alpha FB

Alpha FB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:47 PM

Will the new safety rule on winglets only allow to get wider and more settable T-rudders, or will it force everybody to use them? That have not been answered until now, and change the consequences a lot. If everybody have to get the new T-rudder parameteres, it will not only help OR/AR to foil better, but also desabilise the ETNZ/LR control system!

 

from the Dana article edit, link

 

What is a rudder elevator?
Rudder elevators are winglets attached to the ends of the rudders and look similar to the tail flaps on a plane, or adjustable spoilers on the back of a race car.

 

What the design rule says
Rule 8.6 - rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets that can be adjusted while racing.

 

What will be allowed under the new safety recommendations:
1.3 Rudder Elevators
Minimum total area 0.32m2 per rudder.
Minimum depth of elevators on rudder span of 2.1m.
Maximum elevator span of 1.4m.
To be symmetrical in plan form and allowed to extend beyond maximum beam of yacht.
Permitted to be adjusted until warning signal.

 

All this does (apart from redefining the dimensions) is rescind the rule interpretation that was posted above, that the measurment certificate becomes invalid when the elevator is adjusted.

 

That just brings the situation closer to a prima facie reading of the original rule, that states the flaps/elevators may not be adjusted, while racing



#1299 Blackman

Blackman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:48 PM

Will the new safety rule on winglets only allow to get wider and more settable T-rudders, or will it force everybody to use them? That have not been answered until now, and change the consequences a lot. If everybody have to get the new T-rudder parameteres, it will not only help OR/AR to foil better, but also desabilise the ETNZ/LR control system!

 

from the Dana article edit, link

 

What is a rudder elevator?
Rudder elevators are winglets attached to the ends of the rudders and look similar to the tail flaps on a plane, or adjustable spoilers on the back of a race car.

 

What the design rule says
Rule 8.6 - rudders shall not have components such as trim tabs or moveable winglets that can be adjusted while racing.

 

What will be allowed under the new safety recommendations:
1.3 Rudder Elevators
Minimum total area 0.32m2 per rudder.
Minimum depth of elevators on rudder span of 2.1m.
Maximum elevator span of 1.4m.
To be symmetrical in plan form and allowed to extend beyond maximum beam of yacht.
Permitted to be adjusted until warning signal.

I know this, but there is an obligation:  Minimum total area 0.32m2 per rudder & be symetrical. Is that bigger than the actual elevators from ETNZ, and is the actual rudder from ETNZ symetrical? If not, they have to change everything + setting 9 days before the start!



#1300 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:03 PM

^^
Agree, porthos. But we would expect more from you - like an opinion on Cory Friedman's piece, is the IJ the final station or not?

Yeah, sorry about that.  I have been in arbitration this month and am just now catching up.

 

The majority of my practice involves arbitration and I am very familiar with the limits and rules of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").  Without having looked at this particular issue in any depth, and I will try to do so, I can give you a couple of generalities.  First, it is very, very difficult under the FAA to get a court to overturn the decision of an arbitration panel.  Corey Friedman is correct when he says that one of the very narrow grounds upon which a court may invalidate an arbitration decision under the FAA is where the arbitrators exceeded their authority and awarded remedies that were not available under the parties' agreement.  That said, when faced with a challenge to an arbitrator's decision, courts make every attempt to find a legitimate basis upon which the arbitrator ruled.  In other words, courts will often times go out of their way to uphold an arbitrator's decision.  Whether New York state courts often ignore that obligation (as he states) I do not know, but to the extent a state court misapplies the standards of the FAA that misapplication is itself subject to appeal.

 

The Protocol in this case is a complex agreement.  On the one had, it indicates that a majority of the competitors can amend the Protocol (14.1).  Are those the only circumstances under which the Protocol can be amended?  It doesn't say that.  On the other hand, it empowers the jury to resolve disputes between the competitors and/or the event authority (among others) (15.4(B)).  That power is unrestricted.  It does not say that the IJ can only resolve disputes that do not require a change to the Protocol or the class rules.  Throw into that mix the fact that ACRM needs a permit from the Coast Guard to hold the event.  If ACRM submits a permit request requiring certain modifications to the boats, and the USCG issues that permit, then that sets up a conflict between some competitors and ACRM which the Protocol specifically allows the IJ to resolve.

 

All of which is to say that any team challenging the decision of the IJ will have a very difficult time getting a court to overturn that decision.  Is it possible? Sure.  The Protocol can be read a variety of ways, one of which is that the IJ cannot change the Protocol or class rules even when resolving a dispute that it is specifically empowered to resolve.  But given a choice between an interpretation that upholds the IJ decision and one that allows it to be overturned, courts invariably choose the former when it comes to applying the FAA.  

 

I am sure I am missing things, but that is my initial impression.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users