Jump to content


Baldfaced Cheating


  • Please log in to reply
813 replies to this topic

#1 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Location:Auckland or Bay of Islands

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:01 AM

Sorry, but this is rapidly decending into farce...

 

The America's Cup is as much a Design Contest as a Sailing Contest.

Two teams have proven foiling can be safely achieved in within the current parameters of the protocol.

 

Any team that can't prove BEFORE the start of the Cup they can sail safely within these parameters, should forfiet all racing and concede defeat.

That includes Artemis AND Oracle (if they can't foil safely in the protocol conditions and design parameters - i.e. without an illegally large, trimable spade rudder or within the wind limits)

 

Artemis should do the honorable thing and concede now, as there is not enough time to prove their safety before racing.

It is foolhardy to get straight on to an untested boat and go racing, especially given the questions around their design integrity.

 

If there ends up being no racing in the AC because the defender cannot compete safely within the rules, tough, forfeit.

 

The 11th hour subversion is sickening to watch, I had such high hopes for this AC, but it is turning in to a nightmare of Ernesto Revisited.

 

If they try to force corruption of the Protocol, I hope this by-passes the water and goes straight to court.

Don't buckle ETNZ & LR.



#2 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:15 AM

Agreed 100% It is another example of Sailing getting more bad press regarding underhanded tactics. Instead of bringing it to a bigger audience, this AC is turning into an example of how to isolate any public interest and give the sport back any sense of integrity that was lost after the fiasco that was AC33.

The few don't realise the damage they are doing to the sport as a whole

2Cents

#3 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:30 AM

This should be a well balanced thread :)



#4 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:37 AM

In all honesty, AR has become the red herring in GGYC's attempts to jimmy the rules. GGYC-OR are unashamedly propagating the myth that changing the rules on rudder elevators will avoid another fatality like Simpson's. This is total BS, and ETNZ and LR are perfectly entitled to take it as far as necessary to get it tossed out.

 

Ian Murray's 22nd June public posturing that If the recommendations are included by the Coast Guard in our Marine Event Permit then I will issue a Regatta Notice harmonizing the various Rule documents to reflect the safety recommendations." is nothing but a bluff he can't back up. 

But it's also an interesting public comment which appears to be in conflict with Barclay's PR on 18th June:

 

"Should the teams not agree to the safety recommendations through the mediation process, the Regatta Director will then submit an application to the Jury for a determination that the Competitors be required to satisfy all 37 safety recommendations attached to the marine permit application should it be approved by the Coast Guard".

 

Murray & Barclay appear to be on different pages, and the sad thing about it is neither of them appears to have any clue about the rules as defined in the Protocol, Class Rule, and RRs. So if we're to believe Murray, there won't be an application to the full IJ - while Barclay says there will be  :lol: .

 

Little wonder there is so much confusion within the ranks of the defender and CoR...and among the oompa Loompas.



#5 minimus

minimus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:43 AM

Also agree

Both ETNZ and LR have proven without a doubt the boats are capable of the higher wind range.

Those ranges are in the rules. If the competitors are unable to sail to the rules they should forfeit.

It's like saying the boat can't safely go to weather so we will only have reaching legs.



#6 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:48 AM

Don't buckle ETNZ & LR.

 

I agree, lets not lose this thing to a bunch of dodgy rule changes at the last minute!



#7 Samin

Samin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:14 AM

Up until now I have been a huge fan of Oracle, I love the boats, the course and the whole idea of making the cup more spectator friendly. I made a detour during my honeymoon to watch the AC45 regatta in Venice which was amazing and even my missus enjoyed it.
I'm gutted Or has now tried to force rule changes to suit themselves, I really had high hopes for this cup.
Cheaters!

#8 No Lotus

No Lotus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Location:Reno

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:18 AM

OR must know at this point that they're slower and will lose without changing up some things.

#9 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Location:Auckland or Bay of Islands

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:42 AM

I don't believe Oracle are slow, in fact, I think currently, they are VERY quick & look quicker than ETNZ in a straight line.

My concern is that they may not be able to achieve current speed without using methods that are currently not able to be reached without changing the protocol.

I want to see a fair and epic contest with our American friends and may the best team win under fair & reasonable terms and conditions.

I don't want to go away feeling betrayed and ripped off because there's a cheating cloud over a hollow victory.

Everyone faced the same design parameters from the outset, some have made it work, some are nearly there and some are very doubtful.

Unesscessary changes to the protocol (proven by competitors continually exhibiting safe sailing under existing design parameters) are a gross transgression of fair competition.

You can't degrade a competition to suit the least able competitor.

Sorry to mix metaphors, but if you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of Dodge...

#10 Ex-yachtie

Ex-yachtie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:57 AM

Up until now I have been a huge fan of Oracle,

 

Please hand in your passport.



#11 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Location:Auckland or Bay of Islands

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:31 AM

I'm a fan of Oracle too, they look awesome & I have no problem if we were beaten fair & square, but my BS sensors are on overload with this proposed protocol change under the guise of "safety".

LE did an awesome job getting the cup away from the Swiss Lizard, don't become as reptilian as EB in your efforts to control the cup.

#12 kiwi_bob

kiwi_bob

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:49 AM

Just to bring me up to speed on this without reading through a steaming pile of crud that the other threads have decended to.This request to enlarge the horizontal foils on the rudders and adjust the angle prior to racing - comes from Oracle or artemis?
 
From the herald
 
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.
 
 
Do we have any good pics of Oracles current setup - do they currently extend beyond max beam of the yacht? 
 
They can make the boat safer if they like, just slow down and stop foiling if they cannot do it safely with a compliant boat. Smelling a rat here. No our economy won't fail if we don't win the cup but we would like a fair shot at it. 


#13 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,305 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:05 AM

If there is one thing this thread taught me is that kiwis have wayyyy too much time on their hands.

It has been proven van T-rudders are safer, dont see what the big deal is about really.

 

Or is everything still a conspiracy against the self proclaimed "underdog" that is ETNZ?



#14 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,878 posts
  • Location:Orkland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:21 AM

If ETNZ is complaining about the dimensions then they haven't come from ETNZ.

Since Artemis hasn't sailed this configuration & LR uses the same as ETNZ then the only viable source is Oracle.

 

ETNZ invented this configuration, tested small scale first, built it full scale first, sailed it first & most, sailed it safely in the most extreme conditions, built 2 boats with same proportions + LR has tested the same config -> ETNZ are the experts in this foil configuration.

Oracle tried their foil forward, 90 degree L configuration & proved it unsafe -> built their 2nd boat with a near direct copy of the ETNZ configuration -> they are not the experts.

 

If you want advice on min safe dimensions you should be going to the experts.

If the Regatta Director then chooses to side with Oracle against the advice of ETNZ, especially if it disadvantages ETNZ (maybe it would mess up ETNZ balance to use these dimensions) or advantages Oracle (enables them to balance or slows ETNZ) then the Regatta Director is in breach of the Neutral Management requirement.

 

I'm pretty sure we have recent case law from NYSC on such things.

 

 

Seriously I'm beginning to believe that this has turned into an exercise in making it untenable for ETNZ to do anything less than take it to NYSC -> scapegoat for a delay that will allow Oracle (& to a lesser extent Artemis) to catch up.



#15 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,652 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:24 AM

To use SWS speek ... face the facts & the truth speaks for it`s self !  Oracle have never won the AC without some rules tweaking & Court time! What has changed ?



#16 Count Drac

Count Drac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Location:Viaduct Basin, Auckland
  • Interests:Blood, sleeping, flying around at night, and being a silly Count.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:27 AM

If there is one thing this thread taught me is that kiwis have wayyyy too much time on their hands.

It has been proven van T-rudders are safer, dont see what the big deal is about really.

 

Or is everything still a conspiracy against the self proclaimed "underdog" that is ETNZ?

 

T rudders may well be safer, but for those teams that have been building up performance metrics for their boats based on asymetrical rudder foils, changing now to symetrical foils means more time is required to re-establish those metrics (I'm assuming they will make a difference, no matter how small, to how the boats handle).

 

This would not be such a problem for OR because they have about 2 months before they race, but it leaves bugger-all time for LR and ETNZ who have to race much earlier.

 

This is perceived as giving OR an unfair advantage based on "safety", and I totally agree with those who are pointing this out.



#17 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:34 AM

If anyone cannot see this as unfair, they are lying and can see an opportunity to gain some performance. I think this is unsporting and shows peoples true agenda's to stop ETNZ at all costs.

#18 the paradox of thrift

the paradox of thrift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,375 posts
  • Location:Mos-Vegas
  • Interests:I like sailing

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:50 AM

The purpose of the rudder elevators is to dampen the tendency for the boat to pitch at high speed.

 

There are other mechanisms that you can use to achieve the same effect, such as:

- Bouyancy in the bows

- Twist in the rig to depower

- Equilibrium in foil placement, centre-of-garvity & centre-of-bouancy

- And control systems to allow sheeting in and out of the wing and soft sails

 

All of these aspects had to be taken into account to build an AC72 race boat.

 

Changing the rules to the detriment of teams who invested time and money into doing these things is simply cheating.

 

It will go to court - there's no way they'll accept it.

 

When it hits the NYSC I suggest they integrate liveline graphics, chequered flags and commentary into the court proceedings. Also the judge should be on a jet ski.



#19 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:05 AM

What all this demonstrates is just how on the mark the TNZ designers were.



#20 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,238 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:12 AM

It has been proven van T-rudders are safer, dont see what the big deal is about really.

Then you will pleased to hear they are already allowed. It is adjustment that's the issue at hand.

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

#21 BronzeWing

BronzeWing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Location:Tauranga, NZ
  • Interests:Sailing, photography, CNC stuff and planes

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:15 AM

If the elevators must be fixed BEFORE the start of the race, what the bloody hell use are they?

 

From the stunning videos on youtube by amcam maestro jnavas2, all the boats look quick.

 

But OR2 seems to be either ripping up the course or collapsing in a big heap.

 

If they feel the need to have this rule in place to make them feel safe to race then they are fooling themselves big time.

 

Their designers have got it wrong or it is the start of the bowsprit psycho bullshit from San Diego.

 

But it is the America's Cup, so this quote has no relevance

 

"You haven't won the race, if in winning the race
 you have lost the respect of your competitors"
 
Paul Elvstrom


#22 ColinG

ColinG

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,543 posts
  • Location:Sydney, AUS

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:21 AM

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Every America's Cup is the same.

Stop complaining and go root the French Rugby Teams' girlfriends.

Be a real man and get a bit of hair between the teeth



#23 uflux

uflux

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:28 AM

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Every America's Cup is the same.

Stop complaining and go root the French Rugby Teams' girlfriends.

Be a real man and get a bit of hair between the teeth

 

Wow your real class mate  <_<



#24 JJD

JJD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Location:NZ
  • Interests:Sailing boxing adventure

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:29 AM

You know there is some cheating going on when the "independant" people from OTANZAC have to break the rules in order to change the rules.

#25 uflux

uflux

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:32 AM

If there is one thing this thread taught me is that kiwis have wayyyy too much time on their hands.

It has been proven van T-rudders are safer, dont see what the big deal is about really.

 

Or is everything still a conspiracy against the self proclaimed "underdog" that is ETNZ?

 

Time on our hands? Did you not know the days are longer down here... :)



#26 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,238 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:40 AM

^

I think you'd find that's the nights.

#27 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,878 posts
  • Location:Orkland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:44 AM

If the elevators must be fixed BEFORE the start of the race, what the bloody hell use are they?

The rule was intended to ban full foiling without banning the semi-foiling that Oracle had planned -> Ts & Ls etc are allowed but not the active adjustment of the foils that they thought would be required for proper foiling.

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

 

Its one thing to suggest & arrange a change to the rule a year ago or so with consent of the competitors but something else to impose it by force only 2 weeks from racing.



#28 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:50 AM

Here's how I think this will go down:

1: Ian Murray has no grounds to do anything until CG have issued the event permit with all 37 safety recommendations intact as submitted in GGYC's application;

2: Once CG have issued, Ian Murray has promised he will then issue his "harmonising" Regatta Notice forcing the necessary Class Rule amendment, on the mistaken belief that the CG event permit requirements trump the Protocol. They don't. 

3: Alternatively, Barclay prevails and Murray applies to the IJ to compel the dissenting Challengers to accept all 37 "safety" recommendations.

4: IF Ian Murray follows through with 2, ETNZ will have filed an application to the IJ questioning Ian Murray's jurisdiction and authority before the ink has dried on Murray's Regatta Notice, and the IJ will rule in favour of ETNZ. Case closed.

5: IF Barclay opts for 3, the IJ will inform Murray that they (IJ) have no authority to compel Competitors to change anything (in the Protocol, Class Rule, or RRs) they don't agree with. Case closed.

 

ETNZ and LR will win any IJ application over the rudder elevators Class Rule amendment. GGYC should accept this and prepare to revise their safety plan to remove the contentious recommendation, and resubmit to CG. Imo, the rudder elevator issue is not a deal breaker for the CG event permit: CG can see for themselves that NZL5 and LR1.5 foil effortlessly and safely without the frankenstein rudder elevators (FRE's), and should have no objection to the removal of the offending recommendation.

 

But IF GGYC's real motivation for the FRE's had nothing to do with safety in the first place, then we're NYSC-bound if they don't accept the IJ decisions. GGYC should be fully aware that this is a losing hand for them and settle with CG - unless OR really have reservations about their competitiveness without the FRE's.

 

9 days to the start of LVC is not the time for any prolonged brinkmanship by GGYC through their employees.



#29 JJD

JJD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Location:NZ
  • Interests:Sailing boxing adventure

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:58 AM

Here's how I think this will go down:
1: Ian Murray has no grounds to do anything until CG have issued the event permit with all 37 safety recommendations intact as submitted in GGYC's application;
2: Once CG have issued, Ian Murray has promised he will then issue his "harmonising" Regatta Notice forcing the necessary Class Rule amendment, on the mistaken belief that the CG event permit requirements trump the Protocol. They don't. 
3: Alternatively, Barclay prevails and Murray applies to the IJ to compel the dissenting Challengers to accept all 37 "safety" recommendations.
4: IF Ian Murray follows through with 2, ETNZ will have filed an application to the IJ questioning Ian Murray's jurisdiction and authority before the ink has dried on Murray's Regatta Notice, and the IJ will rule in favour of ETNZ. Case closed.
5: IF Barclay opts for 3, the IJ will inform Murray that they (IJ) have no authority to compel Competitors to change anything (in the Protocol, Class Rule, or RRs) they don't agree with. Case closed.
 
ETNZ and LR will win any IJ application over the rudder elevators Class Rule amendment. GGYC should accept this and prepare to revise their safety plan to remove the contentious recommendation, and resubmit to CG. Imo, the rudder elevator issue is not a deal breaker for the CG event permit: CG can see for themselves that NZL5 and LR1.5 foil effortlessly and safely without the frankenstein rudder elevators (FRE's), and should have no objection to the removal of the offending recommendation.
 
But IF GGYC's real motivation for the FRE's had nothing to do with safety in the first place, then we're NYSC-bound if they don't accept the IJ decisions. GGYC should be fully aware that this is a losing hand for them and settle with CG - unless OR really have reservations about their competitiveness without the FRE's.
 
9 days to the start of LVC is not the time for any prolonged brinkmanship by GGYC through their employees.


LE must be putting massive pressure on behind the scenes to have this turn out how he wants it.
He practically owns GGYC so they are all doing as they are told.

#30 ColinG

ColinG

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,543 posts
  • Location:Sydney, AUS

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:06 AM

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Every America's Cup is the same.

Stop complaining and go root the French Rugby Teams' girlfriends.

Be a real man and get a bit of hair between the teeth

 

Wow your real class mate  <_<

Life's what you make of it  - what more can I say :)



#31 uflux

uflux

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:20 AM

 

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Every America's Cup is the same.

Stop complaining and go root the French Rugby Teams' girlfriends.

Be a real man and get a bit of hair between the teeth

 

Wow your real class mate  <_<

Life's what you make of it  - what more can I say :)

 

 

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain



#32 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:20 AM

Here's how I think this will go down:

1: Ian Murray has no grounds to do anything until CG have issued the event permit with all 37 safety recommendations intact as submitted in GGYC's application;

2: Once CG have issued, Ian Murray has promised he will then issue his "harmonising" Regatta Notice forcing the necessary Class Rule amendment, on the mistaken belief that the CG event permit requirements trump the Protocol. They don't. 

3: Alternatively, Barclay prevails and Murray applies to the IJ to compel the dissenting Challengers to accept all 37 "safety" recommendations.

4: IF Ian Murray follows through with 2, ETNZ will have filed an application to the IJ questioning Ian Murray's jurisdiction and authority before the ink has dried on Murray's Regatta Notice, and the IJ will rule in favour of ETNZ. Case closed.

5: IF Barclay opts for 3, the IJ will inform Murray that they (IJ) have no authority to compel Competitors to change anything (in the Protocol, Class Rule, or RRs) they don't agree with. Case closed.

 

ETNZ and LR will win any IJ application over the rudder elevators Class Rule amendment. GGYC should accept this and prepare to revise their safety plan to remove the contentious recommendation, and resubmit to CG. Imo, the rudder elevator issue is not a deal breaker for the CG event permit: CG can see for themselves that NZL5 and LR1.5 foil effortlessly and safely without the frankenstein rudder elevators (FRE's), and should have no objection to the removal of the offending recommendation.

 

But IF GGYC's real motivation for the FRE's had nothing to do with safety in the first place, then we're NYSC-bound if they don't accept the IJ decisions. GGYC should be fully aware that this is a losing hand for them and settle with CG - unless OR really have reservations about their competitiveness without the FRE's.

 

9 days to the start of LVC is not the time for any prolonged brinkmanship by GGYC through their employees.

6. Barclay, LE, RC, GGYC continue to apply pressure to IM to go down the "change the rules" track. - IM resigns sighting "not being able to act in the best interests of all competitors"   (3.(a) (1) of the Protocol)



#33 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:24 AM

Here's how I think this will go down:

1: Ian Murray has no grounds to do anything until CG have issued the event permit with all 37 safety recommendations intact as submitted in GGYC's application;

2: Once CG have issued, Ian Murray has promised he will then issue his "harmonising" Regatta Notice forcing the necessary Class Rule amendment, on the mistaken belief that the CG event permit requirements trump the Protocol. They don't. 

3: Alternatively, Barclay prevails and Murray applies to the IJ to compel the dissenting Challengers to accept all 37 "safety" recommendations.

4: IF Ian Murray follows through with 2, ETNZ will have filed an application to the IJ questioning Ian Murray's jurisdiction and authority before the ink has dried on Murray's Regatta Notice, and the IJ will rule in favour of ETNZ. Case closed.

5: IF Barclay opts for 3, the IJ will inform Murray that they (IJ) have no authority to compel Competitors to change anything (in the Protocol, Class Rule, or RRs) they don't agree with. Case closed.

 

ETNZ and LR will win any IJ application over the rudder elevators Class Rule amendment. GGYC should accept this and prepare to revise their safety plan to remove the contentious recommendation, and resubmit to CG. Imo, the rudder elevator issue is not a deal breaker for the CG event permit: CG can see for themselves that NZL5 and LR1.5 foil effortlessly and safely without the frankenstein rudder elevators (FRE's), and should have no objection to the removal of the offending recommendation.

 

But IF GGYC's real motivation for the FRE's had nothing to do with safety in the first place, then we're NYSC-bound if they don't accept the IJ decisions. GGYC should be fully aware that this is a losing hand for them and settle with CG - unless OR really have reservations about their competitiveness without the FRE's.

 

9 days to the start of LVC is not the time for any prolonged brinkmanship by GGYC through their employees.

6. Barclay, LE, RC, GGYC continue to apply pressure to IM to go down the "change the rules" track. - IM resigns sighting "not being able to act in the best interests of all competitors"   (3.(a) (1) of the Protocol)

the IJ is also bound by this regulation



#34 ColinG

ColinG

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,543 posts
  • Location:Sydney, AUS

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:07 PM

 

 

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Every America's Cup is the same.

Stop complaining and go root the French Rugby Teams' girlfriends.

Be a real man and get a bit of hair between the teeth

 

Wow your real class mate  <_<

Life's what you make of it  - what more can I say :)

 

 

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

Bit of Pot and Kettle going on here - if you are going to insult someone, at least be original. 



#35 Albatros

Albatros

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,678 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:53 PM

given the extreme charatcer of the AC72, practically each and every part on an AC72 could be considered highly to extremely important to safety, no ? changing one (or a couple) parameters of the design at this stage with "safety" as argument leaves the (Pandora ?)  door wide open for each competitor to come up with wathever other change they would want and could still achieve in what little time remains. Yep, the AC as we know it.



#36 uflux

uflux

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:06 PM

 

 

 

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Every America's Cup is the same.

Stop complaining and go root the French Rugby Teams' girlfriends.

Be a real man and get a bit of hair between the teeth

 

Wow your real class mate  <_<

Life's what you make of it  - what more can I say :)

 

 

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

Bit of Pot and Kettle going on here - if you are going to insult someone, at least be original. 

 

I accept your apology.

Your Misogynistic attitude to women speaks volumes to your character...Perhaps visual aids are more your thing

Attached Files



#37 burbanite

burbanite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:34 PM

In my business changes can be made in the interests of safety, IndyCar have done this during the Indy 500 in the past. The difference? It is a one make series...the changes affect everyone in the same manner and it is a known quantity with all of the sim data coming from the manufacturer.


To be able to say that a change of this magnitude will, without a doubt, make all boats equally safe without having run sims and full scale tests is foolish.



#38 umpire

umpire

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:Edenbridge, UK

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:55 PM

To use SWS speek ... face the facts & the truth speaks for it`s self !  Oracle have never won the AC without some rules tweaking & Court time! What has changed ?

So true!



#39 umpire

umpire

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:Edenbridge, UK

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:59 PM

^

I think you'd find that's the nights.

Or the Septics haven't woken up yet!



#40 umpire

umpire

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:Edenbridge, UK

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:07 PM

Rules are rules, if you don't like them 'tough shit' and don't go bleating to the NYSC. OR and AR were caught with their trousers down! Or is now the old case of Britannia rules the waves (not any longer) and America waives the rules?



#41 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,295 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:50 PM

phunny that people are sayin X daz till racing starts

 

where do you find that info ??



#42 Chainlocker

Chainlocker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, Virginia
  • Interests:Single handed racing, dinghy racing (Buccaneer 18), disabled sailing, King Krimson, electronics.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:06 PM

Maybe the real cheating is using the same designers who wrote the AC72 rule (M&M, who left everyone with the impression the rule was to prevent foiling) then use a loophole in their own rule to develop foiling. Sure, there was no rule to not allow ETNZ to use M&M, but while the two other design teams (who didn't write the rule) were out developing non-foiling AC72s, the designers who wrote the rule went directly to a foiling boat.

I am impressed with what ETNZ and M&M came up with, the boats are absolutely stunning, and I am equally impressed as to OR's ability to adjust. It all came down to how you measure displacement, boards up or boards down. Sixty six percent of the designers went one way, the developer of the rule went another. A jury decision went with the authors of the rule, and that is the final word. New class of yacht, and this is what you get.

I am equally dismayed in all these NZ supporters wanting to just call it a win before any racing takes place.

No sailor on any of these teams (AR included) want to race if they feel they can't do it safely. The round robins were worthless to begin with,other than to figure who was one, two and three. Well we know who three is, lets get on with seeding one and two. Let Artemis put a boat on the water and see what she does. If IP, LP and NO don't think they are ready, they will do the right thing. As much as I don't care to see ETNZ win this thing, they appear to have all the advantages and the best all round boat and crew work. Can OR catch up? They have a fast boat, but can they tame it? Will AR be able to master the AC72 as they have done on the foiling AC45? They have the talent to step it up, but probably not the time.

I say let it play out, the best boat and team will win.



#43 umpire

umpire

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:Edenbridge, UK

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:19 PM

I say let it play out, the best boat and team will win.

+ 100



#44 Chris UK

Chris UK

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Sailing.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:27 PM

Maxmini:  Easy to say that the above is biased and dogmatic, but given that Entz has proven that they can make a safe boat within the terms of the current rules and sailed it in strong winds, how do you justify changing the rules?

 

This should be a well balanced thread :)



#45 Chris UK

Chris UK

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Sailing.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:45 PM

Not wishing to sound pios, but!…….I believe in Elvstrom’s version of winning but for many people being first is all that matters. From what I have seen, to do anything less than everything possible, including using the very fullest extent of the legal process, whatever the costs (in their broadest sense), seems in some parts of the world to be taken as giving up and an act of disgrace. At the end of the day, when you do not respect your competition or ‘the game’, then you don’t care if you trash them in the process of ‘winning’. I don’t blame the sailors, they are just pawns. In rugby the games used to be everything, not winning or loosing. Sailing seems to attract people that just do not care about anything but being first over the line, basically why I would never get involved in big boat sailing. The stakes invested are so great that you end up in situations where your wallet dictates your morality e.g. off the start line there’s a new guy that you can infringe and thereby gain a race commanding advantage….banked, that’ll do nicely....yes you were first, but it was not a win.



#46 pogen

pogen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,680 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:03 PM

I say let it play out, the best boat and team will win.

 

 

Careful there buddy, that sound suspiciously like sportsmanship.



#47 sdmoonshadow

sdmoonshadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:33 PM

If ETNZ is complaining about the dimensions then they haven't come from ETNZ.

Since Artemis hasn't sailed this configuration & LR uses the same as ETNZ then the only viable source is Oracle.

 

ETNZ invented this configuration, tested small scale first, built it full scale first, sailed it first & most, sailed it safely in the most extreme conditions, built 2 boats with same proportions + LR has tested the same config -> ETNZ are the experts in this foil configuration.

Oracle tried their foil forward, 90 degree L configuration & proved it unsafe -> built their 2nd boat with a near direct copy of the ETNZ configuration -> they are not the experts.

 

If you want advice on min safe dimensions you should be going to the experts.

If the Regatta Director then chooses to side with Oracle against the advice of ETNZ, especially if it disadvantages ETNZ (maybe it would mess up ETNZ balance to use these dimensions) or advantages Oracle (enables them to balance or slows ETNZ) then the Regatta Director is in breach of the Neutral Management requirement.

 

I'm pretty sure we have recent case law from NYSC on such things.

 

 

Seriously I'm beginning to believe that this has turned into an exercise in making it untenable for ETNZ to do anything less than take it to NYSC -> scapegoat for a delay that will allow Oracle (& to a lesser extent Artemis) to catch up.

Not true.  

 

Attached File  8647168718_aae579839e_b.jpg   282.29K   80 downloads



#48 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:45 PM

If ETNZ is complaining about the dimensions then they haven't come from ETNZ.

Since Artemis hasn't sailed this configuration & LR uses the same as ETNZ then the only viable source is Oracle.

Not true.  

 

attachicon.gif8647168718_aae579839e_b.jpg

 

PC specifically mentioned rudders here, could also suggest AR has the most to gain, may even be who GD is referring to.

 

http://blog.sfgate.c...danger-earlier/

“The fact that this (the review of safety recommendations) is happening might save five other people’s lives,” Cayard said. “The question is: If that hadn’t happened May 9, would we be in the midst of this whole review? Would we be talking about (smaller) wind limits and bigger rudder foils?”



#49 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:52 PM


Maxmini:  Easy to say that the above is biased and dogmatic, but given that Entz has proven that they can make a safe boat within the terms of the current rules and sailed it in strong winds, how do you justify changing the rules?
 


This should be a well balanced thread :)


Sailing a boat when and where you want to , making maneuvers when YOU want to is entirely different racing another competitor in the heat of battle on a closed course . If at then end of the event ET has no issues only THEN can it be called safe . To do so at this time is very premature .

#50 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:49 PM


Maxmini:  Easy to say that the above is biased and dogmatic, but given that Entz has proven that they can make a safe boat within the terms of the current rules and sailed it in strong winds, how do you justify changing the rules?
 


This should be a well balanced thread :)


Sailing a boat when and where you want to , making maneuvers when YOU want to is entirely different racing another competitor in the heat of battle on a closed course . If at then end of the event ET has no issues only THEN can it be called safe . To do so at this time is very premature .

Gees some people! Its not enough that ETNZ have been sailing since July last year, in all wind ranges. Its not enough that they've been racing Luna Rossa on San Francisco Bay and in Auckland! Its not enough that they've had no safety issues. People still don't want to admit their boat is safe.



#51 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:25 PM

If ETNZ is complaining about the dimensions then they haven't come from ETNZ.

Since Artemis hasn't sailed this configuration & LR uses the same as ETNZ then the only viable source is Oracle.

 

ETNZ invented this configuration, tested small scale first, built it full scale first, sailed it first & most, sailed it safely in the most extreme conditions, built 2 boats with same proportions + LR has tested the same config -> ETNZ are the experts in this foil configuration.

Oracle tried their foil forward, 90 degree L configuration & proved it unsafe -> built their 2nd boat with a near direct copy of the ETNZ configuration -> they are not the experts.

 

If you want advice on min safe dimensions you should be going to the experts.

If the Regatta Director then chooses to side with Oracle against the advice of ETNZ, especially if it disadvantages ETNZ (maybe it would mess up ETNZ balance to use these dimensions) or advantages Oracle (enables them to balance or slows ETNZ) then the Regatta Director is in breach of the Neutral Management requirement.

 

I'm pretty sure we have recent case law from NYSC on such things.

 

 

Seriously I'm beginning to believe that this has turned into an exercise in making it untenable for ETNZ to do anything less than take it to NYSC -> scapegoat for a delay that will allow Oracle (& to a lesser extent Artemis) to catch up.

Not true.  

 

attachicon.gif8647168718_aae579839e_b.jpg

As far as I can tell that boat is not foiling and doesn't use T rudders...



#52 GybeSetŪ

GybeSetŪ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,187 posts
  • Location:the 'River of Light', Tomorrow-morrow Land

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:40 PM

t rudders are only safer when things are going as planned 

 

any moth sailor can attest that when their T foils get air things go to SHIT even faster, literaly split second  



#53 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:07 PM

 


Maxmini:  Easy to say that the above is biased and dogmatic, but given that Entz has proven that they can make a safe boat within the terms of the current rules and sailed it in strong winds, how do you justify changing the rules?
 


This should be a well balanced thread :)


Sailing a boat when and where you want to , making maneuvers when YOU want to is entirely different racing another competitor in the heat of battle on a closed course . If at then end of the event ET has no issues only THEN can it be called safe . To do so at this time is very premature .

Gees some people! Its not enough that ETNZ have been sailing since July last year, in all wind ranges. Its not enough that they've been racing Luna Rossa on San Francisco Bay and in Auckland! Its not enough that they've had no safety issues. People still don't want to admit their boat is safe.

 

 

They are doing very well but have not had one RACE yet. Come on be honest you know that especially with a edgy boat of any type that there is a big deal between racing and " testing ".

 

Perhaps an analogy for those who ski.

 

Compare free skiing to a slalom course.

 

You can pick which bump you want to hit or turn you want to make when you are ready and pick the terrain that suits you.

 

On a slalom course you go where the pylons guide you . You don't get to pick what turn to make or avoid that icy patch .

 

Back to sailing a very easy example to visualize is two boats going for the leeward mark one with rights and one without. You are the boat without rights and want to gybe away but an unexpected puff comes up.

 

Do you :

 

A/ continue the Gybe even though you feel its perhaps too much breeze and possibly capsize ?

 

B/ save the boat but foul / hit the other guy ?

 

And do to the speed of these machines you have less time to make this decision that at any other time in a sailing event with the possible exception of ice boating .

 

Yes they have been safe but it really hasn't started yet.



#54 amc

amc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:25 PM

They have raced, perhaps not a rules jimmied lv or ac race though. Do you suppose that makes a difference.



#55 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:37 PM

They have raced, perhaps not a rules jimmied lv or ac race though. Do you suppose that makes a difference.

 

 

If you call ET rolling LR at one upwind mark a race , then I guess they have raced.

 

I doubt either  of them have gone out of their way to put the other in a difficult position , something that will be paramount if and when there is a REAL race with something on the line .



#56 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:39 PM

 ......

 

ETNZ and LR will win any IJ application over the rudder elevators Class Rule amendment. GGYC should accept this and prepare to revise their safety plan to remove the contentious recommendation, and resubmit to CG. Imo, the rudder elevator issue is not a deal breaker for the CG event permit: CG can see for themselves that NZL5 and LR1.5 foil effortlessly and safely without the frankenstein rudder elevators (FRE's), and should have no objection to the removal of the offending recommendation.

 

But IF GGYC's real motivation for the FRE's had nothing to do with safety in the first place, then we're NYSC-bound if they don't accept the IJ decisions. GGYC should be fully aware that this is a losing hand for them and settle with CG - unless OR really have reservations about their competitiveness without the FRE's. .....

 

These comments get to the heart of the issue.

 

What we don't know is what IJ action and decisions will do to the LV timetable.  



#57 amc

amc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:59 PM

They have raced, perhaps not a rules jimmied lv or ac race though. Do you suppose that makes a difference.

 

 

If you call ET rolling LR at one upwind mark a race , then I guess they have raced.

 

I doubt either  of them have gone out of their way to put the other in a difficult position , something that will be paramount if and when there is a REAL race with something on the line .

I get that the US is important to you but, news flash, there are other countries in our world and it is possible that the races quoted previously occurred in one of those. 



#58 BronzeWing

BronzeWing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Location:Tauranga, NZ
  • Interests:Sailing, photography, CNC stuff and planes

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:03 PM

Interesting there hasn't been much reporting on who won the races. Once they get in an actual race it will change big time. The radical maneuvers required to get the boats to foil are going to cause big problems real quickly when there is a boat to weather. The on shore judges are going to have their work cut out on rules 14, 16 and 17. How fast is the data coming off the boats for a call to be made on the leg the incident occurs?

 

OldRichArseholeCalledLarryEllison has screwed the pouch AC34. Lets just get the thing over and hopefully someone else can bring it back to some degree of normality. Still reckon a fleet of TP52's would have made it way more exciting. 



#59 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:17 PM

Interesting there hasn't been much reporting on who won the races. Once they get in an actual race it will change big time. The radical maneuvers required to get the boats to foil are going to cause big problems real quickly when there is a boat to weather. The on shore judges are going to have their work cut out on rules 14, 16 and 17. How fast is the data coming off the boats for a call to be made on the leg the incident occurs?

 

OldRichArseholeCalledLarryEllison has screwed the pouch AC34. Lets just get the thing over and hopefully someone else can bring it back to some degree of normality. Still reckon a fleet of TP52's would have made it way more exciting. 

 

Finally someone that must have actually RACED a sailboat not a keyboard .

Welcome aboard !

 

AC 34 one and DONE !



#60 pogen

pogen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,680 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:17 PM

LOL, only someone from the marsupial-rich Southern Hemisphere would say "screw the pouch".  ;)



#61 Chris UK

Chris UK

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Sailing.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:28 PM

Classic!

LOL, only someone from the marsupial-rich Southern Hemisphere would say "screw the pouch".  ;)



#62 baygrass

baygrass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:31 PM

I hope Oracle is cursed like the Black Sox Baseball team.



#63 pogen

pogen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,680 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:31 PM

Classic!

LOL, only someone from the marsupial-rich Southern Hemisphere would say "screw the pouch".  ;)

 

Though when you think about it , in this context 'pouch' works better than 'pooch',  Larry and Russel have clearly stuck it into the wrong hole.  ;)



#64 Chris UK

Chris UK

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Sailing.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:39 PM

Maxmini:

 

I understand your point 100% about the difference between racing and circulating, and it is a good point, but has what we have seen and understand about the Artemis accident (very limited in public domain i grant you) taken us to a point where we now know more than before, and that given that knowledge it is reasonable to change the rules at this stage? if so, then i say you are really into more fundamental changes than a few wind limits and some rudder changes i.e. if you think the boats are risky and that that is unacceptable, then make them safe, but if you really think the risks are that great....but still uncertain, when maybe we should not be racing. Maybe every boat needs a survival cell for the sailors! if so, great, fit one....but that is not the same as preferential engineering of the rules.

 

 

Chris

 

Interesting there hasn't been much reporting on who won the races. Once they get in an actual race it will change big time. The radical maneuvers required to get the boats to foil are going to cause big problems real quickly when there is a boat to weather. The on shore judges are going to have their work cut out on rules 14, 16 and 17. How fast is the data coming off the boats for a call to be made on the leg the incident occurs?

 

OldRichArseholeCalledLarryEllison has screwed the pouch AC34. Lets just get the thing over and hopefully someone else can bring it back to some degree of normality. Still reckon a fleet of TP52's would have made it way more exciting. 

 

Finally someone that must have actually RACED a sailboat not a keyboard .

Welcome aboard !

 

AC 34 one and DONE !



#65 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,449 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:39 PM

PC specifically mentioned rudders here, could also suggest AR has the most to gain, may even be who GD is referring to.

 

i find it very hard to believe it is AR driven

 

look at the pic above, their boat 1 rudders were different from everyone else's being + and not T

 

how could they so specifically know what they needed in a T rudder when they have never sailed with them

 

and never even sailed the 2nd platform that no doubt has many changes that would effect rudder performance? 



#66 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:41 PM

 

Classic!

LOL, only someone from the marsupial-rich Southern Hemisphere would say "screw the pouch".  ;)

 

Though when you think about it , in this context 'pouch' works better than 'pooch',  Larry and Russel have clearly stuck it into the wrong hole.  ;)

...because they're both big dicks?!? Oh mamma... :ph34r:



#67 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:49 PM

PC specifically mentioned rudders here, could also suggest AR has the most to gain, may even be who GD is referring to.

 

i find it very hard to believe it is AR driven

 

look at the pic above, their boat 1 rudders were different from everyone else's being + and not T

 

how could they so specifically know what they needed in a T rudder when they have never sailed with them

 

and never even sailed the 2nd platform that no doubt has many changes that would effect rudder performance? 

There's an excellent write-up in the Rules thread by a NA Hump101 pointing to OR as the beneficiary of the rudder elevators changes.



#68 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:55 PM

PC specifically mentioned rudders here, could also suggest AR has the most to gain, may even be who GD is referring to.

 

i find it very hard to believe it is AR driven

 

look at the pic above, their boat 1 rudders were different from everyone else's being + and not T

 

how could they so specifically know what they needed in a T rudder when they have never sailed with them

 

and never even sailed the 2nd platform that no doubt has many changes that would effect rudder performance? 

 

The way that I put it was that maybe 'AR has the most to gain'  not anything about maybe 'it is AR driven.'

 

And in the almost complete absence of evidence so far, except for just a very few statements by GD and by IM on the subject, well it just looks at face value like all of the changes are 'IM driven' no matter how much or not whoever-all might or might not benefit. It stands to reason that all teams will make the best of  whatever happens.

 

Nothing shows, so far, that OR has driven any of it. Pjh posted somewhere the idea that perhaps the safety review approached OR and asked "what all would have made your B1 safer last October, the one that could also have killed someone' and they got (among the answers) 'bigger, symmetrical rudder elevators, and here's why' and the board agreed. Nothing criminal in that, and it is a possibility, but again: nothing actually points to it either. My ~guess~ is that AR is who wants or needs it most, but again: IM is who is on the safety mission, is the one charged with deciding what measures to put in place, and he's said in no uncertain terms that the various teams' competitive concerns, while interesting, have had no bearing on his decisions.

 

A lot of the usual suspects have smoke coming out of their ears over RudderGate but nothing so far points to it even being a big deal, even if GD does object, does want the IJ to decide it. He certainly didn't put it in any Armageddon terms, even with the opportunity to do so with the opportunistic Dana J. He seems pretty low-key about the whole thing.



#69 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:59 PM

Maxmini:

 

I understand your point 100% about the difference between racing and circulating, and it is a good point, but has what we have seen and understand about the Artemis accident (very limited in public domain i grant you) taken us to a point where we now know more than before, and that given that knowledge it is reasonable to change the rules at this stage? if so, then i say you are really into more fundamental changes than a few wind limits and some rudder changes i.e. if you think the boats are risky and that that is unacceptable, then make them safe, but if you really think the risks are that great....but still uncertain, when maybe we should not be racing. Maybe every boat needs a survival cell for the sailors! if so, great, fit one....but that is not the same as preferential engineering of the rules.

 

 

Chris

 

 

Interesting there hasn't been much reporting on who won the races. Once they get in an actual race it will change big time. The radical maneuvers required to get the boats to foil are going to cause big problems real quickly when there is a boat to weather. The on shore judges are going to have their work cut out on rules 14, 16 and 17. How fast is the data coming off the boats for a call to be made on the leg the incident occurs?

 

OldRichArseholeCalledLarryEllison has screwed the pouch AC34. Lets just get the thing over and hopefully someone else can bring it back to some degree of normality. Still reckon a fleet of TP52's would have made it way more exciting. 

 

Finally someone that must have actually RACED a sailboat not a keyboard .

Welcome aboard !

 

AC 34 one and DONE !

 

Chris they are all great questions and I am sure the powers that be are stressing over them as we speak.

 

I only raised an objection to the claim that other boats are " safe " when in reality we do not know that for sure until we see them tossed about in a true duel with something of value on the line.



#70 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,966 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:04 PM

 

PC specifically mentioned rudders here, could also suggest AR has the most to gain, may even be who GD is referring to.

 

i find it very hard to believe it is AR driven

 

look at the pic above, their boat 1 rudders were different from everyone else's being + and not T

 

how could they so specifically know what they needed in a T rudder when they have never sailed with them

 

and never even sailed the 2nd platform that no doubt has many changes that would effect rudder performance? 

 

The way that I put it was that maybe 'AR has the most to gain'  not anything about maybe 'it is AR driven.'

 

And in the almost complete absence of evidence so far, except for just a very few statements by GD and by IM on the subject, well it just looks at face value like all of the changes are 'IM driven' no matter how much or not whoever-all might or might not benefit. It stands to reason that all teams will make the best of  whatever happens.

 

Nothing shows, so far, that OR has driven any of it. Pjh posted somewhere the idea that perhaps the safety review approached OR and asked "what all would have made your B1 safer last October, the one that could also have killed someone' and they got (among the answers) 'bigger, symmetrical rudder elevators, and here's why' and the board agreed. Nothing criminal in that, and it is a possibility, but again: nothing actually points to it either. My ~guess~ is that AR is who wants or needs it most, but again: IM is who is on the safety mission, is the one charged with deciding what measures to put in place, and he's said in no uncertain terms that the various teams' competitive concerns, while interesting, have had no bearing on his decisions.

 

A lot of the usual suspects have smoke coming out of their ears over RudderGate but nothing so far points to it even being a big deal, even if GD does object, does want the IJ to decide it. He certainly didn't put it in any Armageddon terms, even with the opportunity to do so with the opportunistic Dana J. He seems pretty low-key about the whole thing.

 

+1

 

Without anything else of note occurring it gives us all something to chat about and in the big picture it will not affect the situation one way or the other anyway.



#71 Chris UK

Chris UK

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Sailing.

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:21 PM

 

PC specifically mentioned rudders here, could also suggest AR has the most to gain, may even be who GD is referring to.

 

i find it very hard to believe it is AR driven

 

look at the pic above, their boat 1 rudders were different from everyone else's being + and not T

 

how could they so specifically know what they needed in a T rudder when they have never sailed with them

 

and never even sailed the 2nd platform that no doubt has many changes that would effect rudder performance? 

 

The way that I put it was that maybe 'AR has the most to gain'  not anything about maybe 'it is AR driven.'

 

And in the almost complete absence of evidence so far, except for just a very few statements by GD and by IM on the subject, well it just looks at face value like all of the changes are 'IM driven' no matter how much or not whoever-all might or might not benefit. It stands to reason that all teams will make the best of  whatever happens.

 

Nothing shows, so far, that OR has driven any of it. Pjh posted somewhere the idea that perhaps the safety review approached OR and asked "what all would have made your B1 safer last October, the one that could also have killed someone' and they got (among the answers) 'bigger, symmetrical rudder elevators, and here's why' and the board agreed. Nothing criminal in that, and it is a possibility, but again: nothing actually points to it either. My ~guess~ is that AR is who wants or needs it most, but again: IM is who is on the safety mission, is the one charged with deciding what measures to put in place, and he's said in no uncertain terms that the various teams' competitive concerns, while interesting, have had no bearing on his decisions.

 

A lot of the usual suspects have smoke coming out of their ears over RudderGate but nothing so far points to it even being a big deal, even if GD does object, does want the IJ to decide it. He certainly didn't put it in any Armageddon terms, even with the opportunity to do so with the opportunistic Dana J. He seems pretty low-key about the whole thing.

Agree, +1.



#72 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:27 PM

Classic!

LOL, only someone from the marsupial-rich Southern Hemisphere would say "screw the pouch".  ;)

New Zealand has no native marsupials, however there are some small populations of introduced wallabies living in the wild. There are also millions of Common Brushtail Possums, which were introduced to the islands by settlers wanting to start a fur industry.



#73 sdmoonshadow

sdmoonshadow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:29 PM

 

If ETNZ is complaining about the dimensions then they haven't come from ETNZ.

Since Artemis hasn't sailed this configuration & LR uses the same as ETNZ then the only viable source is Oracle.

 

ETNZ invented this configuration, tested small scale first, built it full scale first, sailed it first & most, sailed it safely in the most extreme conditions, built 2 boats with same proportions + LR has tested the same config -> ETNZ are the experts in this foil configuration.

Oracle tried their foil forward, 90 degree L configuration & proved it unsafe -> built their 2nd boat with a near direct copy of the ETNZ configuration -> they are not the experts.

 

If you want advice on min safe dimensions you should be going to the experts.

If the Regatta Director then chooses to side with Oracle against the advice of ETNZ, especially if it disadvantages ETNZ (maybe it would mess up ETNZ balance to use these dimensions) or advantages Oracle (enables them to balance or slows ETNZ) then the Regatta Director is in breach of the Neutral Management requirement.

 

I'm pretty sure we have recent case law from NYSC on such things.

 

 

Seriously I'm beginning to believe that this has turned into an exercise in making it untenable for ETNZ to do anything less than take it to NYSC -> scapegoat for a delay that will allow Oracle (& to a lesser extent Artemis) to catch up.

Not true.  

 

attachicon.gif8647168718_aae579839e_b.jpg

As far as I can tell that boat is not foiling and doesn't use T rudders...

That boat may have never foiled (by design), but you can not deny that they were using t-rudders.  Grated, lower case "t" rudders, but t rudders nonetheless



#74 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,449 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:18 PM

i'm trying to work out how + rudders could be adjustable until the warning signal

 

without being weak, overly heavy or complex

 

seems just another thing that AR half-arsed 

 

anyone know of a mid-foil flap system that works?



#75 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:24 PM

Last time I looked at OR's B2 wheel closely there were so many buttons that it had me wondering about if they had rudder tab controls installed, not for use during actual races of course but for during development and configuration test-runs. I suppose a team might even use stored power for that or other purposes.

#76 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,094 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:25 PM

i'm trying to work out how + rudders could be adjustable until the warning signal
 
without being weak, overly heavy or complex
 
?

Diver adjusts is the simplest and lightest possibility

#77 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Location:Auckland or Bay of Islands

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:13 AM

http://www.nzherald....jectid=10892463

 

NZ challenges design rule change

...the Herald can reveal the only recommendation Team New Zealand is opposed to outright is the issue of rudder elevators.

 

Dalton: "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."

 

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

 

-------------------------------------------

 

I said it at the start of the thread and i reiterate it now...

 

Baldfaced Cheating



#78 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:24 AM

Maybe the real cheating is using the same designers who wrote the AC72 rule (M&M, who left everyone with the impression the rule was to prevent foiling) then use a loophole in their own rule to develop foiling. Sure, there was no rule to not allow ETNZ to use M&M, but while the two other design teams (who didn't write the rule) were out developing non-foiling AC72s, the designers who wrote the rule went directly to a foiling boat.....

I agree with your question about why OR did not retain M&M after they wrote the Class Rule, especially after their involvement in AC33. The only reason I can suggest is that OR (Coutts, probablyly) were so confident of their "technology" lead in wings and multi-hull designs that they felt they had everything they needed and can do it all in-house without M&M. How they must be regretting that decision now...

 

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when those first photos from their Auckland spies started arriving with messages like: "M&M have designed a fucking foiling cat for the Kiwis!! And the boat foils beautifully: wish you could see it in real life, boss. Oh sorry boss, they're not supposed to do that..are they boss?..boss!?"



#79 Heavy Metal

Heavy Metal

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Location:Sydney and Hong Kong.

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:27 AM

Its becoming embarrassing to be a AC fan.

 

IMO, the tragic death of Bart S can be attributable to poor design/engineering/construction of the Artimus boat, not safe, sail-ability of the boat.

 

Show me a Formula 1 car that is safe when it falls to pieces going around corners.

 

Such a huge shame this AC is turning into a farse



#80 McGyver

McGyver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:08 AM

10, 9, 8, 7...  The count-down for a rocket launch?

 

No, the number of remaining OR supporters.

 

This is more embarrassing than the worst of Ernesto.



#81 Tom O'Keefe

Tom O'Keefe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Location:San Clemente, California
  • Interests:Custom Plastic Injection Molding
    Hendo 30 Power Point
    Mac Gregor 65' Lean Machine
    Spencer 65' Rag Time
    SC 50 Horizon
    R/P 68' Tax Dancer
    R/P 86' Pyewacket

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:12 AM

So, Oracle wins the Cup from Alinghi and with it the right to accept a challenge from a yacht club that has complimentary views about how to challenged for the Cup. They hire M&M to consult on a rule that will make fast spectacular semi foiling cats. So, M& M make a set of recommendations that eliminate what two decades of testing have shown makes fast foiling controllable. Then neither RC or PC hire M&M to design their program. So, when ETNZ does right a contract with M&M is it any surprise that M&M had a back door round about the rules they helped write? They made the components that make fast foiling controllable illegal. But, if you design a boat with draggy foils hey all of a sudden they're a lot more controllable.  Then Oracle says well if ETNZ can foil within the rules we'll foil faster without those control features everyone thought we'd need. Oop's maybe Oracle pushed that a little too far. Then ETNZ sees Oracle is having problems controlling. But, when they aren't having control issues. Damn they are fast. Maybe we need to give up a little of that control for some more speed. And, Oracle comes back with a new boat that takes the best of what they see from ETNZ and tries not to give up any potential top end speed. But, it's still right on the edge. And, they are still wicked fast. But, they are showing a significant amount more control. Now, to gain any more control they are either going to need to make their foils a bit more draggy and get closer to ETNZ's corner of the design envelop or they can answer IM's safety inquiry with a recommendation that both makes the boat more controllable and allows Oracle to keep slippery fast. But, by making this change it is moving the goal posts late in the game.  I think Bald face lie is a bit inflammatory. But, it is an out that Oracle are attempting to regain advantage in a rather classless opportunity. I realize that this inquiry was not about finding the cause of Andrew's death. It is a quest to make AC34 safer. And, maybe in IM's grief filled sense of responsibility he's trying to protect the sailors. But, I believe making the elevator modification a change for this Cup cycle is not appropriate. The AC72's should race under their original design criteria.



#82 southseasbill

southseasbill

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:24 AM

The rule interpretation that passed ETNZ's original foils is a moot point now. The foils they are using have much less volume than the big trainer wheel ones they used originally



#83 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:30 AM

The rule interpretation that passed ETNZ's original foils is a moot point now. The foils they are using have much less volume than the big trainer wheel ones they used originally

 

I recall some posts saying that the latest generation of foils don't require the rule interpretation that ETNZ used back in mid-2012. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?



#84 southseasbill

southseasbill

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:35 AM

The rule interpretation that passed ETNZ's original foils is a moot point now. The foils they are using have much less volume than the big trainer wheel ones they used originally

 

I recall some posts saying that the latest generation of foils don't require the rule interpretation that ETNZ used back in mid-2012. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

 

I guess the only people who could confirm it for sure are ETNZ or the measurers



#85 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:49 AM

Yes, it has been confirmed by ETNZ sources.

That frothing-at-the-mouth shitfight was ultimately a moot one too.

#86 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:57 AM

Yes, it has been confirmed by ETNZ sources.

That frothing-at-the-mouth shitfight was ultimately a moot one too.

The only thing frothing is your mouth with all the BS dribbling from it.



#87 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,447 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:10 AM

Maybe the real cheating is using the same designers who wrote the AC72 rule (M&M, who left everyone with the impression the rule was to prevent foiling) then use a loophole in their own rule to develop foiling. Sure, there was no rule to not allow ETNZ to use M&M, but while the two other design teams (who didn't write the rule) were out developing non-foiling AC72s, the designers who wrote the rule went directly to a foiling boat.....

I agree with your question about why OR did not retain M&M after they wrote the Class Rule, especially after their involvement in AC33. The only reason I can suggest is that OR (Coutts, probablyly) were so confident of their "technology" lead in wings and multi-hull designs that they felt they had everything they needed and can do it all in-house without M&M. How they must be regretting that decision now...

 

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when those first photos from their Auckland spies started arriving with messages like: "M&M have designed a fucking foiling cat for the Kiwis!! And the boat foils beautifully: wish you could see it in real life, boss. Oh sorry boss, they're not supposed to do that..are they boss?..boss!?"

Even earlier, the SL33 as a nonsurrogate surrogate- then foils and a wing



#88 Mudz

Mudz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Location:gods own

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:12 AM

Anyone remember how RC won the Finn Gold in 1984??

 - yeah enough said - 



#89 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:15 AM



Yes, it has been confirmed by ETNZ sources.

That frothing-at-the-mouth shitfight was ultimately a moot one too.

The only thing frothing is your mouth with all the BS dribbling from it.
How about we compare our posts from that discussion? Jeez, you completely frothed at the mouth over even as trivial a topic as effing website url's, it was like World War Z!

Get a grip.

#90 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:22 AM

 



Yes, it has been confirmed by ETNZ sources.

That frothing-at-the-mouth shitfight was ultimately a moot one too.

The only thing frothing is your mouth with all the BS dribbling from it.
How about we compare our posts from that discussion? Jeez, you completely frothed at the mouth over even as trivial a topic as effing website url's, it was like World War Z!

Get a grip.

Look in the mirror. You must go through a shitload of toilet tissue in your household, having to wipe twice as much twice as frequently. Why don't you try to find something positive about the Larry Ellison team to comment on, instead of trying to regurgitate so much BS with hypothetical arguments that a 2-year-old can poke holes through?

 

Reads like you're already on the third Rumanian el cheapo pinot already.



#91 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:30 AM

Yet another worthwhile argument. Yawn.

#92 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:54 AM

Anyone remember how RC won the Finn Gold in 1984??

 - yeah enough said - 

 

With boils on his arse.



#93 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:56 AM



#94 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,652 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:23 AM

This is more embarrassing than the worst of Ernesto.

+1 Exactly!



#95 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,435 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:38 AM

Anyone remember how RC won the Finn Gold in 1984??

 - yeah enough said - 

 

With boils on his arse.

 

Your hatred for RC never stops does it ?

 

As an individual, he's got a fair amount of accolades to his credit, and this is all you can say ?

 

Back to your cave and dial up modem.



#96 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:55 AM

 

Anyone remember how RC won the Finn Gold in 1984??

 - yeah enough said - 

 

With boils on his arse.

 

Your hatred for RC never stops does it ?

 

As an individual, he's got a fair amount of accolades to his credit, and this is all you can say ?

 

Back to your cave and dial up modem.

 

Your hatred for GD never stops does it ?

 

As an individual, he's got a fair amount of accolades to his credit, and this is all you can say ?

 

Back to your cave and dial up modem.



#97 Mudz

Mudz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Location:gods own

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:58 AM


Anyone remember how RC won the Finn Gold in 1984??
 - yeah enough said - 

 
With boils on his arse.
 
Your hatred for RC never stops does it ?
 
As an individual, he's got a fair amount of accolades to his credit, and this is all you can say ?
 
Back to your cave and dial up modem.

....and over weight clothing

He and Lance Armstrong have more in common than you think.

#98 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:59 AM

Could this happen:

1. The rules have not been changed as there is not agreement amongst the competitors

2. The racing goes on with AR and OR with the "new" rudders

3. LR or TNZ meet OR in the match

4. If LR or TNZ win - all good

5. If OR wins - court case. 

6. NYSC rules against the "new" rudders



#99 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,810 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:29 AM

 

 


Anyone remember how RC won the Finn Gold in 1984??
 - yeah enough said - 

 
With boils on his arse.
 
Your hatred for RC never stops does it ?
 
As an individual, he's got a fair amount of accolades to his credit, and this is all you can say ?
 
Back to your cave and dial up modem.

....and over weight clothing

He and Lance Armstrong have more in common than you think.

ok, finally, this is interesting, what information do you have to share about 84? from the chart it looks like it was terry Nielsen's series to lose though if they had the awful medal race back then the ziwis would have one less gold, if not medal. so share share gf! because there have been a number of things said over the years about the color of jb"s medal but this is the first for about rc's.



#100 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

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

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:34 AM

Could this happen:

1. The rules have not been changed as there is not agreement amongst the competitors

2. The racing goes on with AR and OR with the "new" rudders

3. LR or TNZ meet OR in the match

4. If LR or TNZ win - all good

5. If OR wins - court case. 

6. NYSC rules against the "new" rudders

I can't remember the legal term but I think if you feel you have a grievance then you have to lodge a claim as soon as reasonably possible, not when you think maximum damages might occur.

I think the principle was discussed during the foiling AC45 board cases non-measurement/surrogate "discussion" if you're prepared to head deeper into the swamp...

I think ETNZ and LR will file the claims off pretty quickly if required.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users