Jump to content


ETZN:s win yesterday. What happens today?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:21 AM

Just speculating here. If ETNZ were using the old style (small) elevators yesterday and the IJ decides that they must use the new bigger ones as part of the 37 item packages. ETNZ were not following the regulations. What will happen then with race one? LR did not start and ETNZ will be disqualified as there boat did not measure. Will race one be raced again or did no one win? What about if they end up on a equal points in the end?????????????????????

 

Just a thought.



#2 Qman

Qman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 500 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:29 AM

ETNZ chose to build and sail with elevators that are of a size that would meet the minimum area of the old or new rule.  



#3 jonsailor

jonsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,464 posts
  • Location:Mooloolaba Australia
  • Interests:Sailing, design, hot babes

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:30 AM

For a newbie, I will go gently.

ETNZ has winglets that do measure for both old and new rules.

Go to sailworld and you will see a great picture from todays race. It is assymetrical and you will notice, there is not a large portion on the outside which overcomes the max mbeam rule. She is fit to go no matter what.

Where she can have a little more advantage should OR sorry, I mean LR not win the protest, she may then change to OR's winglet type which means building new finner rudders that flow better being symetrical thus eleaviating unbalanced lift strain on the rudder foil which can be made finer for that very reason



#4 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:32 AM

Will not happen. Today's race occurred under the agreed-upon rules.  All ok!  TNZ gets the point.

 

The entire class rule fiasco is to accommodate OR and AR who, for reasons difficult to understand, did not read the class rule.

 

So now they want to change it.

 

And Cayard thinks calling people "slanderous ands paranoid" will help his case.



#5 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:01 AM

The entire class rule fiasco is to accommodate OR and AR who, for reasons difficult to understand, did not read the class rule.

 

It is the only logical conclusion being that IM admits that both LR/ETNZ measure under both the old and the new rules.



#6 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:33 AM

Don't worry. I am not accusing ETNZ to not following the regulations. I am actually a big fan. Maybe I should also say that my wife is from NZ and I am a big ETNZ fan even if I happen to be Swedish. It is not my fault. Blame my parents :-) 

 

The question was more like as follows.

 

As far as I understand to "original"  if that makes sense ETNZ elevators/winglets/tip fence whatever you want to call them were built for what ETNZ thought were the perfect ones for performance. Then they had to make them larger to follow the new regulations (minimum area). They did a protest and the outcome will de decided today. If ETNZ were racing with there "original performance optimized" elevators I don't think that they will have large area as per the new regulations and it will mot measure. Am I correct or did I get it all wrong? If that would be the case what happens?

 

Or did I get it wrong and the ETNZ elevators were always large enough and they were only protesting against the max beam rule?

 

Sorry if I mixed it up?



#7 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:42 AM

Just speculating here. If ETNZ were using the old style (small) elevators yesterday and the IJ decides that they must use the new bigger ones as part of the 37 item packages. ETNZ were not following the regulations. What will happen then with race one? LR did not start and ETNZ will be disqualified as there boat did not measure. Will race one be raced again or did no one win? What about if they end up on a equal points in the end?????????????????????

 

Just a thought.

 

I believe they do have a set of shorter rudders which don't measure under the new rules (length not the area at issue), but it looked like they were using their longer ones today which measure under both rules.



#8 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:57 AM

Don't worry. I am not accusing ETNZ to not following the regulations. I am actually a big fan. Maybe I should also say that my wife is from NZ and I am a big ETNZ fan even if I happen to be Swedish. It is not my fault. Blame my parents :-) 

 

The question was more like as follows.

 

As far as I understand to "original"  if that makes sense ETNZ elevators/winglets/tip fence whatever you want to call them were built for what ETNZ thought were the perfect ones for performance. Then they had to make them larger to follow the new regulations (minimum area). They did a protest and the outcome will de decided today. If ETNZ were racing with there "original performance optimized" elevators I don't think that they will have large area as per the new regulations and it will mot measure. Am I correct or did I get it all wrong? If that would be the case what happens?

 

Or did I get it wrong and the ETNZ elevators were always large enough and they were only protesting against the max beam rule?

 

Sorry if I mixed it up?

 

My understanding is they were always big enough and the issue is not so much to do with the size and much more to do with the shape and positioning.  ETNZ made a number of compromises in other aspects of the boat to accomodate them within the rules.

The new rule allows everybody else to run similar sized and probably better shaped rudders without having to make the same compromises to the rest of their design.

ETNZ could possibly design new better shaped rudders under the new rules, but there is no way they can undo the compromises made to the rest of the design and make them effective, they would probably also have to redesign the main foils to accomodate this as they would no longer be optimum, all this would take months of testing which they simply don't have!  So there only real option would be to use what they have and to hope that even with the compromises they made that it was good enough.

LR are running the same design but a little further behind and in fact only just got their new foils so it would hurt them possibly even more than ETNZ as they might not even get their compromised package up to full speed anyway, they also have a smaller budget so yet another set of foils or rudders is probably not an option at all.



#9 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:27 AM

I wonder whether ETNZ could have sailed with their old rudders because the changes made by Murray are being questioned in a formal application to the Jury...?



#10 winchfodder

winchfodder

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Location:Carolina, USA

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:44 AM

Don't worry. I am not accusing ETNZ to not following the regulations. I am actually a big fan. Maybe I should also say that my wife is from NZ and I am a big ETNZ fan even if I happen to be Swedish. It is not my fault. Blame my parents :-) 

 

The question was more like as follows.

 

As far as I understand to "original"  if that makes sense ETNZ elevators/winglets/tip fence whatever you want to call them were built for what ETNZ thought were the perfect ones for performance. Then they had to make them larger to follow the new regulations (minimum area). They did a protest and the outcome will de decided today. If ETNZ were racing with there "original performance optimized" elevators I don't think that they will have large area as per the new regulations and it will mot measure. Am I correct or did I get it all wrong? If that would be the case what happens?

 

Or did I get it wrong and the ETNZ elevators were always large enough and they were only protesting against the max beam rule?

 

Sorry if I mixed it up?

 

My understanding is they were always big enough and the issue is not so much to do with the size and much more to do with the shape and positioning.  ETNZ made a number of compromises in other aspects of the boat to accomodate them within the rules.

The new rule allows everybody else to run similar sized and probably better shaped rudders without having to make the same compromises to the rest of their design.

ETNZ could possibly design new better shaped rudders under the new rules, but there is no way they can undo the compromises made to the rest of the design and make them effective, they would probably also have to redesign the main foils to accomodate this as they would no longer be optimum, all this would take months of testing which they simply don't have!  So there only real option would be to use what they have and to hope that even with the compromises they made that it was good enough.

LR are running the same design but a little further behind and in fact only just got their new foils so it would hurt them possibly even more than ETNZ as they might not even get their compromised package up to full speed anyway, they also have a smaller budget so yet another set of foils or rudders is probably not an option at all.

 

 

Yes. And as LR and ETNZ (and one day maybe Artemis) are in the middle of a knockout series, it is ridiculous to expect them to make changes during the racing at such a late stage. Of couse Oracle have an extra two months to play with the ruling all they like.

 

I am with Max on this one. Murray is a great guy, but he called this one wrong and I hope the IJ tell him. The question then is if he has the guts to call it off as he says he will. Max had the guts to carry out his threat, will Murray.

 

Clearly it is not a question of safety, look at LR and ETNZ, it is a question of the safety of two of the AC72 designs (Artemis and Orcale) that have not been well designed or engineered as both have so far shown. You cannot at this late stage give them extra help to get to the line. That is not sport at this level.

 

As for LE he has a reputation for hard ball in business, So I guess he might just decide to let Murray shut it down and keep the CUP for anothe three or four years.What should he care about the Kiwis who need the publicity for the sponsors and by the sounds of their new Govt will not get any more funding, so  LE will close out his biggest competitor for the next time.

 

AC, Don't you luv it?



#11 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:00 AM

^^^ The most convenient solution would be for the Jury to do the right thing and uphold the ETNZ and/or LR applications tomorrow, after which Murray will enter immediate negotiations with ETNZ and LR, resubmit the revised MEP Safety Plan, and we go racing.

Otoh, if the Jury compounds the problem by exceeding their jurisdiction and denying the applications, effectively amending the Class Rules, all bets are off - and don't be surprised if LR follows through with their earlier statements and go to NYSC.



#12 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:01 AM

I am with Max on this one. Murray is a great guy, but he called this one wrong and I hope the IJ tell him. The question then is if he has the guts to call it off as he says he will. 

 

He can't call it off!!!

 

IM acknowledges that half the fleet are safe under the old rules.  This is a design competition and he can't simply say:  'We'll cancel the event because 2 teams have failed to design boats that in my opinion are not safe'. The fact he has back himself into a corner on this could prove a serious tactical error for Ar and TO.  What he has to do is charge either or both Ar and TO to prove their boats are safe or otherwise they will not be allowed to race.  LR and ETNZ he endorses are safe.  Is that when TO turn on IM??

 

Maybe the USCG should turn around to Murray and say:

 

"Being as 2 teams are deemed to be safe under the old rules, we'll grant a permit for those two teams to race but you will have to demonstrate that Ar and TO are safe to race, before we will amend/ grant a new permit that permits Ar / TO to race'

 

After all the local community has invested a considerable amount in the event!!!  Why should all the investors, spectators etc be denied a spectacle because 2 teams haven't designed safe boats????



#13 winchfodder

winchfodder

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Location:Carolina, USA

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:37 AM

I am with Max on this one. Murray is a great guy, but he called this one wrong and I hope the IJ tell him. The question then is if he has the guts to call it off as he says he will. 

 

He can't call it off!!!

 

IM acknowledges that half the fleet are safe under the old rules.  This is a design competition and he can't simply say:  'We'll cancel the event because 2 teams have failed to design boats that in my opinion are not safe'. The fact he has back himself into a corner on this could prove a serious tactical error for Ar and TO.  What he has to do is charge either or both Ar and TO to prove their boats are safe or otherwise they will not be allowed to race.  LR and ETNZ he endorses are safe.  Is that when TO turn on IM??

 

Maybe the USCG should turn around to Murray and say:

 

"Being as 2 teams are deemed to be safe under the old rules, we'll grant a permit for those two teams to race but you will have to demonstrate that Ar and TO are safe to race, before we will amend/ grant a new permit that permits Ar / TO to race'

 

After all the local community has invested a considerable amount in the event!!!  Why should all the investors, spectators etc be denied a spectacle because 2 teams haven't designed safe boats????

 

Ok, I guess if IM refuses to run a race, then who wins. Can LE keep the Cup? I guess the Challengers go to NY Court and have them rule LE in default for not running the Cup and so the challengers get the Cup, but which one? Maybe if IM calls it off as he has threatened. Then the Challengers should run their own regatta without IM or ACRM, maybe with LV, so at least they have a winner to present to the NY Supereme Court when the case gets eventually heard.



#14 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,484 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:42 AM

Ok, I guess if IM refuses to run a race.........

 

then harold benett would have to step in 

 

again

 

The International Sailing Federation's Race Officials Committee has 'applauded' the actions of Principal Race Officer, Harold Bennett, in starting the second race of the 33rd America's Cup, against the wishes of the Defender appointed Race Committee, and in the face of a subsequent 'mutiny' from three of the members of that Committee. ... - Fred Meyer, Marcel Beauvard, and Nicolas Grange - all members of the Societe Nautique de Geneve, then Defender of the America's Cup, and organiser of the 33rd Match

 

http://www.sail-worl...l-actions/70075

 

would IM - AC alphabet - OR

 

really want to go down in history with those guys, that defender?



#15 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:45 AM

Ok, I guess if IM refuses to run a race, then who wins. 

 

He can't refuse to run an event.  He can resign, in which case in a new RD will need to be appoint pronto, which is probably what is going to happen.  But he simply cannot refuse to run the event, when he endorses that half the fleet are safe, he has to run the event for LR/ET and charge TO and Ar to prove they are safe, which is going to be difficult being as he has publicly stated that the only way he believes the event can be run safely is with all 37 recommendation.  Which is the same as saying 'Removing the contentious recommendations meas I don't see anyway that either TO or Ar or both, can race safely.  As I said he's back himself into a very small corner, which is shrinking daily.

 

If the event is cancelled I would have thought it would result in an easy to win BoFD case against GGYC, being as their is no reason to cancel the event, although I do concede I am not a lawyer and like many sane people I am often puzzled by the decisions of courts.

,



#16 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:13 AM

Don't worry. I am not accusing ETNZ to not following the regulations. I am actually a big fan. Maybe I should also say that my wife is from NZ and I am a big ETNZ fan even if I happen to be Swedish. It is not my fault. Blame my parents :-) 

 

The question was more like as follows.

 

As far as I understand to "original"  if that makes sense ETNZ elevators/winglets/tip fence whatever you want to call them were built for what ETNZ thought were the perfect ones for performance. Then they had to make them larger to follow the new regulations (minimum area). They did a protest and the outcome will de decided today. If ETNZ were racing with there "original performance optimized" elevators I don't think that they will have large area as per the new regulations and it will mot measure. Am I correct or did I get it all wrong? If that would be the case what happens?

 

Or did I get it wrong and the ETNZ elevators were always large enough and they were only protesting against the max beam rule?

 

Sorry if I mixed it up?

 

You have been confused by the noise.

ETNZ are protesting because they don't believe the RD (Race Director Iain Murray) has, or should have, the ability to change the class rule.

This is not exactly the same thing as disagreeing with the intent of the change the RD has imposed.

Agreeing to this change now implies he has the right to do so again in the future and it's not hard to see why they disagree with this.

Either way, the ETNZ boat complies, right now.

It appears that they are attempting to force all competitors to design and build safe boats within the original class rules, which of course is entirely possible, but not desirable as far as at least one other competitor is concerned.



#17 vij

vij

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Interests:Born Swedish. Lives in Switzerland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:00 PM

Don't worry. I am not accusing ETNZ to not following the regulations. I am actually a big fan. Maybe I should also say that my wife is from NZ and I am a big ETNZ fan even if I happen to be Swedish. It is not my fault. Blame my parents :-) 

 

The question was more like as follows.

 

As far as I understand to "original"  if that makes sense ETNZ elevators/winglets/tip fence whatever you want to call them were built for what ETNZ thought were the perfect ones for performance. Then they had to make them larger to follow the new regulations (minimum area). They did a protest and the outcome will de decided today. If ETNZ were racing with there "original performance optimized" elevators I don't think that they will have large area as per the new regulations and it will mot measure. Am I correct or did I get it all wrong? If that would be the case what happens?

 

Or did I get it wrong and the ETNZ elevators were always large enough and they were only protesting against the max beam rule?

 

Sorry if I mixed it up?

 

You have been confused by the noise.

ETNZ are protesting because they don't believe the RD (Race Director Iain Murray) has, or should have, the ability to change the class rule.

This is not exactly the same thing as disagreeing with the intent of the change the RD has imposed.

Agreeing to this change now implies he has the right to do so again in the future and it's not hard to see why they disagree with this.

Either way, the ETNZ boat complies, right now.

It appears that they are attempting to force all competitors to design and build safe boats within the original class rules, which of course is entirely possible, but not desirable as far as at least one other competitor is concerned.

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. I sort of got that part but I also thought that ETNZ and LR had to modify there boats last minute to fit the new regulations giving them not time for tuning, testing and learning how to sail the new parts to 100%.



#18 ardsur

ardsur

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Location:thailand
  • Interests:virtual sailing, swimming, good food and nice drinks

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:01 PM

Please help, I do not understand.
How can NZ win??? yesterday, I saw only one boat sailing a certain parcour.
But one boat cannot win , can it?
Unless it is a kind of timetrial as the skiing slalom down, but than each participants gets the chance to make a race against the clock and the fastest times win,
but then NZ cannot be declared a winner and win  a point, as she has to wait for other boats to sail ??? :blink:

#19 polarbear

polarbear

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • Location:Lake Ontario

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:30 PM

Please help, I do not understand.
How can NZ win??? yesterday, I saw only one boat sailing a certain parcour.
But one boat cannot win , can it?
Unless it is a kind of timetrial as the skiing slalom down, but than each participants gets the chance to make a race against the clock and the fastest times win,
but then NZ cannot be declared a winner and win  a point, as she has to wait for other boats to sail ??? :blink:

 

  The other boat was "DNS".  So all they had to do was complete the race  



#20 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:15 PM

 

Don't worry. I am not accusing ETNZ to not following the regulations. I am actually a big fan. Maybe I should also say that my wife is from NZ and I am a big ETNZ fan even if I happen to be Swedish. It is not my fault. Blame my parents :-) 

 

The question was more like as follows.

 

As far as I understand to "original"  if that makes sense ETNZ elevators/winglets/tip fence whatever you want to call them were built for what ETNZ thought were the perfect ones for performance. Then they had to make them larger to follow the new regulations (minimum area). They did a protest and the outcome will de decided today. If ETNZ were racing with there "original performance optimized" elevators I don't think that they will have large area as per the new regulations and it will mot measure. Am I correct or did I get it all wrong? If that would be the case what happens?

 

Or did I get it wrong and the ETNZ elevators were always large enough and they were only protesting against the max beam rule?

 

Sorry if I mixed it up?

 

You have been confused by the noise.

ETNZ are protesting because they don't believe the RD (Race Director Iain Murray) has, or should have, the ability to change the class rule.

This is not exactly the same thing as disagreeing with the intent of the change the RD has imposed.

Agreeing to this change now implies he has the right to do so again in the future and it's not hard to see why they disagree with this.

Either way, the ETNZ boat complies, right now.

It appears that they are attempting to force all competitors to design and build safe boats within the original class rules, which of course is entirely possible, but not desirable as far as at least one other competitor is concerned.

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. I sort of got that part but I also thought that ETNZ and LR had to modify there boats last minute to fit the new regulations giving them not time for tuning, testing and learning how to sail the new parts to 100%.

I'm pretty sure they had to lengthen their rudders a little - you might be right about the 100% bit.

The argument is not so much about changes to ETNZ and LR but rather the concessions to other(s) that are in conflict with the class rules.

Safety within the class rules seems to be the obvious compromise but evidently that doesn't suit someone(s).

Oracle apparently don't care while Artemis do.



#21 flatearth

flatearth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:38 PM

Please help, I do not understand.
How can NZ win??? yesterday, I saw only one boat sailing a certain parcour.
But one boat cannot win , can it?
Unless it is a kind of timetrial as the skiing slalom down, but than each participants gets the chance to make a race against the clock and the fastest times win,
but then NZ cannot be declared a winner and win  a point, as she has to wait for other boats to sail ??? :blink:

 
  The other boat was "DNS".  So all they had to do was complete the race  

All ETNZ had to do was start(definition), sail the course (rule 28.1), and finish(definition). There is nothing in the RRSAC about the mininum number of boats for a race. It does give an umpire a way to terminate a match (match race vs fleet race) when they are satisfied the other boat will not finish. They let the show run yesterday.

#22 ardsur

ardsur

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Location:thailand
  • Interests:virtual sailing, swimming, good food and nice drinks

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:10 PM

thanks, clear.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users