Jump to content


Can anyone please explain the ACEA release post IJ ruling

It seems to defy logic

  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#1 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:51 AM

Absent the politics, can anyone explain the ACEA presser yesterday?

The IJ ruled that IM can't use the MEP or other games to change the class rules without consent of all per the protocol. That puts NZ and LR in driver seat w re ruddergate and the weight limit. IJ also rules that IM/GGYC/OR etc... need to carry the view of all teams to USCG w re MEP so in theory IM can't play games there either. While he would say its unsafe absent all 37 changes, LR and NZ would say its fine with the 35. In theory even OR is in a box here having also said they are fine w the 35. This seemed like game over and complete victory for NZ and LR. But then came the ACEA presser???


The ACEA seemed to indicate it wanted the teams to comply voluntarily with the 37 safety recommendations anyway despite what the IJ ruled and that this was the only way forward for the event. Huh? LR and NZ already rejected that path and the IJ agreed with them. Or does ACEA see it as an optional thing? But how can that be?? If a team voluntarily complies with the 37 recommendations (added weight and modified rudderss) they don't comply with the clas rule? How could they get measured in? Is that not a slam dunk DSQ?

* How can a team voluntarily comply with all 37 of IMs and still comply with the class rule which the IJ just set back to the original standard?

I'm lost.

Help.

#2 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:54 AM

I can't explain it. It is bizarre at best and brinksmanship at worst.



#3 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:56 AM

I'm lost too. The ACEA statement seems to be complete nonsense.

#4 wraith

wraith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,232 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:59 AM

I can't explain it. It is bizarre at best and brinksmanship at worst.

I hope the IJ hasnt left town just yet



#5 Nutta

Nutta

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ
  • Interests:Technology, motorsport, fishing, photography, boats and all things that float.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:59 AM

Are they trying to force a cancellation of the event?

#6 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 12:17 PM

this is what GD meant when he said they may have won the IJ

 

but it meant nothing until the facts on the ground started changing

 

?and changed a mindset from those that appear to think that IJ rulings don't apply to them?



#7 baygrass

baygrass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 12:23 PM

How is Larry a billionaire? I wouldn't hire him to white wash my fence.   



#8 BossBitch

BossBitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Location:Te Wai Pounamu
  • Interests:Keeping the crew in line!

Posted 12 July 2013 - 12:33 PM

It's just a question of logic really...

 

The MEP has an attachment of 17 recommendations which include 2 that relate to design rules:


1. Maximum weight increased by 500 Kg
2. New Rudder rules (symmetric etc) whhich was later modified such that the original rules were re-instated (asymetric etc).

 

The IJ ruled that these 2 were not to be considered design rules. In effect this means that the recommendations are just that - recommendations.

 

Therefore, to comply a boat would need to weigh less or equal to the class rule and therefore complies with 1 above (which is a maximum, not a minimum); and that it must comply with the original rudder rules and will therefore also comply with the modified recommendation 2 above.

 

Therefore, ET and LR that we know of, comply with all 17 recommendations.  QED

 

The other two boats may or may not have problems with the design rules which they must comply while also complying with all 17 recommendations.

 

The net effect is that the 17 recommendations re-inforce the design rules in question, not change them!  What causes the confusion is that some parts of the recommendations cannot not be complied with within the design rules, but they remain only recommendations!

 

Thus ACEA or whomever can state to the CG that the 17 recommendations can stay and that at least half the fleet already comply.



#9 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 12:46 PM

 

this is what GD meant when he said they may have won the IJ
 
but it meant nothing until the facts on the ground started changing
 
?and changed a mindset from those that appear to think that IJ rulings don't apply to them?

Guess I am seeing/asking same thing. Really not trolling but this seems so blatent that it begs the claims of ethical lapses and/or that IM/OR/AR are trying to cheat. Not saying that is so but the presser just seems to beg for that claim to be made.

I just don't get it. The IJ ruling and even USCG comments, along with the NZ and AR races (and even OR comments that they are fine either way), all seemed to pave the way to a fair event that could go forward. There was even a path proposed to allow AR to sail. There is nothing I can think of to be gained for ACEA with the statement other than to continue to try to force a competitive disadvantage onto LR and NZ (or an advantage for OR)?? Doubt that/don't want to believe that but what else is there?

#10 sunseeker

sunseeker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:01 PM

 


this is what GD meant when he said they may have won the IJ
 
but it meant nothing until the facts on the ground started changing
 
?and changed a mindset from those that appear to think that IJ rulings don't apply to them?

Guess I am seeing/asking same thing. Really not trolling but this seems so blatent that it begs the claims of ethical lapses and/or that IM/OR/AR are trying to cheat. Not saying that is so but the presser just seems to beg for that claim to be made.

I just don't get it. The IJ ruling and even USCG comments, along with the NZ and AR races (and even OR comments that they are fine either way), all seemed to pave the way to a fair event that could go forward. There was even a path proposed to allow AR to sail. There is nothing I can think of to be gained for ACEA with the statement other than to continue to try to force a competitive disadvantage onto LR and NZ (or an advantage for OR)?? Doubt that/don't want to believe that but what else is there?

One pill makes you larger one pill makes you small. Go ask Alice.

#11 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,525 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:21 PM

What Barclay is saying is that ETNZ v LR can happen without a change to the MEP.   Presumably he doesn't believe Murray has the time to revise the MEP before Saturday, and he's clearly got so much ego that he can't admit to being so soundly smacked down by the Jury.   Not sure why that's so tough for the guy; maybe he's really short or something.  

 

Real issue is that, once again, Barclay and ACEA communications chief Tim Jefferies are completely and totally incompetent when it comes to speaking to the public.  I mean, unbelievably bad.  

 

Jefferies is an old friend of Coutts; yet another guy with huge problems appearing human and competent off the race course.  Barclay just seems like yet another bitter fucking Kiwi working for The Man.



#12 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:28 PM

 

What Barclay is saying is that ETNZ v LR can happen without a change to the MEP.   Presumably he doesn't believe Murray has the time to revise the MEP before Saturday, and he's clearly got so much ego that he can't admit to being so soundly smacked down by the Jury.   Not sure why that's so tough for the guy; maybe he's really short or something.  
 
Real issue is that, once again, Barclay and ACEA communications chief Tim Jefferies are completely and totally incompetent when it comes to speaking to the public.  I mean, unbelievably bad.  
 
Jefferies is an old friend of Coutts; yet another guy with huge problems appearing human and competent off the race course.  Barclay just seems like yet another bitter fucking Kiwi working for The Man.

Clean - How can NZ/LR happen Sat without changing the MEP? If they race as is (with the 37 changes) then their rudders take them out of measurement with class rules, no? With 189 now pulled as directed by the IJ and the measurement committee directed back to original class rules NZ and LR have to go back to class legal rudders to measure in for Sat, no? And that makes them out of compliance with IM's 37 (they comply w 35 or 37 but not 37 of 37).

I agree that the MEP does not need to change prior to the race - USCG said as much - but I just don't see how any boat can comply with IMs 37 AND comply with class rules now that 189 is pulled.

What am I missing?

#13 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,872 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:36 PM

As stated, ETNZ and LR presently satisfy both conditions. Unbelievably, it's OR that would be penalized, because:

- if SB/ACEA's "voluntary compliance with the 37 points" is also maintained, the asymmetrical orange stabilizer's surface has got to increase from the present, claimed 0.22 m2 (but it seems to me it's significantly less) to 0.32 m2 keeping the same span. The result would be a very blunt stabilizer, with an aspect ratio lower than ETNZ/LR's

#14 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:43 PM

OK, so there is some nuance in the rudder rules that allows a team to meet both the IM 37 recommendations AND also the original class rules. Did not realize that. I thought what IM proposed made the original class legal rudder no longer class legal. Thanks.

Given that the ACEA presser is a non-event, yes?

#15 Dupont

Dupont

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Bruxelles
  • Interests:Optimist

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:47 PM

So, it seems that SB is confirming that TNZ-AR measure and that the new regulations would have been implemented to make OR-AR legal. Obviously for safety....



#16 Savoyard

Savoyard

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Location:Comox, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Staying alive,sailing,boat building,reading.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:49 PM

Pardon my simplicity, if I am wrong I will no doubt be quickly put right. Are not the elevator areas MINIMUM areas, one can have larger ones if one wishes, for whatever reason. Therefore if the rules go back to the smaller minimum it makes no diff. to those boats having the larger elevators which were mandated by IM but quashed by the IJ, they can keep them or trim them down towards, or to, the old minimum if they wish.



#17 dolittleandbillem

dolittleandbillem

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:02 PM

FYI, yes Jefferies is a long time friend of Coutts. But so is Barclay, Barclay and Coutts went to University in NZ together doing an engineering.

And yes Barclay is short and yes he is a very bitter little man!

As its only me second post,
I'll fuck off now.

#18 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,872 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:04 PM

^^
There is no "old minimum" - if anything, the Rule makes it difficult to have large stabilizers what with the max. beam and distance from transom stipulations.

It's only IM37 that introduces the 0.32 m2 minimum - clearly tailored after ETNZ/LR's stabilizers that had to go asymmetrical and move rudder post in order to achieve it, and yet had to make do with a low aspect ratio. But it was part of their "tractor" safe approach

#19 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:24 PM

So OR are basically going to be forced to build copies of the ETNZ rudders and match their location too.

The insurance quotation for the event 'sans-37' must be eye-wateringly large.

Either that or someone hasn't understood the hymn sheet.

:blink: mind boggling



#20 Strike3

Strike3

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:27 PM

Could just be a clumsy attempt to save face but: The headline could equally have read 'the event can't go ahead unless the teams voluntarily accept the recommendations'

This thing isn't over yet.......

#21 scarecow

scarecow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Interests:Getting home.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:34 PM

FYI, yes Jefferies is a long time friend of Coutts. But so is Barclay, Barclay and Coutts went to University in NZ together doing an engineering.

And yes Barclay is short and yes he is a very bitter little man!

As its only me second post,
I'll fuck off now.

 

Russell Coutts went to university? You're joking, right?



#22 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,777 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:35 PM

FYI, yes Jefferies is a long time friend of Coutts. But so is Barclay, Barclay and Coutts went to University in NZ together doing an engineering.
 

 

The CEO hiring all his mates is a recipe for disaster in my experience (and alas I have some experience on that particular point). You might think it leads to a happy integrated team. Well, maybe, sometimes. An unwillingness to make necessary choices that are bound to offend someone and a management team with an inflated sense of entitlement is another possible outcome.

 

Apart from cocking up AC34, what else is on Barclay's CV?



#23 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,872 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:36 PM

^^^
Yes, but teams also renounce the "in excess of max. beam, 1.4 m max. span, 0.85 m from transom" concessions of redlined Rule

And, what do you think this RC FB entry portents?

The Americas Cup Jury decision is out, basically reinstating the original Class Rule. I suspect there will be some new rudder wings on our boats pretty soon and no doubt more conspiracy theories that we must have known the rules would revert back?



#24 Dupont

Dupont

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Bruxelles
  • Interests:Optimist

Posted 12 July 2013 - 02:59 PM

^^^
Yes, but teams also renounce the "in excess of max. beam, 1.4 m max. span, 0.85 m from transom" concessions of redlined Rule

This is where it hurts for OR, and perhaps AR.



#25 McGyver

McGyver

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:13 PM

I never thought I was going to look back at Ernesto and CNEV as examples of fairness and effective organization...



#26 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,412 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:16 PM



#27 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:29 PM

How is Larry a billionaire? I wouldn't hire him to white wash my fence.   

 

 

He would not do it himself.

 

He would hire Becky Thatcher and have her sign a non-disclosure agrement. 



#28 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:38 PM

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

#29 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,872 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:47 PM


^
Quite clear summary. Additionally, it seems to me that OR's rudders are right aft and against the rear crossbeam, so that moving them forward would be complicated

#30 blackensign

blackensign

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:55 PM

How is Larry a billionaire? I wouldn't hire him to white wash my fence.   

 

 

Simple time management my friend.

 

If he was paid to whitewash your fence, his earning potential would be limited by how much fence he could whitewash.

However, if he screwed up bad enough, you might consider paying him to stay the fuck away from your fence.  In this case, he could stay the fuck away from many fences at the same time and still have his day free to do whatever the fuck he wants.  His earning potential would be limitless.
 



#31 Dupont

Dupont

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Bruxelles
  • Interests:Optimist

Posted 12 July 2013 - 03:57 PM

Basically the more forward position of OR main foil obliges them to have more lift from the rudders ?

Which obliges them to position their rudders aft at the max of the rule and have it wider than the stern ?

 

So they are left with either increasing the cord and making more drag or increasing the width of their stern and weighting more ? 



#32 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,821 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:19 PM

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

 
You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."

 

How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .



#33 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:23 PM

 

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

OK, so now you guys lost me again. Its back to the class rules. Where does a class rule or agreed 35 of 37IM recommendations say 0.32 ms. If OR or AR want so run something that big and can still meet the class rules fine, but nowhere does it say that NZ or LR have to, right?? They can (and I thought have) run safely with smaller than 0.32 ms and would want to again given smaller is faster, no?

How can they force NZ and LR to run with 0.32 ms rudders post IJ ruling and when they don't, does not IM have to go back to USCG to get a new MEP (in theory bringing with him as directed by the IJ claims from LR and NZ that they can and have run smaller SA rudders safely)?

Edit to add... what she said above.

#34 pogen

pogen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,858 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:42 PM

Absent the politics, can anyone explain the ACEA presser yesterday?

The IJ ruled that IM can't use the MEP or other games to change the class rules without consent of all per the protocol.

It strikes me that dealing with ACRM/ACEA is a lot like dealing with the North Koreans.

The same kooky arrogance and blindness to reality, while the country goes down the tubes.

#35 MountainCat

MountainCat

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Location:Colorado
  • Interests:A-cats, Windsurfing, Skiing and Trail Running.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:44 PM

It seems as though the ACEA is saying that although they can not change the design rules per the IJ ruling they are entitled to overlay the design rules with safety rules that affect the design of boats.

 

Did the IJ specifically prohibit the ACEA from implementing safety rules that affect the design of boats? 

 

Maybe they should have?



#36 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,120 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:48 PM

Bottom line is that so long as the MEP contains all 37, then teams have to meet the lowest-common-denominator, most-restrictive constraints of BOTH: the MEP ~and~ the original DR. It's the bastardized 'third-way' result.

 

Neither OR nor AR already has rudders that can do that.

 

TS said at the very end of his video that OR's symmetrical .32 rudder could be changed out to an assym if that's what the IJ decision's result led to. RC said much the same, the next day. GS said yesterday they have no problem no matter what. I see no reason to doubt any of them. Even despite if a few here can't figure how..

 

GD suggests a dispensation of some kind to accommodate AR's timing issues (OR has no timing issues) but even though GD, RC and PC would be happy with that, LR has not yet agreed it - even when asked the question directly. It is also difficult to imagine how it would not be effectively a DR change for just one boat; an argument LR might press.

 

What GD cannot control, but IM might be able and willing to do regardless, is drop the min area from the MEP. That would allow both OR and AR to run with their original-rule compliant rudders, surely what both want.



#37 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:59 PM

 

Bottom line is that so long as the MEP contains all 37, then teams have to meet the lowest-common-denominator, most-restrictive constraints of BOTH: the MEP ~and~ the original DR. It's the bastardized 'third-way' result.
 
Neither OR nor AR already has rudders that can do that.
 
TS said at the very end of his video that OR's symmetrical .32 rudder could be changed out to an assym if that's what the IJ decision's result led to. RC said much the same, the next day. GS said yesterday they have no problem no matter what. I see no reason to doubt any of them. Even despite if a few here can't figure how..
 
GD suggests a dispensation of some kind to accommodate AR's timing issues (OR has no timing issues) but even though GD, RC and PC would be happy with that, LR has not yet agreed it - even when asked the question directly. It is also difficult to imagine how it would not be effectively a DR change for just one boat; an argument LR might press.
 
What GD cannot control, but IM might be able and willing to do regardless, is drop the min area from the MEP. That would allow both OR and AR to run with their original-rule compliant rudders, surely what both want.

What authority does IM have, how does he operationalize the MEP? The IJ ruled the measurement committee should be directed to ignore 189. Why do you believe IM has any authority to tell teams how to design and build their boats w regards to rudder SA?

#38 Dupont

Dupont

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Bruxelles
  • Interests:Optimist

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:00 PM

^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.

Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.

As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR  :)



#39 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:05 PM


Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

 
You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."
 
How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .
The reasoning is, I suppose, that one can build a .32m2 without changing the design rule, therefore, the RD can impose it as a safety requirement. Just so happens that ERNZ and LR already did.

#40 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:09 PM

^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.
Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.
As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR  :)

Actually, if (big if) my read of the situation is correct, it hurts OR, and doesn't effect ETNZ or LR.

#41 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,120 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:11 PM

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

 

IM talked yesterday specifically about needing to 'close the gaps' between the MEP and the IJ's decision. So I'm sure that's what he'll be working to do. I doubt that either AR or OR are already building big assyms. The 'third-way' won't have much of a shelf life and so GD's very kind 'dispensation' won't even be needed..



#42 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:30 PM

How is Larry a billionaire? I wouldn't hire him to white wash my fence.   

 
You couldn't possibly afford him anyway so your point is moot.
 
 

Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

 
Other effects of "a stubby foil" (greater chord) were mentioned by Xlot in a different thread:

 

Dunno: the ET/LR "STABILIZER" appears to have such a low aspect ratio that one would need a large change in AoA (and therefore in rudder stock angle) to get a meaningful variation in lift. The top part of the rudder has a fairly wide chord flush with the hull, doesn't seem compatible with such a rake variation.
Conversely, this would explain why LR's wheelies are less severe than OR's: low aspect ratio stabilizers are much less prone to stall.



#43 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,525 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR.  It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it.  The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP.  Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions.  Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.



#44 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:36 PM

 

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.
 
IM talked yesterday specifically about needing to 'close the gaps' between the MEP and the IJ's decision. So I'm sure that's what he'll be working to do. I doubt that either AR or OR are already building big assyms. The 'third-way' won't have much of a shelf life and so GD's very kind 'dispensation' won't even be needed..

Oh come on. Just one thread without spin. One. Just one. Please!

I do not see any basis that IM has to disqualify a boat that does not meet an MEP rule of rudders have SA of 0.32 ms or similar

Please just a simple yes or no.

* Post IJ ruling do you believe IM can DSQ a boat or even have the measurement committee ask or examine the SA of a rudder relative to a 0.32 m2 SA criteria and cause a boat to not be measured in as a result?

Yes or no?

#45 Dupont

Dupont

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Bruxelles
  • Interests:Optimist

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:56 PM

^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.
Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.
As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR  :)

Actually, if (big if) my read of the situation is correct, it hurts OR, and doesn't effect ETNZ or LR.

If OR-AR had been able to comply successfully with the old rules they would have use the security to bend the rules. Are they working on asym now ?



#46 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,120 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:06 PM




^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR.  It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it.  The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP.  Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions.  Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.
Not sure I see the distinction. As RD, surely he can only run races that 'comport to the conditions' of the Safety Plan regs in the MEP?

#47 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,821 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:11 PM

You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."
 
How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .

The reasoning is, I suppose, that one can build a .32m2 without changing the design rule, therefore, the RD can impose it as a safety requirement. Just so happens that ERNZ and LR already did.

 

Thanks. But since the safety recommendations had to be withdrawn, isn't the current situation as if they never existed, and only the original rules apply? IIUC, the complete MEP (RN189) was invalidated.

 

But, the situation may be as follows:

 

- the MEP still (kind of) applies - to not have to cancel the next races and because no changed MEP in place yet

- ETNZ and LR, both complying with the original rules and the safety recommendations in today's default MEP, are allowed to race now

- AR would not be eligible to race now, since the old rules in combination with the default MEP are still in place

- ETNZ offers the dispensation to give AR the chance to race now

- IM has to submit a changed MEP application (preferably applying due diligence and seek all teams' written (!) approval for his safety recommendations according to the approval routines as per the protocol)

 

If that's the way it is, do you think the new MEP (reverting to 100% old class rules w/o any changes) could be available until AR is ready to race? If so, no issue!

If not, the dispensation could be effective until the new MEP is available. No issue either (if LR and OR agree on the dispensation too).

 

Following this (female) logic I still don't understand why there's so much ado about the "third way".

 

 

EDIT: Just wading through the "Jury Decision" thread (220 unread posts. Really???), and there are also some good and less good explanations. We'll see what's really going on...



#48 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,412 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:25 PM

^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.

Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.

As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR  :)

 

3. NEUTRAL MANAGEMENT

(ii) not unreasonably favor (sic) the interests of any Competitor over another.

 



#49 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,412 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:27 PM

 


Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

 
You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."
 
How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .
The reasoning is, I suppose, that one can build a .32m2 without changing the design rule, therefore, the RD can impose it as a safety requirement. Just so happens that ERNZ and LR already did.

 

Mandating a constraint where non previously existed is a Rule change - IJ said 'use due process or forget it'
 



#50 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,120 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:55 PM

BA is apparently not expecting any 'third-way' either: http://blog.sfgate.c...way-for-racing/

 

my bold

--

 

...

New Zealand’s Dalton urged the teams “to put down their weapons and get on with it.”

Oracle in their sights

It is widely assumed, though, that the protests were also aimed at Oracle Team USA. The defender has been using the new rudder wings on both its boats since the safety recommendations were put in place.

 

Ben Ainslie, an Oracle skipper, said his team will simply go back to smaller rudder wings. The process shouldn’t take more than a few days, he said. Oracle has plenty of time: The America’s Cup finals begin Sept. 7, and no Oracle boat is required to sail in the regatta leading up to the Cup races themselves.

 

“We were complying before the (Artemis) accident in May,” Ainslie said. “The situation has been blown out of proportion a little bit.”

Any talk among the other challengers that Murray’s rudder-wing proposal might benefit Oracle was “a classic America’s Cup conspiracy theorist’s dream,” Ainslie said.

 

He said it’s possible the smaller wings could make his team’s boats even faster. The shore crew has to rebalance the boats on its foils. “It just depends on the configuration you adopt,” Ainslie said.

 

---

 

GS, from here: http://www.nzherald....jectid=10897529

"We don't have an issue complying with the class rule and we will be ready to race under the rules affirmed by the jury."



#51 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:00 PM

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

 

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?



#52 Earl Boebert

Earl Boebert

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:13 PM

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

 

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism. 

 

Cheers,

Earl



#53 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:15 PM

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR.  It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it.  The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP.  Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions.  Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

So you think they're reaching for the abort button? 



#54 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:21 PM

GD suggests a dispensation of some kind to accommodate AR's timing issues (OR has no timing issues) but even though GD, RC and PC would be happy with that, LR has not yet agreed it - even when asked the question directly. It is also difficult to imagine how it would not be effectively a DR change for just one boat; an argument LR might press.

 

If popular opinion is to be beleived and ETNZ have a speed edge over LR (should know today), then LR potentially have a lot more to lose by giving AR and even break...

AR have had the benefit of observation of the merits of all AC72's on the track. There is a good chance that AR could come out of the shed and be quicker than LR in a reasonably short time.

AR were very impressive with their speed and almost immediate foiling on their AC45, I would be surprised if they don't match that with the AC72

 

I'm sure LR would love to at least make the LV final and they have the most to risk by giving AR a "leg up"



#55 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:26 PM

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

 

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism. 

 

Cheers,

Earl

 

Thanks for the clarification. At first glance then "Stabilizers" seems the appropriate term, however as their AOA is trim-able, albeit by pivoting the rudder stock, maybe they are a hybrid mash-up...

 

Elevizers?



#56 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,412 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:02 PM

^ as their AOA is trim-able

 

Just as a matter of interest, we know AR and OTUSA have used trimtabs, we know OTUSA has been moving their rudder stock with motors. Have ETNZ or LR had either of these 'adaptions'.

We know this how?



#57 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,690 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:06 PM

 

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

 

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism. 

 

Cheers,

Earl

 

Thanks for the clarification. At first glance then "Stabilizers" seems the appropriate term, however as their AOA is trim-able, albeit by pivoting the rudder stock, maybe they are a hybrid mash-up...

 

Elevizers?

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move.  But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder.    I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.  



#58 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:21 PM

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move.  But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder.    I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.


A "a much greater change"?  How do you figure that?  The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?



#59 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:23 PM

I never thought I was going to look back at Ernesto and CNEV as examples of fairness and effective organization...

 

Thats bullshit, Evil Ernie was still way worse than this, not that I am at all happy with the current behaviour.



#60 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:36 PM

^+1 

 

I cheered when OR cleaned up Alinghi and handed EB the reality check he sorely needed in the Court room and on the water.

 

Only another Billionaire like LE had the resources to take on a true tyrant and LE deserves credit for doing so.

 

 

 

I still think things can settle down and a fair event can occur.

 

As GD said, it's not the IJ ruling that's so important, it's what happens from here.



#61 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,049 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:36 PM

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move.  But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder.    I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.


A "a much greater change"?  How do you figure that?  The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?

 

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.



#62 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:42 PM

^ as their AOA is trim-able

 

Just as a matter of interest, we know AR and OTUSA have used trimtabs, we know OTUSA has been moving their rudder stock with motors. Have ETNZ or LR had either of these 'adaptions'.

We know this how?

 

True, we (or I) don't know for sure.

 

I am just guessing based on OR's video of their operation. Others could be using entirely different systems, although I guess the options are fairly limited.



#63 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,412 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 08:53 PM

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?



#64 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,872 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 12 July 2013 - 09:04 PM

Thanks for the clarification. At first glance then "Stabilizers" seems the appropriate term, however as their AOA is trim-able, albeit by pivoting the rudder stock, maybe they are a hybrid mash-up...
 
Elevizers?


No, it's "adjustable stabilizers" (google check). All civil jets have them

#65 Dixie

Dixie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,690 posts
  • Location:SF

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:24 PM

 

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move.  But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder.    I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.


A "a much greater change"?  How do you figure that?  The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?

 

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

Correct SWS.   



#66 sefo

sefo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:Auckland
  • Interests:Sailing, Soccer, reading, writing

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:28 PM

In your review of Barclay's release you overlooked his saying:

 

"A decision today by the International Jury upheld protests by Emirates Team New Zealand and Italy’s Luna Rossa Challenge that the Regatta Director alone could not change some of the regatta rules, even if he was acting in the best interests of all the sailors".

 

That's not at all what the jury decision said. It made no mention of in whose interests the Regatta Director was or wasn't acting.

 

Another deliberate Barclay attempt to confuse/mislead??



#67 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,120 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:35 PM

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

#68 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:42 PM

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record



#69 christom

christom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Location:Fremantle

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:50 PM

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.
But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record


Yes he is either mentally unhinged or a paid troll

#70 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:03 PM


 


You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move.  But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder.    I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

A "a much greater change"?  How do you figure that?  The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?
 
Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.
Correct SWS.   
Not true where it counts. Sure, the distance traveled at the bottom will be much greater than at the top, but the change in angle will remain constant at any point along the shaft. Proasailor got it right.

#71 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 01:42 AM

Absent the politics, can anyone explain the ACEA presser yesterday?

The IJ ruled that IM can't use the MEP or other games to change the class rules without consent of all per the protocol.

It strikes me that dealing with ACRM/ACEA is a lot like dealing with the North Koreans.

The same kooky arrogance and blindness to reality, while the country goes down the tubes.

+1

 

Attached File  kim-jong-il-puppet-team-america.jpg   48.25K   2 downloadsAttached File  kim-jong-il-puppet-team-america.jpg   48.25K   2 downloads



#72 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii

Posted 13 July 2013 - 01:44 AM

 

 


 


You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move.  But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder.    I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

A "a much greater change"?  How do you figure that?  The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?
 
Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.
Correct SWS.   
Not true where it counts. Sure, the distance traveled at the bottom will be much greater than at the top, but the change in angle will remain constant at any point along the shaft. Proasailor got it right.

 

Thank you!  Think of it this way: the stabilizer is at a fixed angle relative to the rudder, say 90 degrees for example.  If the rudder angle changes two degrees, the stabilizer is still fixed at 90 degrees relative to it, so it too will change two degrees, and this is true regardless of how far the stabilizer is from the pivot point.  Or imagine a "ladder" of stabilizers, all fixed at 90 degrees to the rudder - they all remain parallel to each other and change at exactly the same angle.

 

Hey!  How about two stabilizers on each rudder?  :)  Both with short chords and short spans.  Probably a rule against that?

 

Speaking of the imbalanced load caused by asymmetrical rudders (this thread?), take a look at Coutts bouncing on the stabilizer at 4:12 in this video: http://vimeo.com/69710443

Pretty alarming flex, actually!  Not that it will break, but I can imagine a severe twisting load induced by an asymmetric rudder.



#73 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 03:46 AM

FFS I give up

 

and I read every post on this forum!!!

 

The more I read the more I am confused!!



#74 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 03:57 AM

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record

 

For goodness sake Stinger, just give up and admit you were wrong.

Not only did the rules state unambiguously that IM couldn't do what he did, but there was already a precedent set by  the IJ when they rules in favour of ETNZ's training foils.

 

The vast majority of people here (including a very good proportion of Americans) understood that what IM tried to do was not only against the protocol, but was not an appropriate thing to do.

 

You are normally quite a different sort of poster from SWS, but this issue seems to have you whipped up into a lather.

 

SWS is still here trolling on about how ETNZ is anti-safety despite the fact that I could EASILY make OR much safer with a few thousand dollars worth of kit that would remain within the class rules.

The only conclusion I can therefore draw is that he is happy for OR to be safer as long as it doesn't compromise their speed.

 

So, step back from the keyboard, take a few deep breaths and return to normal service rather than being SWS' avatar.



#75 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 04:42 AM

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 



#76 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii

Posted 13 July 2013 - 06:02 AM

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 

It's eighth grade geometry - the angle of the dangle (rudder) plus 90 degrees is IDENTICAL to the angle of the elevator/stabilizer (+- whatever _fixed_ pitch the elevator/stabilizer/winglet was set at, relative to the rudder, when it was constructed).

 

from 2:06 in this video:

 

rudder_angle.png



#77 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:11 AM

Clean - How can NZ/LR happen Sat without changing the MEP? If they race as is (with the 37 changes) then their rudders take them out of measurement with class rules, no? With 189 now pulled as directed by the IJ and the measurement committee directed back to original class rules NZ and LR have to go back to class legal rudders to measure in for Sat, no? And that makes them out of compliance with IM's 37 (they comply w 35 or 37 but not 37 of 37).

I agree that the MEP does not need to change prior to the race - USCG said as much - but I just don't see how any boat can comply with IMs 37 AND comply with class rules now that 189 is pulled.

What am I missing?

The Barclay statement is a disclaimer in intent and content, to safeguard their butts in case there's another PP and injury before there is any unanimous agreement on the Class Rule changes, because they now no longer have any control over the contentious changes to the Class Rules. As things stand, ALL 7 recommendations requiring changes to the Class Rules are no longer enforceable, hence the call for "voluntary compliance to Safety Rules". Except they can't race with rudders & elevators which were designed to comply with the Murray Class Rules.

 

The MEP is still valid, until the CG decides that the event is no longer safe because of the inability of the Sponsors (GGYC/ACRM) to comply with all the safety undertakings in their Safety Plan. In time, all the Competitors will revalidate the Class Rules changes they had already unanimously approved, and the contentious ones will be discarded. This then means that the AC72 Class Rules existing before Murray released his RN189 (this is red-lined amended Class Rules) are now in force.

 

1: CR 8,2 is back in force: no part of the rudder shall be less than 1m (illegally changed to 0.85m by RD) from the stern;

2: The Rudder "elevator" spans can now no longer extend beyond the beam - by necessity, this may result in asymmetric elevators or symmetric designs, as long as they don't extend beyond the beam. 

3: No minimum elevator areas, because there were none specified in the original C/Rules. Competitors may approve minimum elevator areas previously recommended for "safety", or not;

4: Hand-holds and foot straps while illegal will probably stay on the boats, although personally I believe part of the competitiveness is the efficiency of crework: if a cremember is careless and goes overboard, tough titties!!

5: Max of 3 softsails back in force, including max weight allowed under CR Cl 26;



#78 snaerk

snaerk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Location:High latitudes
  • Interests:sea and snow and ice

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:16 AM

Clean - How can NZ/LR happen Sat without changing the MEP? If they race as is (with the 37 changes) then their rudders take them out of measurement with class rules, no? With 189 now pulled as directed by the IJ and the measurement committee directed back to original class rules NZ and LR have to go back to class legal rudders to measure in for Sat, no? And that makes them out of compliance with IM's 37 (they comply w 35 or 37 but not 37 of 37).

I agree that the MEP does not need to change prior to the race - USCG said as much - but I just don't see how any boat can comply with IMs 37 AND comply with class rules now that 189 is pulled.

What am I missing?

The Barclay statement is a disclaimer in intent and content, to safeguard their butts in case there's another PP and injury before there is any unanimous agreement on the Class Rule changes, because they now no longer have any control over the contentious changes to the Class Rules. As things stand, ALL 7 recommendations requiring changes to the Class Rules are no longer enforceable, hence the call for "voluntary compliance to Safety Rules". Except they can't race with rudders & elevators which were designed to comply with the Murray Class Rules.

 

The MEP is still valid, until the CG decides that the event is no longer safe because of the inability of the Sponsors (GGYC/ACRM) to comply with all the safety undertakings in their Safety Plan. In time, all the Competitors will revalidate the Class Rules changes they had already unanimously approved, and the contentious ones will be discarded. This then means that the AC72 Class Rules existing before Murray released his RN189 (this is red-lined amended Class Rules) are now in force.

 

1: CR 8,2 is back in force: no part of the rudder shall be less than 1m (illegally changed to 0.85m by RD) from the stern;

2: The Rudder "elevator" spans can now no longer extend beyond the beam - by necessity, this may result in asymmetric elevators or symmetric designs, as long as they don't extend beyond the beam. 

3: No minimum elevator areas, because there were none specified in the original C/Rules. Competitors may approve minimum elevator areas previously recommended for "safety", or not;

4: Hand-holds and foot straps while illegal will probably stay on the boats, although personally I believe part of the competitiveness is the efficiency of crework: if a cremember is careless and goes overboard, tough titties!!

5: Max of 3 softsails back in force, including max weight allowed under CR Cl 26;

 

wehn you say 'comply with' dont you really mean 'fully exploite"

 

ETNZ and LR do comply currantly, supposably



#79 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:24 AM

wuss will be happy

 

he gets to put really, really tiny stabs on OR's rudders so it will go really fast

 

and JS better learn to sail the thing flat

 

maybe he can try the NO system and watch videos of etnz 



#80 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:29 AM

wuss will be happy

 

he gets to put really, really tiny stabs on OR's rudders so it will go really fast

 

and JS better learn to sail the thing flat

 

maybe he can try the NO system and watch videos of etnz 

Jiminy doesn't agree with spending too much time on the water - he's said so!!



#81 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,777 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:42 AM

Never mind ruddergate, here comes uddergate.

 

For 155 years, farmers from all over the country have brought their dairy cattle to the Great Yorkshire Show in the hope of winning a prized rosette for Daisy.
cowRosette_2616522b.jpg
Size and shape, it seems, are everything when it comes to a prize dairy cow’s udder, and farmers are suspected of either using superglue to block up teats, making the udders fill up, or inflating them with air Photo: ALAMY
 

 

But the bucolic tranquillity of the nation’s premier agricultural show has been shattered this year by suspicions that farmers have cheated by tampering with — of all things — udders.

The results of the dairy cattle competitions have been suspended after vets carrying out ultrasound scans on two cows’ udders found anomalies which must be analysed to verify whether cheating has taken place.

 

http://www.telegraph...-farm-show.html



#82 waterboy42

waterboy42

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:50 AM

 

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 

It's eighth grade geometry - the angle of the dangle (rudder) plus 90 degrees is IDENTICAL to the angle of the elevator/stabilizer (+- whatever _fixed_ pitch the elevator/stabilizer/winglet was set at, relative to the rudder, when it was constructed).

 

from 2:06 in this video:

 

rudder_angle.png

 

 

This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued, but thanks, that was my understanding from the outset, I probably didn't express it well.



#83 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 08:59 AM

Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

 

I am not sure that is correct.

 

The RD's job is to run a fair and safe regatta.

 

The RD's job is not to run a regatta for all 4 boats.

 

The RD, by his own admission, endorses that LR/ET are safe under old / new rules.

 

The RD can go back to the CG with an amended 35 point safety plan and the caveat that the MEP only covers ET / LR.

 

The CG will grant an MEP under these conditions, being as the 2 removed safety recommendations made no difference to ET / LR.

 

Once Or / AR have demonstrated they are safe under the rules to the RD, he can go back to the CG and amend the MEP. 

 

 

 

The AC is very much a design competition and the RD can hardly cancel the event because in his opinion 50% of the fleet have designed boats that aren't safe!!  No he must run the event for the 50% of the fleet that have brought along a safe design.



#84 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,561 posts
  • Location:Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii

Posted 13 July 2013 - 02:09 PM

 

 

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 

It's eighth grade geometry - the angle of the dangle (rudder) plus 90 degrees is IDENTICAL to the angle of the elevator/stabilizer (+- whatever _fixed_ pitch the elevator/stabilizer/winglet was set at, relative to the rudder, when it was constructed).

 

from 2:06 in this video:

 

rudder_angle.png

 

 

This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued, but thanks, that was my understanding from the outset, I probably didn't express it well.

 

Oh no, sorry!  You expressed it fine, I was agreeing with you.  Just elaborating for the benefit of those who believed otherwise.  It was me who perhaps didn't say it very well.



#85 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,412 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 02:18 PM

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

 


Rewriting history again SR - just as you tried to do for months with ETNZ appeal to the IJ over MC's foil (mis-) interpretation, not to mention your heroic efforts over the last weeks!

 

Why don't we just make it a truism of 34th AC that ETNZ cause all the problems - and then get lucky in front of the IJ. Happy with that?



#86 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,412 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 02:33 PM


 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 


This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued.......

 

You can say that again!

 

Now back to my question. Yes we know what OTUSA is/were doing with their 'motors', are ETNZ/LR moving their fixed stabilisers via the bearings/rudderstocks? What makes you think they are/need to/would benefit from?

 

Come to think of it someone said GD? had discussed how they would be 'fixed' for the MC prior to racing. I guess you could take that as an indication they had something to 'fix' - then agian they may have been talking about their competitors :)
 



#87 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,120 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 02:39 PM

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

 


Rewriting history again SR - just as you tried to do for months with ETNZ appeal to the IJ over MC's foil (mis-) interpretation, not to mention your heroic efforts over the last weeks!

 

Why don't we just make it a truism of 34th AC that ETNZ cause all the problems - and then get lucky in front of the IJ. Happy with that?

 

Rewriting history? Oh gee, there it is. I even remembered the '163' correctly. Para's 163 to 167 do address the question and 165 gets especially nit-picky.

 

IS THE COAST GUARD PERMIT A LAW OR REGULATION UNDER ARTICLE 16?

 

163. There was considerable debate amongst the Parties as to whether the conditions of
the Marine Event Permit in including the Safety Recommendations amounted to 'laws and regulations' in relation to Protocol Article 16.

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN075.pdf

 

As to the rest? Take a flying fuck, nav ;) What you claim is hardly gospel either.



#88 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,525 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 13 July 2013 - 03:21 PM

a little bizarre when you say the issue was "nitpicky" when it was the crux of the entire matter and the focus of most of the deliberations



#89 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,120 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 03:24 PM

Yep, maybe nitpicky is not the best description; but agreed on the rest, which was my point too.

#90 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 03:33 PM

Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

 

I am not sure that is correct.

 

The RD's job is to run a fair and safe regatta.

 

The RD's job is not to run a regatta for all 4 boats.

 

The RD, by his own admission, endorses that LR/ET are safe under old / new rules.

 

The RD can go back to the CG with an amended 35 point safety plan and the caveat that the MEP only covers ET / LR.

 

The CG will grant an MEP under these conditions, being as the 2 removed safety recommendations made no difference to ET / LR.

 

Once Or / AR have demonstrated they are safe under the rules to the RD, he can go back to the CG and amend the MEP. 

 

 

 

The AC is very much a design competition and the RD can hardly cancel the event because in his opinion 50% of the fleet have designed boats that aren't safe!!  No he must run the event for the 50% of the fleet that have brought along a safe design.

word.



#91 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 03:36 PM

Yep, maybe nitpicky is not the best description; but agreed on the rest, which was my point too.

your boys got schooled by the ij mate. live with it.



#92 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,120 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 03:53 PM

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

#93 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 05:32 PM

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

<<<yawn!!>>> have that South African village caught up with you yet?? You're trying waaayy too hard to fit in: you'll never become one of them...



#94 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:42 PM

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

drop the hatchet man. your side wrote the rules.



#95 Dupont

Dupont

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Bruxelles
  • Interests:Optimist

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:51 PM

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

Same poodle, same master. Perhaps you should have kept Oronato ?  -_-  



#96 DngrMs

DngrMs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 08:23 PM

There's too much unnecessary conjecture above, I had to skip most of it after I read this correct, complete and absolute explanation.
 
Read it carefully, it leaves no room for doubt. Anything not discussed in this explanation is irrelevant. If events transpired differently this description would be the one the upheld in a court of law.

Summary: you can comply with both but you can't utilise the maximum allowances in the Recommendations because you're limited to the maximums in the Rules.
 

It's just a question of logic really...
 
The MEP has an attachment of 17 recommendations which include 2 that relate to design rules:

1. Maximum weight increased by 500 Kg
2. New Rudder rules (symmetric etc) whhich was later modified such that the original rules were re-instated (asymetric etc).
 
The IJ ruled that these 2 were not to be considered design rules. In effect this means that the recommendations are just that - recommendations.
 
Therefore, to comply a boat would need to weigh less or equal to the class rule and therefore complies with 1 above (which is a maximum, not a minimum); and that it must comply with the original rudder rules and will therefore also comply with the modified recommendation 2 above.
 
Therefore, ET and LR that we know of, comply with all 17 recommendations.  QED
 
The other two boats may or may not have problems with the design rules which they must comply while also complying with all 17 recommendations.
 
The net effect is that the 17 recommendations re-inforce the design rules in question, not change them!  What causes the confusion is that some parts of the recommendations cannot not be complied with within the design rules, but they remain only recommendations!
 
Thus ACEA or whomever can state to the CG that the 17 recommendations can stay and that at least half the fleet already comply.



#97 snaerk

snaerk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Location:High latitudes
  • Interests:sea and snow and ice

Posted 13 July 2013 - 09:07 PM

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.
....

 

Reg changes benefiting Oracle is arguable, meaining resonable people could disagree on weather or not Oracle might be signicantly advantaged by the change (weather that was the intent is irelavent)

 

You seem to  be saying that becos it is knot currantly knowabel, ETNZ should have shut up and sat on their hands until it was knowabel - as eventualy it probly will be.

 

At the AmCup award seremony, perhaps?



#98 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 09:35 PM

 


 

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

 

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

 

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

 


This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued.......

 

You can say that again!

 

Now back to my question. Yes we know what OTUSA is/were doing with their 'motors', are ETNZ/LR moving their fixed stabilisers via the bearings/rudderstocks? What makes you think they are/need to/would benefit from?

 

Come to think of it someone said GD? had discussed how they would be 'fixed' for the MC prior to racing. I guess you could take that as an indication they had something to 'fix' - then agian they may have been talking about their competitors :)
 

 

presumably? etnz - LR have had a similar system from day one

 

i don't think we've seen any elevators/trim tabs on any of their hori-stabs

 

both OR and AR started with movable elevators rather than upper rudder stock adjust, probably as their designs were not conceived as foilers from the drawing board

 

OR appear to have taken the PP repair downtime to change from an elevator system to a rudder tilt system

 

AR just have never been up to speed in this design game and even with the longest lead time appear to have missed the chance to build rudder-tilt into big blue   

 

which is going to make their 1-week? launch, tweak, race plans even harder

 

if that 5min finishing rule doesn't get changed AR may never get a point 



#99 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,412 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 09:46 PM

There's too much unnecessary conjecture above, I had to skip most of it after I read this correct, complete and absolute explanation.
 
Read it carefully, it leaves no room for doubt. Anything not discussed in this explanation is irrelevant. If events transpired differently this description would be the one the upheld in a court of law.

Summary: you can comply with both but you can't utilise the maximum allowances in the Recommendations because you're limited to the maximums in the Rules.
 

It's just a question of logic really...
 
The MEP has an attachment of 17 recommendations which include 2 that relate to design rules:

1. Maximum weight increased by 500 Kg
2. New Rudder rules (symmetric etc) whhich was later modified such that the original rules were re-instated (asymetric etc).
 
The IJ ruled that these 2 were not to be considered design rules. In effect this means that the recommendations are just that - recommendations.
 
Therefore, to comply a boat would need to weigh less or equal to the class rule and therefore complies with 1 above (which is a maximum, not a minimum); and that it must comply with the original rudder rules and will therefore also comply with the modified recommendation 2 above.
 
Therefore, ET and LR that we know of, comply with all 17 recommendations.  QED
 
The other two boats may or may not have problems with the design rules which they must comply while also complying with all 17 recommendations.
 
The net effect is that the 17 recommendations re-inforce the design rules in question, not change them!  What causes the confusion is that some parts of the recommendations cannot not be complied with within the design rules, but they remain only recommendations!
 
Thus ACEA or whomever can state to the CG that the 17 recommendations can stay and that at least half the fleet already comply.

 

You are joking I hope?   ^ More wrong than right
 



#100 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

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

Posted 13 July 2013 - 10:04 PM

i stopped at 500kg






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users