Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jaysper said:

Umm, the foiling concept did dude.

If they'd kept that under wraps for several more months then Orifice would not have been close.

Foiling became more practical from an AC 72 class rule perspective in October of 2012 (Jury case AC16, Jury Notice 051, 7 October 2012), when ETNZ appealed to the Jury and succeeded in getting interpretation 22 of the class rule thrown out, determining that the Measurement Committee had exceeded its authority in issuing it. I won't get into the nitty gritty of why that interpretation was so critical, but all the competitors basically understood the implications of the jury decision.

Most had been working on displacement-reducing foil configurations---Oracle had displacement-reducing foils for Dogzilla, but did not use them in the AC33 Match. They were massive, and would not have turned the boat into a pure foiler, although were designed to provide a fair amount of vertical lift. Of course, everything was pretty massive on that boat.

The AC 72 rule as written was intended to make a true foiling configuration impractical--as was testified to by the principle rule authors during that jury hearing-- but a critical part of the rule was not well-drafted. ETNZ pounced on the weakness, and the jury agreed.

ETNZ was obviously well ahead of the other teams on this development path at that stage, but the others were not exactly blindsided by it. The concept was out there--after all, sailing foilers were not unheard of--but the practical implementation of a fully-foiling boat (as opposed to a skimmer) for the AC 72 class was not clear until the jury decision was issued.

The rest is history, for better or worse, depending on your perspective.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 16.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's pissing down outside and yes, we are back to Level 3. To all those moaning and bitching about it and calling the PM childish names, get a grip, we are the luckiest people in the world right

Yes, quite light but I didn't see all the afternoon's sailing, can only comment on later in the day, when Britannia 2 was running a #1 jib and foiling around no problem. They look quite quick at times

They towed out around 11am and the breeze was light and puffy to start with. Foiled down the Channel and headed out to the Bays. The breeze started to build around midday and they got some long runs i

Posted Images

21 hours ago, atwinda said:

...and now they haven't tested the new super top secret foils in the expected light range because some yahoo on SA told them to conceal the foils until the last minute so no one could copy them (ya know cause we showed them foiling too early in 2013). It's illogical.

You were doing well until this pathetic bit : try harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, buckdouger said:

If you're interested in this, Shirley Robertson's podcast has several good first hand accounts of this. Grant Simmer, Spithill etc. 

Can i have a link please kind sir?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accnick said:

Foiling became more practical from an AC 72 class rule perspective in October of 2012 (Jury case AC16, Jury Notice 051, 7 October 2012), when ETNZ appealed to the Jury and succeeded in getting interpretation 22 of the class rule thrown out, determining that the Measurement Committee had exceeded its authority in issuing it. I won't get into the nitty gritty of why that interpretation was so critical, but all the competitors basically understood the implications of the jury decision.

Most had been working on displacement-reducing foil configurations---Oracle had displacement-reducing foils for Dogzilla, but did not use them in the AC33 Match. They were massive, and would not have turned the boat into a pure foiler, although were designed to provide a fair amount of vertical lift. Of course, everything was pretty massive on that boat.

The AC 72 rule as written was intended to make a true foiling configuration impractical--as was testified to by the principle rule authors during that jury hearing-- but a critical part of the rule was not well-drafted. ETNZ pounced on the weakness, and the jury agreed.

ETNZ was obviously well ahead of the other teams on this development path at that stage, but the others were not exactly blindsided by it. The concept was out there--after all, sailing foilers were not unheard of--but the practical implementation of a fully-foiling boat (as opposed to a skimmer) for the AC 72 class was not clear until the jury decision was issued.

The rest is history, for better or worse, depending on your perspective.

 

Thanks for the details accnick. Any idea where they made the massive foils for the 33rd cup? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, buckdouger said:

Thanks for the details accnick. Any idea where they made the massive foils for the 33rd cup? 

I don't know. They may have been built in-house by Mark Turner and his crew. Remember that this was a Deed of Gift match, so everything had to be built in the home countries of the challenging and defending clubs, down to the gasoline engines they both used to power the systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, accnick said:

Foiling became more practical from an AC 72 class rule perspective in October of 2012 (Jury case AC16, Jury Notice 051, 7 October 2012), when ETNZ appealed to the Jury and succeeded in getting interpretation 22 of the class rule thrown out, determining that the Measurement Committee had exceeded its authority in issuing it. I won't get into the nitty gritty of why that interpretation was so critical, but all the competitors basically understood the implications of the jury decision.

Most had been working on displacement-reducing foil configurations---Oracle had displacement-reducing foils for Dogzilla, but did not use them in the AC33 Match. They were massive, and would not have turned the boat into a pure foiler, although were designed to provide a fair amount of vertical lift. Of course, everything was pretty massive on that boat.

The AC 72 rule as written was intended to make a true foiling configuration impractical--as was testified to by the principle rule authors during that jury hearing-- but a critical part of the rule was not well-drafted. ETNZ pounced on the weakness, and the jury agreed.

ETNZ was obviously well ahead of the other teams on this development path at that stage, but the others were not exactly blindsided by it. The concept was out there--after all, sailing foilers were not unheard of--but the practical implementation of a fully-foiling boat (as opposed to a skimmer) for the AC 72 class was not clear until the jury decision was issued.

The rest is history, for better or worse, depending on your perspective.

 

OracleTriNewBow2.jpg?ssl=1

10_01087-33AC-Race1.jpg

AC33_B_D1-big.jpg

ac33-valencia-201003-gilles-martin-raget

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, accnick said:

Foiling became more practical from an AC 72 class rule perspective in October of 2012 (Jury case AC16, Jury Notice 051, 7 October 2012), when ETNZ appealed to the Jury and succeeded in getting interpretation 22 of the class rule thrown out, determining that the Measurement Committee had exceeded its authority in issuing it. I won't get into the nitty gritty of why that interpretation was so critical, but all the competitors basically understood the implications of the jury decision. 

Most had been working on displacement-reducing foil configurations---Oracle had displacement-reducing foils for Dogzilla, but did not use them in the AC33 Match. They were massive, and would not have turned the boat into a pure foiler, although were designed to provide a fair amount of vertical lift. Of course, everything was pretty massive on that boat.

The AC 72 rule as written was intended to make a true foiling configuration impractical--as was testified to by the principle rule authors during that jury hearing-- but a critical part of the rule was not well-drafted. ETNZ pounced on the weakness, and the jury agreed.

ETNZ was obviously well ahead of the other teams on this development path at that stage, but the others were not exactly blindsided by it. The concept was out there--after all, sailing foilers were not unheard of--but the practical implementation of a fully-foiling boat (as opposed to a skimmer) for the AC 72 class was not clear until the jury decision was issued.

The rest is history, for better or worse, depending on your perspective.

 

At the time, my (not objective) interpretation of the the Jury decision was that NZ, and the other team, were able to measure their foils not in measure trim. Something like measure trim was with the foils up and they were allowed to measure with their foils down. Or vice versa. Not really sure. It was 2 different sub-sections of a rule, and one seemed dependent on the other, but the ruling said otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, accnick said:

Foiling became more practical from an AC 72 class rule perspective in October of 2012 (Jury case AC16, Jury Notice 051, 7 October 2012), when ETNZ appealed to the Jury and succeeded in getting interpretation 22 of the class rule thrown out, determining that the Measurement Committee had exceeded its authority in issuing it. I won't get into the nitty gritty of why that interpretation was so critical, but all the competitors basically understood the implications of the jury decision.

Please do :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, accnick said:

The AC 72 rule as written was intended to make a true foiling configuration impractical--as was testified to by the principle rule authors during that jury hearing-- but a critical part of the rule was not well-drafted. ETNZ pounced on the weakness, and the jury agreed.

This is useful to identify those that continue to argue this point and in doing so demonstrate bad faith (aka trolling).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nroose said:

At the time, my (not objective) interpretation of the the Jury decision was that NZ, and the other team, were able to measure their foils not in measure trim. Something like measure trim was with the foils up and they were allowed to measure with their foils down. Or vice versa. Not really sure. It was 2 different sub-sections of a rule, and one seemed dependent on the other, but the ruling said otherwise.

It was about whether the foils needed to be fully down in measurement trim, or could be retracted. The AC 72 rule specified the minimum amount of total displaced volume which had to be contained in the hulls in measurement trim. Since the larger foils required for a fully-foiling configuration probably  represented a significant proportion of total displacement when they were fully down, NZ wanted to measure with those foils retracted. The jury determined the wording allowed them to do that.

This made it a lot easier to develop the larger foils necessary for a fully-foiling configuration, which the rule authors were consciously trying to prevent.

Rule language often falls short of intentions, no matter how careful you are when writing a rule. The AC 72 rule went through 55 interpretations, which is actually low for a first-generation AC rule. For comparison, the AC50 rule went through almost 100 interpretations.

So far, 70 interpretations of the AC75 rule have been posted on the Official Noticeboard. No one knows what the final number will be. Checking that noticeboard regularly gives you a good idea of what the teams are up to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the latest TE FB live thingy, some talk that if Ineos get eliminated first, that Ben might help tune up ETNZ. Probably only useful in starting practice......Reason being that if they lose they would want to be CoR if ETNZ successfully defend. Not sure I agree. I would think Ben would prefer LR to win and take the Cup to Europe - which it would be easier for them, being much closer.

Also, some speculation that if AM win the Prada cup, LR might help tune up ETNZ, as the Italians aren't thrilled with the idea of going back to a displacement boat, which we know the Americans favour.

So in summary, outside of the Americans, no one wants them to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

Listening to the latest TE FB live thingy, some talk that if Ineos get eliminated first, that Ben might help tune up ETNZ. Probably only useful in starting practice.

The only thing that Basher Ben and the Frackers Flying Pig could ever be of use to Pistol Pete for would be as an alarm clock.

The Frackers have built a semi permanent whare in Hamer St and for all appearances they look to have planned to come back in the near future where the other two contenders look more snatch and grab.

Is it still on the cards that the next cycle is to be sailed in two years as Dalton originally alluded to. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Horn Rock said:

Listening to the latest TE FB live thingy, some talk that if Ineos get eliminated first, that Ben might help tune up ETNZ. Probably only useful in starting practice......Reason being that if they lose they would want to be CoR if ETNZ successfully defend. Not sure I agree. I would think Ben would prefer LR to win and take the Cup to Europe - which it would be easier for them, being much closer.

Also, some speculation that if AM win the Prada cup, LR might help tune up ETNZ, as the Italians aren't thrilled with the idea of going back to a displacement boat, which we know the Americans favour.

So in summary, outside of the Americans, no one wants them to win.

I realise the Italians may favour an ETNZ victory over AM but I don't approve of challengers helping the defender like this.

Nothing cheating about it or anything, it's just "not cricket".

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jaysper said:

I don't approve of challengers helping the defender like this.

I don't think it's that big a deal, and its happened numerous times before. Heck, NZ did it in their first ever AC campaign, KZ7 tuning up with Kookaburra. Japan did it last time. The AC has always been about ruthlessly pursuing your agenda, even when winning it is off the table, teams look at their secondary goals, which may mean trying to influence where the next event is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Priscilla said:

The only thing that Basher Ben and the Frackers Flying Pig could ever be of use to Pistol Pete for would be as an alarm clock.

 

You don’t need a degree in psychology to get the impression you don’t love the British Challenge.....Any Reason  why 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jaysper said:

I realise the Italians may favour an ETNZ victory over AM but I don't approve of challengers helping the defender like this.

Nothing cheating about it or anything, it's just "not cricket".

To be honest Jaysper cricket isn’t cricket any more either 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

I don't think it's that big a deal, and its happened numerous times before. Heck, NZ did it in their first ever AC campaign, KZ7 tuning up with Kookaburra. Japan did it last time. The AC has always been about ruthlessly pursuing your agenda, even when winning it is off the table, teams look at their secondary goals, which may mean trying to influence where the next event is.

Aside from the general defender vs challengers ethos, I don't like them meeting before the match cos it takes away from the spectacle.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

You didn't like the ACWS racing?

It was ok, but generally I don't like boats where a 10 second gap means the boats are freaking miles apart.

However I always used to find what PJ referred to as the "trial of strength" in the IACCs on the 1st leg of the first race of the match itself.

It all comes down to personal preference, so what floats my boat (pun intended) won't necessarily float yours.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mako23 said:

To be honest Jaysper cricket isn’t cricket any more either 

*Sigh* admits defeat.

I don't follow cricket and so maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that India have followed the Ockers down the toilet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

Sharman of sailing Magnus Wheatley predicts it’s all over before it’s begun and we are all off to Dubai.

America's Cup 2021: Top sailing writer Magnus Wheatley predicts historic Team New Zealand victory 
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12411711

Already the predictions are wrong with the article saying the Prada cup starting on the 5th. Poor journalism 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rskiff said:

Already the predictions are wrong with the article saying the Prada cup starting on the 5th. Poor journalism 

He can't even settle on a solid position regarding how fucked INEOS are. Almost schizophrenic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mako23 said:

To be honest Jaysper cricket isn’t cricket any more either 

Yep. Steve Smith, One of the games biggest cheats was just awarded player of the year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Yep. Steve Smith, One of the games biggest cheats was just awarded player of the year.


image.jpeg.ce6d3aa7fd67da9f9d358e67d5d5cab9.jpeg

I don’t think our American friends will understand this ...kinda similar to Tom Bradley and under inflated football

image.jpeg.15350e7d341ac02713012f2fd3047665.jpeg

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Yep. Steve Smith, One of the games biggest cheats was just awarded player of the year.

Didn’t he have a uncle called Herbie.

How’s Neil Wagner’s first test win over Pakistan efforts nursing two broken toes bloody legend.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Yep. Steve Smith, One of the games biggest cheats was just awarded player of the year.

hardly

who was nz's official keeper of the bottle top

the chappels .. nuff said there

nz's 2 well known game fixers

any number of ball cutters in the pakistan team ... for decades

same team .. back handers for game fixing

hanse cronje .. the first of the players caught fixing

murilitheran .. nuff said about chucking there

 

smith got caught in a situation where his team did it .. that meant falling on the sword .. which he did without comment or excuse

he is still probably the greatest unorthodox style batsman of this age

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rskiff said:

Already the predictions are wrong with the article saying the Prada cup starting on the 5th. Poor journalism 

Creating news articles from sailing blogs is pretty lame. They all do it, including Stuff, which I'm sure reference our wild speculations in here. AC Anarchy is the reference. Right now Ben is exploring Anarchy for tips on how to make Rita go faster. He'll find plenty of good suggestions.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Horn Rock said:

So in summary, outside of the Americans, no one wants them to win.

Well, I am a USAean, and I don't want them to win either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, I am a USAean, and I don't want them to win either. 

Why ?? Wouldn’t you want your follow country men to win ??

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mako23 said:

Why ?? Wouldn’t you want your follow country men to win ??

I have one and one half words for you . .  

Am-Way 

And one more bonus word . . 

Blackwater 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, accnick said:

Foiling became more practical from an AC 72 class rule perspective in October of 2012 (Jury case AC16, Jury Notice 051, 7 October 2012)

There is a rather significant flaw in this interpretation of the timeline: TNZ launched their B1 on 21 July 2012


After a lot of speculation about the big horizontal on the boards this photo was posted 29 Aug 2012

etnzac72Flying.jpg

https://www.catsailingnews.com/2012/08/etnz-ac72-it-flies.html

is the earliest version I've been able to find, my recollection is it was dumped without comment in the original now nuked TNZ thread here in AC Anarchy

 

and this video was posted by TNZ themselves 6 Sep 2012

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

hardly

who was nz's official keeper of the bottle top

the chappels .. nuff said there

nz's 2 well known game fixers

any number of ball cutters in the pakistan team ... for decades

same team .. back handers for game fixing

hanse cronje .. the first of the players caught fixing

murilitheran .. nuff said about chucking there

 

smith got caught in a situation where his team did it .. that meant falling on the sword .. which he did without comment or excuse

he is still probably the greatest unorthodox style batsman of this age

 

First of all, the Chappel brothers are born and bred Aussies FFS.

2nd. Smith got caught red handed on camera pulling out a piece of sandpaper, roughing up the ball and hiding the sandpaper before giving it back to his bowler.

Smith admitted he cheated and his excuse was “the pressure of his captaincy position and the expectation got to him” fucking cheat!

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

hardly

who was nz's official keeper of the bottle top

the chappels .. nuff said there

nz's 2 well known game fixers

any number of ball cutters in the pakistan team ... for decades

same team .. back handers for game fixing

hanse cronje .. the first of the players caught fixing

murilitheran .. nuff said about chucking there

 

smith got caught in a situation where his team did it .. that meant falling on the sword .. which he did without comment or excuse

he is still probably the greatest unorthodox style batsman of this age

 

The only difference is when the kiwi boys got caught they were shamed and never played again.

Smith and his chubby buddy shouldnt be playing again either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

2nd. Smith got caught red handed on camera pulling out a piece of sandpaper, roughing up the ball and hiding the sandpaper before giving it back to his bowler.

In the USA we call that baseball 

But yes it is cheating here too - though the perps are not dishonored much 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

First of all, the Chappel brothers are born and bred Aussies FFS.

2nd. Smith got caught red handed on camera pulling out a piece of sandpaper, roughing up the ball and hiding the sandpaper before giving it back to his bowler.

not sure what your point is on the chappel brothers

other than .. everyone knows where they are from

 

smith never touched the ball with any piece of sandpaper .. that was cameron bankcroft .. the third and often unmentioned of the trio

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lat35sowth said:

The only difference is when the kiwi boys got caught they were shamed and never played again.

one had already well retired before he got named

the other im not sure but he had finished playing internationals before he got named .. then got a lifetime ban from any cricket activity

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phill_nz said:

hardly

who was nz's official keeper of the bottle top

the chappels .. nuff said there

nz's 2 well known game fixers

any number of ball cutters in the pakistan team ... for decades

same team .. back handers for game fixing

hanse cronje .. the first of the players caught fixing

murilitheran .. nuff said about chucking there

 

smith got caught in a situation where his team did it .. that meant falling on the sword .. which he did without comment or excuse

he is still probably the greatest unorthodox style batsman of this age

 

Smiths first defence was deny deny. 
the fucking rat blamed everyone else ( Bancroft , senior playing group)  before Finally haveing a cry on telly. 
 

he did not front up tell the truth immediately

 

as for is world-class bowling attack not realising that the new boy was fucking with the ball? Either they are  more stupid than they look or it was agreed that the bowlers couldn’t possibly take the rap as without them The team would’ve been utterly fucked for the next year,  Pretending they didn’t know about it And getting away with it is worse than the act itself in my opinion

When  an ex captain like Mark Taylor says that there is no way they did not know what was being done to the ball as well as other international pros saying the same you really have to question them. 
Smith ? Great batsman, terrible liar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phill_nz said:

not sure what your point is on the chappel brothers

other than .. everyone knows where they are from

 

smith never touched the ball with any piece of sandpaper .. that was cameron bankcroft .. the third and often unmentioned of the trio

Yep it was Bancroft who got caught on camera

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Main Man said:

Agreed! It’s why he received such a warm welcome every time he came out to bat in the subsequent Ashes series :lol:

And after all that, the Poms still could not win the Ashes on home pitches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoom is correct.

However, interpretation 022, complicating a foiling solution,  was issued on September 6, 2012. We don't know if that was filed by ETNZ seeking clarification, or another competitor seeking to shut down the ETNZ foiling arrangement.

Interpretation 022 wasn't overturned until  ETNZ filed a protest shortly after interpretation 022 was issued. It is pretty clear that interpretation probably would have rendered ETNZ's then-current foiling solution non-compliant, so they could not have done it (nor could anyone else at that stage of foil design)  without the jury's overturn of that interpretation via Jury Notice 051.

My original description of the timeline for ETNZ's foiling development was incorrect, as you rightly point out.

Remember that prior to the deadline requiring a yacht to have a measurement certificate, boats can sail with non-compliant everything. What you see during development is not necessarily what you will get once the boats start formal racing. Same thing is true this time, although limits on components and their modification complicate just how far you can stray from rule-compliant configurations during training and development. 

As Grant Simmer says in the Shirley Robertson podcast, Oracle's boat 1 was never designed as a foiler, probably because they thought the rule effectively prohibited it. Not for the first time (or the last), ETNZ came up with a clever work-around of a rule intended to limit development in a certain direction. The hula in 2003 and the follow-the-dot control arrangement of 2017 are other examples.

No one will ever accuse Kiwis of failure to think outside the box.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Priscilla said:

Irish whanau.

50th or 159th generation Irish? Sid the Brits nick your great x 59th parents potatoes? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting Interpretation requests on the use of video cameras aboard the AC75s in their potential incorporation into control systems. One of the Competitors is being quite persistent: they've asked essentially the same questions in the 2 separate requests within 8 days. They must not have liked the answers in Interpretation 067 so they've had another go in Interpretation 069

I wonder if ETNZ's control system is being questioned by one of the Competitors behind the interpretation requests...LR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I found those interesting too as much the same discussion was entered into here as some of the questions asked in the interpretations. I.e. Limits of use of the cameras - at what point do they begin to give useable data on the yacht 'state'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nav said:

^ I found those interesting too as much the same discussion was entered into here as some of the questions asked in the interpretations. I.e. Limits of use of the cameras - at what point do they begin to give useable data on the yacht 'state'.

All the questions involve automating yacht-state reactive controls in response to horizon-focused camera(s), which the Interpretations confirm are not allowed. But what's to stop Tuke from using a joystick to adjust TR state in response to deviation from horizon viewed through the camera(s)?

TR's camera pods?..

943634308_TRCameras.jpg.573b37eb568bd9592a6588226b3466f4.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Priscilla said:

If you are interested in history you will of course realise that neither the English not British invaded ireland, but that you were conquered by Henry II  who although king of England was Norman. So blame the bloody French.

And that before that in the dark ages  the Irish had invaded England and Wales and had parcelled up some bits into estates for Irish chiefs. 

So your prejudice is ill informed as well as outdated and bigoted

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

If you are interested in history you will of course realise that neither the English not British invaded ireland, but that you were conquered by Henry II  who although king of England was Norman. So blame the bloody French.

And that before that in the dark ages  the Irish had invaded England and Wales and had parcelled up some bits into estates for Irish chiefs. 

So your prejudice is ill informed as well as outdated and bigoted

No French in this cycle therefore the Poms will suffice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Indio said:

Very interesting Interpretation requests on the use of video cameras aboard the AC75s in their potential incorporation into control systems. One of the Competitors is being quite persistent: they've asked essentially the same questions in the 2 separate requests within 8 days. They must not have liked the answers in Interpretation 067 so they've had another go in Interpretation 069

I wonder if ETNZ's control system is being questioned by one of the Competitors behind the interpretation requests...LR?

Very interesting. Someone is jealous of another's toys, or isnt getting enough data to crew . Are sonic or radar sensors allowed for ride height? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, minimumfuss said:

Very interesting. Someone is jealous of another's toys, or isnt getting enough data to crew . Are sonic or radar sensors allowed for ride height? 

Is it rather that a team saw the way another team was using cameras via the onboard feeds, and is trying to have the setup invalidated? If so, it seems they have succeeded?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, buckdouger said:

Is it rather that a team saw the way another team was using cameras via the onboard feeds, and is trying to have the setup invalidated? If so, it seems they have succeeded?

I am glad someone could deceiver the rulings... It is tough to follow with all of the details and then just a plain Yes or No answer.  It is almost like you have to ask the exactly the right specific question to get a real answer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, hoom said:

There is a rather significant flaw in this interpretation of the timeline: TNZ launched their B1 on 21 July 2012

No, it just took a while before the ruling was made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, minimumfuss said:

Very interesting. Someone is jealous of another's toys, or isnt getting enough data to crew . Are sonic or radar sensors allowed for ride height? 

They do use ultrasonic sensors for ride-height measurements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buckdouger said:

Is it rather that a team saw the way another team was using cameras via the onboard feeds, and is trying to have the setup invalidated? If so, it seems they have succeeded?

Not necessarily. From the questions asked, it seems that the applicant assumes that the horizon-focused camera(s) are looped into the control system to automatically adjust in response to the camera view of the horizon - which is clearly not permitted. A human performing the adjustment guided by the camera view is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

I think it was Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory.

With the yellow lines...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Indio said:

Very interesting Interpretation requests on the use of video cameras aboard the AC75s in their potential incorporation into control systems. One of the Competitors is being quite persistent: they've asked essentially the same questions in the 2 separate requests within 8 days. They must not have liked the answers in Interpretation 067 so they've had another go in Interpretation 069

I wonder if ETNZ's control system is being questioned by one of the Competitors behind the interpretation requests...LR?

We posited around the photos of the ETNZ's screens that they could be used for creating an 'analogue' attitude indicator, and I guess others are wondering/questioning the same thing.

The first question set was half-cocked, and the response indicated cameras are indeed infringing on rules if their [electronic] "signal" is used to measure and determine yacht state. There was no interpration in relation to the use of a screen and a human viewer, which is why the second question set was raised, clarifying the use of a screen being watched by a crew member, and really honing in on the only specified use-case "to aid visibility of different parts of the yacht” and that it is determined to be "stand alone".

Interestingly on the second interpration, the questioning party finally got what they were hoping for - the ruling may create issues for teams wanting to use live cameras as a type of attitude indicator.

I suspect this isn't the final chapter...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

If you are interested in history you will of course realise that neither the English not British invaded ireland, but that you were conquered by Henry II  who although king of England was Norman. So blame the bloody French.

And that before that in the dark ages  the Irish had invaded England and Wales and had parcelled up some bits into estates for Irish chiefs. 

So your prejudice is ill informed as well as outdated and bigoted

And the Normans (Nordmen) were actually Vikings, so blame the Norwegians/Danes.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

And the Normans (Nordmen) were actually Vikings, so blame the Norwegians/Danes.

And they were originally from elsewhere. So blame them.

Or Priscilla, just accept that its history. And that misdeeds in history are not the misdeeds of the current population, and accept the peace in Ireland rather than perpetuate a hatred and conflict that had marred Ireland for far too long.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

I am glad someone could deceiver the rulings... It is tough to follow with all of the details and then just a plain Yes or No answer.  It is almost like you have to ask the exactly the right specific question to get a real answer.

Yes I am confused and intrigued but not helped at all by European history being mixed in with the discussion. Are there any actual journalists keeping tabs on such developments, the off water battle seems to be steaming along nicely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

But as.was postulated on here some time ago, what if the scale was on the screen surrounds?

Or what if there was a marking on the boat that when lined up with the horizon for example  ( pre defined point ) it meant the boat was in optimal trim 

The camera position is fixed, the ‘marking/reference’ is fixed so just look to line them up with X and there you go.  Move the stick, wheel slider until it’s Bob on and there you have it. 
 

The camera would be giving you a live feed with no instrumentation relating to boats feedback in space  other than what is visually  available To the naked eye But by playing back through a screen it gives a fixed reference. 
 

And if indeed cameras were permitted To aid visibility of different parts of the yacht it does seem rather at odds with positioning cameras because you chose not to be able to see those parts of the yacht( buried in your trench)  and to now use the cameras for an alternate purpose ( to see where your going and flight control) 
 


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm reading this correctly, the first interpretation was released on December 4 which was well before anyone saw the cockpit vids of the Kiwi's set-up in the Xmas Cup - I assume it takes 1-2 weeks for the committee to consider and release its response to an interpretation request, so was it ETNZ themselves that submitted the interpretation? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is (deliberately) not possible to determine who has submitted a request for an interpretation

But it is possible to photograph a boats cockpit as it comes and goes from the harbour and possibly even while it is out sailing

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

Or what if there was a marking on the boat that when lined up with the horizon for example  ( pre defined point ) it meant the boat was in optimal trim 

The camera position is fixed, the ‘marking/reference’ is fixed so just look to line them up with X and there you go.  Move the stick, wheel slider until it’s Bob on and there you have it. 
 

The camera would be giving you a live feed with no instrumentation relating to boats feedback in space  other than what is visually  available To the naked eye But by playing back through a screen it gives a fixed reference. 
 

And if indeed cameras were permitted To aid visibility of different parts of the yacht it does seem rather at odds with positioning cameras because you chose not to be able to see those parts of the yacht( buried in your trench)  and to now use the cameras for an alternate purpose ( to see where your going and flight control) 
 


 

That is what I was thinking.  Or just draw a line on the screen to match up with, but your idea has much greater deniability for it being a control aid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t need to draw a line, just have whoever is looking at the screen know that when part x is n line with whatever thats your optimum trim/height etc 

It’s entirely unprovable, but the position of the cameras suggests a purpose contrary to the intention of the rule. Or at least it givesa secondary benefit over and above simply looking outside the boat

If the foil trimmer wanted to see the arm as they are flying just put a big clear window panel in the side to let them see.. somehow I think the camera option was conveniently more optimal 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

You don’t need to draw a line, just have whoever is looking at the screen know that when part x is n line with whatever thats your optimum trim/height etc 

It’s entirely unprovable, but the position of the cameras suggests a purpose contrary to the intention of the rule. Or at least it givesa secondary benefit over and above simply looking outside the boat

If the foil trimmer wanted to see the arm as they are flying just put a big clear window panel in the side to let them see.. somehow I think the camera option was conveniently more optimal 

The whole topic is a very interesting window into what appears to be a rule loophole workaround, only it seems to not be a loophole in the current form based on the rulings - so an attempt maybe. 

It raises the impractical/dangerous notion that you could fix the foil trimmer's head into a known position, and they could do the same visual reference ride control, based on some known marks or features. 

A better alternative that may be allowed (I wasn't able to tell based on a first scan of the rules) would be to make an optical periscope, and use that in the same manner. The basis of this is that 35.20 (d) ends in 'and', suggesting the list is inclusive. A periscope without electronics would not qualify presumably.

35.20 Crew indication device
Any device that:
(a) contains an electronic system, or is connected directly or indirectly to an electronic system;
(b) displays or plays audibly information that it has received or generated internally;
(c) is worn or installed on the yacht;
(d) can be seen or heard by the crew, directly or indirectly; and
(e) may process data internally,
such as a display, LED or speaker.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Alchemist said:

That is what I was thinking.  Or just draw a line on the screen to match up with, but your idea has much greater deniability for it being a control aid.

The second interpretation covers this and some other 'methods'. It is very similar to the follow-the-dot rulings, which explored similar techniques but in separate question sets.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "horizon" device would suffer some awkward pitch problems as the sight line transits Rangi. And misty conditions would make finding the water line problematic. 

I'm not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen any word if ETNZ out on the water since Xmas races.

One can only assume they are bolting in a bunch of new toys.

New rig, fairings and/or internals?

Of all of Magnus' rants, the revolutionary rig is the one that seems most plausible to me 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Of all of Magnus' rants, the revolutionary rig is the one that seems most plausible to me 

With the mast being a supplied one design item where would the wiggle room be for revolutionary change sails sure but mast not so sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

With the mast being a supplied one design item where would the wiggle room be for revolutionary change sails sure but mast not so sure.

The mast is not a one design part. The rigging is one design.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites