Jump to content

Who'da Thought Our Friends Down Under are Cheating Basturds?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That is not a lot of stations. Lots of room for minor trickery/adjusting to make it a faster shape. Exaggerated for effect but you'd take max depth (low as possible) at Sta 3 and maybe some max ht. at

I don't know, Zonker did a great job shutting down an apologist for the Aust Association with one rendering and killed off the bullshit that a hull measures because it meets three measurement stations

Launching of first new Mould 12 Etchells (sans Certificate)  

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Al Paca said:

We should have never let them use the “wing keel” to steal the America’s Cup. They’ve been cheating ever since. 

Not sure what you are saying, the America's Cup was only 4 to 3

1. 61 AUS.png sm_none_5.png  AUS 1461 Havoc Etchells Iain Murray (M,S,GM) / Colin Beashel / Richard Allanson  2 1 1 7 2 2 16 6 4 [16] 25.0
    2. 47 AUS.png sm_none_5.png  AUS 1447 Magpie Etchells Graeme Taylor / James Mayo / Tom Slingsby  3 11 8 24 1 1 1 1 1 [24] 27.0
    3. 27 USA.png sm_none_5.png  USA 1427 Stella Blue Etchells Steve Benjamin (M,S) / Michael Menninger / Ian Liberty / Jonathan Goldsberry  1 8 5 3 15 10 7 12 3 [15] 49.0
    4. 66 AUS.png sm_none_5.png  AUS 1466 Tango Etchells Chris Hampton (M,S) / Sam Haines / Charlie Cumbley  11 15 2 5 12 9 10 3 12 [15] 64.0
Link to post
Share on other sites

The class owning the molds may not be the issue. It seems that letting a bunch of boats be built out of a new mold without a comprehensive review after the first boat is the issue. If they could digitize the plug and send it to Australia, they could certainly have digitized the first boat out of the mold and sent the shape back for comparison. Now you've got a huge mess with no clean way out. Reference was made to the A Scow thread. At least then, we were only fighting over one hull. Have fun slogging this out, and if you are part of a class, put good thought into how you might approve a new mold for production. One model I've seen is that a condition of approval as a builder is a large one-time fee to cover real analysis of the first boat(s) built and the legal fees to draft an agreement that codifies that you might build boats that don't meet specs...and that's your problem. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ScowLover said:

The class owning the molds may not be the issue. It seems that letting a bunch of boats be built out of a new mold without a comprehensive review after the first boat is the issue. If they could digitize the plug and send it to Australia, they could certainly have digitized the first boat out of the mold and sent the shape back for comparison. Now you've got a huge mess with no clean way out. Reference was made to the A Scow thread. At least then, we were only fighting over one hull. Have fun slogging this out, and if you are part of a class, put good thought into how you might approve a new mold for production. One model I've seen is that a condition of approval as a builder is a large one-time fee to cover real analysis of the first boat(s) built and the legal fees to draft an agreement that codifies that you might build boats that don't meet specs...and that's your problem. 

I understand the International Class Association got it hands on AUS 1461 so comparisons are with an actual boat.

Also it is unclear if more than one mould was taken from the Australian class plug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people must have known these boats weren’t legal and if they sailed them knowing this they should be barred from ever sailing again. The Australian governors should apologise and resign immediately. 

This is a very bad look.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Al Paca said:

We should have never let them use the “wing keel” to steal the America’s Cup. They’ve been cheating ever since. 

The Winged Keel was so fast that no one uses anything like it anymore.

But the Etchells people need root shooting and electrocuting for this, and I am sure they will not be having much fun for sometime to come.  A good thing.

But you have to ask the question ... What the Fuck was the rest of the community doing till now?  Didn't someone pick that the mould was not approved?

I was involved in something similar, but just for one boat.  Protest was "does not conform to the Measuring Certificate.  AS kicked the cunt out and dismissed the appeal.

So either the M11 Measuring Certificates are incorrect or the boat measures?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sailman said:

How can the boats measure in but be illegal?

The Certificates are

  1. 'Ticked and Flicked' OR
  2. The way they are measured is forgiving OR
  3. The altered sections are not measured as they are assumed to be out of the same mold.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy

the correct built process was not in place 

As a result, the limited measurement points assume the hull came from an approved mould and that the shape otherwise will reflect that mould as between measurement points to arrive at a consistent shape across all manufacturers.

That is the whole point of one design and approved plugs and moulds.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like this screw up could have been avoided by any one of multiple parties properly validating the new moulds, or calling a halt if that validation had not happened.  Any one of the Aussie Etchells Assoc, the Intl Assoc, and the builders could instigated a full validation process at any time in the last ten years. Instead it seems to have been left until the new moulds had been used to build lots of boats which competed in many races.

So we have a statement from the Intl Assoc https://etchells.org/news/article/message-from-class-chairman-andy-cumming 

and then a statement from the Aussies offering no details,just saying it's all wrong: https://www.etchells.org.au/news/message-from-your-president.asp

This will keep some lawyers very busy for a while.

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

So we have a statement from the Intl Assoc https://etchells.org/news/article/message-from-class-chairman-andy-cumming 

and then a statement from the Aussies offering no details,just saying it's all wrong: https://www.etchells.org.au/news/message-from-your-president.asp

First the Laser now this.

Interesting, clicked on the link and they are an anonymous lot.  No names for the committee or the other class associations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, astro said:

Interesting, clicked on the link and they are an anonymous lot.  No names for the committee or the other class associations.

Don't worry, they will soon be lawyered up, and some time after that we will find all the lists of names in the flurries of court papers as multiple parties sue each other in multiple jurisdictions.

Restore your family fortunes -- push your kids into sports law now!  :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, who ever did this needs to be charged with something.  Of course the alteration would be deliberate, cheating cunts!

However, I still contend that there is a systematic failure in the class that allowed this to happen.

There are cheating people in every sport, they will do what comes naturally unless the system prevents them.  People like this do not give a fuck about the sport, they only care about themselves and their fragile egos that shatter if they don't win.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is in charge of the management of measurement certificates? This is the body that is supposed to act as the traffic cop and police this sort of shit.

 

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

Ah.   I am seeing a wee bit of a pattern here ...

Before you know it they will be whacking Herbie on an etchell!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fleetwood said:

What do the Class Rules say? Boats must measure, or boats must come from a certain mould AND measure?

Interesting, I looked and I could not find.

However the measurement tolerances for the hull (after a quick glance) range up to 30mm. So there was a lotta room for optimization.

In 2008 the class published their findings regarding the shape of the hulls from all the builders, compared to the class plug.

The scanning showed all were different.

https://etchells.org/assets/documents/hull_scanning.pdf

I cant find a scan of the hull in question.

Has some bitter , twisted, talentless, clown, who didn't win,  decided to destroy the class on a technicality or does the Austraian boat fail  measurement?

 

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

 

Has some bitter , twisted, talentless, clown, who didn't win,  decided to destroy the class on a technicality or does the Austraian boat fail  measurement?

Apparently they all measure; one would like to think that the measurements would be written to pick up all the important aspects of the hull and appendages?

I'm no expert on one-design classes (only ever sailed in a classic wooden-boat-era class where anyone could build a boat, but it had to measure) - what do other rigorous classes have to say ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent the afternoon actually looking at the rules, there is no doubt the Australian boats do not measure as Etchells.

And it is not the issue of the boats making particular measurement points set out in the rules with a tolerance on 30mm that has already been raised.

The relevant tolerance is "minor variances due to manufacturing tolerances" and that applies over the entire surface area of the canoe body (hull less keel and attachment area) and not any one measurement station. (keel position and attachment seems different)

So if the boat does have a longer water line, less rocker, are flatter in the middle and fuller in the ends but still make specific measurement stations, if the variation is more than minor variances due to manufacturing process away from the IECA plug the boat does not measure.

In a way there are infinite measurement stations for the canoe body and the same tolerance where the base is the IECA plug.

So the Chairman of the IECA is correct where he draws the distinction between true one design and development classes.

The rest is just noise.

The real question now becomes is who in The Australian Association did not understand this difference or just ignored it.

That is to say it looks like someone got the scan data, manipulated it to change the shape to make a faster boat, but still make the measurement stations, made a new plug from which mould 11 was taken without understanding that World Sailing requirements or purpose of the IECA plug or the difference between one design and development classes.

Well done, you have killed the class internationally.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty simple.

1.  Is the mold certified to whatever the requirements are?

2.  Do the boats pass measurement?

If the boats pass measurement, you're done as far as that goes.  If the mold does pass certification, you fix it.  Then you grandfather the existing mold 11 boats and fucking move on.  You can't screw over the people who bought the boats in good faith, and this certainly isn't the first time that the boats in a one design class were known to have been built differently.  There are instances in other classes of the manufacturer (the only manufacturer) changing their process significantly, and continuing to crank out boats.  It's the reality.  Even strict one design boats aren't identical.  The MOST you can ethically do is have the association pay to fair the mold 11 boats in so that they match what come out of a certified mold.  If they cannot be faired in, then manufacturer owes some folks some new boats.

Tempest in a teapot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ned said:

Came out of a J-24 mold but was magically more than a J-24, especially in chop.  

some of the same culprits involved surprise surprise.  Pick up any dodgy Aus sailing stone and you'll find them lurking.  One at least is keeping out of the way on the next door island with his involvement in the  AC.

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

You can't screw over the people who bought the boats in good faith

AFAICS, the problem here is that the difference between the boats is significant enough that at the higher levels of competition, there are only two options:

  1. screw over the owners of non-M11 boats, which are now uncompetitive,
    or
  2. screw over the M11 owners

Either way, there will be a screwing of some set of people who bought boats in good faith.

There are a few potential compromises, e.g. banning the M11 boats from regional, national and international competitions, by allowing them to do club races.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grrr... said:

. You can't screw over the people who bought the boats in good faith.

Good faith can be very subjective.  Just ask the C420 parents who bought PS2000's knowing they were faster boats but didn't care to inquire why.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bloodshot said:

Good faith can be very subjective.  Just ask the C420 parents who bought PS2000's knowing they were faster boats but didn't care to inquire why.

Yeah, I just read through that situation.  What a pile of shit.  A retailer who wouldn't stand behind the product, a manufacturer who insisted their boats were fine (when they weren't), and the class telling the competitors they can't race.

If the class had their shit together, there'd be a legal remedy.  It's up to the class to certify all the manufacturers, and force those manufacturers to sign a contract adhering to a set of strict and well laid out rules.

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

AFAICS, the problem here is that the difference between the boats is significant enough that at the higher levels of competition, there are only two options:

  1. screw over the owners of non-M11 boats, which are now uncompetitive,
    or
  2. screw over the M11 owners

Either way, there will be a screwing of some set of people who bought boats in good faith.

There are a few potential compromises, e.g. banning the M11 boats from regional, national and international competitions, by allowing them to do club races.

Can the M11 boats be modified  to make them identical to the other boats? Adding filler to eliminate the flat spots etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, rastro said:

The Winged Keel was so fast that no one uses anything like it anymore.

But the Etchells people need root shooting and electrocuting for this, and I am sure they will not be having much fun for sometime to come.  A good thing.

But you have to ask the question ... What the Fuck was the rest of the community doing till now?  Didn't someone pick that the mould was not approved?

I was involved in something similar, but just for one boat.  Protest was "does not conform to the Measuring Certificate.  AS kicked the cunt out and dismissed the appeal.

So either the M11 Measuring Certificates are incorrect or the boat measures?

What's root shooting? either way, seems a little extreme.

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

 .

There are a few potential compromises, e.g. banning the M11 boats from regional, national and international competitions, by allowing them to do club races.

And then the club racers who don't have M11 boats all suffer for as long as they continue to race. Modifying the M11 boats to comply - and putting something in effect to ensure continuing compliance -  seems like the fairer option.  Perhaps the Australian class should pay for the fix, like Volkswagen's diesel issue. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailed on one of Bashford’s cheater Etchells. I suspected something was up, but didn’t know until after the boat had moved on.  Later learned that the top inch of lead was removed from the keel, and a G-10 plate was installed in its place.  It made the boat lighter, with more righting moment. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, PaulK said:
4 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

 .There are a few potential compromises, e.g. banning the M11 boats from regional, national and international competitions, by allowing them to do club races.

And then the club racers who don't have M11 boats all suffer for as long as they continue to race. Modifying the M11 boats to comply - and putting something in effect to ensure continuing compliance -  seems like the fairer option.  Perhaps the Australian class should pay for the fix, like Volkswagen's diesel issue.

I am not sure how viable that fix is.

It's easy enough add some filler where the boat needs not be bulkier.  But how do you remove volume from the places where the M11 is too fat?  Seems to me that you will have to hack away some structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Parma said:

How many non-compliant M11 hulls are there?

More importantly , how non compliant are they?

Are we talking 3 thou , or  3 feet?

I need to know how outraged I should be.

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

What's root shooting? either way, seems a little extreme.

punctuation missing.

root, shoot and electrocute.  Old saying, not sure who's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not a lot of stations. Lots of room for minor trickery/adjusting to make it a faster shape. Exaggerated for effect but you'd take max depth (low as possible) at Sta 3 and maybe some max ht. at Sta 6. (high as possible). This flattens out the hull in between them.

image.thumb.png.2b6aec1e0c9444ea25a9f0eb0ada02a5.png

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

More importantly , how non compliant are they?

Are we talking 3 thou , or  3 feet?

I need to know how outraged I should be.

That's not an answer. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Flags said:

Seems to happen a lot in places where there is excess $ with inversely proportional sailing ability.

Do you seriously doubt the sailing ability of those that have had the M11 hulls ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, silent bob said:

Sailed on one of Bashford’s cheater Etchells. I suspected something was up, but didn’t know until after the boat had moved on.  Later learned that the top inch of lead was removed from the keel, and a G-10 plate was installed in its place.  It made the boat lighter, with more righting moment. 

our old etchell was at max weight and ended up over due to being hit and falling over on the hardstand. still had at least 4 top ten finishes at worlds including a 1st and a second

 

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

That is not a lot of stations. Lots of room for minor trickery/adjusting to make it a faster shape. Exaggerated for effect but you'd take max depth (low as possible) at Sta 3 and maybe some max ht. at Sta 6. (high as possible). This flattens out the hull in between them.

image.thumb.png.2b6aec1e0c9444ea25a9f0eb0ada02a5.png

Zonker, thanks, saved me doing it.

If you are going to ignore the plug requirements you will need a heap more stations to ensure conformity.

Can't wait for the scow etchell with the flying bow.

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

 

If you are going to ignore the plug requirements you will need a heap more stations to ensure conformity.

 

Sooooooo, whats to stop one buying a nice fresh Etchells straight out of moulds, and still "green" and giving it a good dose of slipway rash with say, sandbags , weights, jig etc etc and massaging the hull a lttle  before it fully cures. So long as it satisfies the Plug Requirements (check) and the Measurement Requirements (check), its good to go? Yes?

I see the class has tried to stop this by making sure the bulkheads and deck are on before demoulding.

But I'll bet there is still room for a little positive movement .

 

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

That is not a lot of stations. Lots of room for minor trickery/adjusting to make it a faster shape. Exaggerated for effect but you'd take max depth (low as possible) at Sta 3 and maybe some max ht. at Sta 6. (high as possible). This flattens out the hull in between them.

image.thumb.png.2b6aec1e0c9444ea25a9f0eb0ada02a5.png

that red line looks so much sweeter...

 

simple solution,  copy mold 11 for all others,  think the new boat will make you faster, buy one...    move on, it's just pickle dishes..

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Parma said:

That's not an answer. 

You will never get a straight answer out of that fuckwit. As you can see he is running interference for the powers that be here. If you want to wind him up just yell 'Starboard'. 

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

More to give me a flatter hull overall

Now Mr Z can you just make the bow a lot fuller in front of Stn 0 and straighten aft of Stn 6 now you have reduced the rocker heaps and got a better keel hull join, I am all good to go with Mould 12.

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

our old etchell was at max weight and ended up over due to being hit and falling over on the hardstand. still had at least 4 top ten finishes at worlds including a 1st and a second

  

Which worlds? Because if it was any worlds after 2012 you're full of it.

13 hours ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Sooooooo, whats to stop one buying a nice fresh Etchells straight out of moulds, and still "green" and giving it a good dose of slipway rash with say, sandbags , weights, jig etc etc and massaging the hull a lttle  before it fully cures. So long as it satisfies the Plug Requirements (check) and the Measurement Requirements (check), its good to go? Yes?

I see the class has tried to stop this by making sure the bulkheads and deck are on before demoulding.

But I'll bet there is still room for a little positive movement .

Or for instance having it fall off your trailer because a couple of pro sailors "forgot" to detach the gin pole when you dropped the mast after a regatta. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

that red line looks so much sweeter...

 

simple solution,  copy mold 11 for all others,  think the new boat will make you faster, buy one...    move on, it's just pickle dishes..

One thing for say a Catalina 30 that has 100 other uses besides one design racing, but I suspect 99% of new Etchells are bouught specifically to race OD and the owners will not be amused to have expensive useless boats.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

that red line looks so much sweeter...

 

simple solution,  copy mold 11 for all others,  think the new boat will make you faster, buy one...    move on, it's just pickle dishes..

This is anything but a simple solution. The reason the class is so attractive is the very strict one design nature. Simply getting the other builders to spend the nearly $750,000 for a mould is unreasonable. Not to mention the value of every Etchells constructed with the real moulds (8 +10) becoming 0 once you approve Mould 11. 

 

The only fleet that has a serious problem is the Australian fleet. There are not a significant number Aussie hulls in NA that are from Mould 11. However the hulls that came 1 and 2 at worlds are both still here.  The Aussie Class guy is flinging shit everywhere because he knows the mould was never approved by WS and now needs to come up with a solution to fix his own shit show. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LB 15 said:

. As you can see he is running interference for the powers that be here.  

My post was intended to point out exactly that characteristic of his comment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Broseidon said:

This is anything but a simple solution. The reason the class is so attractive is the very strict one design nature. Simply getting the other builders to spend the nearly $750,000 for a mould is unreasonable. Not to mention the value of every Etchells constructed with the real moulds (8 +10) becoming 0 once you approve Mould 11. 

 

The only fleet that has a serious problem is the Australian fleet. There are not a significant number Aussie hulls in NA that are from Mould 11. However the hulls that came 1 and 2 at worlds are both still here.  The Aussie Class guy is flinging shit everywhere because he knows the mould was never approved by WS and now needs to come up with a solution to fix his own shit show. 

 

That wasn't me saying that ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Sooooooo, whats to stop one buying a nice fresh Etchells straight out of moulds, and still "green" and giving it a good dose of slipway rash with say, sandbags , weights, jig etc etc and massaging the hull a lttle  before it fully cures. So long as it satisfies the Plug Requirements (check) and the Measurement Requirements (check), its good to go? Yes?

I see the class has tried to stop this by making sure the bulkheads and deck are on before demoulding.

But I'll bet there is still room for a little positive movement .

 

You sure that's how fiberglass works?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The guys who make VX’s want to buy the Australian Etchells governors a beer. 

Stick a fork in the class it’s done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

One thing for say a Catalina 30 that has 100 other uses besides one design racing, but I suspect 99% of new Etchells are bouught specifically to race OD and the owners will not be amused to have expensive useless boats.

 

They already have expensive useless boats, now they just have slower expensive useless boats...

FKT

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

Which worlds? Because if it was any worlds after 2012 you're full of it.

Or for instance having it fall off your trailer because a couple of pro sailors "forgot" to detach the gin pole when you dropped the mast after a regatta. 

you sir are a wanker. jump to another bullshit conclusion

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

This is anything but a simple solution. The reason the class is so attractive is the very strict one design nature. Simply getting the other builders to spend the nearly $750,000 for a mould is unreasonable. Not to mention the value of every Etchells constructed with the real moulds (8 +10) becoming 0 once you approve Mould 11. 

 

The only fleet that has a serious problem is the Australian fleet. There are not a significant number Aussie hulls in NA that are from Mould 11. However the hulls that came 1 and 2 at worlds are both still here.  The Aussie Class guy is flinging shit everywhere because he knows the mould was never approved by WS and now needs to come up with a solution to fix his own shit show. 

 

Where the fuck did you get that number from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All very predictable, after a lot of insults, legal threats and small dick posturing, the existing M11 boats will be grandfathered and will remain in high demand for years to come, think Bashford. 

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

All very predictable, after a lot of insults, legal threats and small dick posturing, the existing M11 boats will be grandfathered and will remain in high demand for years to come, think Bashford. 

do you know how many were built?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this classified ad posted two days after the hammer dropped:

Etchells Fleet for sale available as one line
Three Etchells AUS XXX, XXX, and XXX … Due to Covid and the unlikely ability to travel and compete internationally, fleet no longer needed.

Hmmmm.  GLWS!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites