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

10 hours ago, Parma said:

 Pretending that SA is capable of contributing anything positive to anything anywhere ever is delusional.

Massive-boobs-mature-moms-posing-900x900

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 7:37 AM, 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 is spot on in what he is saying about the measurement points or lack of measurement points.

 

The new mould was made using computer plotting on all of the measurement points of a legal hull and it was then computer faired after a few legal tweaks within the +/- allowed tolerances by the class rules. Them the plug was made with a 5 axes CNC router and was cut out to within +/- 1 mm. So I’m shore the plug and the mould meets the class rules and tolerances allowed under the rules. 

 

The problem as I see it is AS / WS didn’t get their kick backs being a International class and this is the problem. Any other builder in the class could of put the money into the class and Improved the hull shape.  They were just beaten by the Australian association. 

 

Lets just hope when the mould in aproved class legal that the Australian association don’t just have to give the new tweaked hull shape away to the other builders without being compensated for all of their hard work. 

Pulpit

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

The new mould was made using computer plotting on all of the measurement points of a legal hull and it was then computer faired after a few legal tweaks within the +/- allowed tolerances by the class rules. Them the plug was made with a 5 axes CNC router and was cut out to within +/- 1 mm. So I’m shore the plug and the mould meets the class rules and tolerances allowed under the rules. 

And there is the problem!

You can't fair and there are no legal tweaks unless the change is within "variation caused by manufacturing tolerances" from the original IECA plug.

So The Australian plug and mould can never meet the IECA requirements.

You can't fair and you can't tweak.

The measurement points are effectively infinite not just the two measurement stations in front of the mast.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pulpit said:

Any other builder in the class could of put the money into the class and Improved the hull shape.  They were just beaten by the Australian association. 

That "Improved the hull shape" thing is the core of the problem.

The class clearly followed a principle of replicating the hull shape as closely as possible ... but the Aussie builder decided to tweak it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pulpit said:

Them the plug was made with a 5 axes CNC router and was cut out to within +/- 1 mm

Actually +/- 1mm would be really, really poor for a CNC router.
 

I was visiting Janicki for a megayacht project - we were considering building the swoopy top deck fairing in glass instead of alloy. We asked  what sort of tolerances they could hold over about the 80' length of the piece. Now they are Americans and we are Canadians so when they said "2 or 3" - we look at each other, we looked at them and said, "milimeters?"

"thousands of an inch" they said

Relieved looks on our side of the table
 

 

Just using the measurement points of an existing hull would be giving the person doing the fairing free reign to make a very different hull if that was what happened. Also think about:

- did they measure a P/S symmetric boat
- did they measure a boat that had changed shape since it left the original factory (a soft boat)
- what tolerances of their equipment (laser scans are usually in the range of 2-6mm in XYZ position and a bit less in distance from the scanner)

This is what you get using "Wanding" a hull with specialized ORC equipment. It is pretty accurate but all the results I have seen need a bit of "massaging" in a few areas to get right when compared to the designer's lines plans

image.png.fb50dd0f70a68897a6601506741af30f.png

Laser point cloud (boat sitting in cradle is the white blank spots) can give good results

image.png.7d4e479ee123f365ba3781167ded8629.png

photogrammetry method

image.png.f5b6f74aa2346da9062dbc706235bf9e.png

Differences between laser scan and photogrammetry. Pretty good around 1mm or less in most areas.

image.png.780886308a99f30f3d124c9803e7c9a1.png

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

 

 compensate the M11 owners with a one-off $50 levy on all boats.

 

Approximately 400 boats on the international register, that could possibly GAF, ( https://www.etchells.org.au/about/yachtRegister.asp) x $50 each = $20,000 / 23 cheaters gives each cheater $870 .

That should sort it out.

Problem solved.

Time to move on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 12:30 AM, LB 15 said:

It does seem that someone set out to create a faster one design boat. And for that alone they should be dragged to the town square and buggered by a pack of well hung camels.

 

No such thing as a level one design boats, there's always a dog

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 7:33 PM, Parma said:
On 1/27/2021 at 8:04 PM, LB 15 said:

 

Stick a fork in the class it’s done.

No, there's a solution there somewhere, it's just not going to be found on SA . Pretending that SA is capable of contributing anything positive to anything anywhere ever is delusional.

We need Wofsey on the case, he'll figure it out.:lol:

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

Them the plug was made with a 5 axes CNC router and was cut out to within +/- 1 mm

Actually +/- 1mm would be really, really poor for a CNC router.
 

I was visiting Janicki for a megayacht project - we were considering building the swoopy top deck fairing in glass instead of alloy. We asked  what sort of tolerances they could hold over about the 80' length of the piece. Now they are Americans and we are Canadians so when they said "2 or 3" - we look at each other, we looked at them and said, "milimeters?"

"thousands of an inch" they said

Relieved looks on our side of the table

That must be some incredibly stable material to hold that tolerance?!!;)

Invar tooling in a vacuum?

https://www.aero-mag.com/ascent-aerospace-hyvarc-hybrid-invar-composite-mould/

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what the MACHINE could do. For a one use tool where tight tolerances are not required, you use a wood form that is somewhat close + sprayable foam that is rough machined to a few inches under the finished mold surface. Then they added hard tooling epoxy paste in 1-2" thick layer and do final machining with that. Very very good surface finish with very small amount of hand sanding at ~400 grit or so to remove machining marks.

I'm sure that was at 72F, 60% R.H. .Now if you take the tool outside of those conditions it will shrink and grow accordingly.

5-axis-lg.jpg

We were walking in the milling envelope and I see this mold about 3mx3m. All black. Super thick carbon tool. Wasn't a boat. Wasn't a car.

"What the heck is that?" I asked

Tarp gets thrown over it very quickly.

"You didn't see that!"

I think some black aerospace US military project. The shape was... odd.

 

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

That is what the MACHINE could do. For a one use tool where tight tolerances are not required, you use a wood form that is somewhat close + sprayable foam that is rough machined to a few inches under the finished mold surface. Then they added hard tooling epoxy paste in 1-2" thick layer and do final machining with that. Very very good surface finish with very small amount of hand sanding at ~400 grit or so to remove machining marks.

I'm sure that was at 72F, 60% R.H. .Now if you take the tool outside of those conditions it will shrink and grow accordingly.

5-axis-lg.jpg

We were walking in the milling envelope and I see this mold about 3mx3m. All black. Super thick carbon tool. Wasn't a boat. Wasn't a car.

"What the heck is that?" I asked

Tarp gets thrown over it very quickly.

"You didn't see that!"

I think some black aerospace US military project. The shape was... odd.

 

I want one!

Alas my budget probably only stretches to one with a 600 x 300 x 300 work envelope.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a work colleague who was showing me his 3D printed autopilot. The black enclosure in the foreground cost him about $2 in plastic. White parts in the back is the DC motor enclosure, rope drive drum, mounting bracket and joystick. All done on a 3D printer with an envelope of about 300 x 300 x 400. That costs hundreds of $ not thousands. Very very good surface finish as printed. I'll wait for the carbon strand version :)

https://www.creality3dofficial.com/?gclid=CjwKCAiAgc-ABhA7EiwAjev-j3BNqvb6_69BYPb_XcJYGgPZQ67dPiovIxE9qTSlx00lrzYoWWjTwBoCvzQQAvD_BwE

image.png.963d7198b81c2b81d6e450279cf52888.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zonker said:

I've got a work colleague who was showing me his 3D printed autopilot. The black enclosure in the foreground cost him about $2 in plastic. White parts in the back is the DC motor enclosure, rope drive drum, mounting bracket and joystick. All done on a 3D printer with an envelope of about 300 x 300 x 400. That costs hundreds of $ not thousands. Very very good surface finish as printed. I'll wait for the carbon strand version :)

https://www.creality3dofficial.com/?gclid=CjwKCAiAgc-ABhA7EiwAjev-j3BNqvb6_69BYPb_XcJYGgPZQ67dPiovIxE9qTSlx00lrzYoWWjTwBoCvzQQAvD_BwE

image.png.963d7198b81c2b81d6e450279cf52888.png

 

Yeah - the Creality Ender V2 is on my shopping list. Has been for a while but I've a friend with a bigger unit so haven't needed my own yet.

And I'd have to find bench space for it, though I just figured out the latest iteration of workshop Rubik's Cube and now know where I can move the toolroom lathe in the back room of my house to a space in the shed, freeing up the house space for a 3D printer and electronics work bench.

Pity about the 800kg granite surface plate I have to relocate though. And the 2 spare diesel engines under the work bench. Engine sale coming up I think.

FKT

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

Apparently they are almost silent. Put it in the living room or the bedroom.

I have the Ender 3 v2. The steppers are silent (unlike older printers), but the print cooling and power supply fans are pretty loud.  I wouldn’t want them in my bedroom.  I had the printer in my home office for a couple of days before moving it into the basement.

I get far more use out of it than I expected and would recommend one if you like to build things and tinker.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2021 at 12:42 PM, 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. 

Blaming the winner just like they did at the White House! they developed a better boat, deal with it.

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

That is what the MACHINE could do. For a one use tool where tight tolerances are not required, you use a wood form that is somewhat close + sprayable foam that is rough machined to a few inches under the finished mold surface. Then they added hard tooling epoxy paste in 1-2" thick layer and do final machining with that. Very very good surface finish with very small amount of hand sanding at ~400 grit or so to remove machining marks.

I'm sure that was at 72F, 60% R.H. .Now if you take the tool outside of those conditions it will shrink and grow accordingly.

5-axis-lg.jpg

We were walking in the milling envelope and I see this mold about 3mx3m. All black. Super thick carbon tool. Wasn't a boat. Wasn't a car.

"What the heck is that?" I asked

Tarp gets thrown over it very quickly.

"You didn't see that!"

I think some black aerospace US military project. The shape was... odd.

 

I visited Janicki when the only machine (20’ x 10’ x 8 rough envelope) was a converted digitizing machine and located in an old barn.......staff was 3 people IIRC....that was in 1995......gave them a contract for the deck plug for a 62’ deck.......then we went bankrupt! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 10:14 PM, VWAP said:

Massive-boobs-mature-moms-posing-900x900

VWAP, you win the SA consistency award.

Any discussion of shite out of spec, or modified, you produce the same visual analogy. And somehow, it usually seems fitting, somehow.

Not bitching, I find it amusing and effective. Just please, don't feel that you need to find more emphatic expression. Thanks.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like The Australian Association has taken down all the ads for mould 9 boats from their website where a member has not renewed for the Co-vid year.

This looks to have been done on 22 January when the mould 11 story went public.

Sure, it is their website and they can do what they want.

But seems a bit petty where your class under threat from new classes and you badly need new members to buy boats at club level.

Seems to be plenty of very good mould 9 boats for sale very cheaply. (like the price a new Laser).

Great time to be buying for club racing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading the ads.

Looks awfully like the class has gone through a measurement crisis before.

A lot of grandfathering going on with keels etc for a one design.

From...https://www.etchells.org.au/buysell/sell.asp

 Grandfathered Max weight, max aft keel, (bashford)

and

1990 Pamcraft in excellent condition. Well campaigned regatta boat with some great results. 2018/19 Australian Corinthian Champion boat, 15th Overall Sydney Worlds and 3rd Corinthian, Grandfathered keel at max weight,

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 7:38 AM, 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. 

Yep, you win something from Teaky's desk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many, many years ago in a land called South Australia, a beatiful dingy called a Payne-Mortlock canoe was sailed. Beautiful wooden 5.8 meter double ender with twin hiking planks.

Any descrepencies in hull design within the design tolerances were easily corrected by mounting a brass canon weighing approximately 1lb on the main bulkhead supporting the mast. Sooner or later a faster hull ended up the same speed as the rest.

Designed in 1938, they are still being sailed at Brighton and Seacliff Yacht Club (I think)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in from the International Etchells Class Association of Australia:

Information about the Etchells Mould 11

Today, I want to update you on the history and status of the now famous Mould 11, which is owned by the Australian Etchells Association, and is presently licensed to Pacesetter Yachts for it to build Etchells in Australia.

When Phil Smidmore took over the building of Etchells, in 1995, he began producing boats from the same mould that had been built by Bashford in 1992. The Bashford mould was the 9th Etchells mould. Like Mould 8 (used by Ontario Yachts) and Mould 10 (used by Petticrows and Heritage), Mould 9 had been built from a common plug.

However, it is widely understood and documented that the three moulds produced boats that were not entirely the same. This was most likely the result of the age and condition of the plug, and it being faired prior to each time it was used. When it arrived from the United States in Australia in 1992 to build Mould 9, it was faired by Bashford, and then yet again when it was subsequently used by Petticrows in the UK to build Mould 10.

It is for this reason that since 2007, the One Design Technical Committee (ODTC) had been highlighting the need for the International Class to determine and adopt a hull shape on which all future International Etchells Class hull moulds are to be based.

In 2010, the Australian Association was granted permission to build a new mould. However, due to the condition of the plug, it could not be used to build the new mould. So, with the support of Etchells Class Chief Measurer, Mr Denis Heywood, the Australian Association sought approval to produce a new hull mould from the same mould as used by Heritage. The request went on to observe:

"If it is agreed to adopt the Heritage Mould 10 as the standard International Etchells shape for future moulds, we are heading towards having three identical moulds and a more uniform one design hull, which at present the scanning indicates we do not have. The class would have the current Heritage mould which appears to have a lot of life left in it, a new Australian mould replicating the Heritage mould, and when it comes time for Ontario to replace its mould at some future time it would also be required to replicate the Heritage mould, as would any other new licensed builder."

The Australian Association's position was however rejected. Instead, the International Class decided to permit the construction of a mould from a plug that was derived from a digital file containing point cloud data. This data originated from a scan of three hulls produced by each of the builders - an Ontario hull built in 2006, a Heritage hull from 2002, and a Bashford hull built in 1992.

The scans had been acquired during a hull comparison project undertaken by the ODTC between 2005 and 2008. The Australian Association was approved to build a hull mould from the supplied data file. Now albeit that the data was very important, as it was to be the basis of the shape of the new mould, the data was not in a form nor sufficient to fully describe a surfaced model that could be used to machine a plug using CNC technology.

Examples of deficiencies subsequently reported to the International Class included incomplete data at the sheer line, the skeg, the area of the garboard, as well as the stem and gunwale radii. To overcome this, further scanning from existing hulls was carried out on behalf of the Australian Association in respect of the deficient areas, and a full and definitive surface model was derived for the purpose of CNC programming.

A CNC machined plug was produced in late 2010, which was then measured by Mr Heywood prior to use in construction of a mould. Thereafter, a mould was built from the physical plug in early 2011. Pacesetter Yachts, using Innovation Composites as a subcontractor, then produced a prototype hull, which was successfully measured by Denis on 29 July 2011.

Subsequently, concerns were expressed within the One Design Technical Committee regarding a scan taken from the second boat produced from the mould. This issue was however resolved in 2012 within the International Class, after a report produced by Mr Heywood on 12 May 2012, which concluded that:

"The Etchells made from Mould 11 are in every way an Etchells in accordance with the Etchells Class Rules, Tolerances and Specifications."

Nine years on, and 25 boats have now been built from Mould 11, with 20 of those in the last four years. Apart from a well-publicised modification involving the keel sump in 2016, no other issue has been raised concerning the mould since 2012. That is despite it having been extensively examined and measured by two Class Measurers, who have, in fact, given their tick of approval.

Many have therefore expressed great disappointment that the present concern in relation to Mould 11 only arose following the tremendous 2019 World Championship win by Iain Murray, Colin Beashel and Richie Allanson, notwithstanding them using the same boat in the 2018 Worlds, where they finished well outside the top 20 in a 94-boat regatta won by a Heritage. Of course, as we now know, what had changed between those two events were the significant advancements made by them over an 18-month period to the setup of the rig, including a new mast, the sails and most critically how the boat was sailed. Advancements that they were only too willing to share with the Etchells community and which are now happily replicated by many of the top crews internationally. What had not changed between those two events was the hull and the hull appendages!

Soon after the conclusion of that regatta, the then International Class President, Jim Cunningham, provided an informative analysis of the performance of Mould 11 boats since their inception. This analysis was widely circulated. It clearly revealed that much of the hype being generated after the 2019 Worlds was scuttlebutt. His analysis was subsequently accepted by the then One Design Technical Committee Chairman, and esteemed Naval Architect, Mr Bruce Nelson.

Cunningham's analysis from August 21, 2019 also stated, amongst many other things, "In the 2018 Brisbane Worlds there were eight of the new Aussie moulded boats, which was the largest concentration of the new Aussie hulls ever at a Worlds, and they finished in 5th, 13th, 15th, 22nd, 37th, 41st, 46th and 63rd out of 94 boats."

"These newer hulls are arguably owned by keen sailors who recently paid good money for a new boat and presumably have keen programs -- yet the 'special boats' only had 1 top 10 finish in their own home Aussie waters. It is no wonder, NO ONE, was claiming these were 'special boats' as recently as 10 months ago. If the hull is so magical, why did we see this results distribution, given the biggest sample of the Aussie hulls piloted by keen recent buyers?"

Cunningham added, "At the 2018 Brisbane Worlds - 1st, 2nd and 4th were Heritage hulls, yet no one was claiming the end of the one design class then. In fact, the top performing Aussie hull in Brisbane (5th) decided to go ahead and purchase a new Heritage that was used in Corpus to get 4th place." Cunningham also pointed out that Team Magpie had been either second or third in three Worlds, with hulls from Pacesetter, Bashford and Heritage, highlighting the crew, not the boat, as the key.

Drawing from the fact that at the time of his analysis, the Australian builder had produced just half the number of vessels of each of the others over the decade. Notable, Cunningham also pointed out that in 2017 and 18 leading up to Brisbane, they accounted for just a paltry 9.5% of global production.

Yet perhaps most telling of all is that for the five Worlds prior to 2019, the Australian boats had been in the top three (podium) just three times, whereas Ontario and Heritage had been there 10 times each. It says even more when you look at the top 20 place getters, where the new Australian boat featured a mere eight times, whereas the other two combined amassed a staggering 10-fold increase to 80 vessels.

So, it is more than fair to say that they had underperformed against Ontario and Heritage hulls. This is hardly evidence of having any performance advantage, or some kind of 'development' style of vessel as has recently been suggested.

Despite all of this, and since June of 2020, the unsubstantiated rumours have regretfully continued. I dealt with much of that in my October 2020 email to the members. However, towards the end of 2020, a new issue arose concerning whether Mould 11 had ever been 'approved' by ISAF at the time of its manufacture – a process stipulated in a 1995 licence agreement between ISAF and Pacesetter Yachts.

We asked Australian Sailing to make enquiries from World Sailing on our behalf. Around a week ago, World Sailing informed Australian Sailing and the Australian Association that it had not found any records of World Sailing granting approval to Mould 11. Despite this, for various reasons, it remains unclear to what extent the predecessor to World Sailing was aware of the progress of Mould 11, and the first few boats built from it.

The Australian Association is now working with Australian Sailing and World Sailing to address this new issue. We will keep you apprised on that front.

Many of you may justifiably wonder how it is that we find ourselves in this situation and why it has been allowed to fester for nearly a decade. With sincerity, we are unsure. One explanation, and we think it the most likely, is that the International Class and builder relied on the custom and practice of the functions of ISAF regarding approvals etc. being delegated to the Class Measurer. It is of note that this practice has continued to this day, where strict compliance to Class Rules has been relaxed with determinations being made by the Class and the Class Measurer without ratification through ISAF. The ongoing controversy surrounding deck recesses is but one clear example, but there are others.

One thing is reasonably clear. As a Class, we need to learn from the past and strive to do better. It is for that reason that last year we sought the assistance of Australian Sailing to work with us, and World Sailing, to get whatever needs fixing in respect of Mould 11 fixed, once and for all! It is also why the Australian Association strongly advocates a genuine Class wide audit with a particular emphasis on governance, as well as a clean-up of the Rules, along with their policing. We see this is an opportunity. It is time to leave the politics behind to again focus on what the members want this Class to be. For our part, we accept that challenge.

Mark Roberts
President
International Etchells Class Association of Australia
president@etchells.org.au

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 1:37 PM, Zonker said:

That is what the MACHINE could do. For a one use tool where tight tolerances are not required, you use a wood form that is somewhat close + sprayable foam that is rough machined to a few inches under the finished mold surface. Then they added hard tooling epoxy paste in 1-2" thick layer and do final machining with that. Very very good surface finish with very small amount of hand sanding at ~400 grit or so to remove machining marks.

I'm sure that was at 72F, 60% R.H. .Now if you take the tool outside of those conditions it will shrink and grow accordingly.

5-axis-lg.jpg

We were walking in the milling envelope and I see this mold about 3mx3m. All black. Super thick carbon tool. Wasn't a boat. Wasn't a car.

"What the heck is that?" I asked

Tarp gets thrown over it very quickly.

"You didn't see that!"

I think some black aerospace US military project. The shape was... odd.

 

Janicki bought a used CNC machine a couple of decades ago because he had a barn to put it in up in Sedro Wooley, then started churning out amazing stuff.  His first trick was milling a statue of Venus de Milo in aluminum, to a polished finish.   He's one of the reasons AC boats are built in Anacortes, Boeing has him making composite molds, wind turbine blades are seen hauling down the highway, why SpaceX and Blue Horizon have plants in WA and the military certainly comes knocking.  

Great entrepreneurial story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples of deficiencies subsequently reported to the International Class included incomplete data at the sheer line, the skeg, the area of the garboard, as well as the stem and gunwale radii. To overcome this, further scanning from existing hulls was carried out on behalf of the Australian Association in respect of the deficient areas, and a full and definitive surface model was derived for the purpose of CNC programming.

The areas in bold make up a HUGE amount of the underwater area of an Etchells as well as a HUGE amount of their performance. 

Which existing hulls were scanned to fill in those gaps? From what mould? Were those boats measured beforehand? What criteria was used to choose which data was in and which was out? Were they able to pick and choose which areas to use from which scans? Is there the possibility that in doing so they could have created a hull shape which doesn’t exist in any of the existing Bash/Herit/Ont. molds?

Its also interesting that they cite “two class measurers” as having given the boat their “tick” of approval. There are 5 listed measurers in Australia https://www.etchells.org.au/about/measurers.asp , what did the other 3 think? Did the “two” include the class’ chief measurer? Did the Class’ chief measurer examine hulls from Mould 11 and the Mould itself?

 

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

Nothing so petty as local politics

Yep!

 You have more chance of finding out who killed Kennedy than seeing the true Mould 11 scan data!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Nothing so petty as local politics

You could say that it was a storm in a teacup but it's more like a fairy fart in a thimble, TBH.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 1/29/2021 at 5:33 AM, Parma said:

Pretending that SA is capable of contributing anything positive to anything anywhere ever is delusional.

Bull Shit.

Hans Horrevoets

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 2:04 PM, MRS OCTOPUS said:

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?

 

Bit harsh to say that about World Sailing!

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

Good, some etchells shouldn’t be more class legal than others. 
 

maybe this will help restore the fleets waining numbers at the top level. 

I guess if you imported one hull to Europe that would raise numbers here by 100%.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

So do they interview a Mould 9 owners.

I guess there is a reason that the Australian class governors are only identified in the members only part of the class web site

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, (p)Irate said:

I haven't listened to this yet but it's bound to be of interest to this thread.

https://www.buzzsprout.com/392416/8224361-bar-karate-the-sailing-podcast-ep99-mark-roberts-etchells-discussion

Thanks for posting. 
interesting that they say 50 % of paid up class members are Australian.

Interesting times ahead.

Ps.

Was the character Eeyore based on the sock Labia ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Senator Seditious Maximus said:

Do these results still stand in this case?

https://yachtscoring.com/event_results_detail.cfm?Race_Number=9&eID=6225

 

International Class Association has told World Sailing the it intends to let the results stand.

Strange and rather inconsistent.

Corpus Christie will always be seen from American eyes as a tainted Worlds I suspect.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 3:34 AM, 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. 

 

You could not be more wrong. Listen to the Bar Karate podcast for some enlightenment. And perhaps have a look at the last ten years results at the worlds. You could make a very strong case for the mould 11 boats to be the slowest of the 3 builders.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbo.  LMFAO.  Could you choose a more non-PC inappropriate name?  LOL.  Might as well call yourself Spearchuker. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Senator Seditious Maximus said:

Abbo.  LMFAO.  Could you choose a more non-PC inappropriate name?  LOL.  Might as well call yourself Spearchuker. :)

 

Not chosen, given. Back when I was sailing in the USA and this was a predominantly US website/forum.

 

Perhaps in this day and age I should consider changing it... But then again, our world leaders are grabbing girls by the pussy and assassinating  those who stand against them so, perhaps I should be focusing on the bigger picture...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Livia said:

Corpus Christie will always be seen from American eyes as a tainted Worlds I suspect.

Haven't been to these here parts for a while, but was sent over for a look....

You could probably build a very long list of etchells, people thought were cheater boats, the rumours, the inuendos have always been part of this class...... and in many cases the real facts we will never know. BUT the racing has always been challenging in so many aspects, even before you take on some of the best yachters going around.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My own view is that is very sad that the good yachters who make the class so good to sail could be so badly let down by the supposed leaders of the class.

To say no one is a fault is complete bullshit.

But none of our supposed leaders will accept any blame.

Regardless of the motivation, excuses or reasons, how the fuck do you sell 25 boats from an unlicensed mould where the class is one of the major international one designs in the world.

End of story.

And the silence from our local class leaders about this issue over the last 3 years is now completely understandable, now we know the real answer.

And Cutter, of all the people to be so affected by this shit fight!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only started really looking into this shitfight recently, but I can barely believe the incompetence in particular of the International Etchells Class association. They have deemed all mould 11 boats illegal, based on a 3D digital scan done in 2020 of one hull, and compared that to 3 other scans done in 2004 with wands IMS style. I'm struggling to imagine a more meaningless comparison. To be making decisions that threaten very existence of the class on such sketchy data is just pure lunacy.

The fact that mould 11 was never "approved" is open to a fair bit of conjecture... IYRU/WS handed the responsibility for that back to all international classes well before mould 11 was produced. The Aussies submitted an electronic scan of the first hull from the new mould back to the IECA for approval. It was never given... nor denied. Yes the Aussies should have absolutely followed up on this and made sure approval was given, but the fact that the ball was in the IECA's court is undeniable.

If it were up to me, all mould 11 boats would have their certificates reinstated immediately, pending a thorough comparison of all 3 builders boats. (3D scan at least 3 recent builds from each builder)  Then make a call on which hulls conform and which don't. Hell, you might even throw in a review of the last 10 worlds and see if there is a pattern of dominance of any one build. Good luck finding that. Oh and anyone who had a hand in the decision to ban mould 11 boats should give themselves an uppercut and walk away from the class. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the International Class Association and the Australian Class Association are the parents of this little fuck up.

And what the fuck was Australian Sailing doing taking money for certificates when no one bothered to check if the mould was licensed.

And now the Mould 9 owners are going to take it up the arse through no fault of their own.

Lets' have a lynching of some class officials at the Etchells crane on Good Friday.

Odds are that are not going to rise from the dead on Sunday.

Once again the ordinary sailors let down by class officials who of course will not be held accountable.

Lets' start by stripping some life memberships.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abbo said:

Not chosen, given. Back when I was sailing in the USA and this was a predominantly US website/forum.

 

Perhaps in this day and age I should consider changing it... But then again, our world leaders are grabbing girls by the pussy and assassinating  those who stand against them so, perhaps I should be focusing on the bigger picture...

At the footy...

original-2442-1454388433-10.jpg?downsize=600:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 10:16 AM, Al Paca said:

One in the same. 

I dare you to accuse a Kiwi of that to their face - ha ha - unless you are a good runner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Senator Seditious Maximus said:

Well we all know what's gonna happen to the Abbo Model 9s anyway:

 

IMG_2228-scaled.jpg

IMG_2229-scaled.jpg

I was thinking I might be able to pick up a cheap cheater boat for a teak gentleman's sailor conversion

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

hah, everyone here in fleet 4 always grumbled about the aussies at international events... guess it was (to a degree) deserved!

The results don't support this theory, at all!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abbo said:

The results don't support this theory, at all!

 

Its not a matter of results. The team that won the worlds in 2019 would have won in any manufacturer if they had put that level of rig work and  sail  R&D. Unfortunately this did lead to more questions being asked and the fact of the matter is their was fundamental differences between boats. This would have been found out eventually however winning the worlds lit a fire.. whether it was the boat or not. 

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

The results don't support this theory, at all!

 

Re do the numbers after 1455

Second part of the puzzle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo, Ian Murray's cheating was so egredious, with a boat so very different, the class decided not to strip his title.

Correct?

PS 

looking more and more like a storm in a tea cup.

 

 

 

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

Its not a matter of results. The team that won the worlds in 2019 would have won in any manufacturer if they had put that level of rig work and  sail  R&D. Unfortunately this did lead to more questions being asked and the fact of the matter is their was fundamental differences between boats. This would have been found out eventually however winning the worlds lit a fire.. whether it was the boat or not. 

That's not accurate. To be more clear, there was a difference found between a 3D digital scan conducted in 2020 and 3 scans done with wands in 2004. The difference in those scans is not big, it's arguably within class tolerances.

Also worth noting that the perfect Etchell hull shape is not clearly defined either. Bashford faired the plug before he made the old Aussie moulds. The poms faired it again before the made theirs. 

Why wasn't the British mould put under the same scrutiny after Martin Hills pretty dominant performance in 2018? Mould 11 boats were pretty deep at those worlds....

I was lucky enough to play a very small part in Martin Hills campaign in the final stages and I can tell you that the reason they won, (apart from being an incredibly talented crew) was their preparation was a clear step above the rest. Murray and Co took it to the next level in 2019. 

It's all bullshit. And until the IECA remove the sword they have just rammed into their belly and get off their arse and do 3D digital scans of at least 3 recent builds of all 3 moulds it will remain bullshit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Abbo said:

That's not accurate. To be more clear, there was a difference found between a 3D digital scan conducted in 2020 and 3 scans done with wands in 2004. The difference in those scans is not big, it's arguably within class tolerances.

Also worth noting that the perfect Etchell hull shape is not clearly defined either. Bashford faired the plug before he made the old Aussie moulds. The poms faired it again before the made theirs. 

Why wasn't the British mould put under the same scrutiny after Martin Hills pretty dominant performance in 2018? Mould 11 boats were pretty deep at those worlds....

I was lucky enough to play a very small part in Martin Hills campaign in the final stages and I can tell you that the reason they won, (apart from being an incredibly talented crew) was their preparation was a clear step above the rest. Murray and Co took it to the next level in 2019. 

It's all bullshit. And until the IECA remove the sword they have just rammed into their belly and get off their arse and do 3D digital scans of at least 3 recent builds of all 3 moulds it will remain bullshit. 

if they had of got the mould ratified they wouldnt be in this situation and no one would be jumping up and down

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rum Monkey said:

if they had of got the mould ratified they wouldnt be in this situation and no one would be jumping up and down

Indeed. The Aussie association applied to the IECA and supplied a 3D digital scan of the first hull produced. Approval was never given nor denied. Why wasn't the whistle blown then? Had the mould changed in 10 years? Or was the IECA asleep at the wheel? They had the perfect optunity to nip this alleged illegal mould in the bud and failed. Yes the Aussies should have followed it up but the IECA is totally and utterly complicit in this fuck up. Throwing the Aussie mould 11 owners under the bus is deflecting blame, nothing more. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Abbo said:

Indeed. The Aussie association applied to the IECA and supplied a 3D digital scan of the first hull produced. Approval was never given nor denied. Why wasn't the whistle blown then? Had the mould changed in 10 years? Or was the IECA asleep at the wheel? They had the perfect optunity to nip this alleged illegal mould in the bud and failed. Yes the Aussies should have followed it up but the IECA is totally and utterly complicit in this fuck up. Throwing the Aussie mould 11 owners under the bus is deflecting blame, nothing more. 

 

No doubt both the International Class Association and the Australian Class Associations have been at fault here.

But you can't put the toothpaste back in tube on this one.

 

 

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

Sooo, Ian Murray's cheating was so egredious, with a boat so very different, the class decided not to strip his title.

Correct?

PS 

looking more and more like a storm in a tea cup.

 

 

 

Which is almost the exact opposite of what one of you posted on facebook yesterday. All you uses of this account should have a meeting and get you story straight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Which is almost the exact opposite of what one of you posted on facebook yesterday. All you uses of this account should have a meeting and get you story straight. 

That's funny.

Nice to see you read my posts.

Paranoia Still rampant appears.

You really do need a new therapist.

PS 

What is this farsebook thingy you refer?

Nah, don't bother , one of my "uses" will know.

Bwahahaha

PPS 

What's "you story" ?

 

 

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

The Aussie association applied to the IECA and supplied a 3D digital scan of the first hull produced. Approval was never given nor denied.

Did they specifically ask for hull approval?

3 hours ago, Abbo said:

It's all bullshit. And until the IECA remove the sword they have just rammed into their belly and get off their arse and do 3D digital scans of at least 3 recent builds of all 3 moulds it will remain bullshit. 

Isn't this a  solution? Have the 3 moulds scanned, check the #11 scan against them to determine whether in fact it is significantly different. If not, #11 is approved, if different, then see Q above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they put in a request for a approval with the first hull scans. 

Yes scanning all hulls and doing an accurate survey of the 3 builders is the way forward. Banning mould 11 boats based on 16 year old wand data is just sheer lunacy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why everyone is worrying about this.  I am confident that Australian Sailing has already determined a solution and is implementing it as we post.

Right Glen?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

I don't know why everyone is worrying about this.  I am confident that Australian Sailing has already determined a solution and is implementing it as we post.

Right Glen?

well it is the 1st of april....hahaha

 

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

Yes they put in a request for a approval with the first hull scans. 

Yes scanning all hulls and doing an accurate survey of the 3 builders is the way forward. Banning mould 11 boats based on 16 year old wand data is just sheer lunacy. 

There is very recent mould 11 scan, I think you will find.

The scan that concluded the mould 11 boats were longer flatter and fuller in the ends and narrow in the centre.

That is longer straighter waterlines.

Never be faster in a breeze.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Livia said:

There is very recent mould 11 scan, I think you will find.

The scan that concluded the mould 11 boats were longer flatter and fuller in the ends and narrow in the centre.

That is longer straighter waterlines.

Never be faster in a breeze.

Yeah I know, Murray's boat, scanned in 2020 using modern, pinpoint accurate 3D digital scanning technology. It was then compared to 3 "scans" completed in 2004 using a wand on a piece of string attached to a measuring device on rails running parallel to the centre line. Might as well be comparing an optimist to MariCha 4.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Abbo said:

Yeah I know, Murray's boat, scanned in 2020 using modern, pinpoint accurate 3D digital scanning technology. It was then compared to 3 "scans" completed in 2004 using a wand on a piece of string attached to a measuring device on rails running parallel to the centre line. Might as well be comparing an optimist to MariCha 4.

Yep, you cannot believe otherwise intelligent people could create such a cluster fuck.

at what point did someone say in Australia, we have a problem.

then again in Australia, there will be 25 boat fleet sailed by white guys over 60 and everyone else will be sailing a VX-One and the like.

  • Like 1