Does anyone know wtf the single asterisk means? It says "Only if racing is needed on Friday to achieve a final result over the weekend", but it's on every race from 8-13.
Obv the asterisks on races 8+ would usually mean they only happen if needed - but then the wording of the explanation makes...
They didn't show it on the broadcast, but in the last race there was a downwind where NZ just switched to a lower mode and destroyed. Didn't seem to be a wind shift. Will be interesting to see if they're capable of doing that again.
Looks like someone (no prizes for guessing who) wanted to know if Slingsby having his head over the white line was legal: https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDozMTNiYzc0YTVkNjRkMDhk
Spoiler: it is, as long as he's only...
The penalty they (wrongly) called them for was port/starboard, not mark room, but I guess that doesn't mean there wasn't a mark room issue there.
Still, I don't think it's cut and dried, even with this guideline. It says that if they're both within that red segment then it's up to the umpires -...
I meant whether this interpretation of the rule is new in the last few days, or whether they've used it throughout this AC. There've been a couple of times that they've been very vague about how much room is enough - if they'd had this 'you need to be outside the circle' interpretation all along...
There's nothing like that in the rules at all. The rules just say that they, unlike the other teams, are allowed to launch a second pair of hulls, and then gives conditions under which they can race with them (unintentional damage that can't be fixed in time, essentially). There's nothing at all...
I don't think anything I'm suggesting would count as a 'conspiracy'. I think they're most likely building a totally legal backup, with completely fresh hulls, in case they need it. Just like I think pretty much everyone always expected they'd do. I don't think there's any cheating going on, and...
The restrictions on wings are the number allowed per competitor, not per boat. Even if they launch a second pair of hulls, I don't think there's any question of whether they can launch more wings and daggerboards to go with them. They can't.
It doesn't matter to the outcome of the cup, but it matters to our understanding of what's legal, which is what we're talking about here.
Agreed that a decent chunk of the NZ complaints (both here and in the press) are stupid and unnecessary. Some definitely jump to 'cheating!' too easily.
The umpires have clarified what constitutes mark room, at least for one particular situation that we've seen a few times: https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDo0OTM3ZjA4MzA2NmFmOTNh
That's quite a lot of room - three...
I don't think BAR used their backup bows, if they had them. You mean after the ETNZ practice incident? Pretty sure they had to repair the damaged bows. Unless you have sources that say otherwise?
Oracle also 100% can't just paint STJ's bows and then use them. The bows have to be built in the...
Even if they showed the bow as a wind-up, that doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. I'd be extremely surprised if they were attaching those hulls to STJ's to make a new boat, because it's just so unlikely to be legal, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they're constructing a second boat...
Something worth noting from the redress rules: if Oracle have launched a second set of hulls, then they don't get a day off for repairs even if they aren't at fault. So if they launch a second boat, and it isn't as good as their first boat, then they're putting themselves at some risk. I wonder...
Even if a team isn't at fault, they can only get one calendar day of delays for repairs. After that you have to be back out there or you're losing races, even if you did nothing wrong.
Agree about the first comment. For the second comment, I think the problem is that 'hull' is defined as the combination of the bow and the non-bow section, and each has an identification number that goes with it if the hulls are sold. Hard to argue it's a new set of hulls (and that they haven't...
Yeah. I just think it if they wanted the word 'modificy' to exclude completely replacing major components as long as the shape stays the same - which would be a pretty unusual use of the word - it would be extremely unusual not to explicitly define it that way. Without any definition of what...
Can never rule anything out 100% when it comes to this stuff, but I'd say it's extremely likely they'd count 'completely replace a huge chunk of the hull but keep the shape the same' as not a modification.