Can anyone please explain the ACEA release post IJ ruling

Wess

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

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

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

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

I'm lost.

Help.

 

eric e

Super Anarchist
6,396
9
nz.akl
this is what GD meant when he said they may have won the IJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Wess

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

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

?and changed a mindset from those that appear to think that IJ rulings don't apply to them?
Guess I am seeing/asking same thing. Really not trolling but this seems so blatent that it begs the claims of ethical lapses and/or that IM/OR/AR are trying to cheat. Not saying that is so but the presser just seems to beg for that claim to be made.
I just don't get it. The IJ ruling and even USCG comments, along with the NZ and AR races (and even OR comments that they are fine either way), all seemed to pave the way to a fair event that could go forward. There was even a path proposed to allow AR to sail. There is nothing I can think of to be gained for ACEA with the statement other than to continue to try to force a competitive disadvantage onto LR and NZ (or an advantage for OR)?? Doubt that/don't want to believe that but what else is there?

 

sunseeker

Super Anarchist
3,585
548
this is what GD meant when he said they may have won the IJ

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

?and changed a mindset from those that appear to think that IJ rulings don't apply to them?
Guess I am seeing/asking same thing. Really not trolling but this seems so blatent that it begs the claims of ethical lapses and/or that IM/OR/AR are trying to cheat. Not saying that is so but the presser just seems to beg for that claim to be made.
I just don't get it. The IJ ruling and even USCG comments, along with the NZ and AR races (and even OR comments that they are fine either way), all seemed to pave the way to a fair event that could go forward. There was even a path proposed to allow AR to sail. There is nothing I can think of to be gained for ACEA with the statement other than to continue to try to force a competitive disadvantage onto LR and NZ (or an advantage for OR)?? Doubt that/don't want to believe that but what else is there?
One pill makes you larger one pill makes you small. Go ask Alice.

 

MR.CLEAN

Moderator
46,282
4,430
Not here
What Barclay is saying is that ETNZ v LR can happen without a change to the MEP. Presumably he doesn't believe Murray has the time to revise the MEP before Saturday, and he's clearly got so much ego that he can't admit to being so soundly smacked down by the Jury. Not sure why that's so tough for the guy; maybe he's really short or something.

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

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wess

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

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

Jefferies is an old friend of Coutts; yet another guy with huge problems appearing human and competent off the race course. Barclay just seems like yet another bitter fucking Kiwi working for The Man.
Clean - How can NZ/LR happen Sat without changing the MEP? If they race as is (with the 37 changes) then their rudders take them out of measurement with class rules, no? With 189 now pulled as directed by the IJ and the measurement committee directed back to original class rules NZ and LR have to go back to class legal rudders to measure in for Sat, no? And that makes them out of compliance with IM's 37 (they comply w 35 or 37 but not 37 of 37).
I agree that the MEP does not need to change prior to the race - USCG said as much - but I just don't see how any boat can comply with IMs 37 AND comply with class rules now that 189 is pulled.

What am I missing?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,694
1,132
Rome
As stated, ETNZ and LR presently satisfy both conditions. Unbelievably, it's OR that would be penalized, because:

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wess

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

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

 

Dupont

Member
105
0
Bruxelles
So, it seems that SB is confirming that TNZ-AR measure and that the new regulations would have been implemented to make OR-AR legal. Obviously for safety....

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

 

dolittleandbillem

New member
6
0
FYI, yes Jefferies is a long time friend of Coutts. But so is Barclay, Barclay and Coutts went to University in NZ together doing an engineering.

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

As its only me second post,

I'll fuck off now.

 

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,694
1,132
Rome
^^

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

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:

onimod

Super Anarchist
1,093
0
Sydney
So OR are basically going to be forced to build copies of the ETNZ rudders and match their location too.

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

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

:blink: mind boggling

 




Top