Can anyone please explain the ACEA release post IJ ruling

Strike3

Member
110
0
Could just be a clumsy attempt to save face but: The headline could equally have read 'the event can't go ahead unless the teams voluntarily accept the recommendations'

This thing isn't over yet.......

 
Last edited by a moderator:

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
17,235
1,796
South Coast, UK
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.
The CEO hiring all his mates is a recipe for disaster in my experience (and alas I have some experience on that particular point). You might think it leads to a happy integrated team. Well, maybe, sometimes. An unwillingness to make necessary choices that are bound to offend someone and a management team with an inflated sense of entitlement is another possible outcome.

Apart from cocking up AC34, what else is on Barclay's CV?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,698
1,140
Rome
^^^

Yes, but teams also renounce the "in excess of max. beam, 1.4 m max. span, 0.85 m from transom" concessions of redlined Rule

And, what do you think this RC FB entry portents?

The Americas Cup Jury decision is out, basically reinstating the original Class Rule. I suspect there will be some new rudder wings on our boats pretty soon and no doubt more conspiracy theories that we must have known the rules would revert back?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sean

Super Anarchist
15,420
2,580
Sag Harbor, NY
Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?

 

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,698
1,140
Rome
^

Quite clear summary. Additionally, it seems to me that OR's rudders are right aft and against the rear crossbeam, so that moving them forward would be complicated

 

blackensign

Member
290
0
How is Larry a billionaire? I wouldn't hire him to white wash my fence.

Simple time management my friend.

If he was paid to whitewash your fence, his earning potential would be limited by how much fence he could whitewash.

However, if he screwed up bad enough, you might consider paying him to stay the fuck away from your fence. In this case, he could stay the fuck away from many fences at the same time and still have his day free to do whatever the fuck he wants. His earning potential would be limitless.

 

Dupont

Member
105
0
Bruxelles
Basically the more forward position of OR main foil obliges them to have more lift from the rudders ?

Which obliges them to position their rudders aft at the max of the rule and have it wider than the stern ?

So they are left with either increasing the cord and making more drag or increasing the width of their stern and weighting more ?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rennmaus

Super Anarchist
10,555
2,085
Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?
You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."

How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .

 

Wess

Super Anarchist
Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?
OK, so now you guys lost me again. Its back to the class rules. Where does a class rule or agreed 35 of 37IM recommendations say 0.32 ms. If OR or AR want so run something that big and can still meet the class rules fine, but nowhere does it say that NZ or LR have to, right?? They can (and I thought have) run safely with smaller than 0.32 ms and would want to again given smaller is faster, no?
How can they force NZ and LR to run with 0.32 ms rudders post IJ ruling and when they don't, does not IM have to go back to USCG to get a new MEP (in theory bringing with him as directed by the IJ claims from LR and NZ that they can and have run smaller SA rudders safely)?

Edit to add... what she said above.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

pogen

Super Anarchist
5,092
8
SF Bay
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.
It strikes me that dealing with ACRM/ACEA is a lot like dealing with the North Koreans.
The same kooky arrogance and blindness to reality, while the country goes down the tubes.

 
It seems as though the ACEA is saying that although they can not change the design rules per the IJ ruling they are entitled to overlay the design rules with safety rules that affect the design of boats.

Did the IJ specifically prohibit the ACEA from implementing safety rules that affect the design of boats?

Maybe they should have?

 

~Stingray~~

Super Anarchist
22,861
28
Bottom line is that so long as the MEP contains all 37, then teams have to meet the lowest-common-denominator, most-restrictive constraints of BOTH: the MEP ~and~ the original DR. It's the bastardized 'third-way' result.

Neither OR nor AR already has rudders that can do that.

TS said at the very end of his video that OR's symmetrical .32 rudder could be changed out to an assym if that's what the IJ decision's result led to. RC said much the same, the next day. GS said yesterday they have no problem no matter what. I see no reason to doubt any of them. Even despite if a few here can't figure how..

GD suggests a dispensation of some kind to accommodate AR's timing issues (OR has no timing issues) but even though GD, RC and PC would be happy with that, LR has not yet agreed it - even when asked the question directly. It is also difficult to imagine how it would not be effectively a DR change for just one boat; an argument LR might press.

What GD cannot control, but IM might be able and willing to do regardless, is drop the min area from the MEP. That would allow both OR and AR to run with their original-rule compliant rudders, surely what both want.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wess

Super Anarchist
Bottom line is that so long as the MEP contains all 37, then teams have to meet the lowest-common-denominator, most-restrictive constraints of BOTH: the MEP ~and~ the original DR. It's the bastardized 'third-way' result.

Neither OR nor AR already has rudders that can do that.

TS said at the very end of his video that OR's symmetrical .32 rudder could be changed out to an assym if that's what the IJ decision's result led to. RC said much the same, the next day. GS said yesterday they have no problem no matter what. I see no reason to doubt any of them. Even despite if a few here can't figure how..

GD suggests a dispensation of some kind to accommodate AR's timing issues (OR has no timing issues) but even though GD, RC and PC would be happy with that, LR has not yet agreed it - even when asked the question directly. It is also difficult to imagine how it would not be effectively a DR change for just one boat; an argument LR might press.

What GD cannot control, but IM might be able and willing to do regardless, is drop the min area from the MEP. That would allow both OR and AR to run with their original-rule compliant rudders, surely what both want.
What authority does IM have, how does he operationalize the MEP? The IJ ruled the measurement committee should be directed to ignore 189. Why do you believe IM has any authority to tell teams how to design and build their boats w regards to rudder SA?
 

Dupont

Member
105
0
Bruxelles
^^ Obviously OR can change to asym, but they may not work as well on OR.

Amusing that GD agrees to help AR only and not OR.

As for IM, as already wrote, he will rewrite the MEP in order to..................help OR-AR :)

 

Sean

Super Anarchist
15,420
2,580
Sag Harbor, NY
Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are too small area wise, and their modified rudders are too wide for the Bmax rule. One could always go forward with the cord length, but a stubby foil is apparently slower than a longer more slender foil. If you go inboard with a slender assym foil to avoid the Bmax problem and meet the area minimum, you run into the 1m from transom plane rule when the rudder rotates. ETNZ and LR can do it because their rudders are further forward than OR's. Not sure about the rudder location of AR. So, it seems that for OR to meet the 0.32 m2 "recommendation", they may have to go with increased cord stubby stabilizers or move the rudders forward?
You wrote "Bottom line I think is, the original rudder rules stay, in addition, the "recommendations" requirement of 0.32 m2 minimum area must be met. AR's class rule legal rudders are ."

How come? As I understood it (maybe wrongly) the Jury's decision says that the original rules stay, and the recommendations are "deleted", and therefore do not apply. For a blond girl, please, explain in easy words and type slowly. . . . .
The reasoning is, I suppose, that one can build a .32m2 without changing the design rule, therefore, the RD can impose it as a safety requirement. Just so happens that ERNZ and LR already did.
 


Latest posts



Top