Can anyone please explain the ACEA release post IJ ruling

[Sean]

^^ 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

Actually, if (big if) my read of the situation is correct, it hurts OR, and doesn't effect ETNZ or LR.

 

[~Stingray~~]

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

IM talked yesterday specifically about needing to 'close the gaps' between the MEP and the IJ's decision. So I'm sure that's what he'll be working to do. I doubt that either AR or OR are already building big assyms. The 'third-way' won't have much of a shelf life and so GD's very kind 'dispensation' won't even be needed..

 

[ProaSailor]

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

You couldn't possibly afford him anyway so your point is moot.

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?

Other effects of "a stubby foil" (greater chord) were mentioned by Xlot in a different thread:

Dunno: the ET/LR "STABILIZER" appears to have such a low aspect ratio that one would need a large change in AoA (and therefore in rudder stock angle) to get a meaningful variation in lift. The top part of the rudder has a fairly wide chord flush with the hull, doesn't seem compatible with such a rake variation.

Conversely, this would explain why LR's wheelies are less severe than OR's: low aspect ratio stabilizers are much less prone to stall.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR. It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it. The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP. Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions. Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

 

[Wess]

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

IM talked yesterday specifically about needing to 'close the gaps' between the MEP and the IJ's decision. So I'm sure that's what he'll be working to do. I doubt that either AR or OR are already building big assyms. The 'third-way' won't have much of a shelf life and so GD's very kind 'dispensation' won't even be needed..

Oh come on. Just one thread without spin. One. Just one. Please!
I do not see any basis that IM has to disqualify a boat that does not meet an MEP rule of rudders have SA of 0.32 ms or similar

Please just a simple yes or no.

* Post IJ ruling do you believe IM can DSQ a boat or even have the measurement committee ask or examine the SA of a rudder relative to a 0.32 m2 SA criteria and cause a boat to not be measured in as a result?

Yes or no?

 

[Dupont]

^^ 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

Actually, if (big if) my read of the situation is correct, it hurts OR, and doesn't effect ETNZ or LR.

If OR-AR had been able to comply successfully with the old rules they would have use the security to bend the rules. Are they working on asym now ?

 

[~Stingray~~]

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR. It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it. The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP. Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions. Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

Not sure I see the distinction. As RD, surely he can only run races that 'comport to the conditions' of the Safety Plan regs in the MEP?

 

[Rennmaus]

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.

Thanks. But since the safety recommendations had to be withdrawn, isn't the current situation as if they never existed, and only the original rules apply? IIUC, the complete MEP (RN189) was invalidated.

But, the situation may be as follows:

- the MEP still (kind of) applies - to not have to cancel the next races and because no changed MEP in place yet

- ETNZ and LR, both complying with the original rules and the safety recommendations in today's default MEP, are allowed to race now

- AR would not be eligible to race now, since the old rules in combination with the default MEP are still in place

- ETNZ offers the dispensation to give AR the chance to race now

- IM has to submit a changed MEP application (preferably applying due diligence and seek all teams' written (!) approval for his safety recommendations according to the approval routines as per the protocol)

If that's the way it is, do you think the new MEP (reverting to 100% old class rules w/o any changes) could be available until AR is ready to race? If so, no issue!

If not, the dispensation could be effective until the new MEP is available. No issue either (if LR and OR agree on the dispensation too).

Following this (female) logic I still don't understand why there's so much ado about the "third way".

EDIT: Just wading through the "Jury Decision" thread (220 unread posts. Really???), and there are also some good and less good explanations. We'll see what's really going on...

 

[nav]

^^ 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

3. NEUTRAL MANAGEMENT

(ii) not unreasonably favor (sic) the interests of any Competitor over another.

 

[nav]

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.

Mandating a constraint where non previously existed is a Rule change - IJ said 'use due process or forget it'

 

[~Stingray~~]

BA is apparently not expecting any 'third-way' either: http://blog.sfgate.com/americascup/2013/07/12/americas-cup-ruling-could-clear-way-for-racing/

my bold

--

...

New Zealand’s Dalton urged the teams “to put down their weapons and get on with it.”

Oracle in their sightsIt is widely assumed, though, that the protests were also aimed at Oracle Team USA. The defender has been using the new rudder wings on both its boats since the safety recommendations were put in place.

Ben Ainslie, an Oracle skipper, said his team will simply go back to smaller rudder wings. The process shouldn’t take more than a few days, he said. Oracle has plenty of time: The America’s Cup finals begin Sept. 7, and no Oracle boat is required to sail in the regatta leading up to the Cup races themselves.

“We were complying before the (Artemis) accident in May,” Ainslie said. “The situation has been blown out of proportion a little bit.”

Any talk among the other challengers that Murray’s rudder-wing proposal might benefit Oracle was “a classic America’s Cup conspiracy theorist’s dream,” Ainslie said.

He said it’s possible the smaller wings could make his team’s boats even faster. The shore crew has to rebalance the boats on its foils. “It just depends on the configuration you adopt,” Ainslie said.

---

GS, from here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10897529

"We don't have an issue complying with the class rule and we will be ready to race under the rules affirmed by the jury."

 

[waterboy42]

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

 

[Earl Boebert]

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism.

Cheers,

Earl

 

[pjfranks]

^ The IJ decided that the MEP is not the kind of regulation referred to by the Protocol, a decision that it based most everything else on. But it still is a regulation in the sense that it is what the CG has approved, under which races can be run.

You are not reading carefully SR. It's not a regulation because the USCG does not enforce it. The CG approves it, but it is ACRM's responsibility to enforce the safety conditions they attach to the MEP. Since two of the rules have been declared invalid, the RD would not be allowed to enforce those against a boat that is legal under Class rules but doesn't comport to the MEP conditions. Murray's only option in that case would be to go to the CG, tell them he thinks the event safety is compromised, and they would cancel the permit and the race would be called off.

So you think they're reaching for the abort button?

 

[waterboy42]

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.

If popular opinion is to be beleived and ETNZ have a speed edge over LR (should know today), then LR potentially have a lot more to lose by giving AR and even break...

AR have had the benefit of observation of the merits of all AC72's on the track. There is a good chance that AR could come out of the shed and be quicker than LR in a reasonably short time.

AR were very impressive with their speed and almost immediate foiling on their AC45, I would be surprised if they don't match that with the AC72

I'm sure LR would love to at least make the LV final and they have the most to risk by giving AR a "leg up"

 

[waterboy42]

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism.

Cheers,

Earl

Thanks for the clarification. At first glance then "Stabilizers" seems the appropriate term, however as their AOA is trim-able, albeit by pivoting the rudder stock, maybe they are a hybrid mash-up...

Elevizers?

 

[nav]

^ as their AOA is trim-able

Just as a matter of interest, we know AR and OTUSA have used trimtabs, we know OTUSA has been moving their rudder stock with motors. Have ETNZ or LR had either of these 'adaptions'.

We know this how?

 

[Dixie]

When did everyone drop the term "elevators" and start calling them "stabilisers" (assuming they are referring to the same thing)

Or has the term been used with the IJ to reinforce their "safety" and "stability enhancing" objective?

Aircraft terminology. Stabilizers are fixed and elevators are moveable in flight. To complicate things even further, elevators can have "trim tabs" that move either for fine degrees of control or to move the entire elevator, thus reducing load on the actuating mechanism.

Cheers,

Earl

Thanks for the clarification. At first glance then "Stabilizers" seems the appropriate term, however as their AOA is trim-able, albeit by pivoting the rudder stock, maybe they are a hybrid mash-up...

Elevizers?

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move. But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

 

[ProaSailor]

You're correct that's there's been a conscious change in the terminology, specifically because the horizontal platforms (winglets?) don't move. But like moving a mast butt, the 2 degrees of movement at the gudgeon (I'm sure there's a better term for that), can cause a much greater change down where the winglets join the rudder. I think someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but once positioned and declared 5 minutes before the start, they cannot be moved.

A "a much greater change"? How do you figure that? The change in rudder angle at the top will be exactly the same as the change in angle of the stabilizer at the bottom, eh?

 

[jaysper]

I never thought I was going to look back at Ernesto and CNEV as examples of fairness and effective organization...

Thats bullshit, Evil Ernie was still way worse than this, not that I am at all happy with the current behaviour.