Can anyone please explain the ACEA release post IJ ruling

[waterboy42]

^+1

I cheered when OR cleaned up Alinghi and handed EB the reality check he sorely needed in the Court room and on the water.

Only another Billionaire like LE had the resources to take on a true tyrant and LE deserves credit for doing so.

I still think things can settle down and a fair event can occur.

As GD said, it's not the IJ ruling that's so important, it's what happens from here.

 

[bcopper]

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?

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

 

[waterboy42]

^ 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?

True, we (or I) don't know for sure.

I am just guessing based on OR's video of their operation. Others could be using entirely different systems, although I guess the options are fairly limited.

 

[nav]

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

 

[Xlot]

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?

No, it's "adjustable stabilizers" (google check). All civil jets have them

 

[Dixie]

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?

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

Correct SWS.

 

[sefo]

In your review of Barclay's release you overlooked his saying:

"A decision today by the International Jury upheld protests by Emirates Team New Zealand and Italy’s Luna Rossa Challenge that the Regatta Director alone could not change some of the regatta rules, even if he was acting in the best interests of all the sailors".

That's not at all what the jury decision said. It made no mention of in whose interests the Regatta Director was or wasn't acting.

Another deliberate Barclay attempt to confuse/mislead??

 

[~Stingray~~]

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

 

[pjfranks]

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record

 

[christom]

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record

Yes he is either mentally unhinged or a paid troll

 

[Sean]

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?

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

Correct SWS.

Not true where it counts. Sure, the distance traveled at the bottom will be much greater than at the top, but the change in angle will remain constant at any point along the shaft. Proasailor got it right.

 

[eric e]

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.

+1

 

[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?

Depends on the distance from the center of the pivot point for each end of the rudder post.

Correct SWS.

Not true where it counts. Sure, the distance traveled at the bottom will be much greater than at the top, but the change in angle will remain constant at any point along the shaft. Proasailor got it right.

Thank you! Think of it this way: the stabilizer is at a fixed angle relative to the rudder, say 90 degrees for example. If the rudder angle changes two degrees, the stabilizer is still fixed at 90 degrees relative to it, so it too will change two degrees, and this is true regardless of how far the stabilizer is from the pivot point. Or imagine a "ladder" of stabilizers, all fixed at 90 degrees to the rudder - they all remain parallel to each other and change at exactly the same angle.

Hey! How about two stabilizers on each rudder? Both with short chords and short spans. Probably a rule against that?

Speaking of the imbalanced load caused by asymmetrical rudders (this thread?), take a look at Coutts bouncing on the stabilizer at 4:12 in this video: http://vimeo.com/69710443

Pretty alarming flex, actually! Not that it will break, but I can imagine a severe twisting load induced by an asymmetric rudder.

 

[Enzedel92]

FFS I give up

and I read every post on this forum!!!

The more I read the more I am confused!!

 

[jaysper]

Para's 163 to 170 or thereabouts, where the IJ got nit-picky about 'regulation' and another word, is what the whole decision hinged on. Could easily have gone the other way, I'd be surprised if there was even consensus.

But agreed, safety aside it's probably for the best.

you're like a broken record

For goodness sake Stinger, just give up and admit you were wrong.

Not only did the rules state unambiguously that IM couldn't do what he did, but there was already a precedent set by the IJ when they rules in favour of ETNZ's training foils.

The vast majority of people here (including a very good proportion of Americans) understood that what IM tried to do was not only against the protocol, but was not an appropriate thing to do.

You are normally quite a different sort of poster from SWS, but this issue seems to have you whipped up into a lather.

SWS is still here trolling on about how ETNZ is anti-safety despite the fact that I could EASILY make OR much safer with a few thousand dollars worth of kit that would remain within the class rules.

The only conclusion I can therefore draw is that he is happy for OR to be safer as long as it doesn't compromise their speed.

So, step back from the keyboard, take a few deep breaths and return to normal service rather than being SWS' avatar.

 

[waterboy42]

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

 

[ProaSailor]

First we had a new theory for determining speed, now it's angular change - a new Einstein?

Again, not suggesting I know the finer mechanics of any other teams rudder / stabiliser / elevator systems :blink:

I assume ETNZ & LR's are fixed, end plate style stabilizers, where the only way they can adjust AOA is by pitching the whole integrated unit fore and aft via pivoting at the Rudder Stock as suggested and displayed by Oracles rudder mechanism video, and not dynamically unless 5 knots or less.

1min30s - Rudder Foil AOA Mechanism

It's eighth grade geometry - the angle of the dangle (rudder) plus 90 degrees is IDENTICAL to the angle of the elevator/stabilizer (+- whatever _fixed_ pitch the elevator/stabilizer/winglet was set at, relative to the rudder, when it was constructed).

from 2:06 in this video:

 

[Indio]

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?

The Barclay statement is a disclaimer in intent and content, to safeguard their butts in case there's another PP and injury before there is any unanimous agreement on the Class Rule changes, because they now no longer have any control over the contentious changes to the Class Rules. As things stand, ALL 7 recommendations requiring changes to the Class Rules are no longer enforceable, hence the call for "voluntary compliance to Safety Rules". Except they can't race with rudders & elevators which were designed to comply with the Murray Class Rules.

The MEP is still valid, until the CG decides that the event is no longer safe because of the inability of the Sponsors (GGYC/ACRM) to comply with all the safety undertakings in their Safety Plan. In time, all the Competitors will revalidate the Class Rules changes they had already unanimously approved, and the contentious ones will be discarded. This then means that the AC72 Class Rules existing before Murray released his RN189 (this is red-lined amended Class Rules) are now in force.

1: CR 8,2 is back in force: no part of the rudder shall be less than 1m (illegally changed to 0.85m by RD) from the stern;

2: The Rudder "elevator" spans can now no longer extend beyond the beam - by necessity, this may result in asymmetric elevators or symmetric designs, as long as they don't extend beyond the beam.

3: No minimum elevator areas, because there were none specified in the original C/Rules. Competitors may approve minimum elevator areas previously recommended for "safety", or not;

4: Hand-holds and foot straps while illegal will probably stay on the boats, although personally I believe part of the competitiveness is the efficiency of crework: if a cremember is careless and goes overboard, tough titties!!

5: Max of 3 softsails back in force, including max weight allowed under CR Cl 26;

 

[snaerk]

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?

The Barclay statement is a disclaimer in intent and content, to safeguard their butts in case there's another PP and injury before there is any unanimous agreement on the Class Rule changes, because they now no longer have any control over the contentious changes to the Class Rules. As things stand, ALL 7 recommendations requiring changes to the Class Rules are no longer enforceable, hence the call for "voluntary compliance to Safety Rules". Except they can't race with rudders & elevators which were designed to comply with the Murray Class Rules.

The MEP is still valid, until the CG decides that the event is no longer safe because of the inability of the Sponsors (GGYC/ACRM) to comply with all the safety undertakings in their Safety Plan. In time, all the Competitors will revalidate the Class Rules changes they had already unanimously approved, and the contentious ones will be discarded. This then means that the AC72 Class Rules existing before Murray released his RN189 (this is red-lined amended Class Rules) are now in force.

1: CR 8,2 is back in force: no part of the rudder shall be less than 1m (illegally changed to 0.85m by RD) from the stern;

2: The Rudder "elevator" spans can now no longer extend beyond the beam - by necessity, this may result in asymmetric elevators or symmetric designs, as long as they don't extend beyond the beam.

3: No minimum elevator areas, because there were none specified in the original C/Rules. Competitors may approve minimum elevator areas previously recommended for "safety", or not;

4: Hand-holds and foot straps while illegal will probably stay on the boats, although personally I believe part of the competitiveness is the efficiency of crework: if a cremember is careless and goes overboard, tough titties!!

5: Max of 3 softsails back in force, including max weight allowed under CR Cl 26;

wehn you say 'comply with' dont you really mean 'fully exploite"

ETNZ and LR do comply currantly, supposably

 

[eric e]

wuss will be happy

he gets to put really, really tiny stabs on OR's rudders so it will go really fast

and JS better learn to sail the thing flat

maybe he can try the NO system and watch videos of etnz