Can anyone please explain the ACEA release post IJ ruling

[Indio]

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

Jiminy doesn't agree with spending too much time on the water - he's said so!!

 

[dogwatch]

Never mind ruddergate, here comes uddergate.

For 155 years, farmers from all over the country have brought their dairy cattle to the Great Yorkshire Show in the hope of winning a prized rosette for Daisy.

Size and shape, it seems, are everything when it comes to a prize dairy cow’s udder, and farmers are suspected of either using superglue to block up teats, making the udders fill up, or inflating them with air Photo: ALAMY





But the bucolic tranquillity of the nation’s premier agricultural show has been shattered this year by suspicions that farmers have cheated by tampering with — of all things — udders.
The results of the dairy cattle competitions have been suspended after vets carrying out ultrasound scans on two cows’ udders found anomalies which must be analysed to verify whether cheating has taken place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/10177258/Mystery-of-superglued-udders-grips-farm-show.html

 

[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

This is a great example of posts that get progressively misconstrued, but thanks, that was my understanding from the outset, I probably didn't express it well.

 

[Oneyoti]

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.

I am not sure that is correct.

The RD's job is to run a fair and safe regatta.

The RD's job is not to run a regatta for all 4 boats.

The RD, by his own admission, endorses that LR/ET are safe under old / new rules.

The RD can go back to the CG with an amended 35 point safety plan and the caveat that the MEP only covers ET / LR.

The CG will grant an MEP under these conditions, being as the 2 removed safety recommendations made no difference to ET / LR.

Once Or / AR have demonstrated they are safe under the rules to the RD, he can go back to the CG and amend the MEP.

The AC is very much a design competition and the RD can hardly cancel the event because in his opinion 50% of the fleet have designed boats that aren't safe!! No he must run the event for the 50% of the fleet that have brought along a safe design.

 

[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

Oh no, sorry! You expressed it fine, I was agreeing with you. Just elaborating for the benefit of those who believed otherwise. It was me who perhaps didn't say it very well.

 

[nav]

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.

Rewriting history again SR - just as you tried to do for months with ETNZ appeal to the IJ over MC's foil (mis-) interpretation, not to mention your heroic efforts over the last weeks!

Why don't we just make it a truism of 34th AC that ETNZ cause all the problems - and then get lucky in front of the IJ. Happy with that?

 

[nav]

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

You can say that again!

Now back to my question. Yes we know what OTUSA is/were doing with their 'motors', are ETNZ/LR moving their fixed stabilisers via the bearings/rudderstocks? What makes you think they are/need to/would benefit from?

Come to think of it someone said GD? had discussed how they would be 'fixed' for the MC prior to racing. I guess you could take that as an indication they had something to 'fix' - then agian they may have been talking about their competitors

 

[~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.

Rewriting history again SR - just as you tried to do for months with ETNZ appeal to the IJ over MC's foil (mis-) interpretation, not to mention your heroic efforts over the last weeks!

Why don't we just make it a truism of 34th AC that ETNZ cause all the problems - and then get lucky in front of the IJ. Happy with that?

Rewriting history? Oh gee, there it is. I even remembered the '163' correctly. Para's 163 to 167 do address the question and 165 gets especially nit-picky.

IS THE COAST GUARD PERMIT A LAW OR REGULATION UNDER ARTICLE 16?

163. There was considerable debate amongst the Parties as to whether the conditions of

the Marine Event Permit in including the Safety Recommendations amounted to 'laws and regulations' in relation to Protocol Article 16.

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JN075.pdf

As to the rest? Take a flying fuck, nav What you claim is hardly gospel either.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

a little bizarre when you say the issue was "nitpicky" when it was the crux of the entire matter and the focus of most of the deliberations

 

[~Stingray~~]

Yep, maybe nitpicky is not the best description; but agreed on the rest, which was my point too.

 

[pjfranks]

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.

I am not sure that is correct.

The RD's job is to run a fair and safe regatta.

The RD's job is not to run a regatta for all 4 boats.

The RD, by his own admission, endorses that LR/ET are safe under old / new rules.

The RD can go back to the CG with an amended 35 point safety plan and the caveat that the MEP only covers ET / LR.

The CG will grant an MEP under these conditions, being as the 2 removed safety recommendations made no difference to ET / LR.

Once Or / AR have demonstrated they are safe under the rules to the RD, he can go back to the CG and amend the MEP.

The AC is very much a design competition and the RD can hardly cancel the event because in his opinion 50% of the fleet have designed boats that aren't safe!! No he must run the event for the 50% of the fleet that have brought along a safe design.

word.

 

[pjfranks]

Yep, maybe nitpicky is not the best description; but agreed on the rest, which was my point too.

your boys got schooled by the ij mate. live with it.

 

[~Stingray~~]

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

 

[Indio]

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

<<<yawn!!>>> have that South African village caught up with you yet?? You're trying waaayy too hard to fit in: you'll never become one of them...

 

[pjfranks]

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

drop the hatchet man. your side wrote the rules.

 

[Dupont]

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

Sadly, we'll very likely see more; regardless who it is who lowers the cannon next.

Same poodle, same master. Perhaps you should have kept Oronato ? -_-

 

[Man Overboard]

There's too much unnecessary conjecture above, I had to skip most of it after I read this correct, complete and absolute explanation.

Read it carefully, it leaves no room for doubt. Anything not discussed in this explanation is irrelevant. If events transpired differently this description would be the one the upheld in a court of law.

Summary: you can comply with both but you can't utilise the maximum allowances in the Recommendations because you're limited to the maximums in the Rules.

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.

 

[snaerk]

^ My take for a long time has been that ETNZ should have backed the safety regs, as they apparently did initially. Them later deciding to instead act on a highly dubious proposition that it would have benefitted OR led to an awful lot of bullshit in its wake. It fanned unnecessary conspiracy theories, insultingly nasty character assassinations, awful headlines, and a botched event opening. There was nothing at all 'sanctimonious' about any of that. Oh well.

....

Reg changes benefiting Oracle is arguable, meaining resonable people could disagree on weather or not Oracle might be signicantly advantaged by the change (weather that was the intent is irelavent)

You seem to be saying that becos it is knot currantly knowabel, ETNZ should have shut up and sat on their hands until it was knowabel - as eventualy it probly will be.

At the AmCup award seremony, perhaps?

 

[eric e]

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

presumably? etnz - LR have had a similar system from day one

i don't think we've seen any elevators/trim tabs on any of their hori-stabs

both OR and AR started with movable elevators rather than upper rudder stock adjust, probably as their designs were not conceived as foilers from the drawing board

OR appear to have taken the PP repair downtime to change from an elevator system to a rudder tilt system

AR just have never been up to speed in this design game and even with the longest lead time appear to have missed the chance to build rudder-tilt into big blue

which is going to make their 1-week? launch, tweak, race plans even harder

if that 5min finishing rule doesn't get changed AR may never get a point

 

[nav]

There's too much unnecessary conjecture above, I had to skip most of it after I read this correct, complete and absolute explanation.

Read it carefully, it leaves no room for doubt. Anything not discussed in this explanation is irrelevant. If events transpired differently this description would be the one the upheld in a court of law.

Summary: you can comply with both but you can't utilise the maximum allowances in the Recommendations because you're limited to the maximums in the Rules.

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.

You are joking I hope? ^ More wrong than right