Can anyone please explain the ACEA release post IJ ruling

[eric e]

i stopped at 500kg

 

[Man Overboard]

You are joking I hope? ^ More wrong than right

i stopped at 500kg

lol - okay, yeah I didn't see that... :-/

But nevertheless, I consider it a typo, the principles applied are sound.

 

[nav]

Didn't ETNZ put it better to the IJ?

25. (JN075)

(e) Alternatively, the Jury finds that the existing Class Rule coexist with the safety
plan and orders Competitors to comply with both the existing Class Rule and the
safety plan. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the safety plan
and the existing Class Rule, the Jury orders that the most restrictive provisions

shall prevail.'

 

[BossBitch]

You are joking I hope? ^ More wrong than right

>i stopped at 500kg

lol - okay, yeah I didn't see that... :-/

But nevertheless, I consider it a typo, the principles applied are sound.

Sorry about that! Yes definitely a typo - to much Pinot Gris!

 

[eric e]

the pinots will do that to ya

so smooth, young and fresh

they slide right down without protest

then kick you in the head

you should move up to some full bodied shiraz

if you try to slam those down the bitches will rip your taste buds out and stuff them up your nose

you sip

with respect

let them have their way you

 

[Uneven Keel]

the pinots will do that to ya

so smooth, young and fresh

they slide right down without protest

then kick you in the head

you should move up to some full bodied shiraz

if you try to slam those down the bitches will rip your taste buds out and stuff them up your nose

you sip

with respect

let them have their way you

Not Gris, maybe Noir

 

[dun]

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

Dalton said that he was perfectly happy with the requirement of locking the angle of the elevators on the rudders five minutes before the start of each race and explained how it was done. 'We fix the angle and lock it in place, then we take a photograph of the lock and send this off a telephone to the Measurement Committee. It’s much the same as we used to have to do in the Round the World Races when we sealed the propeller before the start of the leg,' he explained.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=148505&view=findpost&p=4213144

 

[nav]

^ So he approved of the planned procedure for locking off the system before racing. Thanks. Do you also take that to mean NZL5 is using an adjustable rudder stock - or was he merely commenting on the principle as it might apply to other teams? Do you have a link to the comments?

It would seem not everyone was ready to be quite so blase' about these 'race restrictions' (Class Rules actually), though...

^ They will be busy making their various declarations and sms'ing. No photos, no seals, no pre or post race inspection!

Hang on, hang on - here we go. Keeping everyone honest!

Measurement Committee
Interpretation No. 46 of AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22nd February, 2011

Rule References:

23.4 An AC72 Yacht may be re-measured in whole or in part at the discretion of the Measurement
Committee.

23.8 When carrying out measurement ashore, the measurer shall allow a reasonable time to drain water
from the AC72 Yacht equipment and allow the substitution of wet rigging with equivalent dry rigging.

Questions:

1. The rule places a number of limitations on the yacht that apply whilst racing or during a race. Will the
Measurement Committee conduct post-race measurement checks and compliance inspections?

Answers:
1. The Measurement Committee may, at their discretion, carry out post-race measurement checks and
compliance inspections to verify compliance with the AC72 Class Rule.

This interpretation is issued in accordance with Rule 3 of the AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22nd February, 2011.

Nick Nicholson,
Chairman
for the Measurement Committee

13th July, 2013

+ the 2nd update of ISAF Rules of Racing in a couple of days - wtf?

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ISAF-Racing-Rules-of-Sailing-AC-Edition-v-1.18.pdf

 

[~Stingray~~]

Seems to me that despite all the weeks of hysterical posts about some advantage to be gained by OR thru that safety allowance including by you, nav, that GD admitted right there: ETNZ can and have been doing the same damn thing all along. As IM had an email to prove, ETNZ is who suggested the dang thing - way back in back in December before the fatality even happened!

Exactly as I had suggested in response, all the while.

The rewriting of history is a burden on all those who got that part wrong too GD and ETNZ should have fully supported IM, should have fully agreed the Safety Regs, instead of creating the mess they did based on unsupportable and, in this obvious case, just more provably baseless assumptions.

Posters are calling on lightning-rod SWS to 'admit he was wrong' about which way the IJ might rule, and he did. But how about all those who were hitting the roof with apoplectic posts about this subject of 'oh, but OR has been testing them for months - nobody else has - and so OR are just manipulating IM through his paycheck to make it legal so that OR can win' about adjustables admitting just how far-more-ridiculous their posts were? How about everyone who posted on the subject simply admit to how baseless, fact-less, totally conspiracy-minded, all that complete nonsense was?

GD blew it apart by exposing his own adjustable elevators ability truth in the very end. Exactly as I'd already suggested through weeks of suggesting against the stiff, on-eyed wind of all the bullshit posts here, that GD might in the end admit having been involved in exactly the same practice if he was smart.

There should be hundreds of 'Yep, I was wrong' retractions but I won't bother singling out any one poster no matter who is currently too one-eyed; to do so would probably only make them feel 'special.'

 

[christom]

Seems to me that despite all the weeks of hysterical posts about some advantage to be gained by OR thru that safety allowance including by you, nav, that GD admitted right there: ETNZ can and have been doing the same damn thing all along. As IM had an email to prove, ETNZ is who suggested the dang thing - way back in back in December before the fatality even happened!

Exactly as I had suggested in response, all the while.

The rewriting of history is a burden on all those who got that part wrong too GD and ETNZ should have fully supported IM, should have fully agreed the Safety Regs, instead of creating the mess they did based on unsupportable and, in this obvious case, just more provably baseless assumptions.

Posters are calling on lightning-rod SWS to 'admit he was wrong' about which way the IJ might rule, and he did. But how about all those who were hitting the roof with apoplectic posts about this subject of 'oh, but OR has been testing them for months - nobody else has - and so OR are just manipulating IM through his paycheck to make it legal so that OR can win' about adjustables admitting just how far-more-ridiculous their posts were? How about everyone who posted on the subject simply admit to how baseless, fact-less, totally conspiracy-minded, all that complete nonsense was?

GD blew it apart by exposing his own adjustable elevators ability truth in the very end. Exactly as I'd already suggested through weeks of suggesting against the stiff, on-eyed wind of all the bullshit posts here, that GD might in the end admit having been involved in exactly the same practice if he was smart.

There should be hundreds of 'Yep, I was wrong' retractions but I won't bother singling out any one poster no matter who is currently too one-eyed; to do so would probably only make them feel 'special.'

I am lost, what has locking the angle of the rudder got to do with the size of the elevator and the position of the rudder post.

Or is this just more of your moral outrage and misdirection.

 

[jaysper]

What Stinger is also managing to conveniently side step is that a suggestion in December 2012 to change the rule is NOT a comittment to accept that rule when forced down your throat 6 or 7 months later when the LVC is about to start.

 

[~Stingray~~]

I am lost, what has locking the angle of the rudder got to do with the size of the elevator and the position of the rudder post.

Or is this just more of your moral outrage and misdirection.

Two different issues. The proposed rule about allowing adjustment up until 5:00 before any start did also elicit apoplectic posts to suggest that cheating, bribery, probably child-beating, by IM were all at play.

GD's admission in this video that ETNZ were after the exact same rule should elicit apologies. To not apologize will make their demands for other apologies all the sillier.

This item, just like the other one about enforcing a minimum elevator area, even with the given allowance to then give freedom to exceed BMax, was perfectly logical by IM. ETNZ should have supported IM's safety regs. One of the screaming arguments to not do so, is illustrated as just plain one-eyed - by the admission from GD himself that the adjustable reg was one that ETNZ not only suggested 6 months ago, but was already doing.

I accept the IJ decision and am fine with it. Am happy to keep things even and look forward to saluting whoever wins AC34. But the way it gets won matters too, and ETNZ disappointed me in this incident for all the unsubstantiated bullshit they brought. They left even their fans out to dry on this matter, let them to argue a false proposition and make complete fools of themselves in the process of doing so. GD should have gotten honest and admitted what he did above much sooner than when he did.

 

[southseasbill]

Earth to Spinray. What's it like in that alternate universe?

 

[christom]

I think you are deliberately making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. We have a problem ( the ability to move the rudder angle whilst racing) GD comes up with a simple solution and suggests it. Problem solved, move on lets deal with next issue.

Any thing more is just trying to create battles where there are none or muddy the water.

 

[Uneven Keel]

Earth to Spinray. What's it like in that alternate universe?

Seti intercepted reply:

"Surprisingly well populated by AC afficianados actually. Theres all of the cunnAlingist fan club, CNEV, NY YC (past present and acres of space for the future) SDYC. SirMF, most mf SA posters and pictures of Stingray on the wall. We asure you we are having a devil of a good time and look forward to seeing you all shortly"

 

[~Stingray~~]

Earth to Spinray. What's it like in that alternate universe?

I'm one of the few in the real universe.
Proof is above, I won't bother pointing to all the wild, alternate-universe posts before those posters had to do an "oh shit, what did GD just say?" complete backflip back into reality

 

[KiwiJoker]

Seems to me that despite all the weeks of hysterical posts about some advantage to be gained by OR thru that safety allowance including by you, nav, that GD admitted right there: ETNZ can and have been doing the same damn thing all along. As IM had an email to prove, ETNZ is who suggested the dang thing - way back in back in December before the fatality even happened!

Exactly as I had suggested in response, all the while.

The rewriting of history is a burden on all those who got that part wrong too GD and ETNZ should have fully supported IM, should have fully agreed the Safety Regs, instead of creating the mess they did based on unsupportable and, in this obvious case, just more provably baseless assumptions.

Posters are calling on lightning-rod SWS to 'admit he was wrong' about which way the IJ might rule, and he did. But how about all those who were hitting the roof with apoplectic posts about this subject of 'oh, but OR has been testing them for months - nobody else has - and so OR are just manipulating IM through his paycheck to make it legal so that OR can win' about adjustables admitting just how far-more-ridiculous their posts were? How about everyone who posted on the subject simply admit to how baseless, fact-less, totally conspiracy-minded, all that complete nonsense was?

GD blew it apart by exposing his own adjustable elevators ability truth in the very end. Exactly as I'd already suggested through weeks of suggesting against the stiff, on-eyed wind of all the bullshit posts here, that GD might in the end admit having been involved in exactly the same practice if he was smart.

There should be hundreds of 'Yep, I was wrong' retractions but I won't bother singling out any one poster no matter who is currently too one-eyed; to do so would probably only make them feel 'special.'

Give it a break Stinger. You're increasingly sounding like SWS.

Bundling all the insults and conjecture from all sources into one smelly stew and then treating it as fact achieves exactly nothing, except increased confusion.

The key item here is that ETNZ and LR protested some "safety changes" and were proved correct.


Your thinking has all of the blinding clarity displayed by "America's Cup" in the Barclay media announcement following the ruling.

 

[Oneyoti]

GD and ETNZ should have fully supported IM, should have fully agreed the Safety Regs,

A good reason for ET/LR to protest?

To avoid the setting of a dangerous precedent within AC34!!!!

You can be gracious: posting a topic and link to the IJ decision and your comments about ET after their win against LR are great examples. But repeating the above, when you would almost certainly agree that LR / ET could not have allowed such a precedent to have been set, detracts from your other posts.

 

[mudcrab99]

Just noticed this shot and wondered if the assymetry of this rudder might have contributed to the PP.

Kinda curious how closely these comply with the RD previous suggestions for safer design?

Hard to tell from this angle and without measuring, but looks like it might be just outside the hull line and symmetrical. Could be very wrong. Usually am....

Cheers

 

[eric e]

that's 1 of the w-i-d-e sym rudders that OR was using to establish a base-line for foiling

silver with trim-tab as seen in video grab

now they've got that foiling base-line, and the legal ruling on box rule changes

they will presumably continue to work on the orange assyms, also in the video grab

to get the boat class legal and safety compliant over the next 5? weeks