INEOS Team GB

[JonRowe]

Thanks @JonRowe . That explains a lot. Probably was the UK intention, but they cannot, hence towing cut short.

Any idea on the date of that question?

Originally posed on the 15th november, current response issued on the 23rd with responses from competitors to the interpretation due tomorrow? I think if I'm reading the notice board correctly
( #26)

 

[The_Alchemist]

Thanks @JonRowe . That explains a lot. Probably was the UK intention, but they cannot, hence towing cut short.

Any idea on the date of that question?

What? Is there a post missing (#10918)?

 

[Jethrow]

I can see Jon's post #10918

 

[chesirecat]

"3. Rule 75-1.4 requires the AC-75 Class Yacht to ‘be propelled by sails only’ and so we assume that all components should be evaluated in their resemblance to an AC75 Class Yacht component used to propel the yacht with sails."

So in effect you can't stick any old lump of scaffold tube on the thing to tow it around whilst a mast is out of commission. Someone must have stirred the pot.

 

[enigmatically2]

"3. Rule 75-1.4 requires the AC-75 Class Yacht to ‘be propelled by sails only’ and so we assume that all components should be evaluated in their resemblance to an AC75 Class Yacht component used to propel the yacht with sails."

Logical assumption but someone must have stirred the pot.

I do have a few questions about that though
1) If taken literally it means no towing out to the racecourse at all? If if that towing is allowed, how come other towing is not?
2) Ineos weren't proposing to do this on the AC75 (and that rule is in the Ac75 class rule), but on an LEQ12 test boat. I can't see any equivalent rule for them

 

[buckdouger]

Does anyone understand why these videos can not be added to Watch Later? I never watch when I see these, I always add to watch later. So I don't watch these. And I am just interested in why they don't allow that.

Unsure if this is exactly it, but when I click through YouTube is promoting YouTube Kids below the video. If that implies it is deemed children's content, then any feature that tracks the user is apparently not allowed by FTC rules according to someone's Quora post, and Watch Later would do that.

 

[terrafirma]

Does anyone understand why these videos can not be added to Watch Later? I never watch when I see these, I always add to watch later. So I don't watch these. And I am just interested in why they don't allow that.

There are plenty of ways around it. For example share it to an email to yourself with a link to each of the videos. If you hit the save button watch later is there and works for me..!

 

[barfy]

What? Is there a post missing (#10918)?

probly double ignored you.

 

[Mozzy Sails]

So, I had been tracking the 'instrument mast' rule enquiry with interest, as the potential of the tow mast was something I really rated in their LEQ12.
Anyway, quite a sassy response from one of the competitors (I assume INEOS, although responses are anonymous) and I couldn't help but feel it now merited it's own video:

 

[JALhazmat]

The way the reply is written is pure F1 loop hole exploration.

The good thing is people arguing, “it’s against the spirit of the rules“ is that spirit and intention don’t exist, just the rule
can you assume that any items used for towing by the other teams now they have to remain as part of the leg12 yacht or now burn an allocation

 

[enigmatically2]

Good report @Mozzy Sails. I think this sort of thing is in inevitable with component limits. Imo they should have restricted those limits to only cover representative items. But they didn't.

I suspect the committee will reject the response, but it could make for interesting times ahead.

I also wondered whether you could put the real mast up, with a sleeve round it to distribute the load, and that sleeve attached to the tow rope. Then the sleeve is part of the towing mechanism, not the mast. Would that be possible & allowed

 

[porthos]

In case anyone is interested, the competitor response at 1.1 in this discussion was almost certainly from American Magic. That is some distinctly American legal writing, whereas the other responses are distinctly not.

And this whole discussion goes to show that the law isn't so much about the law as about the facts. As JALhazmat observed, the rule here doesn't change. What changes are the facts to be applied to the rules, which in turn helps define the edges of the rules. I expect the committee will be able to distinguish towing a boat out from towing an instrumental mast.

 

[Stingray~]

My fervent hope is that the Rules Committee dismisses the whole thing and says that tow masts are allowable, along with any other attachments being used by anyone for the purpose of towing.

While it may have been 'sassy' the question about LR's foil fixtures could possibly be a real subject, given how they may well behave as winglets. Maybe if it can be proved they are used purely for instrumentation purposes then a challenge on that would be dismissed too.

 

[Sailbydate]

My fervent hope is that the Rules Committee dismisses the whole thing and says that tow masts are allowable, along with any other attachments being used by anyone for the purpose of towing.

Not going to happen.

 

[Stingray~]

Not going to happen.

Could a team rig a 'triangle' that does not in any way resemble a tube mast, and attach to the top of that?

 

[chesirecat]

Interesting response. A yacht shall be propelled by wind only, and a mast by definition is the means to fulfill that purpose and designed for that purpose only. Ineos's pole has no function to propel the boat by wind and not designed as such.

 

[ChairborneRanger]

Interesting response. A yacht shall be propelled by wind only, and a mast by definition is the means to fulfill that purpose and designed for that purpose only. Ineos's pole has no function to propel the boat by wind and not designed as such.

Neither does a Mast Tube. Teams have to graft on new elements in order for it to even raise sails.

 

[JALhazmat]

The blame on INEOS for looking at this tie mast concept is odd.
if the rules are left ambiguous enough to leave that loop hole open then the blame has to be on everyone else being closed minded not to see it.

you want teams to push the limits, to throw the ball as far as they can, to use that oft used cliche. ffs if they didn’t and someone else did you would be shitting on INEOS for not spotting an opportunity.

 

[Mozzy Sails]

The blame on INEOS for looking at this tie mast concept is odd.
if the rules are left ambiguous enough to leave that loop hole open then the blame has to be on everyone else being closed minded not to see it.

you want teams to push the limits, to throw the ball as far as they can, to use that oft used cliche. ffs if they didn’t and someone else did you would be shitting on INEOS for not spotting an opportunity.

I was critical of INEOS last cup for not thinking outside the box enough (but they had some glimer of good avenues), and even more so in Bermuda. So, I think ideas like this are getting traction in the team is a positive.

However... if they have just thrown away a month's sailing with a concept that they weren't certain would be allowed, then that's a bit of a fuck up. They could have developed this in the background.

Obviously we don't know that's the case, maybe these delays are unrelated to any planned periods of tow testing with this tow mast (post?!)

 

[JALhazmat]

At least the front hasn't fallen off;-)

I think there is mileage in pointing out the inconsistency from the rules committee re other teams “attachments” maybe there is more to go with the tow mast. Or if not it makes others re think there test procedures.