Jury Decision

fogmachine

Member
217
0
SF Bay Area
If they'd done anything else it would have been very disappointing - and only 23 pages to hash through it. Now can we go racing?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

sam75

Member
228
0
Boston, MA
Interesting reading through the decision:

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

 
84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

 

GauchoGreg

Super Anarchist
5,169
161
So, can I infer that AR can use their original rule-compliant rudders? If so, then I'm good with it. Only thing I did not want to see happen was for the requirements for length and area, which would make AR's originals unusable, and they would end up with the boot. Now, hopefully they can use their originals, immediately, and modify their new rudders to make them asymmetrical in time for the LV Semis.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

alphafb552

Super Anarchist
2,914
629
Fryslan boppe!
As I understand it, all 'safety' amendments to the class rule are declared null and void - so they revert to their state before the recommendations were issued. Now during the media day, PC mentioned they had 'pre-safety rules' compliant rudders, and a set of post safety rules rudders.

Surely they can now use the first set and measure?

 

GauchoGreg

Super Anarchist
5,169
161
Interesting reading through the decision:

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.
Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?

 

Uneven Keel

Super Anarchist
1,480
0
Interesting reading through the decision:

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.
Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?
ETNZ would concede trainer wheels for AR to keep them in the event and safe from PC et al.

 

sam75

Member
228
0
Boston, MA
84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.
And this from a witness called by ACRM!

 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
17,200
1,777
South Coast, UK
What did the dispensation involve?

I think ETNZ meant they'd like to go with the recommendations they'd agreed and AR would have dispensation not to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

GauchoGreg

Super Anarchist
5,169
161
Interesting reading through the decision:

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.
Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?
ETNZ would concede trainer wheels for AR to keep them in the event and safe from PC et al.
Ah, I had never hear they had requested that. Good for them. Not sure if they thought it had any chance of being approved, but still, good on them.

 

Ex-yachtie

Super Anarchist
2,998
1,342
Auckland, NZ
As I understand it, all 'safety' amendments to the class rule are declared null and void - so they revert to their state before the recommendations were issued. Now during the media day, PC mentioned they had 'pre-safety rules' compliant rudders, and a set of post safety rules rudders.

Surely they can now use the first set and measure?
No, just the recommendation regarding the rudder wings/length etc. The others are agreed to by all parties.

 




Top