Jury Notices & Decisions Thread

[ice9a]

Is this what you are looking for? It went up about 5 days ago IIRC

http://noticeboard.a...ge-Schedule.pdf

No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."

 

[estarzinger]

No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."

Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.

 

[Indio]

No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."

Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?

It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

I'd like to think the MC is working closely with, and answering queries from, ORTUSA over their repairs, and just haven't got around to releasing the information publicly. 29.10 certainly demands that MC written approval is obtained before commencing any repairs: I doubt that the MC or Jury will accept that any failure to obtain approval was "inadvertent".

I hope the MC's failure to provide the interpretations doesn't become an issue for ORTUSA and/or AR, though perhaps not so much for AR. Time is their enemy, and if there is an opportunity to seek more of it, the MC might be providing it....

 

[estarzinger]

I made a phone call and = 29.9 interpretation dated august 2nd.

It's not in the measurement interpretation folder, and not a numbered interpretation, for some reason.

 

[Indio]

I made a phone call and = 29.9 interpretation dated august 2nd.

It's not in the measurement interpretation folder, and not a numbered interpretation, for some reason.

Great effort to get that: thanks. Looks like everything in order for all repairs to proceed...

 

[nav]

Measurement Committee

Interpretation No. 24 of AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22 February, 2011

Rule References:

25. MEASUREMENT CONDITIONS

25.1 The AC72 Yacht shall be brought to measurement condition to determine the measurement

weight. The measurement condition includes everything aboard the AC72 Yacht during a race

except the following:

(a) (b. ACRM personnel, guests and ACRM equipment that is not permanently installed on the AC72

Yacht;

(c. crew;

(d) crew clothing and equipment that is normally carried on the person while racing but limited to

a maximum of 6.00 kg per crewmember;

(e) soft sails (including soft sail bags, luff cables and hanks) ; and

(f)

25.2

the wing as it was weighed in wing measurement condition;

food and drinks.

MWP shall be determined when the AC72 yacht is floating in measurement condition and:

(a) all movable equipment is approximately centered, transversely and 11.000 m forward of the

stern plane;

(b. rudders and daggerboards shall be in their lowest possible positions (per rule 5.8);

(c. rudder and daggerboard cases shall be flooded to MWP, and net total flooded volume of all

cases combined shall be no greater than 50.0 liters; and

(d) no other part of the AC72 Yacht shall be flooded.

Question:

1. In measurement condition, may the rudders be placed on the platform?

Page 2 of 2

Answer:

1. For the purposes of determining measurement weight, the rudders may be placed on the platform in

the measurement condition of the AC72 Yacht (Refer PI 16).

For the purposes of determining compliance with the definition of hull in class rule 1.4 (k), the rudders

may be placed on the platform in the measurement condition of the AC72 Yacht (Refer PI 23).

For the purposes of determining MWP, the rudders shall be placed as required by rule 25.2.

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

Nick Nicholson,

Chairman

for the Measurement Committee

5th November

 

[ITA602]

Measurement Committee

Interpretation No. 24 of AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22 February, 2011

+1

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Related to the thread ? remains to be seen. New Isaf leadership.

 

[nav]

Ammendments... http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AC72-Class-Rule-Amendment-No.-10.pdf

e.g.

Replace with:

15.1(e) be constructed of a netting of rhombus-shaped cells, of a size such that a cylinder with a diameter

of 0.050 m shall not easily pass through any cell of the netting while tensioned; or, be constructed

of NET Systems Ultra Cross SilverTM netting of nominal mesh size 0.050 m or less meeting the

requirements of (f) and (g) below;

 

[jaysper]

Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

JN052.pdf

Any update on this?

 

[Indio]

Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

JN052.pdf

Any update on this?

Not yet. The IJ gave AR til the 13th November to reply to any replies from the other parties (ETNZ, LR, OR, ACRM) so I imagine we should see something in the coming week.

 

[Tornado-Cat]

Amusing,

Remove:

6.5 The intersection of any hull, cross structure or rigging shall be at least 1.000 m forward of the stern plane, and shall be no further forward than the forward watertight bulkheads required under rule 6.12.

Replace with:

6.5 The intersection of any hull with cross structure or rigging shall be at least 1.000 m forward of the stern plane, and shall be no further forward than the forward watertight bulkheads required under rule 6.12.

Dated, nov 6th 2012, a few days after k2mav measurements of AR. Any relation ?

 

[Indio]

8 days past the deadline for AR's reply to any responses from the other 2 challengers and still no update from the Jury. Wonder whether the issues are more contentious than we think? Also interesting to note that this is Case AC18 and the previous one is Cas16: is there a Case17 we don't know about?

 

[eric e]

^

anything to do with etnz's visit from the measurers today?

 

[Indio]

^

anything to do with etnz's visit from the measurers today?

I think they needed to be re-measured after the recent mods,

 

[Tony-F18]

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring? As long as they are compliant at the first LVC race does it really matter?

Or am I missing something?

 

[Terry Hollis]

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring? As long as they are compliant at the first LVC race does it really matter?

Or am I missing something?

I guess that it is prudent to know that your boat measures all the time .. if it is left till just before the LV series the measurers might find something that takes days or even longer to correct ..

 

[dogwatch]

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring?

They are going so fast they are subject to Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction.

 

[Xlot]

^^

Reminds me of one of Steve Clark's boats (believe an I-14, am not too knowledgeable about monos), called Red Shift

 

[hoom]

Given the protest they probably actually failed the original measurement.