Recon diary

[Mozzy Sails]

It's a fairing the mast tube is the required lenght and the mast foot is still in the same position. Anybody know what that bit of metal hanging down is ?

it's a surrogate mast ball that attaches to wheels so they can wheel the mast foot as the crane lifts the mast head. Purely for moving the thing about onshore.

 

[enigmatically2]

How?

How is this mast extension within rules?
Largely because of the diagram below, which clearly shows the mast lower zone extending below MRP. And the rules allow for pretty much anything goes in that zone. Furthermore, even on the legacy boats you can add things onto the mast in that zone without it counting as a mod

 

[Mozzy Sails]

Like I was saying, the specificity of the 'mast tube' in the Ac75 and AC40 class rule leave space for modifications of the mast, as long as mast tube remains un altered.

But for a team with their own LEQ12. For which there is no defined 'mast tube' it then falls to the rules committee to determine likeness. And they determined the INEOS tow mast had a likeness to the AC75 mast tube.

 

[JALhazmat]

How is this mast extension within rules?
Largely because of the diagram below, which clearly shows the mast lower zone extending below MRP. And the rules allow for pretty much anything goes in that zone. Furthermore, even on the legacy boats you can add things onto the mast in that zone without it counting as a mod






View attachment 581179

the “how” was how do the rules committee decide that something that cannot hoist a sail is a mast tube ( or resembles one) yet something that clearly is a mast and can hoist a sail gets a pass..

 

[Mozzy Sails]

Okay, here goes (possibly belong in ETNZ thread):

I wanted the video to:
...
3) Get across the idea that teams which already have AC40s will be obliged to comply with TR 4.2 to preserve their quota, but that regulation refers to as as yet unpublished rule which ENZ (presumably with drafting input) have control over. That's a bit of a power imbalance which is interesting.

I don't believe ETNZ will have broken rules, although I thought this would only become apparent when AC40 class rules are published, but you may be right that it's permitted regardless of AC40 class rules. I don't think that really changes the three main themes above.

But, going back to the rules for now...

But the hull surface doesn't matter in terms of whether OD parts mounted are counted 4.2(b). It's whether the hull is 'in class'. And the definition for hull doesn't have any of the text above (which is from the hull surface definition) and nor does the definition of hull reference hull surface as a defined term. So I am not sure that is relevant.

Again though, for LEQ12 parts, we have already seen that definitions don't really matter and instead it is a judgement on resemblance of at least one aspect of form or function. That coving around the additional instruments certainly resembles hull / cockpit to me. And the partition in the cockpit certainly resembles cockpit to me.

So again, we are just left with what is 'in class' in terms of the hull and for that we have to wait for the AC40 class rules.

With the AC40 class rules now out, I feel vindicated about the points I was making in this video.

Section 12 of the rules creates an intermediate where parts can be not rule compliant for racing, yet still in class for the purposes of shoe horning in greater flexibility for testing. I think we can all agree it's odd to have class rules where 'in class' means something other than permitted for class racing. In fact it is quite odd for class rules to say anything about what can be done to a boat outside of racing.

12.5 specifically allows the deck modifications that would have taken the AC40 hull out of class. These modifications won't be allowed during racing, they are not 'rule compliant', but they are allowed outside of racing and are massive in terms of preserving LEQ12 quota for multi-boat testing should they wish.

In the scheme of dastardly things done in the defense of the Auld Mug I would rate this pretty minor. But it's hard to argue that these class rules don't massively change the equation of whether a team would chose to use an AC40 as their test platform (or multiple AC40s as test platforms).

 

[enigmatically2]

In the scheme of dastardly things done in the defence of the Auld Mug I would rate this pretty minor. But it hard to argue that this class rule hasn't massively changed the equation of whether a team would chose to use an AC40 as their test platform (or multiple AC40s as test platforms).

Minor? Subjective of course
But as the publishing of the rule post-dates both the other teams having to decide on what boats to use, what modifications and testing they could do (which would naturally assume no deck mods) and NZ actually applying this rule that hadn't yet been published to their own advantage, I would place it above minor

 

[JonRowe]

the “how” was how do the rules committee decide that something that cannot hoist a sail is a mast tube ( or resembles one) yet something that clearly is a mast and can hoist a sail gets a pass..

It doesn't though, the bit that hoists the sail is the mast tube, a one design one in fact, and the other bit is a fitting for it. Maybe INEOS needed to put a towing fitting on their actual mast tube...

 

[Liquid]

the “how” was how do the rules committee decide that something that cannot hoist a sail is a mast tube ( or resembles one) yet something that clearly is a mast and can hoist a sail gets a pass..

Defenders advantage?

 

[JALhazmat]

It doesn't though, the bit that hoists the sail is the mast tube, a one design one in fact, and the other bit is a fitting for it. Maybe INEOS needed to put a towing fitting on their actual mast tube...

Nope, the interpretation that it resembled a mast was the issue .therfore It would be counted as their only mast

You cannot argue what is on Tehee does not resemble a mast, with or without fittings.

that the bottom section has the extended wings for the hydraulic rams for mast rotation on. It indicates that the function of the mast would be impossible without it.

It really is pretty simple that if one complies so does the other or at least should, and if one fails so should the other

 

[Forourselves]

Minor? Subjective of course
But as the publishing of the rule post-dates both the other teams having to decide on what boats to use, what modifications and testing they could do (which would naturally assume no deck mods) and NZ actually applying this rule that hadn't yet been published to their own advantage, I would place it above minor

Of course you do. Given the only team affected by the rule is INEOS Team UK, because the rest are either using the AC40 or have stated the reasons as to why they have decided to build their own LEQ12, the fact is, this was a strategic decision made well in advance of the construction of the AC40's.
LR stated their preference was to always design and build their own LEQ12. Team NZ, Alinghi and AM have or are capitalising on the one design AC40 as an LEQ12, so again, it seems INEOS have been caught off guard yet again with a decision that is costing them valuable data gathering time.

 

[JonRowe]

Nope, the interpretation that it resembled a mast was the issue .therfore It would be counted as their only mast

You cannot argue what is on Tehee does not resemble a mast, with or without fittings.

that the bottom section has the extended wings for the hydraulic rams for mast rotation on. It indicates that the function of the mast would be impossible without it.

It really is pretty simple that if one complies so does the other or at least should, and if one fails so should the other

Its not that simple though is it.

The mast tube with extension was used together. The tow mast cannot be used with the sailing mast. So in effect you are arguing that this one mast configuration should count as two, and INEOS's two masts (as interpreted by the committee) should count as one.

 

[JALhazmat]

No I argue that if something resembles a mast tube and gets allocated as such as the only option for testing why the exception for something else that also resembles a mast tube and doesn’t count against allocation. If is was counted then this is the only mast they can use and test

 

[JonRowe]

They're not trying to use the extension on its own they measured it in as part of their single mast, and since the AC72 rules seem to have allowed that (or at least nobody has queried it then or since) then this just isn't the same issue as the entirely seperate tow mast.

 

[Kiwing]

Will the sail be extended down to the deck? Of course it will.
Will the mast rotation device be above the deck? ?

 

[shebeen]

Yeah, it's interesting where the LEQ12 quota is for a 'mast tube', and 'mast tube is a specific part of the mast for both OD AC40s and AC75s (not complete mast). Yet, when it comes to the tow mast that qualified based of a likeness to a 'mast' in it's entirety, rather than specific elements of the just the OD mast tube.

Basically, the narrow definition of mast tube has helped ETNZ put an extra foot of mast on for AC36 and has allowed them to stick bit to the top of their AC40 mast, but does nothing for INEOS who wanted to use something which isn't a sailing mast at all.

But that's probably just my inner whinging pom.

I might have misunderstood this, but what they did was find (or create) a loophole that allowed them to have a luff that extended beyond the mast maximum length.

in most forms of sailing you have a band on the mast which is the boundary to which you sail must stay within.

finding a way to have larger sail area is either sneaky or cheating depending on what passport you hold. I'm a neutral here and feel it leans towards the latter.

 

[barfy]

Tehee

Try harder hazmat

 

[JALhazmat]

Try harder hazmat

Bore off, It was auto correct likely because my phone doesn't Instantly recognise the word/letter salad that is the Tnz naming nom-culture

 

[Stingray~]

In AC36 INEOS developed what I described as "the most complex foil that you WON'T see in the Cup"... well it seems @INEOSBritannia have other ideas!

Today they resurrected the W wing for @americascup Barcelona 2024. Obviously they feel there is untapped potential from this radical concept.

 

[Sailbydate]

 

[Stingray~]

In AC36 INEOS developed what I described as "the most complex foil that you WON'T see in the Cup"... well it seems @INEOSBritannia have other ideas!

Today they resurrected the W wing for @americascup Barcelona 2024. Obviously they feel there is untapped potential from this radical concept.

I have not gotten as deep into it as some have, Mozzy especially (thanks!) and so this is an uninformed question:

How many flap sections are possible if they can design actuators to fit inside of each section? Could we see 'morphing' flaps?