34th America's Cup: multihulls!

Motorbike,

AR says they can race with no changes or with the the changes from all 37 recommendations.

OR says they can race to the original rules, or either rules that line up with 35 or 37 recommendations.

It is the ETNZ/LR position that are pushing for only the changes they want (bigger elevators but not out past max beam).

AR does not agree with this.

So it is ETNZ/LR that want to change the rules without unanimous agreement.

 

Thats not what i got from it, what i got from it is that ian murray will have to have discussion with USCG about potentially cancelling of the regatta permit if not ALL the recommendations are not accepted... all teams have to agree on the changes or they dont happen, as per the orginal contract... ETNZ is saying they fine with all of them, save the elevator changes... clearly to protect their performance advantage.

 

Groper,

If "ETNZ is saying they fine with all of them, save the elevator changes." is accurate, then why is AR saying they can not compete if ETNZ gets what they want.

The way I understand it is that ETNZ is saying they are for 35 of 37 recommendations. This means a bigger minimum rudder elevator size, but does not let the tip to go past max beam.

I think that the reason Murray wants them all as a package, is that he knows that with just the 35 that ETNZ likes, it would be completely unfair to AR at this point and any chance they have of competing would be even more reduced or eliminated.

If all of the teams were to sit down and each was to strike one rule, ETNZ & LR could combine to get rid of the two they do not like, but then AR would scrap the rudder size increase. This would undermine the one real change that is most likely to prevent a crash.

I can understand the position from Murray and Farmer that it is all or nothing.

 

I also wish that video didnt end where it did, there was another interesting question asked at the end of it, which was not fully fully answered before the video ended.

That is, why not take the 35 recommendations back to the USCG, instead of the 37, which still improves safety much more than currently, and run with that. Ian Murray is saying he refuses, its either 37 or none at all - which i find rather odd. His justification is that ETNZ is the bad guy and refusing the elevator changes for performance reasons - which is true, they wish to preserve their advantage.

Ian Murray is being an ******* for vilifying this desire to preserve their advantage. If the shoe was on the other foot, you can bet oracle would do the same and be prepared to let the race be cancelled, cup stays where it is...

 

AR should have sent a boat that complies with the current rule. They should be able to compete...

As far as i can see, ETNZ simply doesnt want the rule changed with respect to rudder elevators, that is, the original rule stands with regard to rudder dimensions. They are fine with the other 35 safety related changes...

See, ETNZ boat is working well, why would they want things to change... only artemis and oracle have crashed and shown clearly visible issues with their boats - which is the driving force behind the changes, its to improve the stability and control for oracle and artemis...

More control for artemis and oracle, means a safer race as a whole, therefore Ian Murray has to act based on the safety of the entire regatta, thus including the rudder changes for whoever needs them.

 

FFS Doug, you can be blind and infuriating: O and A have/had screwy designs from the get go and O's attempts with larger rudder and modifications, are outside the rule - whereas ETNZ/LR legal designs succeeded - and want the rule to remain unchanged, because it works fine for them. Seems fair and reasonable to me, no cherry picking involved, in fact no change.
They accept all the 35 real safety changes, not the performance rudder BS from the other two recommendations, comprehend?
Maybe it is true that by retaining the original rule, they're forcing the two failed designs to rebuild; but it was their design ineptitude that created this mess in the first place; their problem, no fault but their own ... and Iain Murray, I'm sorry to say, he being an Anzac and all, comes across like some pooch being dictated to by some "higher being" - throwing hissy fits if he doesn't get his own way and attempting to bulldoze changes.

 

We still don't know which rudder configurations will be used during races starting Monday. This is a key issue.

I have said it before and I will say it again:

If either boat is permitted to start with unmodified rudders a precedent will be set. i.e. races were allowed under the original class rule. This by default acknowledges that rudders do not need to be modified in the interests of safety. Did the authorities put it to these 2 challengers: "comply or we will not permit you to race?" - or - will this be applied to finals only?

I feel the organisers have not handled this in a professional and responsible manner. They owe it to the general public to be transparent. They are being anything but. Murray's handling of the press conference was very amateurish in my opinion.

 

Hi Michael - Some of the reports say that all competitors have "legal" elevators. It would be poor risk managment not to have rudders that are up to the "safety rules" spec. in case the jury went the "wrong" way. They have had over 6 weeks to get this together. The race management have said that the "old" rudders are legal for the first race. It is confusing and we wait for the International Jury. There is a video of Cootes explaining the situation and I think he's quite clear about the issues and I'm sure the other teams have similiar solutions. Please remember we are only getting the media beat ups. The teams would be quite dilegent and go racing to whatever rules happen to transpire. Cheers Peter S

 

http://tvnz.co.nz/americas-cup-news/dalton-promises-start-throwing-punches-5481966/video

Interesting

 

What is it with you and this anzac bs?
As if being from Australia or NZ immediately confers some kind of special status,
mindset or pre-determined behaviour. Honestly, it is the stupidest, most
jingositic, claptrap I have read in this debate. If that is some form of support
for any argument then you have really lost the plot, and you need to see a
professional about your head noises.

 

You are right. There is nothing Anzac about this. To the best of my knowledge there is one Australian in the TNZ crew.

 

I had to lookup ANZAC.
What a vortex of a thread.

Carry on...

 

Peter, yes, The challengers would have moved fast to respond to any changes that may be forced on them. They no doubt will have the attitude that they will develop the configuration that Oracle has requested and do it better. They do have time. The key question is: do their hulls suit this change?

 

They would have to design an elevator that produced about the same lift and suck at the target speeds, so structurally for the hull no problems. Otherwise the entire boat trim would be chucked out of wack. The extra depth and area only really comes into play if the AoA (angle of attack) changes dramatically (plus the drag goes up across the board) , so the intent of the design is realised. Murrey and others have said that the original rudder design was not intended for foiling and is undersize at the depth and size. But all teams are sailing meeting the "old" rules so we shall see what happens. Peter S

 

US$
Larry Ellison personal fortune: 34 Billion
Oracle income 2012 27 Billion
NZ export income 2012 37 Billion

There may be a different value for 'billion' here. NZ billion = 1000 million. US billion = ? Whatever, is very much David and Goliath. Victory would be all the more sweet.

Man I would love to be a fly on the wall of the Oracle meeting room. Imagine the pressure on those guys.

Re hull design. I was thinking of weight distribution fore and aft. If TNZ is foiling on smaller elevators it must be a bit lighter aft. Could crew location counter this?