34th America's Cup: multihulls!

34th AC--Hall of Blame

-----------------------
Jim Farmer has been severely castigated for his comments above:
http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Queens-Counsel-latest-inductee-into-Americas-Cup-Hall-of-Blame/111550

He now says:

"So that there is absolutely no misapprehension about my position on this latter question, let me first repeat what I said in my earlier article: “Iain Murray can surely be forgiven for erring on the side of caution in his 37 safety recommendations.” And, in case that is being interpreted as something less than a ringing endorsement of those recommendations, let me say now, loud and clear and in capitals:
1. I SUPPORT AND FULLY AGREE WITH THE REGATTA DIRECTOR’S SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS – EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.
2. I SUPPORT THE ATTEMPTS MADE BY THE REGATTA DIRECTOR TO FIND A WAY OF IMPLEMENTING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. I WISH HIM ALL THE BEST IN THIS ENDEAVOUR.
3. IF THE JURY CANNOT FIND A LEGAL WAY OF IMPLEMENTING THOSE PROPOSALS AGAINST OPPOSITION, I IMPLORE ALL OF THE TEAMS AND THE EVENT AUTHORITY, THE GOLDEN GATE YACHT CLUB AND THE US COASTGUARD TO HELP HIM DO SO BY SENSIBLE NEGOTIATION THAT PUTS SELF-INTEREST ASIDE."

 

So why is Jimmy Spithall still the helmsman?

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Ameri...SA-AC72s-MOB-incident-no-drill---Video/110183

I cannot think of another racing class where there are two helmsman for every tack and gybe

Richard Woods

 

Look for wider boats and you'll find them.

even on a small cat my skipper hands off the helm to me from time to time so he can deal with other things. Like wise I hand him them sheet when it's prudent and my third hand is not readily available.

But alas, falling over just means you're trying hard as well. Word is Russell fell off the big boat in training once on the last go round in 2009. That boat was waaaaaay harder to run across in a hurry, the flat part on top of the back beam was only about a foot wide and when you go from 35 knots, down to 15 then back to 35, you want to be hanging on. I nearly fell off it a few times on the mooring, never mind going at pace.

 

If un-amended rules are considered unsafe in regards to rudder design the challenger series should not be permitted to proceed. If it is to proceed I would bet my meagre fortune that both boats will use rudders that comply with these original rules to ram home the point that the rule did not need to be amended - assuming there are no accidents.

I am picking that the challengers will stick to their existing design . They don't need the modifications. Oracle is still playing catch-up - or so it appears.

The second controversial rule change is to do with weight. Does anyone here know more about this and the connotations?

 

I've read everything you posted, and plenty more.

The facts as your posts recount them are;

1- TNZ ASKED for adjustments to be allowed.

2- TNZ were told that adjustments were NOT allowed.

3- TNZ have not been told that adjustments ARE allowed.

Slice it however you want, there is a last-minute backtrack on what the Kiwis were already told...... and only one team has experience with the new systems.

Do you seriously think it's fine to change the rules this close to a race??

Dalton said that he would back the SAFETY recommendations and if he feels that the adjustments are not a safety recommendation then it is not one of those items, If Farmer feels they are, fine, in our world people can think differently.

And why do you put so much stress on the Kiwis (allegedly) going back on their word when the race organisers did exactly that they told the Kiwis that the adjustable rudders would not be permitted, and then said that they would be permitted?

How can you say that late changes are OK when you say that development classes should not change their rules very often?

Even if the Kiwis have changed their minds then they have done nothing more than the organisers have done. Or are you saying that the organisers can change their minds but not the Kiwis?

 

Many americas' cup in the past has been won by the team who found the best design advantage and thus the fastest boat won. The americas cup has always been like this, its not a 1 design rule. THe fact it is so, drives more innovation IMHO. The downside is that we often dont see tight racing with the winning team simply having the best sailors onboard, using the best tactics etc... This is just the way it is with the americas cup, the nature of the beast so to speak.

So with design innovation being so important to the outcome of the race, changing the rule which affects the physical design of the boats, completely strips the innovation made by ETNZ, and may hand the advantage to another team - only the engineers can know to what extent. The fact its being made by the home team, and with the amount of money, power and influence companies like ORACLE have behind them, they clearly have the power to influence everyone from the USCG and race officials. Keep an eye out for any unusual "gifts" received by these people in the near term, such as new sports cars, small yachts etc as means to ensure the cup remains where it is.

As to the outcome of the race IF the rules are changed to allow active rudder foil elevators in the race, well it solves O and A stability issues. It would then pretty much level the playing field. I personally dont think O and A stand a chance with their stability issues at present, especially if we get very windy / gusty conditions on race day. I think they also know this. On the plus side, at least will will see closer racing... But just plain unfair to render all the hard work done by the ETNZ engineers redundant, and do what was thought to be impossible with true AC ingenuity...

 

34th AC

=============
You can only make a remote case by ignoring what Murray said particularly about Dalton agreeing with ALL the recommendtions on May 22.
You and others seem to think thats ok-I don't -I think it's shabby and downright pitiful.

 

34th AC

Luna Rosa acting nutty? http://tvnz.co.nz/americas-cup/luna-rossa-packs-up-shop-america-s-5488635
Ah, don't let the door hit your backside on the way out-geez!

 

'You can only make a remote case by ignoring what Murray said particularly about Dalton agreeing with ALL the recommendations on May 22.
You and others seem to think thats ok-I don't -I think it's shabby and downright pitiful'.

What did Dalton say? This is pure heresay. No one has asked Dalton what he said. Even if he did say it he is only one of a large team and would not have the authority to personally present an official response without consultation with the entire team. If he said this immediately after the meeting there is no way that it could be official.

 

34th AC

Dalton quoted by Murray page126,post 1887. Murray is an excellent source since this happened in front of all the other teams. You wouldn't believe the facts no matter what-is that right?

 

Unless I've missed it, we haven't seen what Dalts said he said, so we've only heard one side of the story. There's a slight difference in Murray's own accounts (as you posted or linked to here) of what was said, which illustrates that memories can be fallible. Maybe Dalts had earlier said that he didn't agree with "non safety" requirements, maybe Dalts had a slip of the tongue, maybe Dalts remembers what he said incorrectly. Maybe he was giving an off-the-cuff opinion that he later changed. Handshakes don't always have to be binding, they can just be a formality or a way of saying goodbye.

It's not necessary for anyone to be telling lies or behaving in a shabby or pitiful way, misunderstandings are much more common. I've got no experience with Dalts whereas people I know like IM and I'm an Aussie who has sailed against him (on winning and losing teams) so I have no reason to be biased against IM.

I have not said that Murray is being bought off as some suggest; he's a very wealthy man who has been engaged in property development since his teens or very early 20s. He's certainly not in need of any money, unless things have changed over the last few years.

HOWEVER even if Dalts changed his mind, I don't understand the indignation of some OR supporters. The AC head honchos have gone back on what they said in the past and AC supporters have defended that when it happened, or ignored it.

The AC guys said that the AC72s would have short wings - then they said they wouldn't.

The AC guys gave a firm entry date, then they extended it.

The AC guys talked of more AC45 events, then they canned them.

The AC guys said in December that moving rudders were not allowed, now they say they are.

In other words, the AC guys (by which I mean IM, LE, Oracle etc) have repeatedly changed their minds so why can't Dalts?

 

The fact is that heresay is not considered evidence under law of both our countries for very good reason. The claim cannot be considered legitimate until a witness testified.

Even then, anything that Dalton may have said directly after a meeting cannot be considered to be official anyway. A major decision like this would clearly need to be in writing.

The case will not be considered on the basis of what Dalton may have said in a personal manner.

You are clutching for straws.

 

imagine Luna Rossa racing TNZ in the Louis Vuitton Cup and then both pack up and leave..
I'd say they have plenty of leverage

 

=================
I haven't seen anywhere Dalts denying what Murray said. You anti-Oracle people have to question Murrays memory, integrity or whatever-you simply can't accept that a decent honorable man, in a tough job, has explained what's been going on in detail and it's not Oracles fault-that seems to gaul Kiwi's and Aussies more than anything else-all their cheating claims out the window now its focus on Murray-must be his fault-surely he couldn't be telling the exact truth!
Not only that, it's more and more begining to look like TNZ and LR have been stretching the truth-more on that today on SA-I haven't had time to digest it....

 

Let me get this straight. You hold a multinational meeting in a crisis situation to hammer out an agreement on a highly technical topic and nobody takes minutes?

Just checking.

Cheers,

Earl