34th America's Cup: multihulls!

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by Doug Lord, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. powerabout
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,933
    Likes: 66, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 719
    Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy

    powerabout Senior Member

    exactly
    the most lawyered up sporting event on the planet and they all forgot to take a pencil and paper
     
  2. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 3,019
    Likes: 132, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    Anzacs are a decent bunch, Doug (except for a certain historical low bowl, ha), and they don't accept any BS and react immediately to dead rat stink ... and this attempt at last minute rule change is total BS.
    And although Coutts (Kiwi atypical) is backing off now because the heat reaction is burning his arse, why was there talk of FLAPs (we were led to believe movable flaps) in the earlier rule attempt change ... that has now retreated to a movable rudder assembly. Confusion or BS?
    That is why there was an immediate reaction from Anzacs and a number of other nationalities too, referring to SA and here.
    You can rabbit on about a handshake but you're forgetting that at that time there was (and still is) much sympathy regarding a tragic event, people were being polite. Now you're attempting to suggest that the Kiwis are being hypocritical cheats based on what appears to be, a sensitive reaction from Dalton to Murray.
    Of course I'm surmising, wasn't there - but believe Kiwis do not cheat; push the rules with great intelligence, yes, but no blatant below deck dealing like this now infamous episode.
    It's part of our culture.
    Would that the same could be said of the US.
     
  3. michaeljc
    Joined: May 2013
    Posts: 207
    Likes: 3, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 18
    Location: New Zealand

    michaeljc Senior Member

    Very good point. We are purely speculating here.
     
  4. redreuben
    Joined: Jan 2009
    Posts: 1,938
    Likes: 196, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 349
    Location: South Lake Western Australia

    redreuben redreuben

    The Yanks cheat ? Shock Horror !

    At least the traditionalists will be happy !
     
  5. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,709
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    It's not that I'm attacking anyone, but quite the opposite. What I am saying is that there is a chance that there was a misunderstanding of some sort rather than anyone changing their mind or lying.

    And to repeat - even if Dalts changed his mind, that has to be seen in the light of the fact that the organisers have changed their mind on many other issues, from wind ranges to second wings to whether rudder adjustment would be allowed or not.

    At the worst, all that can be said is that Dalts is backtracking or changing his mind just like the organisers did about the European events, the rig sizes, the wind limits, the entry dates, the rudder adjustment, etc etc etc.

    If it's OK for one side to change its thinking repeatedly then it must be OK for the other side to do the same thing.

    BTW I have some reason to actually favour Oracle so I have no idea why you think I'm biased.
     
  6. Leo Lazauskas
    Joined: Jan 2002
    Posts: 2,696
    Likes: 151, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2229
    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    Leo Lazauskas Senior Member

    But, as we are seeing now, they do whine when the rules are used intelligently against them.

    Just do your silly haka and sail the bloody boat :p
     
  7. daiquiri
    Joined: May 2004
    Posts: 5,372
    Likes: 255, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 3380
    Location: Italy (Garda Lake) and Croatia (Istria)

    daiquiri Engineering and Design

    Hey guys, just have to say it - this thread has become very monothematic and boring. :eek:
    Let's hope that LV Cup races (finally, enough talks!) will bring some new lymph to it...
     
  8. powerabout
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,933
    Likes: 66, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 719
    Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy

    powerabout Senior Member

    monothematic delusion
    thanks, Daiquiri, I have added a term to my vocab

    I was just going to say, ( no reflection on the big fella and this is in bad taste )
    but a conspiracy theorist could say that the best time to release bad news is when no-one is looking..
    Remember the Labour party in the UK after 9/11

    Look how much more interesting this cup is with all this controversy compared with Valencia where everyone knew the outcome of each race before they launched every day
     
  9. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 346, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    34th AC

    Here is a video of Murray's press confrerence. "NZ and LR are cherry picking what they will agree to". "All Teams agreed on May 22 to all the recommendations." After watching this, I'd say TNZ and LR are disingenuous to the point of borderline trying to cheat!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-3-qIAYXT4#at=547
     
  10. motorbike
    Joined: Mar 2011
    Posts: 165
    Likes: 10, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 87
    Location: Beam Reach

    motorbike Senior Member

    Errrr no!

    Doug you have a problem with reality. The issue is called changing the class rule
     
  11. groper
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 2,467
    Likes: 123, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 693
    Location: australia

    groper Senior Member

    Talk about cherry picking doug, did you you notice the fact he evaded the question, put forward by the Italian with rather poor English, about the stability of ETNZ foiling being superior to oracle from better design and that some of the changes would change the balance.. He stared his reply with " yes certainly" and then paused before evading the question by going on about safety and that performance was not the driving force behind the changes. Very suspicious doug...

    I can understand how the teams could initially agree on the terms before having time to digest the implications fully, after which time they realise some of the changes mean giving up some of their advantage.

    This is what he is referring to when he said ETNZ and LR were capitolizing on the death of Bart Simpson. The fact that they would not give up their advantage and allow changes that then allow oracle to foil safely. Without the changes oracle is not stable enough.

    It's my position that this is oracles responsibility for not producing a safe boat, it not intrinsic in the rule as ETNZ has proven it can be done. Therefore it's not the rule that should change, but oracles boat in order for them to make themselves safe.
     
  12. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 346, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    ===============
    To make a statement like your last paragraph means you have ignored about half of all the information posted here in words and video over the last week.
    Thats pretty bad.
     
  13. groper
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 2,467
    Likes: 123, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 693
    Location: australia

    groper Senior Member

    Not at all doug, i just dont take heresay stuff as "fact" like you do...

    This is my opinion of whats likely transpired.

    Way back when oracle first started foiling, they capsized shortly after and clearly showed massive stability issues, much worse than their current boat.

    After rebuilding the wreck, they added rudder elevator foils as a safety measure to prevent a rerun of the pitchpole. It worked well and then we saw all the videos of oracle foiling with much better stability.

    Word got around the grape vine that these elevators gave oracle much better control of the boat, and of course in doing so improved their safety by reducing the chances of a huge pitchpole or similar.

    So After the artemis crash, and in desperate need of being actively seen to improve safety to make sure the race can still happen desipte the death of Mr Simpson, they have included the rudder elevators in the safety changes because of what they already know about oracle and that without the elevators they will likely crash in the races, potentially hurting themselves. This is a genuine cause for concern, because even though they cant foil safely, they will try in order to win so putting themselves at risk and the sailors on board are in unacceptable danger. Hence, the rule changes to improve the safety of the sailors on board oracle.

    So in principal, yes the rule change is about safety not performance. Its just that in doing so, the performance implications have not been considered. The engineering is complex and very different between the teams boats, therefore not even a competent engineer could possiblly predict to what extent these changes will have in terms of giving a performance advantage or penalty, to the existing platforms. We all know that improved stability gives oracle an advantage from where they stand now, but what about the other teams, does it penalize them and their innovation thus far? We dont know what compromises ETNZ had to make with their current design on order to acheive stable foiling. Had they been allowed rudder elevators from the beginning, no doubt their design would have been different. This is why its not fair doug, im sure even you can see that.
     
  14. P Flados
    Joined: Oct 2010
    Posts: 604
    Likes: 33, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 390
    Location: N Carolina

    P Flados Senior Member

    Ok, I spent some time digging through the stuff on SA trying to find facts and actual reported statements. Here is my guess as to the reality.

    ETNZ/LR had a bigger rudder elevator all along.

    Making AR and OR use a similar bigger elevator reduces the risk of pitchpole. Reduced pitchpole risk was probably a big focus item for the safety review team.

    The AR and OR platforms were not really designed for bigger elevators so any increase to the required size could be unfair to AR and OR without looking at the impact.

    In order to get AR to use a reasonable aspect ratio larger elevator quickly, allowing the outer tip out past max beam was the most direct solution with few real problems introduced.

    This was agreed to and presented as part of the 37 recommendations.

    Initially, the recommendations would have forced ETNZ/LR to come up with new symmetric elevators. ETNZ/LR appropriately fussed that they did not need symmetric. An adjustment to the recommendations allowed them to avoid any need for change.

    AR and OR can both comply with original rules or the original rules with changes if all 37 are implemented. OR seems to be able to do original with changes from 35, but AR does not.

    OR has been testing a "more than max beam" version to match the rules with all 37 recommendations.

    If the above are facts, there is a possibility that ETNZ/LR are throwing a fit because they feel that they can gain an advantage if they make OR use a new "larger but inside max beam" non-symmetric elevator instead of a potentially better performing a new large symmetric elevator. From what we heard from OR, they were not heading in the direction of larger at all before the safety review.

    Unfortunately, if ETNZ/LR do get what they want, the team that is their least threat is hurt the most. AR moved ahead incorporating all 37 recommendations. Doing so has probably been a big part of what is taking them so much time getting back on the water. Trying to meet the 35 version would be a major disruption and probably an unacceptable additional delay.

    In this case, it would be ETNZ/LR that are trying to force a change on other teams at the last minute (the 35 recommendation version) to their advantage.

    I may be wrong, but the above seems to match facts better than those screaming that this is all about OR trying to get changes that will improve their performance.
     

  15. motorbike
    Joined: Mar 2011
    Posts: 165
    Likes: 10, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 87
    Location: Beam Reach

    motorbike Senior Member

    No disrespect but, blah blah blah!

    This is about IM arbitrarily changing the class rule without unanimous agreement.

    Cut and dried, end of story, done and dusted.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.