34th America's Cup: multihulls!

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

  1. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 346, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    34th AC

    Got a link?
    "Funny" that Murray said all the teams agreed May 22nd.
     
  2. Leo Lazauskas
    Joined: Jan 2002
    Posts: 2,696
    Likes: 151, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2229
    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    Leo Lazauskas Senior Member

    That would be fine, but there would also be a bevy of lawyers in their wake.
    We've got to do something to get away from all this infernal legal wrangling
    about rules and who is not whose best friend any more. It's so deathly boring!

    I'm not sure what the top speed of these "boats" will be, nor the height of the
    masts, but...
    If a sailor was at the top of the mast and the boat pitch-poled, how far would he fly?
     
  3. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 346, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    34th AC

    I believe Murray:



     
  4. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,709
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    So do you believe that the person who wrote

    "(i) These recommendations are made by the Regatta Director after the Review
    Committee interviewed team personnel from all Competitors, and will be refined
    as the further work identified above is completed.
    (ii) The majority of the Regatta Director recommendations represent a consensus
    of the Competitors."

    was lying when he wrote that?

    If ALL recs were agreed to by the comp;etitors, why does the writer specifically refer to a MAJORITY being agreed to by a consensus?

    If the recs were to be altered later then how could the teams give final agreement at the 22 May meeting?
     
  5. SteveMellet
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 196
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 88
    Location: South Africa

    SteveMellet Senior Member

    I think those supporting a home team will twist the facts to suit their own belief of who is right and who is wrong.
    From a completely neutral viewpoint (ie I don't have a favourite team, but would love to see a good event), the way I see it is :
    Two teams got the foiling part of the design right within the class rules, and the other two were caught with their underwear around their ankles, and have been trying to catch up ever since. Their designers have gone down the wrong path, and without a rule change, one has publicly stated it won't make the start (which is false - Artemis could bring a non-foiling boat to the event and be perfectly safe since they designed a non-foiling boat. So could Oracle if they are scared of foiling.) but they would be embarrassed publicly by losing every race by a ridiculous margin, and their sponsors can't have that.
    Oracle have a boat that, without a rule change, won't be the defender for long.
    So we currently have two teams that are in a position of being advantaged through correct design decisions. It is perfectly understandable, in their position, to vehemently object to any rule change that neutralises this advantage. Even if it does not necessarily advantage OR or Artemis, it would limit the advantage that ETNZ and LR have, under the current class rules.
    The safety measures regarding rudders is a joke, anyone who can't see through this as an attempt by GGYC to even out the advantage that ETNZ has over their own boat, is looking at it though patriotic eyes. GGYC appointed Ian Murray, not all the competitors, and he is doing what he is employed to do - make sure the trophy stays in the US.
    His latest tantrum wherein he says that the IJ must "vote" with him, or risk the AC being cancelled, is clear evidence that he has no clue how anything works. The IJ has been asked to rule on whether he has overstepped his rights, in submitting the points that were NOT agreed to, to the CG, knowing fully that if accepted by the CG, he could then use that as a fist to force the competitors to accept the new "rules", which can only be changed by consent of all teams, which was never reached.
    The IJ has no mandate to "vote" on the side of Ian Murray, only to decide if, according to the protocol, he has overstepped his authority. They can take no evidence into account as to whether the rules are there for safety or for performance, nor can they decide based on their opinion of these issues. They can only make a ruling on the question involved - did he or did he not overstep his authority.
    Furthermore, threatening the IJ that if they don't "vote with him" on this issue, that the whole AC could be cancelled, should bear no weight on their decision. Their mandate is not to ensure that the event occurs, only to rule on a question of how the regatta director has misused his position, regardless of his intentions, ie safety for all teams, or to benefit any team. None of this matters, as long as they rule on what they are asked to. ETNZ's appeal is very direct, and doesn't bring in any question as to the motive. The question is simple - Did the regatta director act within his rights and authority, when submitting safety recommendations THAT REQUIRE A CHANGE TO THE CLASS RULES, to the CG, thus ensuring that the regatta permit would be retracted if any teams objected, as they have every right to, since IM completely ignored the AC Protocol in making the safety recommendations.
    In my opinion, by sticking to his guns and threatening cancellation of the event etc, he is making it look very much like his agenda is aligned to that of one of the teams, rather than purely a safety issue. If safety was the true motive, a report into the cause of the Artemis accident would have been issued, and the safety recommendations would have come from the findings. Since this was not done, and the rudder change recommendations, sizes and specifications must have come from one team who has tested them (and thus have an unfair advantage if implemented), I have my doubts that these safety recommendations are "in the interest of all competitors".
    I find it very unusual that the two teams that have had no rudder failures, no pitchpoles, and very few breakages in general, while testing in far stronger wind conditions than the limits that have now been imposed on the event, must be subjected to load tests if they retain their current assymetric rudder elevators, while the teams that have been crashing all over SF Bay won't have to.
     
  6. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 346, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    34th AC

    Steve, I know it's hard to keep up with all the info-some of it quite contradictory. But you just repeated a litany of false accusations that have been thoroughly debunked.
     
  7. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 3,019
    Likes: 132, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    "Airgun, alright? No. Well hang on a minute mate, taihoe ehore, hold your horses, you've got the wrong end of the stick, this'll be true, sound like a pommy *******, so don't be a galah, might end up the Whau, need the old three 0h fix, best get in behind, there's a good girl, yeah right, thanks, goodonyer mate."
     
  8. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 346, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    34th AC

    This is just plain eye-opening. This was written by the TNZ rules advisor on May 27th-5 days AFTER Murrays meeting. It is simply astonishing to read this and note what concerned TNZ FIVE DAYS after the meeting with Murray-and you know what?? Not once is the rudderfoil mentioned-not once and that fact supports Murrays contention the other day at the news conference(transcript posted above) that TNZ and LR were playing games:
    ======
    Murray at press conf: " This is about two teams trying to gain an advantage from changes I’ve implemented to make all of our racing safer.”
    ======



    http://etnzblog.com/#!2013/05/teams-get-down-to-some-serious-talking

    May 27----
    Emirates Team New Zealand’s rules advisor Russell Green blogs about moving goal posts and the negotiations ahead.

    Last Wednesday was my first day working in San Francisco and we were called to a meeting late in the afternoon by regatta director, Iain Murray, who presented his recommendations from the work of the Review Committee. Present were the key members of the teams, the event authority and Louis Vuitton.

    Iain Murray, who distributed the report and then worked through the document explaining all the relevant points, looked tired. It was clear there had been some long hours worked by Review Committee in the previous six days, an amazing job in such a short time.

    The teams, especially Artemis, had various questions but there was little time to digest the information as former Oracle Racing COO Stephen Barclay, who now heads the Event Authority (ACEA), revealed the document had already been made public. It was straight back to the base for Grant Dalton to talk to the team about the content and how we would deal with the upcoming work which, inevitably, be required.

    It is daunting to arrive at the venue after years of planning to find the “goalposts moving” so late in the campaign, long after design decisions have been made based on the anticipated windy conditions in San Francisco.

    Yet another challenge for the team. I cannot help wondering how the All Blacks would feel arriving at the World Cup in UK in 2015 to find that there were last minute proposals to change basic rules of the game in the name of player’s safety but which in effect favoured the slower stop/start style of the Northern Hemisphere teams?

    The recommendations are general, the task now facing the event and the teams is for these general recommendations to be converted in to specific rules of the event, a process which needs to be dealt with quickly so the US Coastguard can be satisfied on safety and issue it’s event permit.

    Many will require discussion amongst the teams and ACRM, responsible for the race management. Currently there is a high degree of goodwill and co-operation in the interests of ensuring safety but there will inevitably be differences during the process, as the teams all have different competitive strengths which they wish to protect.

    The most contentious issues for ETNZ are the reduction in the wind limits and the prospect of flexible starting times. (emphasis dl)

    The recommended reduction of the upper wind limits is more than we would have liked, but we always knew the 33 knot upper limit was not practical. It has been explained to us that the flexible starting time regime, intended for use in the windier conditions in the LVC, would involve the starting time only being brought forward when ACRM was sure that the wind speed would be over the upper limit at the scheduled start time.

    This will clearly need the input and cooperation of the teams and we have made a proposal how this could work.

    Modifications will be required to the various rule documents which govern the event. Changes to the Protocol and the Racing Rules require agreement from the majority of the teams, changes to the Class Rule requires the unanimous consent of the teams as does a document called the Newport Agreement which stipulates the format, schedule and start times of racing.

    Thursday was a day of digestion and analysis ashore while our AC72 went for a sail and the external rule change process started on Friday with a three-hour meeting involving the four team’s rules advisors and ACRM.

    Agreement was reached on which rule document would need to be modified to accommodate each recommendation and the next steps required.

    Next there will be a series of meetings early in the coming week. I will join Jeremy Lomas and Chris Salthouse at a meeting on crew safety equipment, structural engineer Gio Belgrano at a meeting on structural issues, and Dean Barker at a skippers’ meeting to consider changes to the racing rules in the start area.

    There will also be a need to work with technical director Nick Holroyd and his design team on the negotiations on the draft Class Rule changes which we are expecting from the Chief Measurer, Nick Nicholson.

    A busy week coming up, but in the meantime the sailing will go on…
     
  9. michaeljc
    Joined: May 2013
    Posts: 207
    Likes: 3, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 18
    Location: New Zealand

    michaeljc Senior Member

    Murray at press conf: " This is about two teams trying to gain an advantage from changes I’ve implemented to make all of our racing safer.”

    Assuming he refers the challengers - What advantage? They already had the advantage!

    And: "The challengers taking advantage of the accident" - how?

    The French have a method of arguing that translates as 'drowning the fish' It refers to sliding away from logic that works against you by introducing a contentious but irrelevant side issue.

    It wont work here. We will just keep coming back to logic. Murray is a TUS puppy. That is very clear. IMO

    The pressure is on the defenders and organisers. That is clear. For the first time the challengers have the muscle Dalton refers to, to counterpunch.

    I believe TNZ and LR will have a collaborative strategy . The non start by LR will be part of this. Good - this issue is that serious.

    I sense that TNZ has a management team behind them that is similar to that of the ALL Blacks: Very professional and very determined. The best brains we can find. Go for it guys.
     
  10. groper
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 2,467
    Likes: 123, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 693
    Location: australia

    groper Senior Member

    Doug you are seriously clutching at straws, at no point in your above quotes is anything mentioned about the rudder foils, the only thing ETNZ is protesting. They are in positive agreement with everything else.

    Secondly, you keep coming back to this argument that ALL the teams agreed on the proposal on May 22nd. Well if that was actually a FACT, then the agreement would have become binding way back then!!! The FACT IS, there IS NO AGREEMENT, and HAS NEVER BEEN since may 22nd.

    Ian Murray is a puppet in this... boy he looked nervous at that press conference, twitching his legs and all. Have another look...

    Steve Millet, in your language you sound like a lawyer... is this your profession by any chance? Your analysis aligns directly with mine, along with many others that can see forest through the trees...

    Leo, a pod of humpbacks in the bay with men atop a 40m wingmast at 45kts would certainly create "edge of the seat viewing"... I wonder what would win, a 7m carbon daggerfoil or moby`s dick...? I say neither, and assuming a parabolic arc, the man atop the mast would at least clear the entire pod of whales, but what about the 17 other chase boats coming from the other tack? Maybe not so lucky... :D
     
  11. michaeljc
    Joined: May 2013
    Posts: 207
    Likes: 3, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 18
    Location: New Zealand

    michaeljc Senior Member

    Gary - I find this post, quite frankly embarrassing. Little wonder the Aussies get pissed with us. You sound like an ignorant county yokel that has spent little time living outside you own country.

    No one cares about you or our culture. Get used to it. What will gain respect will be the likes of tenacity and professionalism in the pending AC competition, win or lose. Having a big mouth is no asset. Grow up.
     
  12. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 346, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    34th AC

    -----------------------
    I guess you missed the point of my last post. Considering the ruckus raised by TNZ over the so-called rudder issue, their rules guy doesn't even mention it as a major concern 5(FIVE) days after the 22nd where they(TNZ) agreed with all the 37 recommendations. If it was a big deal don't you think they would mention it under: "The most contentious issues for ETNZ....."??
    I'd say they didn't discover that there might be some advantage to their present course of action for some time and then went back on their word because it suited them to do so. All the while spreading the lies that Oracle was trying to cheat.
    I believe Murray so far.
     
  13. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 3,019
    Likes: 132, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    FFS Michael, you humourless creature - that was laid on as thick as possible, and then laminated over with more micro balloon bog, called taking the piss ... out of all concerned. Holy defecation!
     
  14. groper
    Joined: Jun 2011
    Posts: 2,467
    Likes: 123, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 693
    Location: australia

    groper Senior Member

    Doug, I think its more of a case that they didnt realize, only 5 days after seeing the proposal, what the implications meant for racing... It was all under the guise of safety, ETNZ design engineers may not have seen the information till later, who was present at the meeting from ETNZ? Anyone involved in the engineering of the boat who knew what this meant in terms of foiling stability? How long might this information take to process if engineers were busy with other issues?

    Not a reasonable argument doug...
     

  15. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 3,019
    Likes: 132, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    Doug, instead of whimpering on about mind changes (which I don't believe occurred) - how about fronting up to the present, the here and now,
    Which is waiting for the IJ to reveal intelligence and fair play.
     
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.