34th America's Cup: multihulls!

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

  1. Blackburn
    Joined: May 2013
    Posts: 842
    Likes: 8, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 25
    Location: Florida

    Blackburn Senior Member

    ^^^

    Using titanium would increase the speed allowed before cavitiation?

    There are plenty of contributors here who know a lot about this subject, but I'm not one of them.

    :(

    ...

    O'Brian's books (there are about 20 in that series) are all far more enjoyable than any movie can be, I find. They have marvelous language and writing.
     
  2. schakel
    Joined: Jul 2008
    Posts: 351
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: the netherlands

    schakel environmental project Msc

    In order to make a profile as thin as possible one might think about the material Graphene.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene
    It's more resitant against breakage than any other material but experimental.
    Only the universities have production facilities for it. If the cup wants to be cutting edge technology this might be a big step into the future.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,580
    Likes: 298, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

  4. Corley
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 3,740
    Likes: 172, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 826
    Location: Melbourne, Australia

    Corley epoxy coated

    It would have been sensible to have an independent observer conduct a measurement check to confirm the boat was in the correct spec for each event in the ACWS. In the scheme of things a relatively easy step to implement. It could have avoided the incident entirely or at least mitigated the impact on the teams reputation had the issue been detected earlier.
     
  5. powerabout
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,901
    Likes: 61, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 719
    Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy

    powerabout Senior Member

    Didnt they also determine there was no performance advantage as well?
    Sounds harsh when ben ainsley can do anything with no penalty
     
  6. schakel
    Joined: Jul 2008
    Posts: 351
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: the netherlands

    schakel environmental project Msc

    Summary translated with google translate from an article in Clubracer.be
    Here the summary of a letter dated September 6, 2013 by Terry Anderlini ( attorney ) on behalf of Dirk de Ridder on International Jury for the 34th America's Cup Jury on jury decision in Case AC31 :

    The jury decision was a terrible disappointment , because the facts on which the jury based its decision not to support. Convincing evidence The expectation is not , unfortunately, that the jury her ideas and suspicions regarding the facts will change . But the jury is , however, required to investigate the process by which the hearings are conducted and a decision has been reached . Research This process was so flawed that none of the parties have had a fair trial.
    The most flagrant violations of due process are :
    No link between the alleged rule violation and punishment : the events occurred more than a year ago , during a series that had virtually nothing to do with the America 's Cup . The races were sailed in other boats . Nevertheless, the jury , the parties and their team punished so that they are damaged in the defense of the America 's Cup and the opponent will get a disproportionate advantage.
    Applying the wrong standard of liability : Rule 69 of the Rules of Sailing ( RRS ) is intended only for the worst offenses, namely a gross breach of sportsmanship . There can be no violation of Rule 69 are detected, without explicitly determined that the participant has committed the offense . Deliberately and intentionally The ISAF guide juries provides that - unlike regular protests - design is a prerequisite for a gross breach of sportsmanship . The jury , however, a violation of Rule 69 concluded , because there would be negligence ( " could have known and should have known " ) . This is contrary to the clear
    instructions from ISAF that the norm that there is negligence , not suitable for the proposed Rule 69 violations.
    Conflicting interests and appearance of bias , the jury has acted as investigator , policeman , prosecutor , witness, judge, jury and executioner . The two judges who also acted as researchers and witnesses had to challenge themselves. ISAF guidelines for match officials determine that fairness and impartiality are essential to the sport . Jury President Judge Willis and McKenzie have two cases before many witnesses
    interviewed without ever become who they were all clear.
    Nevertheless, during the sessions and panel discussions attached importance to what is said in these interviews . The jury refused their notes and
    witness statements from the research to share with the parties. The parties were therefore unable to rebuttal . The President and the relevant juror had to challenge himself and had only allowed to act as a witness.
    Refusal evidence to share with parties and violation of rules of evidence : The attack strategy used by the jury and refusing to share (including exculpatory evidence ) all evidence of the parties is in breach of the RRS ( Rules of Sailboat Racing ) and the legal systems of almost all civilized countries . The RRS instruct the jury to include exercise in order to protect their rights. Participant the greatest caution The jury has acted in breach of this instruction by keeping . Deliberately evidence behind The jury heard ± 18 witnesses in the preliminary investigation , but refused to share it. Statements parties The jury found these statements confidential and stated that they could not be shared with others. So the jury acted with knowledge of all the statements and other evidence , and this evidence was denied parties . The parties were not allowed to know the names of the other witnesses , nor any other evidence the jury had itself.
    In addition, the jury used unreliable evidence ( such as rumors,
    speculations and assumptions ) . Article M3.2 RRS instruct the jury to " avoid . Zeggen' declarations of hearing Nevertheless, the jury repeatedly asked leading questions and rumors believes. There are other unreliable forms of evidence used .
    Refusal to give the parties sufficient time to prepare : The hearing in Case AC31 was not a normal protest . This session was a series of events over a year ago in Venice , Newport , San Francisco , and possibly elsewhere , where several people were involved .
    However, the parties were given only a few days to prepare their defense.
    Although this term might have been a normal protest , it was more than enough for these serious charges .
    Unauthorized disclosure of the transcripts of the hearings , the transcripts of the proceedings were confidential . That was agreed and ordered by the jury . At the request of the jury, the parties have consented to the use of the confidential transcripts as evidence in the case against OTUSA AC33 . However, they have never given permission to send . Transcripts to other organizations / persons The parties were also shocked that the jury had sent . Transcripts to ETNZ , ACEA and ACRM The jury , although these parties eventually asked to return the transcripts because the transcripts are sent electronically will never guarantee that all copies have been returned and destroyed . ETNZ 's lawyer has admitted to have read anyway . Transcripts
    These procedural errors by the jury resulted in an unfair trial . The result is that important sailors OTUSA be excluded from participation in the America 's Cup .
    Some sailors also get to disciplinary action by the ISAF and their national federations . This violation of due process has a disastrous effect on the integrity of the jury and its decisions . They threaten the careers and livelihoods of some of the best sailors in the world .
    The actions of the jury undermine the principle of fairness . They undermine the integrity of the competition for the America 's Cup , and they even threaten to affect , despite the fact that the alleged violation did not make the America's Cup to have . Their outcome
    The only solution is that the jury his decisions in matters AC31 and AC33 retiring and ( if the jury finds that the parties have not been punished enough ) , after the America's Cup fairly new session is organizing a new impartial jury in line with the RRS and generally recognized principles of fairness and justice.

    What to make of it? I guess they did install meaningless ballast in the frontbeam of the Oracle AC45, but are judged wrongly.
     
  7. powerabout
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,901
    Likes: 61, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 719
    Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy

    powerabout Senior Member

    Looks like sailing becoming as corrupt as soccer and the olympics
     
  8. schakel
    Joined: Jul 2008
    Posts: 351
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: the netherlands

    schakel environmental project Msc

    No it's a storm in a glass of water as we say in the Netherlands.
    Tempest in a tea pot is the english proverb, meaning Making a fuss about nothing important.
     
  9. powerabout
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,901
    Likes: 61, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 719
    Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy

    powerabout Senior Member

    5 year ban from your profession, hows that nothing?
     
  10. schakel
    Joined: Jul 2008
    Posts: 351
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: the netherlands

    schakel environmental project Msc

    No the verdict is being appealed but the reason is about nothing.
     
  11. powerabout
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,901
    Likes: 61, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 719
    Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy

    powerabout Senior Member

    Ok
    But did he deserve a 5 year ban for what he did
     
  12. schakel
    Joined: Jul 2008
    Posts: 351
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: the netherlands

    schakel environmental project Msc

    I think you are teasing me but ok..
    Why do you think a modification to a semi-one design class like the AC45 in the form of adding lead in the frontbeam must lead to a 5 year ban.
    He was not alone and it's stated by Dirk it was decided in the Oracle meetings to do this.
    Team Oracle has 100 man working. They are not to be blamed?
     
  13. powerabout
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,901
    Likes: 61, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 719
    Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy

    powerabout Senior Member

    Has any sailor ever received a 5 year ban for a iod modification?
    I remember the j24 worlds in italy where they changed the hull shape, measurer got lifetime ban from measuring, big deal, sailors got nothing
     
  14. schakel
    Joined: Jul 2008
    Posts: 351
    Likes: 9, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 48
    Location: the netherlands

    schakel environmental project Msc

    I send this to Dirk. Will make his case stronger.
     

  15. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,580
    Likes: 298, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    34th AC

    I think that continuing to debate something for which no one has all the facts yet is counterproductive. And it could result in this thread going the way of the AC 45 thread-for no good reason. Just bide your time until the facts of the whole story are known. Speculation on this matter accomplishes nothing.
     
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.