daiquiri
Engineering and Design
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 5,370
- Reaction score
- 259
- Location
- Italy (Garda Lake) and Croatia (Istria)
The plan had been to use GPS-based positioning of mark boats to define the course. This enabled ACRM to move the boats as required to either shorten the course or extend it to ensure the race ended on time.
When ETNZ hit the mark boat, shown in the picture, that convinced ACRM that using boats as marks was unsafe. Giles Martin-Raget was taking pictures on the fore-deck and had to dive for the deck to avoid being hit.
ACRM switched to anchored, fixed marks for safety.
That meant the marks could not be moved during the race. Previously, finishing within the time limit was virtually guaranteed because of the flexibility of the mark boats. However, with fixed marks, finishing within the time limit became uncertain.
On the first attempt at race 13, ETNZ was leading OTUSA when the time limit expired and the race was abandoned. Had the mark boats been in operation then, Race Committee would almost certainly have shortened course to allow the boats to finish in time. But they were not able to do so because the marks were anchored.
Had the course been shortened, ETNZ would have won the race and won the Cup.
So it all goes back to their hitting the mark boat in Newport. It started a chain of events that had a surprising outcome.
Only now I have noticed this post and I find it fascinating beyond words.
Kind of butterfly effect at work - a small and apparently minor event which has lead, through a series of situational leverages (committee decisions and Oracle's giant leaps in boat enhancing), to a radical change of the final result.
An example which should rightly enter into textbooks as an example of how at this level of competitive racing any single error can make a difference between a final victory or loss.
Thank you very much for this story, Mr. Speer.