That's the key to all this. The rules clearly state how they can be changed, unanimous vote by all competitors. Why would ETNZ let Oracle modify the rules this late in the game? It's a ploy by Oracle, it's disgusting, and really mars the whole AC. Oh wait it's the AC and they'd rather be in court than on the water.

Call me when the full flying AC45's become the standard and they have 20 teams on the water. Till then I'll be watching the C-class and going sailing.

In context may I add this related to the Texel Race from Steve Green (BAMA)...
Texel.NDL (G.Ruesink, Nico Boon et al) and SCHRS.EU (Sunnuncks, Newhirst) w/SCHRS.US (Schneider) confirmed no 2013 rating adjustments for T-Foil Rudders (see Nacra F-20 Carbon S-Foils w/L and T-Rudder SkyDrive.LINK). Maybe next year.

Team Oracle has gained some knowledge of exacting the angle of attack for the theory by practicing with the adjustable elevators. Now, in beach cat terms...

My guess is the NACA on the A Cat foils was 4 - 6%. The angle of rake/attack was not mentioned in the discussion. Innovation and safety go hand in hand.

Allowing the daggerboard rudder in production trimaran racing was hinged by the safety element. Watch out for the Farrier 22 - If you see it, you'll likely want to sail it!

Forget all of the jury drama, let's get Hobie to put them on the 16!!!

Mike

Permit Issued
and
Regatta Notice

Kiwis, always trying to bend the rules.

But it isn't the Kiwis (unless you mean the ones employed by Team Oracle) who are bending the rules this time. The regatta director (Iain Murray) is altering the class rules at the behest of the cup defender (Golden Gate Yacht Club) - using the Coast Guard permit as a backdoor to shoehorn the changes in after the legitimate rule change process failed.

Allowing adjustable rudder elevators will not improve safety for the Louis Vuitton Cup - as the challenging teams do not have them. Allowing them for the America's Cup but not permitting adjustment while racing will not improve safety. The whole safety argument revolves around trimming the elevators during a bear-away (to keep the bows up). Rudder elevator adjustment is really a performance enhancement (between races to trim for wind conditions and while racing to initiate foiling).

To me, it looks like the defender (GGYC/Oracle) is attempting to stack the deck in it's favor. ETNZ has shown up with a more buoyant, more stable, and more seaworthy design, so Oracle is slipping in an 11th hour game change.

I hope the Jury rules in ETNZ's favor. I've been rooting for the home team so far, but I'd rather see them lose than win this way.

Sadly,
Eric

I could see them as being a safety measure to keep the boats from pitch poling with the different wind speeds. If they can't change them while racing what is the big deal. Could they just have a different rudder for different wind speeds and change between races. I think it was smart for Oracle to test with adjustable winglets so they could find the best balance for conditions. The other teams may have and had the same opportunity to test with adjustable winglets. Two boats have pitch poled and flipped so far and one sailor has died if changing the winglet angle before the race helps I would be fore it.

Spithill and Kostecki on the rudder winglet debate. Recorded after two boat testing.
Spithill Kostecki interview

Grant Dalton talks about Oracle and other things. Recorded June 1.
Dalton Interview

I agree that Oracle was smart to test with adjustable rudder elevators. Those rudders are not, however, class-legal to race with. Once Oracle picks the best compromise attack angle, they have to stick with it (make fixed elevators). Doing an end-around on the class rules via the Coast Guard permit does not make racing safer for anybody except (possibly) Oracle, and it gives Oracle a performance advantage.

ETNZ made a stability/speed tradeoff when they designed their hulls with greater bow buoyancy. They sacrificed some upwind performance to prevent pitchpoling on the turndown. Oracle opted for a finer hull profile with better theoretical upwind speed at the expense of stability. Had adjustable rudder elevators been legal from the outset, ETNZ may have made a different design choice. Giving Oracle an exemption from the class rules under the guise of safety is unfair to the challengers - especially since the change comes less than two weeks before the LV Cup begins.

IMHO it's just a big wind-up by Oracle and ultimately they won't care what the jury decides.

Oracle would be smart to let all the energy be drained with this nonsense, then win it with no elevators.

Of course, should they lose...

Mike

+1, The pic of LE,RC,JS,Tug Boat Turner looking at the rudder is a joke. They are just stirring the pot. I can't believe anyone thinks that OR doesn't have all the bases covered. Anything can happen but they won't lose because the boat isn't up to the task...... I hope:)

it does appear to contain the hallmarks of a classic "head-fake" to disrupt the competition's focus...

Dean Barker weighs in and makes some good points regarding rudder elevators, "safety" rules and class rules here.

Tad, close your eyes . . .

Jim Farmer - Director to the Board of the America's Cup Race Management (ACRM) weighs in.

Yuck...

If there's one constant in the Cup's history, especially over the past 30 years; it's change. Sure would be nice if the people involved would embrace that.

Mike

Excellent read regarding the CG Permit and Regatta Director Iain Murray by legal analyst Cory E. Friedman here.

Oracle is weak and clearly scared to have to pull this kind of douchebagery. Box it up and send it to New Zealand.

I've always enjoyed Freeman's perspective on Cup related details. If his suggestion that Oracle has yet demonstrated the ability to foil without adjustable rudder tabs, this is a pretty transparent attempt to cheat and skew the event in their favor. It stinks. I'll be interested to see this play out but if it turns out to be as rotten as it smells right now, I agree with Dave...start packing up the cup, we don't deserve it.

He also brings out Peyron's comments in that article linked before. After reading that again, I think it's is at least not clear what happened in that accident regarding pitchpole vs. boat breaking up. Peyron seems to say that they started to pitchpole and then the boat broke...was the pitchpole recoverable at the time?