• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bob202

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

740 profile views
  1. Clear in that they didn't say is was parts off the boat which some have claimed, nor otherwise clarifying something that could have been removed all ambiguity in the same amount, if not fewer, words? Debating with people who assert things as stated which demonstrably were not stated is not whining. It's pointing out the culture of one-eyed bullshittery that pervades a section of these boards - the same people who find fault in virtually anything ETNZ has done and then drop that mantra when it's about another team.
  2. Yep. Not to mention it was the foil shape and the wing control that probably played as much a part of the ETNZ win. If they'd gone with the same basic foil control path as everyone else they still had the fastest foils (for those conditions) and the best wing control by the sounds of it.
  3. Yep. As I said from the outset, De Nora seems to be in mouth-off mode. Now they've won and are not constrained by AC gagging order he just seems to be getting stuff off his chest. I doubt this is the last we've heard from him either in terms of stories from this cup cycle. Old man yells at clouds basically.
  4. Yeah, basic standards of clarity to remove ambiguity would be a start - as any competent manager or spokesperson would advise if they had any interest in closing down further argument. If not, then it's either intentional vagueness which in-itself leads to further questioning, or incompetence. Intentional vagueness is commonly used when someone wants to skirt around an issue or situation by being economical with details which might not help their message. Clear communication is not that hard, especially when GTF had the topic and details handed to them to form their response.
  5. The main jist of your post warrants no reply other than: bla bla bla... Such twattery only an Englishman could come up with. After all your bullshittery about interpreting words one way or another you make a case for the nuances between "would" or "might" which, using your own previous reasoning, is making shit up. As Indio says. STFU. Ignore me if you don't want to bother to actually read what was said, what I have said while wholesale lapping up the views of people purely on the basis you agree with them. That's not fact by consensus, it's a circle-jerk.
  6. I read the version linked to from here. As far as I know it is a verbatim account of their release. Are you suggesting otherwise? Given that 19 of 20 people here who claim to have spoken to someone in Bermuda or have a contact inside a team are making it up - some provably in the past - I don't give much weight to what is, effectively, a fact created by fantasy vote. Because they might have thought GTF most likely to be able to help since they were already out of the competition. When that didn't happen how do we know they didn't get it from BAR or other? Nothing in De Nora's comments say we received no help from anyone and the GTF comments aren't accounting for anyone other than themselves. If, as you and others seem to believe, that ETNZ did need a part of the French boat but didn't get it... is it a case of the part being not as badly damaged as first thought? Or they got it from another team and all through this saga they haven't bothered to thank them (why wouldn't any of the people you mention above not have been told about it?)? Or was it just a case of not getting help and then being able to fix it without any outside help regardless in the end? It could be the later but it makes just as much sense that ETNZ was seeking help to repair something, not to borrow an actual in-use part - a scenario which still does not contradict the GTF statement if you read what they said instead of imagining what they said. You can believe whatever you want. But making shit up which was never even said and then saying others are doing the same is laughably one-eyed.
  7. Nowhere, anywhere in the press release does GTF say ETNZ wanted parts from their boat. It isn't even implied. I suggest you go back and read what was actually written.
  8. No it is not meaningless. Those parts in many/most instances can be repaired with those materials. If you give/sell those materials - many of which are quite specific in composition - you are left unable to repair your own part should it need repairing (esp if it's something which you don't have a spare of like a hull - 2 boats required major hull repairs during the cup). Wrong, their press release was unabigious. It did not say that - it said they had no spare parts. - "Therefore, having no spare parts on site, this would have compromised our plans." Not having pre-preg or other consumables available because they had limited amounts for their own contingencies makes more sense than refusal to offer a part they were using and then not even bother to say it in their media release - which would have ended the whole debate in two or three words. The people who are interpreting this conveniently in defence of GTF (you yourself have a track record for a bordering on psychotic, not to mention moronic, anti-ETNZ attitude) cannot account for one simple fact that GTF's own words were ambiguous enough to be fairly obvious they did not mean what you claim. If they had it would have been far easier to just write that instead of what they did which lends itself to being more cagey and detailed than either team has offered up (as yet).
  9. I do not need to lay off this point - it is not pointless. People here have hinged their entire argument on something the French did not even say. If they had meant that ETNZ wanted parts they were using on their boat why didn't they just say so? It would have been the simplest and most intuitive response. But they didn't. Their vagueness of what was asked for simply cannot be assumed as being parts of their boat. Yet again, notwithstanding that many of them are prevented in the rules from being sold/swapped or even loaned. No. It's not. Their statement couldn't have been more vague if they tried. Are you actually nuts? They could have said, "ETNZ asked for use of a spare foredeck, and *part* and *part* off our boat." That would have been clear. But they said nothing remotely in the realm of "cannot be clearer". As for materials being meaningless. Yet again, you are dead wrong. Spare means excess. ETNZ could have asked for some material(s) such as carbon sheets or resin or whatever and they would all constitute spare if they were excess. The French however said they didn't have any "spares" (not the s on the end) which indicate spare parts. I.e it can easily mean they don't have any spares (since their only parts are on the boat) and because of that they can't supply ENTZ with any materials because those materials are what they have on hand should they need to conduct repairs to any future damage on the boat. It's simple as piss if you bother to read what they actually wrote. It was a hydraulic ram for use in making/repairing the boats, not a ram for use ON the boat. That was made fairly clear in one of the interviews when someone mentioned it being about repairing a cracked part - they can use rams to press moulds before clamping them and leaving to cure (or baking if needed). (I'll try to find where it was mentioned)
  10. That's only one way to interpret it. It could, and I'd guess more likely, mean that they had no spares, not that they would have to use parts off their boat which would render their own one unable to be sailed. They were just mindful that they couldn't repair damage if they had given ETNZ their raw materials (in case it needs repeating for the 50th time" most of the actual boat parts cannot be transferred between teams - the rules prevent it. Ergo why I suspect this was about materials/equipment to make repairs).
  11. AC36 Auckland NZ

    The issue with limiting the nationality of designers is teams would just find a way to hide it - and it wouldn't be all that hard probably. Just work remotely with someone and never name them in any team docs. That could encourage the creation of underground boat designer gangs ha ha.
  12. Hell no. I wouldn't because we would then forever have to hear people say "they only won because..." On-the-field results are the only legitimate sporting results. Damage, injury or other factors always diminish the win for the winner. I know you didn't mean it but if the "damage is part of the AC" line was taken further, what if ENTZ had not been able to race again and BAR had won those races by default.. and then in the first race of the challenger finals they'd done the same and Artemis had won by default?... Everyone would be calling this the worst AC ever. Why? Because the results were too impacted by non-sport factors. No sporting event won off the playing field - not even an equipment dependent sport like yachting, let alone Formula One - holds the same value for anyone involved. That is why GTF's reasoning behind their not offering help on commercial grounds (irrelevant that they say they couldn't help) is laughable when they said it was to not show favoritism. It was precisely that - far moreso than helping a team get their boat back to sail-able repair.
  13. In the context of a sporting event, a team which is already out helping - minimally - a team still competing is not picking sides. It's showing a preference to see results decided by the actual sport and not by other factors like damage. Anyone who needs the difference explained to them more than once obviously didn't play enough sport in their lifetime to understand the concept of sport as a competitive pursuit. GTF just showed that the AC has become far too much about money and, moreso, confirmed what someone said many months ago about the framework agreement that for most teams it was more a way they could keep their sponsors hooked for the sake of keeping going than legitimately having any interest in competing to win the AC. Japan and GTF are probably the examples of that mindset and, as far as the AC goes, the sooner that particular perception of the AC is gotten rid-of the better. It is a challenge cup, not an annual series for teams.
  14. Ah, no. The main details of the story were direct quotes from De Nora. You're making out as if they were a journalist's assumptions (or concoctions) which they clearly were not. If De Nora was not quoted accurately we would have know about it within 24 hours. You think a guy that eager to talk would somehow let being misquoted slide? No way on earth. Yeah, nah. I don't buy this. De Nora's claims were specific enough in nature that GTF would have had them pointed out to them within hours of them being published. There's no way they would not have had anyone immediately available to offer a response. Their response time seems to me to be managing the claims and being careful with their obligations to sponsors and benefactors (who they even reference in their media release). I am surprised it took them so long to do such a simple reply and one which offered basically no clarification of what went on at all aside from saying "nope"... For them to bollocks it up further with their stupid admission they were happy to see races won by damage instead of by actual racing was pretty mind-boggling in the scope of a sporting contest.
  15. Don't accuse me of defending De Nora troll. I have been pretty clear that De Nora told the story as was convenient to him. I doubt even the ETNZ guys agree with it, especially those who know all the details De Nora (and GTF in their response for that matter) left out.