• 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

About Team_GBR

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Medal Race

Recent Profile Visitors

488 profile views
  1. I am pretty certain they didn't get a penny.They gave them the UK rights in exchange for guaranteed and agreed airtime. IIRC, BT Sports took the ACEA feed which they got for free and used their own production team in Bermuda to produce the programmes.
  2. I think that is probably a bit unfair. Can you blame the designer if something isn't maintained properly? Anyway, good luck with sorting it out. At least you now have a plan.
  3. The fitting on the bottom of the mast is held in place by the diamonds. if you cut the diamonds, it should be removable, although with age and corrosion, it could be a bit of a battle.
  4. So far, it seems to me that Bertelli has really hijacked the AC and GD has prostituted ETNZ. To date, the price that GD is paying for the support of Bertelli last time around seems at odds with what he has said in the past. Having a challenger dictate the type of boat as payment for having previously supported the defender seems wrong but what i think is unacceptable, if true, is the way in which Prada is taking over what was the LV. Back in the day, sometime after Alinghi won in 2007, there was an outcry because they appeared to be dumping LV on purely financial grounds. Many felt that LV had earned a right to be treated fairly. Then look at the tie ups there have been between ETNZ and LV, like the LV Cup held back in 2010(?) which certainly helped ETNZ big time. At this early stage, how can anybody determine that Prada sponsoring the challenger series is the best thing for that series. Surely there is a duty to ensure that the series gets the best sponsor for all, and until we know the format, how could anybody know what other parties might suggest. IMO, it is the worst commercial abuse of the AC I have ever seen. It seems wrong that one team should have such a financial hold over an event. It's not as if it were the same as, say, Emirates sponsoring the AC because the financial benefit of that would not be going into the pocket of anybody at ETNZ. In the case of Prada, it has a direct financial consequence to Bertelli and he has done it to financially benefit the company he controls (with his wife). It looks like Bertelli's biggest motivation in helping ETNZ was to hijack the cup in favour of Prada and to make the challenger stronger than they otherwise would be. In a fair world, both defender and challenger should be equal partners, with the defender holding an upper hand if needed. In this case it seems clear that Bertelli has bought a position of power and is dictating key decisions in an asymmetric display of power. It just goes to show how corrupt the AC is. With Alinghi, everybody said it was about Bertarelli making money for himself. After Alinghi everybody said Oracle and Larry would be better and they were treated as saviours. That proved wrong. Now GD and TNZ are being hailed as the new saviours and we see them allowing a challenger to gain significant financial benefit from the start. I hope the rumour is wrong, but if it is true, all we have is the same old, same old dressed up in new cloths.
  5. I have read some ill informed shit on these forums, but this takes all the awards. I have raced all 4 classes since I first started sailing and this is the first time anybody has suggested they are any form of one design. Maybe Jim is right "only in the US". Take the Moth. Of all classes, I think it has the most open and fewest rules of any class I can think of. You can build both skiffs and scows. I am not sure how anybody could consider using the words "one design" when it comes to the Moth considering how the class ethos is so anti one design. I could go on and explain each of the classes mentioned, but the story is the same.
  6. I would bet you a decent sum of money that there will be more than just the LV and the cup matches. Since when does SA put a brake on speculation. You have done it for years
  7. We will have to agree to disagree. Events held before the cup itself in boats that by definition are an earlier generation doesn't tell you anything about how the performance of your new boat will compare with the new boats built by the others. As you could tell by Buttereworth's reaction during the first race of AC32, he clearly didn't have much of an idea of how the boats were going to compare.
  8. I guess it depends on your point of view. Get rid of all the "side shows" and you send the cup back in time to being a rich man's, exclusive club. Teams like ETNZ only survive because of commercial sponsorship. If you reduce the exposure for the sponsors back to the LV and the cup itself, you severely limit the number of teams. You probably seriously harm ETNZ's ability to be competitive. If we accept that in today's environment, giving sponsors exposure is actually desirable because we want teams to be able to get funding, the question is what do you need to do to justify a total of, say, $100m over 3 years. That is serious wedge. You can get serious exposure on an F1 car for that money or it will buy you 2.5 seasons of shirt sponsorship of one of the top 4 British Premiership football teams. The AC is different, appeals to different audiences, but a little racing in the LV followed by a chance of racing in the cup itself is not a return on $100m. The question is how to get more exposure for the sponsors without screwing the whole event. I think the ACWS screwed it up and got worse the second time around. The initial racing back in AC34 was actually pretty good, attracted crowds and I suspect was good for sponsors. I think the "Acts" of AC32 also worked. What didn't work was over pandering to live TV which created a huge fail. The question should be about what is the right direction, because "nothing" is not the answer.
  9. None of you are right. It is a fact that Alinghi proposed that they sail in the LV up to the semi finals. What most failed to realise is that the only influence they would have was against a bad boat. They could not knock out a top contender. For example, if they decided to and had the ability to do so, if they beat the top contender and lost to all the others, that would still have meant the contender had lost 1 race which would not have caused a contender to be eliminated. What Alinghi's presence might have done is influence whichever team took the last place in the semis if there were 2 or more boats in contention for that last place but unless the order of races fell in a particular order, Alinghi would not have known who they were helping or not helping. Oracle's situation was, IMO, far worse than Alinghi. As we saw, Oracle carried a point forward into the match. I know the above view is unfashionable and everybody who has expressed it has been hounded, but many seem to focus on that rather than what i believe is the real issue. The challengers and defender should not meet in their race boats until the match.
  10. How about the Australians? they raced against the challengers in the 12M worlds in (IIRC) Neport. Only the Americans refused to race against other 12's in events outside of the match itself. For the 12m worlds in Brighton, I believe that one of the US boats even made the trip over only for the NYYC to stop them participating at the last minute. They were afraid it would give the challengers an advantage. The difference between the Acts and the rest of the racing is that Alinghi didn't use the boat that was to later defend the Cup. Most of the leading teams used their first boat, leaving their second and LV/Cup boat for when the action began. This ensured that when Alinghi and TNZ lined up for the first race of the match, nobody knew who was going to be faster or who would win. I have a particularly vivid memory of Butterworth commenting half way down the first run "this thing certainly has some wheels downwind". It was clear he had no idea as to the performance differences between the 2 boats before they started racing and I think that is what people want to see again.
  11. Seriously? I come back to this thread and it gets even more blurred and convoluted. The situation is clear. Some boats were lobbed because their keels had been reshaped to make the boats faster. This was not a mistake. they were not trying to take advantage of tolerances. They were not trying to ensure the keels were to their "designed" shape, whatever that might be. They were not taking out minor cosmetic faults and they were not repairing damage. Somebody had designed the modifications to the keel in order to make the boat faster. Changing the shape of the keel to make it faster is specifically against the rules and cannot be an accident. As this work was deliberate and intended, it was cheating. Please stop trying to make excuses. This is not a case of the problem being the way the boats were built, or the class rules or the lack of templates. This was a deliberate attempt to cheat.
  12. Sorry, nothing to do with currency conversion. I misheard what he said. I thought he had said that Oracle was less than the ones he had mentioned (ETNZ, Artemis and BAR). Sorry. I took a conversion rate appropriate for most of the campaign rather than use the weak level of sterling today, which is why i have BAR having the biggest budget. You do talk a load of shit. There was a time, when the 62's were still being talked about, that BAR didn't have money but that changed, not because of the move to the 50's but because they signed not only Land Rover but also also a whole raft of others who either paid money or gave services in kind. Go check their sponsors list because in the end, they were probably the best funded team and despite their performance, they ended up with very happy sponsors because the exposure was higher than had been expected.
  13. You really need to spend some time studying hull lines and also reading books like Bethwaite, because you are looking at superficial differences between the boats when on the water and ignoring the whole design philisophy of each type of boat. For instance, the 3.7 is primarily a V bow leading to a flat bottom chined hull shape while the RS600 is an extreme U shaped hull. If you exend the 3.7 you get nothing like an RS600. Then look at the rocker and distribution of buoyancy. Again, completely different. Until you begin to understand these hull shape differences, you won't get anywhere. You cannot take ideas from one and combine them with another. Then look at modern skiff design as seen in, say, the Musto Skiff. Superficially, there are similarities between the 3.7 and the Musto because of the chine, but look at where max waterline beam is and combine the analysis of that, the section and the rocker profile. Again, the differences between the 2 types of boat are very big and very significant to the way it goes through the water. You also make a fundamental assumption which is often very wrong. Making a wider bow does not make a boat less prone to nose diving which is primarily due to pressures from the rig. Bigger bows tend to make the boat trip up more because the bow stops the boat when pushed under. Often the "smaller" bow stops the boat less and allows it to come out of the nose dive with less of a loss of speed. It is the loss of speed that causes a pitch pole. You want to move the mast forward, because you prefer the way the boat looks. While I disagree with you on aesthetic grounds because I think it looks more racy with the rig back, looks are a personal thing. What I do know is that moving the mast forward on a modern hull shape will make it pitch pole more. You are really looking at 3 different hull forms. First you have the old school, displacement and planing based shapes typified by the Contender and 3.7. Then you have the extreme U shape of the RS600 and finally you have the skiff shape of the Musto. The way each hull works is very different. The wave making of the old style hulls severely limits their maximum speed so adding more sail and righting moment only makes a small difference in speed and would probably make the boats less fun to sail.
  14. I don't think so. Some have suggested that was worth $30m although I always thought that was high. While the figure for BAR matches something i had heard before, when i was told that figure it also included the cost of the new HQ and the other programs such as the Extreme campaign. You can probably knock it down by about 12-15m. Interesting view on Oracle, because they were always claiming that Larry was holding the purse strings tight this time around. Even still rading between the lines I think the spending league table would read BAR, Artemis, ETNZ, Oracle, GTS, SBTJ If you then throw in the amount of in kind Oracle gave to SBTJ and the benefits they received in return from effectively a 2 boat program, you probably end up with Oracle at the top of the table.
  15. The boats would be disappointingly old fashioned if they were narrow enough to fit in a plane.