Team_GBR

Members
  • Content Count

    1,169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team_GBR

  1. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Fanboys love to roll this out, but they never go on to point out what the Jury also said in their ruling. I wonder why? Could it be because it said that even if the protest had been heard, it was pointless as the system was legal. It seemed to me to be a pretty smart move by the Jury, so that no shadow hung over the result, but a very few NZ supporters don't accept it, so maybe it was pointless.
  2. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Not quite. It was Luna Rosa that protested that the OR photographer was too close. It was a clever bit of work by the "alliance" because if ETNZ had protested, OR would have countered that they had been too close in SF. There was a great story of how OR dealt with ETNZ when they got too close. They went passed them in their biggest engined rib and soaked them with their rooster tail. Funny thing is, to be sure I got my story right, I did a quick search and I also found a quote from a well known NZ journalist who is known for having no love of OR. Richard Gladwell said "Oracle's alleged transgression is pretty small fry. In the end it came down to defining the word "navigating" and IMO, anybody who thinks it was a clear case of cheating is being unduly biased.
  3. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    There is no evidence for that while there is some circumstantial evidence for Burling not being as good at it as some of the others. The foiling AC45's used in the ACWS had foil control by the helm and most agree that Ainslie was the best at it. He was always the first to foil in the light winds and he seemed to have more control than others. After a while, Outteridge got to grips with the system and was consistently as good if not better than the rest. At best, you would say that Burling was unproven in this area, but it is a rather mute point.
  4. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    This is incorrect. Even if the claims against OR are true, which I have seen no evidence for, nobody has ever claimed their system was fully automatic. The claims have always been that there were supplementary systems that made the overall control easier. You are misunderstanding what i said and what happened. Not only did ETNZ have the system you are referring to, but they also had a fully automatic system that could "fly" the boat without any input from the crew and which for a long time was better than could be achieved by the crew. They used this control system to allow them to push development harder, as they didn't have to learn how to adjust new foils as the computers could do that for them. They also found that their predictive software could accurately predict foil behaviour, so they could develop a foil, programme the boat and sail the boat immediately. There was not the same imperative for the crew to learn how to control a new foil before they could get the results and the crew only learnt how to control the foil once the foil and its behaviour was known. Once understood, the computer could then indicate to the crew how to adjust the foil while all the other boats had to rely on the "feel" of the sailors. For a long time, the ETNZ sailors were unable to match the foiling performance that could be produced by the automated system. The predictive programmes and the automated control system was IMO the biggest single thing that helped ETNZ to win the AC. Without them they would probably have not achieved stable flight from their foils. Everybody focuses on the cyclors, but if the other teams had cyclors, they still would not have won.
  5. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    In the interests of keeping the conversation civilised, and taking your conversation seriously, even if it was a troll, the best automated foil control system developed by anybody was by ETNZ for their AC50. It took a long time before they learnt how to sail as fast and stable on manual control as they could with their automated system and it was one of the reasons why they won the cup. By being able to sail with foils that the automated system could control but which couldn't initially be controlled manually, they moved along the development curve faster than other teams. The only problem with the idea of automated controls for the SF is that the knowledge isn't available. If you are to believe a few cheater theorists, nobody at OR is talking because they have been silenced by Larry, while ETNZ would be foolish to reveal anything about their system because foil control is going to be critical for the next cup. The cost of developing an automated foil control system for the SF would be many times the cost of the whole project, so it isn't going to happen. They also don't need it. M&M screwed up the foil design. What the boat needs is more forgiving foils. They might reduce top speed by a couple of knots, but nobody will see the difference.
  6. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    To repeat what has been said above, this is exactly what what is being said regarding OR, except for one difference. This reminds me of old school policing that led to many innocent people being locked up. "he has a record, we can't be arsed to check out his alibi because we don't understand it so he must have done it. Let's fit the story around that". The scenario you says has no logic is exactly the scenario that is being used regarding OR with the added "fit up job". You are correct, OR was caught cheating but that is not evidence that they cheated again.
  7. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    No, random, yet again, as pointed out by surfsailor, you are muddling things up. The "ratchet" mechanism is the ability to move 0.5 degrees at a time. OR agree they had that system. It was declared legal by both the measurers and the jury, although a very few ETNZ fans refuse to acknowledge that the jury stated it was a legal system and choose to focus on the fact that the protest was disallowed due to it being filed too late. The rapid movement of the foil claim had nothing to do with the ratchet system. Please stop trying to tie the accusations together. They are totally unrelated. You keep suggesting I don't know anything, but at least I demonstrably understand foiling, which you clearly don't. There seems to be nothing i can post that would convince you. If I post facts from others, you say they are simply saying it as a smoke screen. If I say how something works, you say it is pure speculation. I have laid out undeniable facts you choose to not even comment on. Your only evidence that OR cheated by changing the rake on their boards many times a second is a video of another part of the boat moving and claiming there must be a link. Your assumptions are made on the fact that OR was faster upwind than ETNZ when foiling and more stable, claiming that could only have happened if they were cheating. On that basis, ETNZ must have been big cheats in the last AC. To be clear. I am saying that there is zero evidence to support the notion that OR gained an advantage by rapidly changing the rake of their foils. Nothing more or nothing less. You made your mind up ages ago and no amount of evidence, logic or discussion is going to change it.
  8. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    This is where get so frustrated. You clearly have no interest in getting to the truth and are happy to go along with conspiracy theories that don't stack up. You say that OR hasn't adequately explained how they improved so much and have not shown their kit. That is wrong. Again, just because you haven't seen the explanations doesn't mean they don't exist. Here are some facts. One of the chief designers from OR and from ETNZ did a series of talks after the cup where they explained the differences between their boats and what made the difference in speeds, including presentations at Foiling Week. Paul Bieker, who designed most of the parts they added to the boat has published many details of the improvements, including specific figures for drag reduction. As an aside, most of the significant changes were made on the lay day that both teams agreed to. Without that day, OR would not have been able to make those changes. ETNZ didn't have to agree to the lay day but after the lay day and the changes made by OR, they didn't lose a single race. The changes made added up to a reduction in drag of over 100kgs which is considerable. There has been huge analysis done by many people into how OR won and the only place you can find the accusation of the cheating through the rapid movement of the foil evidenced by the gantry movement is on this forum. You say imagine feeding that stuff to the press and I agree. The reason why it hasn't been picked up on, despite most sailing journalists reading this forum (and some even posting on it) is because even a cursory investigation shows that it doesn't stack up. Don't you think that if there was anything in the story Gladwell and people like him wouldn't have been all over it? On the rapid movement of the board cheating theory, there are no conflicting facts. All there is is speculation by a very few based on a single video that does not show the foil moving. You can choose to ignore all the other evidence and choose to believe that is how OR cheated, despite nobody being able to show the board moving, or explain how they moved the board in the claimed manner orhow it was controlled or how it would be an advantage. You also are simply refusing to believe that OR designed a better boat than ETNZ. You want to believe that as OR was slower upwind when not foiling that OR would be slower upwind when foiling. Both teams started the match unable to foil upwind. Both ended up being able to foil upwind by the end of the match. You choose to ignore major changes that OR made to both their boat and to their sailing techniques because "you didn't spot them". You ignore that the biggest gain by OR wasn't actually their speed but was the way they tacked which is clear for anybody to see. They went from losing very significant ground every tack to being able to tack quicker than ETNZ and if you watch the videos, that is all because of a change in technique (their roll tacks ended up being a thing of beauty). When evidence is presented to you, you counter simply by saying it is speculation, when it isn't. You never engage in the substantive arguments, because you cannot. You ask questions that are totally irrelevent, such as for details of how often the teams changed their foil rake. It's irrelevant because it is not possible to move the board as often back and forth as is being claimed by manual control, so what they can achieve via manual control doesn't matter. What I do know is that the boards were moved far less than is being suggested, because they were only moved when there was a change in the way the boat was sailing, such as when it changed leg or sped up or slowed down. In a steady state of sailing, the boards were left alone. Bury your head as much as you want, but you are right about one thing. OR was caught cheating and that will be with them forever. Other than that, there is no evidence that they had anything illegal on their boat and you have failed to provide a single piece of evidence to support your case, but I guess we will never agree on that. Unless you can provide evidence, let's just agree to disagree.
  9. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Now you are either trolling or really do don’t understand what was written. In no way did I say moving the foil wasn’t beneficial. We all know both teams moved their foils when racing the AC72’s, just like the AC50’s. What I am referring to the claimed action of the foil as “shown” by the movement of the gantry. This would have led to the foil changing its angle of attack back and forth multiple times a second. ETNZ did not do that with their AC50 and no other team did that. What was being claimed is that the foil was moving back and forth something like 3 or 4 cycles a second. It is that action that is not beneficial and has never been seen on a foiler. Please don’t call people fickwits when you are the one who clearly doesn’t understand.
  10. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    I came across this today The picture was labelled "The interceptor – small ridge running around the transom modifies the water flow like a boot spoiler on a car."
  11. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Here is a link to an article by Richard Gladwell who I am sure you know is a NZ journalist with no OR sympathies. https://www.sail-world.com/USA/34th-Americas-Cup---Oracle-pumping-claims-are-flawed---Update/142791 Read it carefully. He counters the argument that OR was cheating by pumping the wing by saying it was legal. He doesn't say the wing wasn't pumped. Why? Because at the time it was clear to everybody. I am not sure where the video is now, but there were some great analytical videos at the time. This still avoids the fact that before the "comeback" OR wasn't spinning the winch non stop but during it, you can clearly see the winch is always spinning. This took a huge amount of the available hydraulic capability. If the foils were moving at the rate claimed, where were they getting the power to do it? It certainly couldn't come from the standard system. To do it you would have needed constant oil pressure and lots of it. You say that it is supposition, yet the claims being made by those who say the foil was being moved constantly is far more than supposition. To prove the foil was moving in the way claimed needs those claiming it to be able to show how it was achieved. Nobody has shown how it was achieved. The disputed actuator cannot do it. It would need a control system, enough oil pressure to make it work, a system that pushed and pulled and more. The system that those who claim OR was cheating that allowed them to move the foil in 0.5 degree increments would not have been able to move the foil in the way some claim it was used. It's not up to us to prove that, although it is pretty obvious to anybody who has studied the system, but it is up to those who claim the foil was being moved that amount to explain how it was happening. Maybe I wasn't clear or you are not familiar with detailed study of video. With the gantry moving, it can be seen while zoomed out so you always have a reference to ensure the film has not been doctored. This is because the length of the gantry is such that it allows for more movement to be seen at the top. If you just watch a point say 10 inches up from the deck, you cannot see the movement. With the foil, you only have a small amount of it visible, because the rest is in the water. The original person who identified the gantry moving was challenged to show the foil was also moving and he could not, because he said there wasn't enough foil visible to do so. So the first problem is that those making the accusation couldn't prove the foil was moving. I can prove the foil isn't moving but to do so, you need a large screen and the ability to zoom in once the video has been stopped, in order to be able to taken measurements. As you zoom in, you lose any reference to where the gantry is, so you cannot "prove" it by taking snapshots of the zoomed in measurements because they could simply be the same photo. If you were in my office, I could show you the whole process going on and it is very clear. I am not the only person who makes this claim. The really telling thing is that those making the accusation could not show any movement in the foil that tied in with the movement of the gantry. Many say that the nature of the set up would allow the gantry to move when being buffeted by 50 knots of wind and that the gantry could move without the foil moving, but those claiming the foil moved cannot prove it does. The third piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit is that those claiming that OR were moving the foil many times a second are unable to come up with any evidence of why it would be of benefit, while those with hydrodynamic experience say it would be detrimental to performance. We have seen some pretty poor efforts to "prove" it is beneficial, such as videos of the wing flaps of aircraft moving rapidly during landings, which doesn't stack up because it is a flap while we are discussing the movement of the whole foil, which changes flow over the whole foil rather than the flap which simply alters already attached flow from an otherwise static wing. To summarise the rapid movement foil conspiracy fails for the following reasons Those making the accusation cannot demonstrate how the system would enable the rapid changes to happen They cannot demonstrate a corresponding movement of the foil to the movement of the gantry They cannot demonstrate a benefit to moving the foil that way. Those arguing against it say the following The system isn't capable of moving the foil that rapidly back and forward There is no visible movement of the foil but the gantry can move independently in 50 knots of turbulent breeze It is detrimental to keep moving a foil back and forth rapidly through the water. You accuse me of making suppositions. Those accusing OR of cheating in this way are the ones making suppositions. Supposition 1 - if the gantry is moving, the foil must be moving, even this cannot be shown Supposition 2 - the hydraulic system works differently from how it should and is capable of that movement Supposition 3 - there is a benefit to moving the foil like that even though experts say there is no benefit and only OR designers know what that benefit is. This cheating theory falls down on so many levels and there is no proof provided by those who believe in it. They try to divert attention away from that by attempting to put the burden of proof onto those who say OR wasn't cheating. That is not how it works. The burden of proof is on the accusers.
  12. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    random You can keep burying your head in the sand as much as you like, but the evidence is there that OR cannot have cheated in the way you claim. Lets start with the pumping. Here is a link to NY journalist Richard Gladwell on the subject https://www.sail-world.com/USA/34th-Americas-Cup---Oracle-pumping-claims-are-flawed---Update/142791 The pumping was one of the keys to their upwind foiling.There is a video I will try to dig out that was extensively posted and commented on at the time which showed it very clearly. This misses the real point that blows the continuously moving foil theory out of the water. The hydraulics system was always maxed out. If you decided to use more hydraulics in one part of the boat, another had less. What the video posted above shows is the main winch spinning all the time. The loads on it are far less than a soft sail, but they are still big. On ETNZ, they only needed to spin the winch when pulling in the sheet and as with all AC72's, they had a system to divert oil to whatever part of the boat it was needed with foot operated switches. Spinning the winch non stop used a huge amount of the available oil, leaving little for the movement of the foils. Despite this, people want us to believe that a heavily loaded foil was moved constantly at great speed back and forth. There simply was not enough hydraulic power to do it. It is really that simple. As for the movement of the gantry, you are looking at a part that is not directly or firmly attached to the board that has a joint that is designed to move to align itself with any pull. It is moving in very turbulent airflow passing it at a speed of about 50 knots. Here is the killer. The person who originally found the "evidence" refused to look for a corresponding movement in the foil. He claimed there wasn't enough foil sticking out to see the movement. That was rubbish. Even over the relative short distance, you would see the movement if you zoomed in to pixel level, which needed a big screen and the right software. I did this, as did others. There was no corresponding movement. Unfortunately, you have to be there to see it because it is not possible to screen shot it and still maintain time stamps, so there is no way to show in pictures it hasn't been doctored. Why i would want to doctor it, I have no idea. i don't support OR and don't even really like them. If they were cheating, they should be called out for it, but on this particular point, they were not. This does still leave the issue of the actuator, but I have seen no evidence for that and it doesn't explain the speed. Again, the lack of oil problem comes into play. As I said before, I know they used to run out of oil on the foil adjustment. People are trying to suggest the difference between OR and ETNZ was a stability control system and if they had identical foils, that is what it would have to be, but they had very different foils and it is therefore no surprise that the flight stability was different.
  13. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    You are quoted in post 7291, which reads like you responding to my post, but your original post doesn't seem to be there. That means that something you posted was deleted, or somebody made up a whole thing to look like you posted. Or maybe I have messed up being unable to find your post or misunderstood what was said. You certainly did miss it even though it was discussed at length on this forum. After every tack the wing was rapidly trimmed in and out until the boat was up on foils. This is what beast mode was. A link to an article about it has already been provided. Many misinterpreted the "pumping" as providing extra power to get the boat up on foils. That is not what was happening. Foiling sailors know that to get a boat up on foils, you ease the sheet, because it unloads the foils and lets the boat rise. the issue is that you then lose power, so you rapidly trim the sail to ease the load off the foil and then pull it back in to maintain power and adjust to the increased speed. In smaller boats, you can get up on foils quickly but it seems that the heavier the boat, the longer the cycle of ease and retrim. This was the biggest single difference in the way OR sailed, compared with ETNZ. It is something that changed at the time they started to improve. This was the true "beast mode" To quote from the article After every turn (tack), the frenzied in an out movements of the wing enabled the boat to rapidly climb up onto the foils. With the boat mostly liberated from the water’s grip, Oracle quickly gained ground on the Kiwis. Thanks to the continued pumping, Spithill could then turn slightly back toward the source of the wind to put the boat on a more direct course toward the next mark without falling off the foils. Nonstop pumping was crucial. “If we didn’t pump the wing, we would lose ground,” Spithill explained. There is video somewhere to support it. the funny thing about it was the people who instantly accused OR of cheating, because they were pumping. They had failed to spot that in the AS version of the RRS, the pumping clause had been allowed meaning it was completely legal. Funny pattern of OR being accused of cheating when they weren't. I was told that ETNZ were unable to copy this sheeting technique because they would simply run out of oil and that would have made the boat unsailable. While it is true that the ETNZ boat was more oil hungry than the OR boat, due to the leading edge twist with the wing, this further emphasises the point that OR could not have had enough oil to both continuously spin the main winch and to continuously move the foil. Go watch some videos. You can see the winch continuously spinning if you look for it.
  14. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    It seems that the only response to my post was deleted by Random, probably because he realised how stupid it was. The man who has been supporting unsubstantiated claims about OR cheating countered my points by accusing me of making unsubstantiated claims. The irony, but maybe he realised what he had done and deleted it. I ran out of time earlier to add some "killer" points which blows the whole thing out of the water, so here they are now. For OR to have cheated in the way that is claimed, they would have also needed an illegal hydraulics system, because to move the board as often and as fast as is claimed by those who believe a stick moving around in turbulent airflow is an indicator of the movement of the foil that isn't attached to it, you would need to pump a huge amount of oil, far more than the system could handle. We also know that "beast mode" spun the main winch full time to allow for rapid sheeting, which was observed. That alone used much of the oil capacity. I was told and believe that they often ran out of oil and that the foil rake often had a significant delay to button input. They were really on the edge all the time. The reason they got away with it was that their foils were way more stable than the ETNZ foils. I suspect that most on here don't realise how little differences in the foils make a huge impact on foiling speed and stability. We see that with other foilers as well. For instance, the level of finish of the foils makes a big difference. You can measure the difference between a 1500 wet and dry finish and 2000. In terms of the design of the foil itself, very small changes make big differences. Last year i met Gonzalo Redondo who used to work for Artemis and now runs his own foil design consultancy. He is regarded by many as the leader in small boat foil design and certainly is the leader in Z style foils. His designs won the A Class worlds. In developing the A class Z foils, they went through 22 iterations with many having only very small differences. I learnt that if you take exactly the same foil and twist the bottom section by 1/2 a degree, it makes the difference between almost perfect controlled foiling and a boat that hobby horses all the time with problems like ventilation. If half a degree on the same foil can make that much of a difference, is it any surprise that OR and ETNZ displayed different degrees of foiling stability with very different designs of foils? What i have learnt from sailing Moths and following other classes is that there is no control system anywhere that can overcome flaws in a foil design. This leads to the obvious question. Which is more likely? 1) OR had an illegal foil control system that worked in a way that is counter to how foils usually work (rapid changes to AoA usually being a bad thing), that needed an illegal hydraulic system and which nobody other than a very few people at OR knew about, plus a couple at ETNZ and a poster on Sailing Anarchy and that OR have either silenced everybody who knew or has managed to hoodwink every other knowledgeable person around the world or 2) OR had a better foil design that enabled them to gave them stability when foiling upwind. Remember when thinking about this that both OR and ETNZ started the match unable to foil upwind and both managed it by the later matches, so learning to foil upwind wasn't the thing that won the cup for OR. It was better foiling upwind, something I hope is not in dispute. I have never understood why people believe the speed of OR upwind in non foiling mode would be a good predictor of their speed when foiling. Again, that makes no sense. In that regard, OR was faster foiling downwind from the start of the match, so again, I fail to understand why people would think that once they were foiling upwind they wouldn't be faster as well.
  15. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    This has all been covered many time but you don't seem to want to face facts. Here goes again. Here is what a very few people fail to understand. Relatively small changes to a foiling boat can lead to huge differences in speed. In this case, people seem to look for an explanation of how they went from about 23 knots to 30+ knots. That is not what needs explaining We are probably looking for the difference between 23 knots and 23.5 knots. Any foiling is very binary - either you are going fast enough to foil or you are not. The other thing you cannot predict is the potential top speed once foiling until the boat starts to foil. Looking at this further, in the early races, OR had an advantage downwind. I believe you will find that their downwind average and top speed was higher than ETNZ. This indicates their foils were probably less draggy for the same lift, so again, it isn't a surprise that once foiling upwind they would be quicker than ETNZ. Another thing that is overlooked by those shouting "cheat" is that ETNZ also had a big leap in upwind speed, but they never achieved the same speed as OR. How did ETNZ find a 20%+ increase in speed upwind? Note that it came after OR increased speed, so it is safe to assume that in the same way as OR learnt to tack fast by copying ETNZ, ETNZ probably learnt a thing or 2 from OR. Maybe they were cheating as well...... What do i think made the difference to get the boat up on foils? There were 4 things that they did that made the difference. First, they modified the underwater shape of the hull at the transom with a ramp. They significantly modified the joint between rudder vertical and the horizontal foils because they were getting significant cavitation at that point that was so bad it was stripping the paint. They started setting the wing very differently, opening the op up far more and closing the lower sections, which moved the centre of effort down, which in turn reduces the load and therefore drag on the foils. All of this was added to beast mode, which was really about keeping the winches spinning all the time. This allowed them, to rapidly pump the wing, something that was spotted by people on here who thought OR were cheating even though the AC RRS allowed it. What would have been a surprise is if those changes had not made a noticeable difference. Overall, the OR boat was significantly more aerodynamic and less draggy, the wing was better and the foils looked less draggy as well. In the same way as many looked at ETNZ's foils on their AC50 and knew instinctively they were good, the OR AC72 should have been quicker. OR was dramatically short of development and sailing time because of capsize and they hadn't lined up against anybody. It isn't a surprise that once they were racing, they then knew where they needed to improve and worked hard to do it.This is the same as happened with ETNZ and their AC50. They commented that they had huge improvements in their performance once they got to Bermuda and started to sail against others. As much as i would like to accuse OR of another instance of cheating, I cannot, but in terms of reputation, getting caught once is enough for them to be labelled cheats, which is what they were.
  16. Team_GBR

    Team UK

    So that means that AC34 was also as level a playing field as it could ever have been, maybe even AC35. As has been pointed out above, when there is a new rule written by the defender, it gives them a huge advantage. In this case, to write a rule for these boats, you need to run a lot of sims to understand what the variables are and the possibilities with the rules. That puts the rule writers way ahead of everybody else. While I dislike OR, at least they put the task of writing the AC72 rule out to a 3rd party who wasn't then tied into the team. This was the fairest thing I have seen in the AC, so fair that they couldn't and didn't try to stop the rule writers from joining another team. What has been shown time and again is that new, radical and untested in the AC has almost always led to significant differences between the performance of teams making the racing boring. The only reason that AC34 was exciting was that OR hadn't learnt how to get the best out of their boat when the racing begun. Once they were up to speed, there was a boring inevitability about the racing and all that made it exciting was the chance something might go wrong. All of this is a distraction as you try to cover up your original stupid comment. The new AC boats and their racing will be nothing like the TP52's and to think that it will shows a complete lack of understanding of what is going on.
  17. Team_GBR

    Team UK

    WTF are you on about? The AC will be nothing like that. If that is what you like and think that the AC should be like, why aren't you ripping into ETNZ for what they are proposing? Think about what has been proposed. They are going to have foiling boats that handle unlike anything we have ever seen before and which they claim will be as fast or faster than the last AC. You do realise that once they get over a certain speed, which will be in everything but the lightest winds, there will be no kites. It will be just like last time - a mainsail and a jib, on all points of sailing. Being a new class, there will be significant differences in speed, just like last time. Unless they have some sort of power source, most of the crew will be grinding in order to trim the sails, tip the outrigger arms and control the foils. If you think it is going to be anything like the TP52's, you don't understand sailing at all. While there are still a lot of details we don't know, the one thing that is certain is that these boats will be unlike anything we have seen before.
  18. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I would challenge you to provide any evidence for this. Was there a statistically significant increase in people in the USA who followed ORTUSA last time, compared with the time before? Did Team France get more followers than Artemis or BAR? Some people believe "nationality" will increase interest in the AC. This has yet to be proven. Some consider that nationality rules make it impossible for many countries to field a competitive AC team and that it is no surprise that the initiative comes from NZ, the country that can most easily put together a world class AC crew. It certainly cuts down the competition, even if that might not have been the intent. You are correct that times change and the AC must as well. Today, the AC is a competition between professional, commercial race teams. None of those teams are THE national team. I can see little evidence that in that sort of environment, you need to enforce a team member nationality clause because people get confused about which country the team is from. Do Italians get confused about Ferrari, because their drivers are German and Finnish. Do people not realise that Mercedes is a German team, because it has a British and a Finnish driver. Are people confused about which country Real Madrid comes from, because their leading players and coaching staff aren't Spanish? Or Manchester United? People do not watch sport just because of nationality and perceived international competition. They watch to be entertained, and unless you can do that, you will not get the audiences the AC aspires to. Just like it is your opinion that nationality is a key issue in drawing in significantly more viewers, it is mine that it will not in many key markets, such as the USA and UK. I can see how NZers would get that belief, because of what has happened in NZ and their feverish following of TNZ, but I do not believe every country behaves the same way. You state your beliefs as facts. I accept you have every right to your beliefs, but it will take a long time until we know if your beliefs make a difference to the following of the AC.
  19. Team_GBR

    Team UK

    Incorrect. They do have money, which is how they are paying for their base, a significant number of full time staff and they are paying retainers for key people who aren't full time. Using a boat for free is exactly what they say it is - a saving, allowing them to spend their money on things that really count, which this doesn't.
  20. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    That does not stack up. Adding the national name to a team is a very new thing and even then, 1/3rd of the teams last time around did not have it in their name. Arguably, modern times, there has been more interest in editions when teams did not have that nationality association. I don't think that is why the editions were more popular, but this crazy focus on nationality is a smoke screen and doesn't fix the underlying reasons why people do not watch or follow the AC. There is a strong argument to say that at the time that most people followed the racing, admittedly mainly through newspaper reports, the vast majority of the crew on the NYYC boats weren't American. Even one of the leading US skippers was Scottish and only became US citizen after he first sailed in the AC.
  21. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    I am getting Deja Vu all over again! 2 things seem to be always true 1. How many times have we heard that the previous defender was (insert every negative you can think of) but the new defender is completely different? 2. Fanboys will be fanboys and will believe whatever their heroes say, even if it sounds to the rest of us as same old, same old.
  22. Team_GBR

    Luna Rossa Challenge. AC 36

    You are both wrong! What came from LR was the overall concept of how to link the auto system to the manual system. This is the big advantage that they got so upset about losing when the boat was changed, even though in the end ETNZ proved it was the difference. The basics are that the inputs were tested in a simulator, tried in auto mode on the water and then matched by joystick once proven. That was the LR concept, which ETNZ managed to fully develop, or at least develop to teh point of being able to use less stable, lower drag foils.
  23. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    There you go again. You are trying to make a case that these guys left ETNZ and went straight to SBTJ. They did not. They were unemployed for a significant period of tim,e after they left ETNZ. They did not leave ETNZ so they could go to SBTJ. They left without any idea of what their future would hold. They did not leave ETNZ for the money, which is what you have been trying to insinuate.
  24. Team_GBR

    Luna Rossa Challenge. AC 36

    Complete rubbish. The new boat is nothing like a conventional monohull and needs the same skills as the previous foiling boats. Forget the mono vs multi discussion. This is foiling vs displacement, apparent wind forward vs true wind direction, etc etc. Being good in TP52's has nothing to do with being good in these boats. The Italians got screwed by ETNZ (and I love it). They tried to drag the AC backwards to displacement, true wind sailing. The boat ETNZ has come up with couldn't be further away from what the Italians wanted if they tried. There are stories that the Italians are privately fuming but realise there is nothing they can do or say publicly.
  25. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    Funny how sensitive the fanboys have. Maybe British sarcasm is too much for some. I find the debate about loyalty and chasing money interesting. Despite listing a number of names, I have not yet seen any that left their team for another to improve their pay. For instance, Coutts and Barker both left TNZ because they couldn't agree on their future roles in the team. That they later got paid much more on joining a new team doesn't mean they left for money.