Team_GBR

Members
  • Content Count

    1,169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team_GBR

  1. Team_GBR

    Team NYYC

    Poor old Team NYYC. They bet the bank on black and we have white. They are a bust! Think about it. They set up a team based around good old TP52 programmes, with conventional leadmine sailors to the fore. Their CEO was pleased to be back in monohulls after making a fool of himself on the AC45's, never getting the hang of the apparent wind sailing, winning the Captain Splash award and certainly not having a clue about foiling. Now these poor leadmine sailors have been handed a beast that is so radical that you need a whole new way of thinking about things. Hutch is not the man to be leading such a campaign and I doubt any of the top helms who you would want would sign up for him.
  2. Team_GBR

    Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

    I am not sure this is correct. The judge admitted he should not have dismissed the case and reinstated it They didn't leave it so late. it was in response to the judge reinstating the case. Until he did that, the court had ruled that there was no case. Once it was reinstated, they then filed the new suit. How can you file a new suit if the judge has ruled that you have no standing?
  3. Team_GBR

    Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

    For those who don't want to read the link, the judge has admitted the case should not have been dismissed and reinstated it. GS submitted a new lawsuit in July 2017 and BK joined with that case. Bottom line - we are back to the beginning with GS and BK against LP. My speculation is that now that LP has shown their hand in their counterclaims and defence, and the judge has ruled a bit on who owns what (GS and BK), the new lawsuit from GS will be better crafted. I go back to my view that GS and BK will prevail. In particular, we know for certain that the LP used trademarked name "Bruce Kirby", without paying license fees as required. I cannot see how LP can wriggle out of that one. The other thing I now realise that is strong about the GS/BK case is that until the ILCA changed their rule, for a boat to be a Laser, there needed to be an agreement in place with BK. There is no doubt that LP sold Lasers for a significant period that were called lasers and which were raced as class legal (including boats supplied by LP to championships) without paying any fee. The only question remains is whether BK had the right to sell that agreement to GS. If he did, which is what i believe, then LP is sunk for not paying money under the agreement. What I find strong about the GS case is that LP didn't question the right of BK to sell GS the asset until GS ended the agreement for non payment. It's too late for the ILCA to switch sides, but their move of siding with LP made zero difference to the problems that surround supply from LP.
  4. Team_GBR

    ISAF Antitrust Regulation?

    The IOC delegates the research and recommendation of events and equipment for sailing to WS. The IOC the effectively "rubber stamps" the recommendations of WS. As such WS has every right to be involved and to set an agenda for selection of equipment. Looking at this specific proposal, it looks like an attempt by some countries to change the supply situation in their own countries. I believe that the only classes that would currently comply are the 470 and the Finn. I cannot see Laser or Nacra giving up their rights. As for my question is how do you maintain quality and compliance. There needs to be a balance between preventing a commercial organisation (LP??) from holding too much power and opening things up to the point that it's easy to manipulate the rules. For instance, freeing up the Laser market could drive down costs and improve build quality, but it could easily lead the some boats being more equal than others.
  5. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    Got to laugh when people start quoting online journalists as legal opinion. Based on their track record during the AC33 legal fight, you would probably say that their opinion is highly unreliable an probably wrong. The other funny thing about the whole rule change is that contrary to claims, it did not give any advantage at all to the defender and did not disadvantage any challenger. The claimed design work that LR said was wasted was actually what won ETNZ the cup. The chances are that if LR had stayed in, they would have won the cup instead of becoming known for one of the biggest dummy spits in the AC history.
  6. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    This argument is completely fallacious because it ignores a major factor. Artemis and LRBAR were the biggest supporters of the London Agreement. Both of them had been driving forces in wanting to see the AC "reformed". You can dismiss the other teams as puppets if you want, but those 2 wanted the London Agreement because it was in their interests. Therefore if you take the 3 "independent" teams who only acted in their own interests - OR, LRBAR and Artemis - you had a majority in favour. OR didn't need puppets.
  7. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    As usual, a well measured response and i agree with most of what you say. in particular the whole "who owns who" and "poodle" arguments have never been that convincing both in relation to ETNZ/LR and the "tight 5". While I agree that at least one member of the tight 5 would do whatever OR wanted, i cannot support that view when you look at both LRBAR and Artemis. They would both only act in their own interest. I think your distinction regarding agreements between challengers and challenger plus the defender is rather too fine. To start with, LR was not a challenger and then the only way in which the agreement had any meaning was if ETNZ became the defender. I never saw the London Agreement as an agreement with the defender but more as an agreement with whoever was going to be the defender, which is exactly what the ETNZ/LR agreement was. To some extent, none of this matters. We are where we are, but I argue the point because among some, ETNZ is perfect in everything it does, so is Dalton and everybody else is a c#*t. Maybe as i get old I get more cynical, but I don't think there is any such thing as a snow white, perfect defender and I certainly don't see ETNZ as that. In a murky world they might be a lighter shade of grey than some, but Dalton's little games and de Nora's digs tell us that they are far from perfect. In the end, all that matters is that the challengers have a chance of beating the defender. For all the criticism of Oracle, they passed that test twice, even if ETNZ failed to take advantage of it the first time. Every defender games the system to their advantage in some way (legally), but I say bring it on and let the best team win.
  8. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    Some of the NZ fanboys are as bad as Spinbot when it comes to trying to justify what has happened and are trying to rewrite history. Let's get some things straight. There was an agreement between PB and ETNZ that in exchange for certain help (technology, staff and cash or cash equivalent), the next boat would be a monohull. We know this for a number of reasons. First, PB said as much in an interview and while it was in Italian, I trust google to translate it close enough. If you don't get the significance of PB and LR making the announcement of the type of boat in Italy without GD and without the protocol being released you are pretty dumb. The agreement was secret, right up until the point it was made public by PB. That is how everybody knows about it. There is no benefit to Cammas making the comment about ETNZ being hypocritical. Oracle are out and if he was ever a puppet of theirs (which I do not believe) he is now well out from under their influence. If anything, he would want to curry favour with the new defender and challenger. There is no way he would make that comment without genuinely believing it and having evidence to back it up. The biggest reason why GD couldn't get involved with the London Agreement was that he already had an agreement with PB. I never understood why GD didn't go to what was an open meeting which wouldn't have committed him to anything at all. It seemed like a missed opportunity even if he later decided not to sign the agreement. GD's view would have been so much stronger if he had been there and rejected what came out of the meeting having tried to argue his case before an agreement. The reason why he didn't even attend, listen and debate what was being proposed was that he couldn't because of the agreement with PB.
  9. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    Funny how you talk about Cammas being in the pocket of LE for years but don't seem to understand that ETNZ were in the pocket of PB! Things you see as different because you are an ETNZ fan seem the same to neutrals.
  10. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    I like the way you go after Hog and myself, but ignore that the comment came from an insider, Frank Cammas who will know a lot more than any of us about differences or not. I will take his view over anything you might say and reiterate his points. The London Agreement was made in an open forum where everybody in the AC community was invited and had no secrecy at all. The agreement between LR and TNZ was private, and it did not engage the AC community in any way. You also don't get the point Cammas made that they attacked Oracle for something they had already done themselves. You can argue with Hog and me all day long, but Cammas is in the game and is trying to find a way of competing. He has more credibility than any of us on this forum.
  11. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    WTF are you talking about? Are you saying you don't know that Land Rover is a global brand that sells cars all over the world including New Zealand.
  12. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    This. As much as the NZ deniers like to say otherwise, it is totally hypocritical to criticise the London Framework yet ignore the deal between TNZ and LR. I don't know if he is referring to euros or dollars, but lets say it is US$. a 4 year campaign will cost $100m, which seems to be a consistent figure i keep hearing for the minimum campaign cost. I have also been hearing that under the London framework, teams were looking at a budget of between $40 and $50m, which again, is consistent with this statement because that would have been $20-25m per year (for 2 years). It will be interesting to see just how many teams want to thrown that much cash at the game.
  13. Team_GBR

    Arm Fatigue

    What a load of ill informed bullshit. The most ridiculous comment is that your weight goes inboard as you ease.You need to go back to basics, because that is beginner stuff. You can ease by slipping sheet through your hand. The top Musto sailors can sail in different modes, just like you do with a 49er. Sometimes it pays to keep the main in and to steer, pointing up in gusts etc, but there are times when you need to ease and play the sheet and it is possible to do so. There are many different ways to play the sheet effectively and people need to experiment until they find a way of doing it that suits them. I can assure you I can sail a single handed skiff and play the sheet quickly to keep the boat driving if that is what is needed. One hint I can give is that most people sail with the wrong length tiller extension. Think about it. Somebody who is 6'6" needs a different length to somebody who is 5'6" but they sell the boats with one size fits all extensions. Then you have to decide what compromises you make. If you want the extension comfortable in light airs while forward, it will be over length for other times. In most boats, my reference is to have to stretch in light winds so it is short enough to actually hold it with your hand basically at close to your hook going upwind in the normal upwind trapezing position so you can sheet more like when sitting in using both hands without the extension hitting you in the face. The guys who sail with extension over their shoulders when sailing upwind in the "normal" position are almost always using too long an extension.
  14. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    I am not so sure. the wording doesn't cover it, but the defender was SNG, being represented by Alinghi. They were members of the defending club, acting in support of the defender. As soon as they interfered with the racing on behalf of the defender, were they acting in a supporting role? Even still, I think that given the full set of circumstances, which most people get wrong, it would have been hard to get the RC under rule 69. The event is talked of as a mutiny on the committee boat and those who say that claim that the SNG RC mutinied. That is exactly the wrong way around. The mutiny was actually by Harold Bennett. As Race Officer, under the way the rules were written, he had no power to decide when a race should or should not take place. His job was to run the racing when the RC said it was OK to run it. Technically, he mutinied against the RC decision not to run the racing and this is why if SNG had protested the race as Butterworth and others had wanted, the race would almost certainly have been thrown out by any impartial IJ. It's the difference between what was morally right and what the rules said. Bennett did the right thing morally but in doing so, played loose with the rules. The question was whether the end justify the means. Most would argue in this case it did. Bennett took a big risk, because with a protest and the race thrown out, he would have been sacked and the ensuing mess would have given SNG time and more importantly, the weather was changing o being very light which was Alinghi's only hope. I have often wondered why Bertarelli didn't go with a last roll of the dice and protest. My theory is that in his warped mind, he didn't see his reputation as being tarnished (he still doesn't understand it to this day) and therefore he saw it as an action that would have tarnished his reputation when he was going to lose anyway. The lack of protest certainly doesn't sit with many people's view that he would try to in at all costs. It's all history now. He tried manipulating the cup for his own benefit and he came badly unstuck, as was right. His actions allowed an equally manipulative person to get their hands on the cup because while most (all?) of what Ellison did was legal under the DOG, it was just as immoral. We are better off without either in the cup.
  15. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    There are many ways of interpreting what happened before the start of the second race of AC33. There is zero evidence that Berterelli asked for or encouraged the SNG members of the RC to do what they did and I have always believed they did it independently. They were completely in the wrong morally, but strictly by the letter of the rules that implied, Bennett did not have the authority to do what he did because the authority on whether to run the races or not was actually with the RC. Brad Butterworth encouraged Bertarelli to protest, knowing that by the letter of the law, they could get the race thrown out, but while he considered it, he decided against it. Who knows why. Maybe he realised that it didn't matter because all that would happen is that they would have resailed and still lost, or maybe he realised that morally, it was wrong. We will never know. I agree that the actions of Grange and his group was one of worst acts of unsporting behaviour we have seen in sailing, but I don't think you can hang that on Bertarelli on this particular occasion. Since then, rule 69 has been changed to say it applies to "A competitor, boat owner or support person" but the question is whether the RC would have been covered under support persons.
  16. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Fuck off troll. I never said that. Only a complete arsehole could manage what you have done there. I gave credit where credit is due, yet you troll that and you do it by totally misquoting me. I never said ETNZ was slow and uncompetitive, but then again, you never have been good at comprehension and you have never allowed the truth to get in the way of a good troll. Go bck and check. All i ever said was that not being in Bermuda put them at a significant disadvantage and guess what, Glenn Ashby said that after the event. He is on record saying that it was the biggest gamble and it nearly failed because when they got there, hey realised their training in NZ hadn't shown them everything they needed to learn. Fortunately for them, they had a boat that was good enough and the crew were great at learning how to sail the boat in very different situations from what they had practised in. Before you troll again, consider that yet again i acknowledge what a good job the team did, but I guess you are such an argumentative troll you will use any excuse to fight so for the first time ever, I am placing somebody on ignore.
  17. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Don't kid yourself. The NZ boat as faster in a straight line, turned better and accelerated better. The way it was set up made it easier for the helm to sail. There was no department where it was even equalled by OR. If the roles had been reversed and JS had been the ETNZ helm and PB been the Oracle helm, JS would have owned PB just as convincingly. With a vastly superior boat, it is "easy" to make the other side look bad. I take nothing away from Burling. It was a team effort and he made a major contribution to the team but the whole "he owned Spithill argument is way over the top..
  18. Team_GBR

    Arm Fatigue

    Another thing to look at is what ratchet you are using and where it is in the system. If the ratchet is the last block before your hand, the angle the sheet goes through is 90 degrees. If it is on the boom, it is 180 degrees, and having on the boom gives you close to 40% more grip, which eases the loads on your hand. The issue with more turn is that it doesn't go out so easily, so you need a good (Harken) auto ratchet. Need to check class rules to ensure this is OK, but if you are allowed it, you will see a difference. The other thing people do not realise they do is to sail with the mainsheet arm slightly bent, meaning the muscles are always switched on. If you can, readjust the position you are holding the sheet so your arm is straight and you aren't relying on the muscles to provide static hold.
  19. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    If you cannot see the difference between what EB and VO did there is no hope. VO had a boat altered so it was no longer in class trying to gain an advantage over the rest of the fleet and spat the dummy when he was caught and not allowed to compete (his rant was far more than calling somebody a snail). IMO, the level of cheating well exceeded OR's lead in the dolphin striker. This was an attempt to give his son and unfair advantage to help him win a world championships. I believe a high percentage of the fleet involved believe he should receive further sanction for his action and I know there are some who want him banned from the class.I cannot abide cheats, but worse, cheats who then fire up and behave badly when caught. Even the AC doesn't need that sort of drama. Just to clarify the difference between OR cheating and VO cheating. In the case of OR, where I don't think we ever got to the bottom of the problem, the one thing I am sure of is that Larry Ellison was not in on the cheating. In the case of VO, we have an owner who was very much involved with the cheating. He made the decision to send the boat to a renowned keel profiler when the class rules are clear and everybody knows it is not allowed. Do we want owners in the AC who encourage and arrange for a team to cheat? My personal opinion is that VO should be banned from the sport for a year, because of all his actions in this case. Each on their own might be excused, but all together, I don't want to race against people like that and I don't think we should have to.
  20. Team_GBR

    Teams?

    You completely missed the real problem. He was caught flat out cheating (on behalf of his son so that's ok?) and they wouldn't let him into the regatta, he abused one of the organising committee. So you want a cheat and poor sport running a team?
  21. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Don't see how you can go one design on the sails of a new box/formula rule. OD jibs on the AC50's made sense because they had lots of data to base the design on. Unless they are full of shit, we have been promised a new type of boat and there will need to be a sail development programme. Rig development for the next edition is going to cost more than the last one.
  22. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    Stop talking out of your arse. Listen to somebody who actually knows what is going on. There is no way they will limit teams sailing AC75's for 2 years to 2 mainsails and a few jibs. These guys will be out sailing almost every day and there will be loads of development done. There may be a sail button limit, but it needs to be a reasonable number. You also forget the sails need to be hung off something, usually a mast. Developing masts isn't cheap and there will need to be a minimum of 2. One of the big reasons fro bringing in the wing sails in the first place was a budget one. Even the 2 wings was cheaper than a soft sail and mast programme. As for the crane, how do you step a conventional mast of that size? Unless there is a rule to stop it, you will see these new boats stepping and unstepping their masts on a regular basis, probably every day, because they now know how easy it would be and they will want to get their boats fully dried out under cover and maintained overnight.
  23. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    What a load of ill considered rubbish. It was not about making it more competitive. He had lost interest in the AC. I think he was over all the politics and all the expense, although that was mainly from hosting in SF. I believe he was very bitter about how he was treated by SF. This lack of interest is one reason why i am not getting wildly excited about the new series happening. Something needs to renew his interest before the series could happen and I am not sure that Bertarelli coming to the party helps or hinders.
  24. Team_GBR

    Oracle Team USA

    You need to stop writing fantasy and get real. A single set of soft sails might cost less than a wing, but over the period of a campaign, soft sails cost significantly more. Don't just count the cost of the sails. Masts aren't exactly cheap. To keep the budget at less than the cost of solid wings, there needs to be significant limits on the number of sails and the amount you can alter them, which is problematic in itself. You have 2 boats being built so the minimum number of masts will be 2, but 3 is more likely. With sails you will need at least 2 different upwind headsail sizes plus at least 2 downwind sizes. How many iterations are going to be allowed? Even if we ignore development, using them in training and events is going to mean they need replacing. I also think you are wrong about a smaller support team. You simply replace composite guys with sailmakers. The crane thing is a red herring, because you need one to step the mast on a conventional yacht and if you don't have a limit on stepping in the class rules, you will probably pull the stick to get the boat under cover fairly often, if not every night. NZ weather isn't so reliable that you can count on not needing to get the boat under cover for maintenance. As for foils, super-cavitating foils are a non starter. One thing that was learnt from Paul Larson's efforts is that super-cavitating foils are a real burden in down speed conditions. they would be no good for turning corners or for acceleration. In some conditions, you might get some bursts of speed in a straight line but i cannot see them working around a course
  25. Team_GBR

    AC36 Auckland NZ

    I understand that, Terry, but there is the issue of Auckland and the belief that to get it across the line will take a push from central government. There is an interesting situation that the AC will need the deepening of the harbour and the development of the waterfront and potentially reclaimed land. I wonder how the greens will respond to that? I am not trying to be negative, just trying to understand the political landscape and how it will effect the AC.