• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Team_GBR

  1. 1 hour ago, barfy said:

    And i know what an IGES file is, in this case it imposes a 3d point/edge defined box rule rather than a crude box. This does not imply exact duplicates as the slots, flaps, and control arms just need to fit in the box.

    IGES implies nothing because it is a file format that is neutral and can be read by a wide range of cad systems. I am not sure where you get the idea that the files simply defined a box rule. Each component of the wing was exactly defined and those components were a strict one design shape. To quote Seahorse 


    the AC50 wing is effectively one-design in terms of its shape, layout and geometry.

    The shape of the components might have been fixed, by the construction and control systems weren't.


  2. 12 minutes ago, barfy said:

    Has anyone "in the know" mentioned how tight the class rule is on the newly coined "f50"?

    just been skimming this and for sure am not going to re-read; but weren't the wings still open to the iges file? And wasn't there foil dev being done? Don't quite a few of these boats have well developed foil dev programs?  Are they gonna plug some generic foils and foil control systems and wing control systems?

    if not, how is this equalised OD fleet racing?


    All the sources say new boards and rudders have been developed and are being built at core. I think to call them "generic" is wrong, because because they are a development moving on from what teams had done for AC35. The comment I believe is that they will be faster than at AC35. As for the wing, the iges files were a 3d design that all the wings had to build to. That means the shape of each part is the same on all boats. What was not specified was the construction method or the control systems.Most knowledgeable observers suggest that nobody gained any noticeable advantage in construction but that ETNZ was way ahead of the others in control systems and Artemis was a little ahead of the others with the rest being pretty even in that department.

    I am not sure how they intend to equalise the wings, but with the shapes all being the same, I suspect people smarter than me will come up with a way.

  3. 3 hours ago, rh2600 said:

    I think it's easy (and frankly a little lazy) to declare all the reasons why something isn't possible, without also using the imagination and vision it takes to realise what could be possible for this team.

    It's why we had so many people scoffing at ETNZ, explaining all the ways they had fucked up, without taking into account the few significant ways they had done something amazing...and those turned out to be the only things that mattered right?

    Can't we give this other team the opportunity exist and be competitive, rather than poo-pooing them before they even get started?

    Of course they have the opportunity to exist, and if they stay around for more than 1 edition, who knows, maybe they will become competitive, but its a fantasy to believe they can be competitive this time around. This isn't a case of being late with the delivery of their boat, which was the criticism of ETNZ. The fact is that others are designing right now while this team doesn't even have a design team, let alone the tools you need to design one of these boats. Without the tools, you could draw 25 alternatives and you might as well choose which to build by draw one out of a hat. There is a 1 in 25 chance it is the best of your designs and then it is a very long shot that it will be better than the ones designed using properly developed tools. Alternatively, when and if they ever get enough money to start, they could spend time developing some analytical and simulation tools before commencing design work, but they are already up against it time wise to give the designers enough time with those tools.

    If they in it for the long haul, which means more than 1 cup cycle, then they can use this edition to learn and to develop both the skills and tools needed so they can be competitive next time around. That's a pretty good goal for a new team, but with their struggles to raise the money, I won't be holding my breath. To me, them going public now is the act of a desperate team. They claim to have been working on it for nearly a year, but haven't got all the funding in place. IMO, they are only saying something now as a last effort to find money, because if they really were on top of it a knew where the money might come from, they wouldn't need to say anything at this stage.

    I hope I am wrong, but the signs don't look hopeful. Their biggest achievement will be to make it to the start line.

  4. 12 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

    The difference between American Magic, and the USA 2 team two essentially brand new entrants - which is what this discussion was about - are basically inconsequential, given the right team, attitude and suitable budgets.

    That is incorrect. American Magic has been established and building its performance and design software for some time. The second team hasn't started anything yet. They are therefore well behind and money cannot buy back time, which is what is needed to develop the design tools. What makes it even tougher is that they have said they will only use US designers etc. That is not meant as any disrespect to my american friends, but the pool of people with the right experience of developing the required tools is small enough without imposing even more constraints.

    • Like 1

  5. 4 hours ago, sclarke said:

    Serious question: So this "AC50 world series" is going to go head to head with the Americas Cup world series in 2019?

    This is where you are so blinkered. The AC50 series isn't going head to head with anything to do with the America's Cup. You seem to be the only person to think that. The America's Cup is a development competition. This is being sailed in boats that will have been "equalised". The America's cup is about match racing. This is about fleet racing. The America's Cup needs a huge team. The AC50 series will not need anything more than a few sailors and a few shore team, say a total of about 10 people.

    You seem to be obsessed by the idea that they compete against each other. Does the GC32 series go head to head with the ACWS? Does any other series going head to head with the ACWS? It's just your perception, not a reality. 

  6. 7 hours ago, nav said:

    Thanks for the reply.I see someone ^ is disputing the shipping to AC35 bit already. I should try to dig up some photos, to check one way or the other.

    Wasn't the ETNZ boat flown in unassembled? I don't think they bothered to remove the bows, but they could have done very easily if they wanted to.

  7. 7 hours ago, nav said:

    A small but significant mistake in there mate .......

    A single Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of......

    The island has naturally existed for eons.

    But in case you are still confused check here,

    I call your attention to the first and the 12th placed on that list


    love the attitude :lol:


    You keep talking historic geographical names, which are totally irrelevant. It is a simple fact that as a country recognised by the international community, the United Kingdom consists of 2 parts, Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which is why the full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). If Northern Ireland ceded from the United Kingdom, you would be left with Great Britain.

    Please can you advise us which part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the Isle of Wight is actually in. Is it Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or is the Isle of Wight not part of the United Kingdom?

  8. 15 minutes ago, sclarke said:

    and from what they've heard, Artemis is in

    I am seeing Ian Percy this evening, so I will let him know ;)

    16 minutes ago, sclarke said:

    Second point was that indeed, there was serious talk of an AC50 series happening

    What a surprise. Better make the most of your posting opportunities, because once the announcement is made......

    • Like 2

  9. 2 minutes ago, nav said:

    You need to take some basic geography mate.

    Great Britain is an island. The RYA is in Cowes - on a different island.

    Alles Klar?

    How about an NZer stops trying to give lessons in geography and history to Brits who know a lot more than him.

    Politically and historically, Great Britain was formed by the combining of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 Acts of Union. In case you were wondering, the kingdom of England at that time was considered to be England and Wales. The term United Kingdom is actually short for "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" which was formally established in 1800 as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and which was renamed in 1922 after The Irish Free State (renamed Ireland in 1937) left. If the Isle of Wight is not part of Great Britain and it certainly isn't part of Northern Ireland, does that mean it isn't part of the United Kingdom? In political terms, Great Britain refers to the whole of England, Wales and Scotland and includes islands such as the Isle of Wight, Shetland, the Hebrides and the Scilly Isles. It does not include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands because they self rule and don't send members to parliament.

    There is more confusion when it comes to a pure geographical definition, because some some say it is only the mainland and some say it includes some or even all islands. The use of "Great Britain" in geography is a fairly recent thing, but I personally believe it is a bullshit discussion, because what counts is the political and diplomatic use of the term.

    • Like 1

  10. 2 hours ago, Mozzy Sails said:

    even if he goes a bit far by saying no sailor would have heard of 'team GB'.

    While I agree with most of what you said, please reread my comments because I don't believe I said this.

    1 hour ago, Mozzy Sails said:

    maybe there use is fair enough in that they truly represent GB? 

    I think this is the key. If you are the national team in a sport, it's rather hard to argue you are not Team GB.

    It's funny how people who aren't British and who have never been part of the British Sailing Team tell Brits and past members of the British Sailing team that they are wrong about how we refer to the team we were in! Maybe the reason i don't associate with Team GB is because I didn't go to the Olympics, but Olympians are a very small sub set of those who are part of the British Sailing Team and what most of us refer to as Team GBR. As said above, if the team had used the term "Team GBR" I wouldn't have been happy because of all that implies, but i never even thought about Team GB because it is not a term used in sailing.

  11. 15 hours ago, MischiefBDA said:

    Amazed that an organization with so much experience of the internal workings of Team GB and the BOA made the schoolboy error of renaming to "Ineos Team GB". It was a matter of time before they would be forced into a name change.

    The name situation isn't quite as straight forward as it might seem. Team GB is not a name that most sailors use or are familiar with. The sailing team is formally called British Sailing Team" and is shortened by many to Team GBR because of GBR being on the sail. I have never used the term Team GB is sailing or seen it used. If they had called themselves "Ineos Team GBR" I think there would have been a huge stink from people in the sailing community, but nobody said anything. It was the British Olympic Association who kicked up a fuss, not the British Sailing Team.

    You could argue that they should have made sure the name "Team GB" was available, but that wouldn't have come from having "so much experience of the inner workings of Team GB" because the name isn't common parlance in British sailing. Notice how nobody in sailing kicked off about it. In my case, if they had called it "Ineos Team GBR" I would have been seriously pissed but I actually thought they had been smart dropping the "R"!

  12. 1 hour ago, Boybland said:

    I don't know, a fair amount of the preliminary work was guesstimates anyway until the class rule was officially released, teams weren't even sure what components they could neccessarily put effort into.

    That said now the rule is out teams will be putting real money and real simulation power into designs so you have to be quick at this point as things will really progress fast from here on in.

    The issue isn't so much the preliminary work on the design itself, although it does seem that BAR are ahead of the game on that with a trial boat being built. The real issue is the development of the predictive models for simulation. These aren't bought off the shelf and this is where the real work is. ETNZ, BAR and LR have been working on these since the end of the AC, and they had a head start because of work done for AC34 and 35. My take is that if you haven't got your design team working now, your only option is a shared design with another team.

  13. 6 minutes ago, sclarke said:

    Done. Wait, an announcement saying "An AC50 series is on, including details" not "It might be on" or "Rumour is"

    No rumours or anything like that but a solid confirmation that the event is going to happen. To set the ground rules, how would you consider a picture from Core with a caption "we are modifying the AC50 fleet for a series that will take place next year"? Or Larry Ellison saying in an interview that there will be an AC50 series which will; be properly announced soon soon? Would you try arguing they were "rumours", gossip or hearsay?

  14. 2 hours ago, sclarke said:

    And when its not?

    You are so confident how about this. If there is no announcement before the beginning of September, I will never post again, so long as if there is an announcement, you agree to never post again. No sock puppets etc. A simple exit and no return.How about it?

  15. 1 hour ago, sclarke said:

    None of which are fact and are clearly hear/ say.

    I forgot. Unless it is in a press release, its not a fact :wacko:

    Fact - when the series is announced, you are going to look even more stupid than you do already.

    • Like 1

  16. 3 hours ago, sclarke said:

    because the facts they keep talking about keep changing. 

    Only in your mind. There are many different sources and they seem very consistent. What they say so far is

    • Core are making identical foils.
    • The boats will have identical foil control systems.
    • The boats will have the same electrical power packs.
    • The rest of the boats will be "equalised" so that no one boat will have an advantage, and most people will view them as being one design as per the definition you kindly gave us a link to.
    • Work has already commenced on the boats.
    • Ian Murray will be the event manager.
    • Garda has been approached to be a venue, as have Barcelona, Dubai and San Fran.
    • Louis Vuitton are going to sponsor the series. 

    So what keeps changing?


  17. 2 hours ago, sclarke said:

    The point is, this series won't happen unless the boats are identical. But the catch is, no one wants to see them being Identical. 

    One thing that puzzles me about this. You think that the Ac with boats that are not the same sailing one on one will be spectacular, yet you think that a fleet of equally fast boats that have had their performance equalised won't be. Most people would think it would be the other way around. Close racing at high speed will always be better than one on one with big gaps, as we saw in the last edition. Most races were a boring procession and it was only a few extraordinary races such as between ETNZ and Artemis that were real edge of the seat stuff.

  18. 2 hours ago, sclarke said:

    The point is, this series won't happen unless the boats are identical. But the catch is, no one wants to see them being Identical. 


    1 hour ago, sclarke said:

    There is only one team that is still operational who may still own theirs, and that's Artemis Racing. And they're still undecided whether they're in the AC or not. Until the entry period ends we will never know whether Artemis is in the AC or not, if they are in the AC, they're out. Oracle and Japan have disbanded, and a lot of key team members of both those teams have committed to different teams in the AC. BAR (INEOS Team GB), ETNZ, LR and American Magic will not be involved either, so if it is 100% happening, who is left? Honestly, who is left? 

    More stupidity and irrational comments.

    Why do you think the series won't happen unless the boats are identical. Anybody with any common sense wouldn't care less if they were identical or not because that is irrelevant. What is more important is whether one boat will be faster than another. Anyway, the owners and people putting up the money have already spoken, because the boats are being modified right now and the series is being put together. they don't seem to care if the boats are identical. You do know there is very little racing where the boats are identical, don't you?

    As for the teams, why would anybody need to keep a team together just to do this AC50 series. All you need to do is employ a few sailors for the duration of the racing (plus whatever practice is allowed) and a few shore crew (probably 3) who would also only be employed on a regatta by regatta basis, rather than full time. It doesn't matter if teams have disbanded. Are you really trying to tell me that if Ellison offered work to some sailors and shore crew for the AC50 series they would turn it down because there is no formal team any more.  Why would anybody keep a full team going just for that series? It makes no sense. you don't need designers, boat builders and all the other support staff of a team. You just need a few sailors and shore people.

    There are more than enough world class sailors around who haven't signed for AC teams. For starters, it looks like Tom Slingsby and Nathan Outteridge aren't going to be doing the next edition of the AC, and you cannot claim they aren't right at the top (you probably will because you know fuck all). Chris Draper is another who will be sailing and he did a pretty special job for LR in the AC34 ACWS. There are others around as well. If you think that all the best sailors in the world are signed to AC teams, you are even more clueless than i thought.

  19. 17 minutes ago, basketcase said:

    id sooner have artemis' wing than bar's. what one did you build?

    The biggest difference between the 2 was the ability to get hydraulic fluid to the actuators in the wing. As is now well known, BAR had real problems with hydraulics that they never fully solved. By using a battery and the same/similar hydraulic systems, that limitation will be removed and the wings will perform in a very similar manner.

  20. 38 minutes ago, sclarke said:

    Thats exactly what it means. Identical boats and sails. If a one design class, you can not have boats sail outside of that class as they would then be deemed non compliant. The GC32's are one design, they are identical. The Volvo 65's are identical, the RC44's are identical. The AC45's were identical, hence the reason Oracle were disqualified. The AC50's not one design, not a one design class.

    Thanks for providing that link. Now I suggest you read it. Try this particular part


    In medium- to large-sized boat classes, One-Design would refer to conformance to a standard specification, with the possibility of alterations being allowed as long as they remained within certain tolerances. Examples of this are the Dragon, J/24, Santana 20, Tartan 10, Etchells, J105, Schock 35, C&C Mega 30 One Design[10] and the Farr 40.

    In the one design classes listed above, there are those that allow different sailmakers (using different designs) and some that low different mast makers. You are allowed different fit outs of control systems. 

    As I said above and is confirmed by the link you provided. "one design" does not have to be identical.

    • Like 2

  21. 1 hour ago, sclarke said:

    "The only differences in the wings are the control systems" And they are the most important part of the wing. Are you sure the ETNZ wing was the only wing that had meaningful differences? Artemis sure seemed to have a click of speed over both Oracle and Japan, so perhaps their wing is also significantly more efficient than the others. My definition of "One design" is the same definition, or should be, the same definition that everyone else has. One Design means exactly that. You can not call a class "One Design" If they're not One design. One Design does not mean "Close enough" haha

    Yet more evidence that you don't know much. Check out how the term one design is used in the sailing world. One design does not mean everything is identical.  Are you really that ignorant?

  22. 16 hours ago, sclarke said:

    One minute they're One Design, then they're not, then they're one design platforms using existing wings?

    All you seem to be able to do is nit pick. Do you realise that the wings are close enough to each other that nobody is going to be concerned by the differences. The only differences in the wings are the control systems and the only wing that had any meaningful differences won't be there. Maybe it's not your definition of strict one design, but for the rest of the world, we will worry about things that will make a difference to performance. Get the foil package the same and the foil control package the same and you will have boats where the differences in performance are down to the crew. that's all that matters.


    I wonder how this goes with the "concentrating on the AC" that clearly ETNZ is doing


    Glenn Ashby, mainsail trimmer: "I am really excited to be back sailing with the Team Tilt guys on the GC32 again, and it's great to continue the relationship between Team Tilt, myself and Emirates Team New Zealand.

    Why is Ashby doing the GC32? Why does he mention the relationship with ETNZ? Is ETNZ wasting time with something that has no relevance to the AC? ;)

  24. 9 hours ago, Terry Hollis said:

    That's not quite right Dalton was against the cats all along so he would have had monos regardless of Bertelli's so called deal.

    Again, not quite right. Dalton was against cats for AC34, but subsequent to that he changed his tune and said it woulod be hard to go back to monos because the cats were so good. He then flipped back again because of the deal he did with Bertelli. Even after ETNZ won AC35, Dalton was still saying that cats had to be considered for AC36, even though he knew that the agreement with Bertelli merant they were going back to monos. The problem witrh Dalton is yoiu can never be sure what his position really is. My recent favourite was his insistence that AC36 should be affordable - strange how the only people who think its affordable are those who wrote the protocol and class rule, while everybody else says its the most expensive ever.

    14 minutes ago, barfy said:

    , Dalton has a long history of offshore and sees a mono/foiler as being better suited for big conditions.

    This is so wrong. Have you forgotten he won a RTW race on a big cat? The argument about cats not being suited to the race course in NZ was totally false, because it ignored the obvious fact that the race course will be where ETNZ trained in both their AC72 and their AC50.

    • Like 2

  25. 5 hours ago, barfy said:

    Could be part of the rationale for this cycle's design brief?


    It was a condition of the deal between Bertelli and ETNZ when he gave them money, people and IP. It was agreed the next boat would be a monohull. It really is that simple. ETNZ had the last laugh when they came up with a monohull that effectively works just like a multihull. Instead of beams, there are those long arms that the foils are fitted to. If the leeward one breaks while sailing at speed, you really will see some catastrophic event. While it won't "taco", it will capsize at speed, probably break the mast and end up very messy.