• 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.  

harr39

Members
  • Content count

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About harr39

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. What's with the bagging of Russel Coutts?Russ is nobodies bitch but maybe you all are his!... just by the way you guys make such stupid comments-. This Guy is a legend and right now is the best AC helmsman in the sport. his achievement to start new teams to win the Cup, helm the boats and come up with new concepts is unequalled in the history of the event. This guy is a still young and good enough to win a Volvo RTWR and is a qualified engineer. He would have forgotten more than 99.9% of the people on this site will ever know. And the kiwis whom bag him only do so because they do not understand how TNZ (Blake, Sefton and Blackman) shafted him and MANY other kiwi team mates ( daubney, monk, Jones...)and he was forced to go to the Swiss. Coutts is a sailing legend and will always be one. People who bag him on this site will never be remembered in the annuals of history and be forgotten as soon as they hit the coffin. don,t bag winners. When you should be having a go at the rich "Gravey Trainers" whom extract millions from YOUR sport and produce pathetic outcomes for the sport. (IE - DB) Let's face it if this cup had 3 challengers in the old 12 metre concept ( which in current economical conditions could be a possibility) you would all be pissed off a lot more than 3 challengers in theses boats! ( even though the racing is crap) Russ is a true and proven legend. The rest have won nothing yet!!! Of course Coutts is a legend, but he didn't have to go to the Swiss team, and take half his crew with him.And before you keep going further in your mudslinging you can look up who helmed the NZ boat in race 5 in 2000, and while you are at it check if DB/GD has any other merits to their names. So haven't won nothing yet is maybe a bit much? Btw: I'm not a Kiwi. wTF! Barker helmed the last race after Coutts already had the event in the bag And GD,s only win is a whitbread. barkers record is crap too! One laser regatta and a couple of match racing events. Tidy up you act buddy and get the detail right. As for going to the Swiss.., well after Messrs Blake, Sefton, and Blackman asset stripped TNZ and left poor old coutts with nothing coutts sought funding for TNZ from Berterelli. Blake and co then stopped this option and left coutts and 16 others with no option but to go with a team that could be adequately funded and win. Dean Barker was to thick to see the writing on the wall. Raced a boat that was in a team with no money for new masts ( thus why they broke one),wasted time and effort on a Hula, relied on a bucket to keep a boat dry, and in the end failed to defend the cup and has failed to win it back. The facts hurt but Barker, Dalton and co have eaten up millions ( now in their bank accounts)of dollars over nine years and in reality only really care about their retirement fund. Meanwhile Russ and do ( were proven to have made the right call) went on to win and win and win and have never looked back. TNZ failed and all thanks to three guys greed a dumb DB. That's the facts, Just for the record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Barker_(yachtsman) Summary of Sailing career[edit source | editbeta] 1988: P-Class Tanner Cup (1st), P-Class Tauranga Cup (1st) 1993: Asian Pacific Laser Champs (1st), NZ Matchracing Champs (1st), world Laser champs (10th) 1994: NZ Matchracing champs (1st) 1995: NZ Matchracing champs (1st) 1996: Finn class world ranking (5th), Olympic Finn class trials (5th), Kenwood Cup (3rd) 1997: Steinlager Line 7 Cup (2nd), NZ Matchracing champs (2nd), Sydney-Hobart (9th) 1998: Australia Cup (1st), ACI Cup Croatia (2nd), Swedish Match Cup (3rd), Kenwood Cup (1st) 2001: ISAF World Matchracing champs (1st) 2003: Skipper and helmsman of America's Cup defender Team New Zealand (beaten 0–5 by challenger Alinghi) 2004: Olympic Games, Finn class (13th) 2005: Congressional Cup (1st) 2006: MedCup TP52 circuit (2nd) 2007: Louis Vuitton Cup winner and America's Cup challenger (beaten 2–5 by defender Alinghi) 2009: Louis Vuitton Pacific Series (1st) 2009: Audi MedCup TP52 circuit (1st) 2010: Audi MedCup TP52 circuit (1st) 2010: Louis Vuitton Trophy (3 championship wins) 2011: America's Cup World Series Grant Dalton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Dalton Grant Dalton has raced around the world seven times; the first five as part of the Whitbread Round the World Race later to be called the Volvo Ocean Race. This race has transformed itself during Grant's involvement from a race of adventurers to a grand prix yachting event. Here is a list of his participation 1981-82 Whitbread in Flyer II 1983 Southern Cross Cup 1985 Admiral's Cup 1985-86 Whitbread in Lion New Zealand 1987 Admiral's Cup 1989-90 Whitbread in Fisher & Paykel a Maxi Ketch designed by Farr Yacht Design 1991 Fastnet 1993-94 New Zealand Endeavour 1997-98 Merit Cup - Volvo Ocean 60 2001-02 Amer Sports One - Volvo Ocean 60 designed by German Frers He then skippered and won the The Race a sprint around the world on maxi catamaran Club Med. The race started on 1 January 2001 and finished on 3 March. Club Med broke several records along the way including the distance sailed in 24 hours (656 nautical miles) and the fastest circumnavigation (62 days and 7 hours). --- So who am I to say that these guys hav won nothing??? And I'm sure your record "Mr Americas Cup" is much better than this "crap". I thought DB had a world youth championship as well - laser from memory.
  2. Artemis?

    Hey its your guys forum and site, so I am not going to join the herd trying to shut down someone with whom I disagree. But I can seperate out discrete elements and appraise them without bias, - AR good come back from some misteps, as a team, clearly too late but they recognized where they were wrong and did something about it. Sure, their intial predilection for the same old faces was a mistake in a brave new world. - Congrats are overdue to the ANZACOR crew for having a vision and following through in an effective manner, I just rewatched the LV4 and ot was a good race barring the new umpiring hiccup, which obviously should have invalidated the race. But that is TV. - AR shore crew and sailing have obviously worked hard and did a great job with what they had in hand, very talented, that was a close race speed and boathandling wise, NO mistakenly tacked when he should have styed luffing but that is just a question of not enough sailing time practising that move in that boat. - LR guys are really sailing well, whether that is enough to overcome the second hand kit they will racing with who knows. now back to regularly scheduled ranting I am with Clean - I just didn't see any close boat races. Sure the sailing and shore team did well if you look at a microcosm of the last couple of weeks, but the team didn't do well in this regatta. And you would have to set the bar pretty low to even say that the sailing team did well in that last race - it was a shocker (no anti-AR bias there - LR had some shockers against ET as well). I was also disappointed with the tone of this press release from AR http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Louis-Vuitton-Cup-Semi-Finals-Race-4/113090. Statistically improved more than LR? What kind of victory are they trying to claim there? It does back up their whole PR spin, but seems a bit churlish not to just congratulate LR.
  3. Artemis?

    Their are so many gems of naysayers on this thread popping off like idiots, it's hard to pick the best from such a great selection of posts that are so far off the mark and purely politically based. After today's performance by AR, after only 8 days on the water vs LR's 80, this one by three different sock puppets clearly stands out as one of the best , if not the top post for being most politically biased and inaccurate. I guess LR may just take them seriously after such a short time on the water. What a pleasant surprise AR provided. This is my vote for the top "idiot" post of the thread. Ya know... I try not to bag Atemis so much but then people come out with posts like this one! After only 8 days on the water blah blah blah. Look, they are PROFESSIONAL sports people, competing in a high stakes competition with MILLIONS of dollars and national pride on the line. (well one team has national pride on the line anyway) They're not children competing in a competition where you get a trophy or a certificate for participation with your Mum waiting for you on the finish line to give you a big hug. If you turn up to the Americas Cup, you turn up to win the Americas Cup. In terms of the Luna Rossa situation, they entered late in the piece, and they entered the only viable way they could. They bought a design package which at the time for them was obviously a good idea (proven today) They then refined that design and are on track to face the form team in the LVC final. If the Kiwis make a mistake or have a major gear failure (unlikely as it might be) The Italians are there and ready to race and take the Americas Cup. Luna Rossa are in a position where they could realistically race Oracle Racing and have an outside chance of pulling off an upset. They know that and are ready to take any opportunity that might present itself. Artemis are well off the pace. Their boat is 2nd generation and is clearly not in any way faster or more maneuverable than Luna Rossa's Generation one boat. Luna Rossa has so much more potential than Artemis does. Its just sad that in all this "Feel good" emotional Cinderella story stuff thats come out the "Win the Americas Cup" mentality has got lost in the shuffle. ETNZ, Luna Rossa and OTUSA are here for one reason, and one reason only...To win The Americas Cup. Artemis, it would seem, to gain as much sympathy votes as they can before they're sent packing. Hogwash!!! There are different points in the AC where you are going to focus on different things. I am pleased as punch to see another AC72 on the water and to see the guys on AR make something out of a situation where all things crumbled apart, including the loss of their mate. It is not as though they just had a mildly rough time, and we are rooting on an underdog at the expense of the more professional team. I hope LR wins if it is clearly the case that they are the better team. And that will likely be the case. On the other hand, if AR's designers did come up with a better design, and the sailors are that damned good that they can overcome their lack of boat time, then THAT will be a great story. Either way, I hope the best team wins, and I think all of us that are cheering AR's achievements feel the same way. AR is not there to "gain sympathy votes", they are passionate sailors and pros trying to be the best they can be, for now, for Bart, and for their future. Some of you guys are truly . . . . well, forget it. I think the difference is between those of us who look at the big picture, and those of you who focus on the small picture. In the small picture I am impressed with how well the shore crew have done getting a boat in the water with post crash modifications. But overall the team has consistently missed deadlines. In the small picture I am impressed with how well the AR sailors have done with only 8 days on the water. But overall the sailors are miles behind the others, have crashed a boat, and undertake high risk maneuvers in unnecessary situations. In the small picture AR getting around the racecourse without a DNF is an achievement. But overall AR are losing by 2 minutes to a 1 boat team that bought a first gen boat off another team. They are losing by a lot to a team that has significantly fewer monetary and design resources, and probably a lot less sailing talent. That AR are losing by such a large margin is no accident or fluke of nature, and points to LR being a better team than AR by a significant margin. More than that it points to AR being a major fuckup. All the shouldas, couldas, maybes, buts, if onlys in the world don't change that. And that is why I praise LR rather than AR for their performance. Looking at the big picture LR deserve praise, AR don't.
  4. Artemis?

    I couldn't agree more. I know that I keep banging on about it, but there really is a thing about team safety culture. AR just don't have it. That was a relatively high risk maneuver for an experienced team, and probably suicidally high for an inexperienced team. What did they gain - 3s on the start line and 6s at the first mark? CD backed off, and gets hammered for it by the media. I even read on the TVNZ website some commentator suggesting that CDs job could be on the line if he didn't do a better job starting - what a complete joke. Listening to him interviewed post race he actually says that their game plan was to stay out of NO's way in the prestart because they knew they had plenty of speed on them. CD made a smart decision and was rewarded with a safe start, and a 2 minute win.
  5. Artemis?

    In the days leading up to the jury decision you were posting smack like an immature little boy but when the decision was announced you suddenly became very busy with "meetings" As a sore loser you are the last person to be calling out others Well fuck me dead, I must have been watching a totally different race to the whole rest of the wide world, cos I coulda sworn that AR got beaten today. Not only that, I coulda sworn that they got beaten by a margin of nearly 2 minutes by a team that: 1. Ripped their sail and by their own admission did not sail optimally upwind. 2. Had a totally piss poor start, and 3. Clearly took the foot off the pedal for the last two legs. Did anyone else see that or was it just me? Its all very well to get up on your soapbox and say that AR did really well all things considered. Certainly they did better than I thought they might. However, to suggest they were remotely competitive even against a coasting LR is a bit like saying my 4 year old will take out the next Tour De France cos, well damn it he rides a two wheeler really well considering he is only 4! *yawn* get back to me when you have something based in reality rather than cognitive dissonance. Exactly. Here is how I saw the race: NO goes very aggressively across LR's bows at the start. CD says be my guest - I don't want to be anywhere near you thanks. LR sails around AR at first gybe and makes gains for the rest of the race bar one leg where they lose 8.6 seconds. Commentators cream themselves because margin is under 10 minutes. Spectators listen to commentators and consequently convince themselves they have seen a magnificent spectacle of close racing. This is typical of the whole approach to AR fiasco - act as if the team are the unwitting victims of events outside their control. I am wondering how they are going to convince themselves that the remaining three races are interesting.
  6. Artemis?

    Yes. They certainly did better than was expected, but in what way was that a competitive race? It is a good sign of how warped this AC is - people are overjoyed when one boat is sailing on the same leg as the other boat in the race. I hate to dash your hopes, but apart from LR's bad second leg, they took 30s or so out of AR every leg. AR might get a bit closer, but essentially not a lot is going to change over the next four days.
  7. Artemis?

    The comment about self imposed wind limits is interesting. I have been wondering how they would meet the IM/CG safety requirements for rudder elevators, and it looks like they comply by not going out above certain wind speeds. Presumably this means that windy semifinal races will be a no show. Just to elaborate: Rudder elevators have to meet class rules and safety rules. AR have class rule compliant rudders, but they are less than the 0.32m2 required in the safety regs (which they have to voluntarily comply with - otherwise the racing is called off) The safety regs have an exception where the competitor can't meet the 0.32m3 and presumably other requirements, they have to show through calculations or operational parameters how they will meet the equivalent. My reasoning was that because the calculation route is an obvious non-starter for AR, they will have to impose some operational restriction that means they are safe - hence the wind limits.
  8. Artemis?

    The moral victory of being able to race in a competition they had entered despite having suffered a tragic setback and terrible personal loss. Honoring the memory of their friend. Or, alternatively, to use the analogy from another sport, why does a Tour de France cyclist get back on his bike after a crash even though he has no hope in the stage or the GC? Why does he torture his body despite injuries, dragging it over mountains? Because it's the fucking Tour de France!!! It's the premier race in the sport, the thing to which many aspire, but very few are ever able to even participate in it. Just finishing it is reason enough to turn your body inside out to try and get through it. Or for your mates on your team, if you can do even one iota of work to try and help them. Very poor analogy. In the Tour you have to achieve at level that gets you selected by a team, and then you have to finish inside the time limit every day, so completion is a big achievement. Achieving selection by spending a few hundred million, then turning up late for a few races in August is hardly equivalent. If AR were in the Tour they would be out long ago.
  9. Artemis?

    The most interesting thing about the AR/OR video was how well OR were fybing - they seemed to string foiling gybes together without too much bother. Quite different to JNavas's next video of the B1/B2 match. Suspect the wind may be lighter in the latter video, but it suggests they are better than we have seen so far. I see nothing in the video that suggests AR is particularly fast or safe. They are where they should be at this stage of their development - miles behind except when OR slows to let them catch up. You are just dreaming guys.
  10. Artemis?

    VERY well said Pukka. +1. I'm really surprised that jhec isn't working for a Cup team - or perhaps you are?? Please come clean with us, you're one frigging "expert" on everything to do with this cup and especially an expert on Artemis's build/structural problems. Very entertaining reading your thoughts - thanks for the laugh!! Its OK mate, Pukka convinced me already with his carefully thought through ad hominem reasoning. I have now joined the ranks of those who buy into the touching yet tragic tale of the AR come back, and left my old cynical self behind. To prove it here are some love hearts and smiley faces: ♥♥ ♥ ♥ :)
  11. Artemis?

    Are you a composite engineer/structuiral engineer? If not, STFU. Even if you are STFU, & send your appraisal to the "right ppl". Your like a broken record. Fill your glass & toast their tenacity. Give them their due. Life is short, charity is short, we are all dying, some faster than others. Touchy touchy. I apologise profusely for raining on your buzz. I will henceforth only shower positive feelings and sunshine on this forum (except when I can't help myself).
  12. Artemis?

    This goes along with my point, although I'm not so sure you are correct when you say "carries the same engineering structure as Boat 1" (we already know they made changes to the hulls, as they are obvious, visually, and you would have to be pretty crazy to think they did not make major changes to the beams after the beam on Boat 1 cracked LAST SUMMER). But otherwise, you seem to see things the way I do, they had to make major changes to Boat 2, no matter what, after the collapse of Boat 1. There are a lot of reasons the beam on boat 1 failed. To say that it was structurally weak from the start would be conjecture and not fact. Remember, the first failure was because of tow testing without the wing, which adds significant strength to the entire platform. After that breakage it was repaired and was structurally flawed from that point on. The boat was then modified twice to increase lift, which put additional strain on an already compromised structure. All this talk about a poorly designed beam is just rubbish as far as the facts as we know them. The beam on the second boat was probably just fine, but AR, being a little spooked, tested the structure to 150% of the recommended load ratings according to their press release and added some beef to it accordingly. You are right. I'm not so sure that they necessarily had to do much change of the beam from Boat 1 to Boat 2. I'm not an engineer, and do not know how necessary it is to have the wing up for structural strength (personally, I would think that the beam should be built strong enough to handle the strain with or without the wing, but I'm not going to say that is 100% correct, either). But really, my point is that they had PLENTY of damned time, and plenty of resources, and plenty of reason to investigate whether they needed to make significant changes to the beam design/construction for Boat 2, and I think it is absurd for people to act like Boat 2 was going to be out there with some chinsy beam. And yet they had to add material to it to get it up to the load specs provided by the other teams. his whole thing seems to be a mystery to you, and you seem to be arguing that they would have been fine without the (to you) unnecessary additional safety requirements imposed on them. However it is fairly obvious to the rest of us. I'll say it again so that it helps you: AR demonstrably failed in their assessment of what is needed for safe sailing. In May they were sailing on an underspec boat which they believed was safe but that failed (LP said in an interview the beam failed during pitchpole). They were almost completed build of their B2 in May, which would have been built on the same false assumption about what was a safe specification. They therefore needed to add material to get their boat up to safe specification. The safe specification is based on design and actual load data from other teams who do (so far) have safe boats. They are overweight as a result of the additional material. They needed a dispensation because they are overweight. None of the other teams, who meet the same safe specifications, needed a dispensation. None of what they added is unnecessary - it is what they have to do to sail a safe AC72. Its just that they got it wrong right up until May, despite all their time and resources. And just so we are clear I still don't believe they are safe. From a systems point of view the failure is not just about one item that failed, but a failure in their team systems. I believe that they are still an unsafe team despite the material in their beam. Remember that they were pitchpoling already in their accident - if the beam hadn't failed there is still no guarantee that everyone would have survived or been uninjured. Team safety failure.
  13. Artemis?

    A possibility not to be excluded. But I think it's more likely the semis will be between LR adn AR. Dalton has said that logic dictaets that would hapen, the team hasnt met to decide that, but its hard to see that chagning. He dosnt have any aparant apatite for CoR at this stage of the game. He doesn't have to race them to become COR. Agrede They are automatically COR once LR beats AR Agrede and GD is sure that will happen. Havent herd him say that. Have you? I was listening to the interview when I wrote that. He was asked about AR, and the difficulties they would have getting up to speed before the first race. He discussed the various problems, lack of time, difficulties etc, then concluded by saying that if it were us (ETNZ), "we couldn't do it". I took from that he gives them no chance.
  14. Artemis?

    This goes along with my point, although I'm not so sure you are correct when you say "carries the same engineering structure as Boat 1" (we already know they made changes to the hulls, as they are obvious, visually, and you would have to be pretty crazy to think they did not make major changes to the beams after the beam on Boat 1 cracked LAST SUMMER). But otherwise, you seem to see things the way I do, they had to make major changes to Boat 2, no matter what, after the collapse of Boat 1. There are a lot of reasons the beam on boat 1 failed. To say that it was structurally weak from the start would be conjecture and not fact. Remember, the first failure was because of tow testing without the wing, which adds significant strength to the entire platform. After that breakage it was repaired and was structurally flawed from that point on. The boat was then modified twice to increase lift, which put additional strain on an already compromised structure. All this talk about a poorly designed beam is just rubbish as far as the facts as we know them. The beam on the second boat was probably just fine, but AR, being a little spooked, tested the structure to 150% of the recommended load ratings according to their press release and added some beef to it accordingly. Yeah right.... I understood they were given design and actual load data from other boats, which is what they used for their testing. Of course they built and tested to more than the actual expected loads, as did all the other boats (who are within the weight limits). In fact I would be surprised if they only built to 150% of the loads - I'm no engineer, but given the uncertainties you would expect multiples of the loads as a safety factor rather than percentages. Whether their safety margin is greater or less than the other teams is unknown. All this is by the by. The other teams have built safe boats that are within the measurement rules, and these measurement rules have been known since the start. Artemis have been unable to, and required a dispensation. Your argument that the definition of safety has been changed is somewhat moot given that Artemis proved they were wrong in their original definition of safety. The fact that they built an unsafe boat to start with doesn't change the fact that they couldn't build a safe boat within the measurement rules, regardless of whatever apologist line you come out with .
  15. Artemis?

    A possibility not to be excluded. But I think it's more likely the semis will be between LR adn AR. Dalton has said that logic dictaets that would hapen, the team hasnt met to decide that, but its hard to see that chagning. He dosnt have any aparant apatite for CoR at this stage of the game. He doesn't have to race them to become COR. They are automatically COR once LR beats AR, and GD is sure that will happen.