• 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.  

Count Drac

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Count Drac

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Viaduct Basin, Auckland
  • Interests
    Blood, sleeping, flying around at night, and being a silly Count.
  1. Team NZ

    Ha! after catching up on 3 pages I see that NAV is still with us after all.
  2. Team NZ

    Ahhh - the SNAERK is back. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing. But I haven't seen any recent posts from NAV - hope he's OK.
  3. Team NZ

    I was just looking at some video of ETNZ doing a tight turn and wondered if any of the teams had considered Ackeman geometry for the rudders - seemed like a no-brainer when foiling (but not so good when both hulls are in the water). So, do they really use this geometry and do any of the other teams? (I've never bothered to look in detail, hence the question).
  4. Jimmy will add a speed-dial number to his phone for the local 24 hour "Dial-A-Prayer" service. But seriously, they have very little time to not only make small modifications but also to test them. Especially since it could all be over after next four races. What really surprises me is that they should now, at this very late stage, have to brain-storm ways to improve the boat when I would have thought that any possible ideas and testing would already have been done. I would have expected them to already have developed the boat to almost it's maximum potential, so perhaps we are seeing the results of a hubristic mind-set in the Oracle camp where they really believed that they had covered all possible bases and were superior to the other teams. Their lack of speed may also be a result of heading down a development path that can deliver no more, while ETNZ had to really think a bit more outside the box and it's paid off. I guess some confirmation of this is how they all laughed when we came up with cyclors, despite the very obvious advantages of using leg muscles instead of arm muscles.
  5. Team NZ

    Thanks TC, Stinger, MeanerMachine, etc. for the replies. From what I can see from these responses it would appear that we could have a total of 14 races to decide a winner, all because one team start with a -1 point. I'm sure the sponsors would love to see this - they would get maximum bang for their buckazoids (ha ha, showing my age here - some of you will recognize the term)! I do understand that the first team to reach 7 POINTS wins the match, rather than the first team to win 7 RACES. I still think no team should go into the match with any point advantage/disadvantage.
  6. Team NZ

    Stinger, I don't dispute who earned what but I'm trying to find where in the rules the number of races exceeds 13. I've read the PDF of the rules and protocol on the AC website (article 29, I seem to recall) and searched the amendments but still can't find where it mentions -1 point or 14 races.
  7. Team NZ

    QUERY REGARDING THE WINNER OF THE MATCH BASED ON THE POINTS GAINED Here’s a question for Nav, or anyone who is familiar with the rules, and it’s one which has probably already been answered but despite searching I can’t find the answer. It’s a question based on ETNZ going into the match with -1 point instead of Oracle going in with +1 point (the distinction is important, because the protocol says that the first team to reach 7 points wins the match). I’m also assuming that there are 13 scheduled races maximum. From my reading of the protocol, and some of the amendments, I can’t see where the -1 point is mentioned, but I’m assuming it’s correct so here goes: Imagine if we win the first three races, but from then on Oracle wins one and then we win one. At the end of race 11 ETNZ would have 6 points (7 wins, but still only 6 points) and Oracle would have 4. If Oracle win the next two races then the series is tied at 6 all after 13 races, so how is the match decided? Note that if Oracle went into the match with +1 point then the problem does not arise. By the way, I was never happy with any team going into the match with any points and I still wouldn't agree with it even if it was ETNZ that had an advantage.
  8. Team NZ

    What a very disappointing race result today against Oracle. To cop a penalty at the start was unfortunate but most teams have been in that position before, but to sail outside the course boundary and cop another penalty, then to ignore it and cop yet one more was too much and is, I feel, inexcusable for a team of professional sailors. The end result is that that we lost 6 boat lengths in total, and that may have made the difference between winning and losing. Also, this race was not just about getting another win. The tactical situation was that if Oracle won then they effectively won two races – one in the challenger series and one in the match. Of all the races we sailed in the challenger series this race demanded our best performance and we failed. No one will ever know if we would have won if we hadn’t made those stupid mistakes, but they certainly made it much easier for us to lose. And don’t give me that crap about “holding something back” or some other stupid excuse. This race had a hell of a lot more riding on it than just another win. I know the guys on the boat will be gutted at how they went, and I hope they really learn from it. I also hope that BAR improve enough to make our guys have to work hard to win each race.
  9. Team NZ

    Keeping it classy New Zealand . C'mon MAX, you know the guy is just some young punk who likes to talk tough so it makes him look more mature than he really is. I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, no matter who, and I know most kiwis or USA citizens wouldn't either. But I do understand your comment.
  10. Team NZ

    CRICKET HIJACK ALERT - Part II The funniest Faux Pas from a cricket commentator occurred during the 1976 test match between England and the West Indies at the Oval. It involved West Indian player Michael Holding and Englishman David Willey. The commentator, Brian Johnstone, described to the radio audience that “the bowler’s Holding, the batsman’s Willey”. And I'd always imagined that the English were very reserved when it came to sex of any description.
  11. Team NZ

    Ha ha - totally awesome post! I think the late, great Robin Williams described cricket perfectly when he so eloquently said it was "like baseball on Valium".
  12. ACWS Toulon - 9, 10 & 11 September

    I also watched a replay this morning (NZ time) and agree with Nutta - complete waste of time. So much so that the wife and I switched over before the last race ended to a watch replay of the Pumas vs All Blacks highlights which were a hellava lot more exciting.
  13. Foiling expertise

    +1 + another 1 And me too. +1
  14. The winning foils

    FFS GBR, the wing (or any sail) will have a resultant force acting through the centre of effort (or pressure? - not sure of the correct terminology here). This force is usually parallel to the water surface or pretty close to it and has a considerable vector in the forward direction of the boat. The foils (or hull for a non-foiling boat) will have a retarding force caused by drag in approx. the opposite direction, and between these two resultant forces we get a turning moment that wants to pitch the boat over it's nose. It's this pitching moment that you seem to assume is some sort of force acting vertically that wants to force the boat back down into the water. Xlot is correct - GBR zero, Doug 1
  15. ACWS Portsmouth 23rd 26th July

    Is this a new fore sail? Or a revolutionary foil design? Keel appendage, hopefully.