Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Xlot

Designers' meeting in VLC

Recommended Posts

@ Bob:

- see post #85 above and here (italics at the end) - you'll have to do both translations, this still eludes me

Googletran

 

http://translate.goo...p&sl=auto&tl=en

 

What you do to create these is

 

Go to Translate dot Google dot com

http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|

 

Paste the article's URL that you want translated

Hit Translate

Copy the resulting URL and Paste here

 

The lines you refer to, by raw machine translation:

 

As shown in Farevelanet and according to some rumors, the Valencia defender would be more oriented towards a multi-hull (trimaran) and the seat of the Cup in the United States it would not be so obvious.

 

Thanks for the human tran of it.

 

Not much of a surprise there, they have said all along mh's are to be included in the alternatives; and the venue has been left an open option since the start too - which - sorry to say Bob - has nothing at all to do with Alameda so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got a date on when the design brief deadline is? I'm trying to remember if this order

 

 

1. ACP end of Sep 2010

2. Venue choice Nov/Dec 2010

3. Boat Design choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mani Frers (Argentin)

Daniel Andrieu (FR)

Juan Kouyoumdjian (Franco Argentin)

Bernard Nivelt (FR)

Jason Ker (GBR)

Marcelino Botin

Harry Duning

Patrick Shaughnessy ( Farr Yacht Design ) USA

Saenz

Pete Melvin (USA)

Mike Drummond (NZL)

 

John Reichel (USA)

Russell Coutts (NZL) en retrait

Vincent Lauriot Prévot (FR)

Manolo Ruiz Elvira

Ian Burns

Hervé Devaux (FR)

Bruce Nelson

Giovanni Ceccarelli

Andy Claugton ( TNZ )

Rolf Vrolijk, Alinghi

 

Juan Kouyoumdjian (Franco really? Argentin) Team Origin

Andy Claugton ( TNZ ) last I checked Team Origin

 

Was anybody there for ETNZ in fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems discussions and possibly negotiations have been underway for a month or two between BMWO, the CoR and other potential challengers, yet barely a squeak has emerged on the content of those discussions except in a highly controlled manner through RC. The only plausible explanation is that NDAs are in place. That doesn't particular bother me - other than the hypocricy.

 

Other than your misspelling of the word hypocrisy, I agree with you 100%. We don't like hypocrites one bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got a date on when the design brief deadline is? I'm trying to remember if this order

 

1. ACP end of Sep 2010

2. Venue choice Nov/Dec 2010

3. Boat Design choice?

From the Rome conference:

  • September, 2010: design.
  • December, 2010: sailing instructions & venue.
  • Challenges open: October 1, 2010 - January 31, 2011.
  • 2011: Some events, if possible.
  • 2012: Regular series in the new boats.

Marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got a date on when the design brief deadline is? I'm trying to remember if this order

From the Rome conference:

  • August, 2010: protocol.
  • September, 2010: design.
  • December, 2010: sailing instructions & venue.
  • Challenges open: October 1, 2010 - January 31, 2011.
  • 2011: Some events, if possible.
  • 2012: Regular series in the new boats.

Marty

 

added the august/prot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got a date on when the design brief deadline is? I'm trying to remember if this order

From the Rome conference:

  • August, 2010: protocol.
  • September, 2010: design.
  • December, 2010: sailing instructions & venue.
  • Challenges open: October 1, 2010 - January 31, 2011.
  • 2011: Some events, if possible.
  • 2012: Regular series in the new boats.

Marty

 

added the august/prot

From the presser:

 

<<(...) Publication of the new class rule will be no later than 30th September.""

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mani Frers (Argentin)

Daniel Andrieu (FR)

Juan Kouyoumdjian (Franco Argentin)

Bernard Nivelt (FR)

Jason Ker (GBR)

Marcelino Botin

Harry Duning

Patrick Shaughnessy ( Farr Yacht Design ) USA

Saenz

Pete Melvin (USA)

Mike Drummond (NZL)

 

John Reichel (USA)

Russell Coutts (NZL) en retrait

Vincent Lauriot Prévot (FR)

Manolo Ruiz Elvira

Ian Burns

Hervé Devaux (FR)

Bruce Nelson

Giovanni Ceccarelli

Andy Claugton ( TNZ )

Rolf Vrolijk, Alinghi

 

Juan Kouyoumdjian (Franco really? Argentin) Team Origin

Andy Claugton ( TNZ ) last I checked Team Origin

 

Was anybody there for ETNZ in fact?

 

Team NZ principal designer is Marcelino Botin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mani Frers (Argentin)

Daniel Andrieu (FR)

Juan Kouyoumdjian (Franco Argentin)

Bernard Nivelt (FR)

Jason Ker (GBR)

Marcelino Botin

Harry Duning

Patrick Shaughnessy ( Farr Yacht Design ) USA

Saenz

Pete Melvin (USA)

Mike Drummond (NZL)

 

John Reichel (USA)

Russell Coutts (NZL) en retrait

Vincent Lauriot Prévot (FR)

Manolo Ruiz Elvira

Ian Burns

Hervé Devaux (FR)

Bruce Nelson

Giovanni Ceccarelli

Andy Claugton ( TNZ )

Rolf Vrolijk, Alinghi

 

Juan Kouyoumdjian (Franco really? Argentin) Team Origin

Andy Claugton ( TNZ ) last I checked Team Origin

 

Was anybody there for ETNZ in fact?

 

Team NZ principal designer is Marcelino Botin

 

French report stated he was there, but I could not spot him in the photos, nor in the recent video released. Seems obvious that he would be there, as ETNZ is perhaps the most viable challenger (arguably moreso than the CoR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bob:

- see post #85 above and here (italics at the end) - you'll have to do both translations, this still eludes me

Googletran

 

http://translate.goo...p&sl=auto&tl=en

 

What you do to create these is

 

Go to Translate dot Google dot com

http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|

 

Paste the article's URL that you want translated

Hit Translate

Copy the resulting URL and Paste here

 

The lines you refer to, by raw machine translation:

 

As shown in Farevelanet and according to some rumors, the Valencia defender would be more oriented towards a multi-hull (trimaran) and the seat of the Cup in the United States it would not be so obvious.

 

Thanks for the human tran of it.

 

Not much of a surprise there, they have said all along mh's are to be included in the alternatives; and the venue has been left an open option since the start too - which - sorry to say Bob - has nothing at all to do with Alameda so far.

 

:-)

I'm just nervous that if its a monohull of 90 ft that SF area won't be a venue. I'm nervous that if its multihulls and the city of SF hasn't planned for that- its a problem. I prefer multihulls but i care most thats its a SF Bay venue with the city of SF as first choice.

 

So no real french sailing AC folks here for insightful translation???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:-)

I'm just nervous that if its a monohull of 90 ft that SF area won't be a venue. I'm nervous that if its multihulls and the city of SF hasn't planned for that- its a problem. I prefer multihulls but i care most thats its a SF Bay venue with the city of SF as first choice.

 

So no real french sailing AC folks here for insightful translation???

I am beginning to believe that a SF bid will be an all-SF one. And so SF better be ready to accommodate whatever boats gets chosen, or run the risk of this being awarded to a non SF venue, one that offers nicer arrangements and that can handle plenty of big boats. SD and Auk had bases separated a little, and some ideas out of Newport suggest doing the same, but in all of those the bases were still fairly close to each other. Larry has said they will be looking for an Americas Cup Village and so that is what SF will have to do, to satisfy the customer. My reading could change on that, but it does seem to be the tune SF is marching to, with strong input from BOR. And with the big-time company help being enlisted, that Michael Cohen spoke of, I think they have an excellent chance.

 

Here's a tidbit that I'm curious about. The Tribormat piece strikes me as a bit odd, his questions to designer Bernard Nivelt are even accusatory ones despite all that the Defender is giving away by turning the design rule over to independents; but what is this curious line, fortunately by Nivelt?

 

Vrolik de Alinghi s'est bien amusé avec le cata et n'est pas contre repartir sur un multi. Nous sommes quelques uns à penser que c'est plus amusant de faire un multi. Puis personnellement je me dis qu'il y aurait alors plus de chance d'avoir un syndicat français. Par contre si c'est en multi et que c'est des régates à la con comme la dernière fois ça va tuer le truc.

 

g-tran gives

 

Vrolik of Alinghi had fun with the catalytic and not restart on a multi cons. We are a few to think it's more fun to make a multi.

 

http://www.tribormat...bernard-nivelt/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting too, if true:

 

Bernard Nivelt: This meeting is over. Nous avons eu droit à la visite du trimaran et de l'aile. We had to visit the trimaran and the wing. C'est vraiment sympa. It's really nice.

Je ne sais pas trop quel était leur objectif. I do not know what was their goal. Sentir la tendance pour décider ensuite. Feel the trend and then decide.

Ils doivent nous réinviter à la fin du mois après avoir décidé si c'est un mono ou un multi. They must re-invite us to the end of the month after deciding if it is a mono or multi. La conclusion du meeting est que nous reviendrons pour définir les règles. The conclusion of the meeting is that we return to set the rules.

 

Is he saying the multi/mono decision could get taken before the end of this month??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vrolik de Alinghi s'est bien amusé avec le cata et n'est pas contre repartir sur un multi. Nous sommes quelques uns à penser que c'est plus amusant de faire un multi. Puis personnellement je me dis qu'il y aurait alors plus de chance d'avoir un syndicat français. Par contre si c'est en multi et que c'est des régates à la con comme la dernière fois ça va tuer le truc.

 

Something like:

 

Q: Vrolik from Alinghi was very pleased with the cata[maran] and isn't opposed to returning to a multi-hull series. Some of us think that it would be more satisfying to build a multi.

 

A: I've personally said that that would give the greatest chance of getting a French syndicate to participate. On the other hand, if it is in multi-hulls along the lines of the last regatta, that would kill the thing off.

 

Marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vrolik de Alinghi s'est bien amusé avec le cata et n'est pas contre repartir sur un multi. Nous sommes quelques uns à penser que c'est plus amusant de faire un multi. Puis personnellement je me dis qu'il y aurait alors plus de chance d'avoir un syndicat français. Par contre si c'est en multi et que c'est des régates à la con comme la dernière fois ça va tuer le truc.

 

Something like:

 

Q: Vrolik from Alinghi was very pleased with the cata[maran] and isn't opposed to returning to a multi-hull series. Some of us think that it would be more satisfying to build a multi.

 

A: I've personally said that that would give the greatest chance of getting a French syndicate to participate. On the other hand, if it is in multi-hulls along the lines of the last regatta, that would kill the thing off.

 

Marty

Actually, the Q was

 

 

But multi-or mono?

So that was all A, but thank you that translation looks good.

 

http://translate.goo...F&sl=auto&tl=en

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bernard Nivelt: ... They must re-invite us to the end of the month after deciding if it is a mono or multi.

Is he saying the multi/mono decision could get taken before the end of this month??

 

Indeed - I had translated that as "Bernard says the basic decision could be taken as early as in one month" because it sounded too optimistic. But after the Rome conference, ML's press rep. did tell me that the choice would be made "much earlier" than Sept 30. We'll see ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernard Nivelt: ... They must re-invite us to the end of the month after deciding if it is a mono or multi.

Is he saying the multi/mono decision could get taken before the end of this month??

 

Indeed - I had translated that as "Bernard says the basic decision could be taken as early as in one month" because it sounded too optimistic. But after the Rome conference, ML's press rep. did tell me that the choice would be made "much earlier" than Sept 30. We'll see ..

Right, even "a" month seems fast, and "this" month even faster. I wonder which he meant?

 

Oh well, like you say "We'll see.."

 

If I had my wish then more designers would be discussing how the discussions went. What would be awesome, would be to see even the presentations, even if it might be a little misleading without the context they were presented in. For example, Nivelt also mentions a 70 foot in-between multihull, whereas the pressers all mention only the 20m and 25m M&M ones, and just the 27M BN one. I bet those are all pretty cool eye candy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernard Nivelt: ... They must re-invite us to the end of the month after deciding if it is a mono or multi.

Is he saying the multi/mono decision could get taken before the end of this month??

 

Indeed - I had translated that as "Bernard says the basic decision could be taken as early as in one month" because it sounded too optimistic. But after the Rome conference, ML's press rep. did tell me that the choice would be made "much earlier" than Sept 30. We'll see ..

Right, even "a" month seems fast, and "this" month even faster. I wonder which he meant?

 

Oh well, like you say "We'll see.."

 

If I had my wish then more designers would be discussing how the discussions went. What would be awesome, would be to see even the presentations, even if it might be a little misleading without the context they were presented in. For example, Nivelt also mentions a 70 foot in-between multihull, whereas the pressers all mention only the 20m and 25m M&M ones, and just the 27M BN one. I bet those are all pretty cool eye candy!

 

They also mentioned various beams..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also mentioned various beams..

Right, and come to think of it, one reference may even have been to a 90x90 that [sic] 'seemed most impressive' - yowza!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of cameras (other thread) and of cameramen...

 

Did anyone else notice the distinctive 'Alinghi TV' magic touch in this video?

 

The filmography (?) is obvious, it is in the music too. The despite the subject matter, it is really quite slick - great news.

 

Damn - Everything is going right so far :)

 

And speaking of music... Later! Enjoy the start of LV/La M, there could be some hot racing.

 

http://www.sunbanksfestival.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I had my wish then more designers would be discussing how the discussions went.

 

 

Yes, that would be nice - but I think Manolo and Bernard relayed the gist of the event.

 

Rather, I fully agree with Matthieu's final comment: " I have the feeling that, as in Rome, we have been treated to a pretty smokescreen" .. anybody with a minimum of corporate experience has the painful knowledge that a meeting with no clear agenda and twenty, unempowered attendants is bound to produce no results - unless it's a face saving charade so that challengers aren't labeled as poodles from day 1.

 

In fact the key, prior factor was Larry (if not him, who else?) deciding that the mono alternative would be all of 90' and not say 70' - when it was already established, in happier times, that its cost was unbearable for most teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, I fully agree with Matthieu's final comment: " I have the feeling that, as in Rome, we have been treated to a pretty smokescreen" .. anybody with a minimum of corporate experience has the painful knowledge that a meeting with no clear agenda and twenty, unempowered attendants is bound to produce no results - unless it's a face saving charade so that challengers aren't labeled as poodles from day 1.

 

In fact the key, prior factor was Larry (if not him, who else?) deciding that the mono alternative would be all of 90' and not say 70' - when it was already established, in happier times, that its cost was unbearable for most teams.

 

I think this is the other way of interpreting this meeting - Russell, who really wants a multihull, trying to convince a whole lot of teams who really want to stay in monohulls that multis would be better. The fact that a whole range of multihull options were presented but the monohull options were more limited is not a good sign.

 

Question is, how democratic are BMWO going to be when the wishes of the majority differ from what Larry and Russell want? Russell has a history of not reacting well when he doesn't get his own way, as does Larry. It will be interesting to see how their brave new world of openness and consensus fares when the other teams dissagee with what BMWO wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, I fully agree with Matthieu's final comment: " I have the feeling that, as in Rome, we have been treated to a pretty smokescreen" .. anybody with a minimum of corporate experience has the painful knowledge that a meeting with no clear agenda and twenty, unempowered attendants is bound to produce no results - unless it's a face saving charade so that challengers aren't labeled as poodles from day 1.

 

In fact the key, prior factor was Larry (if not him, who else?) deciding that the mono alternative would be all of 90' and not say 70' - when it was already established, in happier times, that its cost was unbearable for most teams.

 

I think this is the other way of interpreting this meeting - Russell, who really wants a multihull, trying to convince a whole lot of teams who really want to stay in monohulls that multis would be better. The fact that a whole range of multihull options were presented but the monohull options were more limited is not a good sign.

 

Question is, how democratic are BMWO going to be when the wishes of the majority differ from what Larry and Russell want? Russell has a history of not reacting well when he doesn't get his own way, as does Larry. It will be interesting to see how their brave new world of openness and consensus fares when the other teams dissagee with what BMWO wants.

 

consultative management /leadership/skippership does not necessarily mean consensus. did they say consensus or consultative?? actually don't remember

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the other way of interpreting this meeting - Russell, who really wants a multihull, trying to convince a whole lot of teams who really want to stay in monohulls that multis would be better. The fact that a whole range of multihull options were presented but the monohull options were more limited is not a good sign.

There has to be a suspicion that this is a serious part of the agenda. Look at the facts. Before AC33 and the whole mess kicked off, RC and PC proposed a world professional circuit in........multihulls! And look at what we have. RC is now leading the AC defender and PC is leading the WSTA, who are trying to get a major role in the AC. 2 people dedicated to the idea of multihulls at this level. If you then look at the experience that RC now has developing multis, both for DZ but also the initial work on the professional circuit multi, he would think that he has a big lead over most teams in this area. in fact, if they can keep Alinghi away from the party, you have to think they would be in with for a clear run all the way to a finish line! Could any other team catch up in the next cycle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the other way of interpreting this meeting - Russell, who really wants a multihull, trying to convince a whole lot of teams who really want to stay in monohulls that multis would be better. The fact that a whole range of multihull options were presented but the monohull options were more limited is not a good sign.

There has to be a suspicion that this is a serious part of the agenda. Look at the facts. Before AC33 and the whole mess kicked off, RC and PC proposed a world professional circuit in........multihulls! And look at what we have. RC is now leading the AC defender and PC is leading the WSTA, who are trying to get a major role in the AC. 2 people dedicated to the idea of multihulls at this level. If you then look at the experience that RC now has developing multis, both for DZ but also the initial work on the professional circuit multi, he would think that he has a big lead over most teams in this area. in fact, if they can keep Alinghi away from the party, you have to think they would be in with for a clear run all the way to a finish line! Could any other team catch up in the next cycle?

 

Sure, they still need to define a rule. BOR could also share some of the data/learning curve they have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vrolik de Alinghi s'est bien amusé avec le cata et n'est pas contre repartir sur un multi. Nous sommes quelques uns à penser que c'est plus amusant de faire un multi. Puis personnellement je me dis qu'il y aurait alors plus de chance d'avoir un syndicat français. Par contre si c'est en multi et que c'est des régates à la con comme la dernière fois ça va tuer le truc.

Something like:

 

Q: But multi-or mono?

 

A: Vrolik from Alinghi was very pleased with the cata[maran] and isn't opposed to returning to a multi-hull series. Some of us think that it would be more satisfying to build a multi. I've personally said that that would give the greatest chance of getting a French syndicate to participate. On the other hand, if it is in multi-hulls along the lines of the last regatta, that would kill the thing off.

 

Actually, the Q was "But multi-or mono?"

So that was all A, but thank you that translation looks good.

 

http://translate.goo...F&sl=auto&tl=en

Oh, doh. I misinterpreted the bold as marking a different speaker.

 

Sorry about that. I've fixed it just above, FWIW.

 

Marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the other way of interpreting this meeting - Russell, who really wants a multihull, trying to convince a whole lot of teams who really want to stay in monohulls that multis would be better. The fact that a whole range of multihull options were presented but the monohull options were more limited is not a good sign.

 

Question is, how democratic are BMWO going to be when the wishes of the majority differ from what Larry and Russell want? Russell has a history of not reacting well when he doesn't get his own way, as does Larry. It will be interesting to see how their brave new world of openness and consensus fares when the other teams dissagee with what BMWO wants.

 

consultative management /leadership/skippership does not necessarily mean consensus. did they say consensus or consultative?? actually don't remember

 

Unfortunately consultation often means "we will listen to your opinion, and then do what we want"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, I fully agree with Matthieu's final comment: " I have the feeling that, as in Rome, we have been treated to a pretty smokescreen" .

 

+1. Seems like the same old crowd to me. And seems awfully strange that no attendee list was published at any time, and that not a single substantive piece of information except perhaps Pierre's interview (full of dodges and ducks) came out of this "fruitful" meeting. I have been hoping so much that things would change under GGYC, but doesn't this smell of the Good Old Boys' club more than anything? I will soon be posting some interesting stuff from the '88 meeting that makes this even more obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

consultative management /leadership/skippership does not necessarily mean consensus. did they say consensus or consultative?? actually don't remember

 

Unfortunately consultation often means "we will listen to your opinion, and then do what we want"

 

Well i went out and fixed my blood sugar level and thought about this. If no one replied I considered deleting it.

Yes that is a model for consultative management- the way I've run my teams on and off the water. I value my teams inputs but its my responsibility and accountability (its my boat - thats why!). I also value my team which is why they are there- if I make a call different from the group- and its wrong- I admit and apologize- bur I own it.

 

What the pint(s) of Laqunitas IPA revealed was that this situation is different by definition- if its to be in the bay- its by mutual consent

cheers

bob

 

(if this makes sense in the morning- I had just the right number of pints - lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the other way of interpreting this meeting - Russell, who really wants a multihull, trying to convince a whole lot of teams who really want to stay in monohulls that multis would be better. The fact that a whole range of multihull options were presented but the monohull options were more limited is not a good sign.

There has to be a suspicion that this is a serious part of the agenda. Look at the facts. Before AC33 and the whole mess kicked off, RC and PC proposed a world professional circuit in........multihulls! And look at what we have. RC is now leading the AC defender and PC is leading the WSTA, who are trying to get a major role in the AC. 2 people dedicated to the idea of multihulls at this level. If you then look at the experience that RC now has developing multis, both for DZ but also the initial work on the professional circuit multi, he would think that he has a big lead over most teams in this area. in fact, if they can keep Alinghi away from the party, you have to think they would be in with for a clear run all the way to a finish line! Could any other team catch up in the next cycle?

 

Sure, they still need to define a rule. BOR could also share some of the data/learning curve they have

 

Also just announced ahlingi top man has joined with the firm developing the latest foiling catamaran to break records on the swiss lake and i would imagine to start the development of a foiling multi in preperation for the next AC, its an incredible looking boat with soft sails, 1 rudder, and can when on foils can tack at an incredible speed, it has all the latest stress sensors and once it is fully tested a larger version should be relatively cheap to produce compared to a monohull, it has no motor to enhance its speed because it has no hydrolic swing keel and will not have the huge loads on it as would a monohull need to counter the lead keel, definately the way to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just announced ahlingi top man has joined with the firm developing the latest foiling catamaran to break records on the swiss lake and i would imagine to start the development of a foiling multi in preperation for the next AC, its an incredible looking boat with soft sails, 1 rudder, and can when on foils can tack at an incredible speed, it has all the latest stress sensors and once it is fully tested a larger version should be relatively cheap to produce compared to a monohull, it has no motor to enhance its speed because it has no hydrolic swing keel and will not have the huge loads on it as would a monohull need to counter the lead keel, definately the way to go!

 

Are you sure you are not Doug Lord?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the pint(s) of Laqunitas IPA revealed was that this situation is different by definition- if its to be in the bay- its by mutual consent

 

You are right, this situation is different. Russell and Larry have made a big thing about this being a process where all stakeholders were involved in key decisions, particularly regarding the design rule.

 

If they get outvoted are they going to have a dummy spit and overrule everyone else, or are they going to bend to the will of the majority? It will be interesting to see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. If you then look at the experience that RC now has developing multis, both for DZ but also the initial work on the professional circuit multi, he would think that he has a big lead over most teams in this area. in fact, if they can keep Alinghi away from the party, you have to think they would be in with for a clear run all the way to a finish line! Could any other team catch up in the next cycle?

 

Sure, they still need to define a rule. BOR could also share some of the data/learning curve they have

 

Dunno - if it's 70'ish tris with soft sails, my bet would be on 2-3 Gallic teams laughing their way to the finish line ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno - if it's 70'ish tris with soft sails, my bet would be on 2-3 Gallic teams laughing their way to the finish line ...

 

BOR just needs to hire Stan Honey biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the pint(s) of Laqunitas IPA revealed was that this situation is different by definition- if its to be in the bay- its by mutual consent

 

You are right, this situation is different. Russell and Larry have made a big thing about this being a process where all stakeholders were involved in key decisions, particularly regarding the design rule.

 

If they get outvoted are they going to have a dummy spit and overrule everyone else, or are they going to bend to the will of the majority? It will be interesting to see

 

Actually thats not consensus either bending to the will of the majority. everybody needs to agree (to be equally unhappy/happy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A high performance yacht to carry the Cup into the 21st Century."

 

Everything old is new again.

IMG_3892.jpg

IMG_3893.jpg

IMG_3894.jpg

design1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frontpage (yes, there is one):

 

<<ac

 

same old, same old

 

Since long before BMW/Oracle sent Alinghi packing off Valencia, Ehman, Ellison, and Coutts have been shouting about "change" and bringing "a new spirit of openness" to salling's premier event. After the big win, Ellison turned it up a notch, claiming that he wanted to provide an event that appealed to the kids, and to the mainstream, and we did a little dance; after all, we've been clamoring for the same thing since our site began.

 

But it appears the honeymoon's over, and at the moment, it looks like most of BMW/Oracle's words are nothing but fluff, intended to appease a public who'd been long disillusioned with Bertarelli's management style. A team that just a year ago was using the support of the entire sailing community to spread their message has gone silent. A team that provided spectacular communcation at almost every step of their runup to the 33rd Cup match has now become a closed door. Perhaps, as they claim, they are just so busy putting the next edition together that they can't afford to explain what's really going on beyond a few main talking points. Perhaps, as they claim, they have to be very careful about what they say for fear of alienating some teams or misleading the public. Anarchist 'dogwatch' summed up our sentiment precisely the other day, when he wrote, "It seems discussions and possibly negotiations have been underway for a month or two between BMWO, the CoR and other potential challengers, yet barely a squeak has emerged on the content of those discussions except in a highly controlled manner through RC. The only plausible explanation is that NDAs are in place. That doesn't particular bother me - other than the hypocrisy."

 

We call bullshit. It seems to us that all the bluster about openness and transparency was just that; bluster. Or worse yet, that the openness they once aspired to has devolved into the same good ol' boy politics that has ruled the Cup for decades. Case in point: The long awaited "designer's conference" in Valencia last week was only open to a handful of Cup designers - all of them well-oiled parts of the 'fraternity.' There was no process for anyone not a member of this tiny fraternity to be involved at all, and the information released afterwards was limited to more talking points. There was literally nothing of substance AT ALL to come from any of the camps, and if it wasn't for Pierre from Valencia Sailing doing a couple of decent interviews, we'd have nothing. Incredibly, BMW/Oracle never even released a list of the attending designers, leaving it to the Anarchists to figure out the attendee list when they put names to the faces in some publicity shots. Now what in the hell could be so secret about an attendee list that this Defender, who's allegedly so committed to openness, chose to keep the world in the dark?

 

(continued)>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://translate.goo...p&sl=auto&tl=en

 

As shown in Farevelanet and according to some rumors, the Valencia defender would be more oriented towards a multi-hull (trimaran) and the seat of the Cup in the United States it would not be so obvious.

 

Almost correct:

"According to Farevelanet and rumors from Valencia, the defender would be more oriented towards a multihull (trimaran) and the location of the Cup being in the United States is not quite a given."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://translate.goo...p&sl=auto&tl=en

 

As shown in Farevelanet and according to some rumors, the Valencia defender would be more oriented towards a multi-hull (trimaran) and the seat of the Cup in the United States it would not be so obvious.

 

Almost correct:

"According to Farevelanet and rumors from Valencia, the defender would be more oriented towards a multihull (trimaran) and the location of the Cup being in the United States is not quite a given."

 

Thanks..that was my expectation. Was that done my a native French speaker or otherwise fluent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good new article at VS:

--

 

Valencia Designers Meeting (part III): Interview with Giovanni Ceccarelli

 

We continue our coverage of the 34th America's Cup designers meeting that took place on May 18th in Valencia with the third installment. Today, we talk to Giovanni Ceccarelli, the Italian yacht designer, one of the 19 participants in that meeting. In the 31st America's Cup, Ceccarelli was the chief designer of Mascalzone Latino while in the 32nd edition in Valencia, he was in charge of design at +39 Challenge.

 

Valencia Sailing: Let's first start with some background questions on the meeting. From what I saw you were the only Italian designer there. Were you representing the new America's Cup Challenger of Record, Mascalzone Latino?

 

Giovanni Ceccarelli: No, I wasn't there on behalf of Mascalzone Latino or any other team, I was there representing my design office, Ceccarelli Yacht Design, and I was invited by Ian Burns as such. In fact, almost everybody there was representing just themselves, maybe in order to have a less restricted vision, in order not to be conditioned by any restraints. I think I was invited due to my participation in two previous America's Cup editions and the fact they appreciated my work.

 

Valencia Sailing: Who was there on behalf of Mascalzone Latino?

 

Giovanni Ceccarelli: I don't think there was anyone there on behalf of one team or another. When we presented ourselves, each one stated there own design office, except of course from the three representatives from BMW Oracle, Ian Burns, Monolo Ruiz Elvira and Mike Drummond. In fact, they were the only ones wearing a team T-shirt.

 

I'd like to state that I liked that spirit because in the previous edition, the 33rd, when Alinghi was preparing the new rule, I asked to take part in the meetings but my petition was denied because I wasn't representing any team. Alinghi wanted only team designers in the meetings. I'm referring to the discussions in order to establish the AC90 rule, before the final court decision that established BMW Oracle as the challenger of Record. According to Alinghi, no designer could be accepted unless he was already part of a team, something that I don't agree with. If you represent a poor team you push towards a small and cheap boat. If on the other hand you represent a team with bigger budget you push the rule towards the opposite side.

 

The spirit of the meeting in Valencia two weeks ago was in fact to have each one of us, freely and based on his background and "culture", express his opinion and vision, without having an established link to any team.

 

continued

--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, Ceccarelli positively loathes multis tongue.gif . Interesting nevertheless, he confirms the basic decision is due shortly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, Ceccarelli positively loathes multis tongue.gif . Interesting nevertheless, he confirms the basic decision is due shortly

Right, he is angling for his own ideas, which is understandable.

 

Ten years ago I designed the yachts used at the Tutta Trieste regattas... Yes, my idea is very similar. The Tutta Trieste yachts are very close to the yachts that could be used in the next Cup, obviously they will be bigger ones... I don't want to reveal my ideas but the next Cup boat shouldn't just be a big TP52 or STP65.

 

He is also one of the many voices who claim multis cannot have close racing because they are so fast.

 

How many Italians went to Valencia to watch the races? Tens of thousands. Do you think that all of them cared what boat they were using in the Cup? They knew they were America's Cup yachts and the races were close and tight. That's all. They liked the show, something the trimarans didn't offer.

 

me: If Italy had a trimaran entered, I bet they would have come by the tens of thousands too..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm still not willing and able to put my suspicion in the closet, I must admit that I like GGYC's/BOR's approach, e.g. inviting non-team-associated designers. I just wonder where CNR/ML is in this whole matter. It's the Challenger that decides about the boat initially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm still not willing and able to put my suspicion in the closet, I must admit that I like GGYC's/BOR's approach, e.g. inviting non-team-associated designers. I just wonder where CNR/ML is in this whole matter. It's the Challenger that decides about the boat initially.

 

Well it becomes an MC thing, once it is not a default DoG rule. And so it is not all ML.. but having said that, yes I agree that it should not be all-Defender either, and that as the apparent organizers of the process BOR may well be leaning one way or the other; and so it is natural to wonder which way that is, and if they will - even if unintentionally - affect the landscape towards their preference. VS and Tribormat both asked that question of designers. Both denied it.

 

To me, just the fact they are introducing multihulls makes that landscape different, since to my reckoning they win on almost every attribute they (both ML and BOR) have listed as being the key factors. The competition is almost unfair from the get-go; multi's just do win out, if you let them compete. The big factor of course is if it is possible to make fast boats that are also tightly competitive. The Extreme 40 Sailing series this weekend suggested to me for the umpteenth time that it ~is~ possible. Otoh, you have Ed Baird - who won the 2008 X40 circuit - arguing for the slower up-close style instead.

 

Anyway, being as you are a huge ETNZ fan.. Remember this?

 

Dalton said today that Team NZ's strength lay in monohulls, but multihull racing, if a box rule were to be brought in to contain costs, offered an exciting challenge.

 

"We are a team that can adapt really quickly and just change direction, whereas a lot of teams would struggle to do that, or do it quickly," he said.

 

"If it went to multihulls, we would be into Extreme 40 sailing and that sort of thing instantly.

 

"There's a side of me that says it would be quite good because it would be exciting. Our strengths lie in monohulls, but we could adapt."

 

 

GD has huge multihull experience to base that opinion on, I think he held the 24-hour record from on Club Med for a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm still not willing and able to put my suspicion in the closet, I must admit that I like GGYC's/BOR's approach, e.g. inviting non-team-associated designers.

Regretfully, I really don't like that approach. As Ceccarelli says, if the teams are there the poor ones push for a cheap design whil,e the richer ones push for something expensive. however, what you have is a debate with the people who count, the teams. By having designers there independently, you are simply hoping that the boat they come up with meets the (cost) needs of the teams. There might also be a lot of other constraints teams would like to see, maybe on crew numbers for instance, which would impact the boat. Independent designers want to come up with the best boat they can according to their own criteria. Surely it should be the participants who count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it becomes an MC thing, once it is not a default DoG rule. And so it is not all ML.. but having said that, yes I agree that it should not be all-Defender either, and that as the apparent organizers of the process BOR may well be leaning one way or the other; and so it is natural to wonder which way that is, and if they will - even if unintentionally - affect the landscape towards their preference. VS and Tribormat both asked that question of designers. Both denied it.

 

To me, just the fact they are introducing multihulls makes that landscape different, since to my reckoning they win on almost every attribute they (both ML and BOR) have listed as being the key factors. The competition is almost unfair from the get-go; multi's just do win out, if you let them compete. The big factor of course is if it is possible to make fast boats that are also tightly competitive. The Extreme 40 Sailing series this weekend suggested to me for the umpteenth time that it ~is~ possible. Otoh, you have Ed Baird - who won the 2008 X40 circuit - arguing for the slower up-close style instead.

 

Anyway, being as you are a huge ETNZ fan.. Remember this?

 

Dalton said today that Team NZ's strength lay in monohulls, but multihull racing, if a box rule were to be brought in to contain costs, offered an exciting challenge.

 

"We are a team that can adapt really quickly and just change direction, whereas a lot of teams would struggle to do that, or do it quickly," he said.

 

"If it went to multihulls, we would be into Extreme 40 sailing and that sort of thing instantly.

 

"There's a side of me that says it would be quite good because it would be exciting. Our strengths lie in monohulls, but we could adapt."

 

 

GD has huge multihull experience to base that opinion on.

Yes, it is MC, nevertheless, I would like to "hear" more of CNR/ML. But I won't lose sleep over their relative inactivity in these early stages of finding a way.

 

With the section in italics you refer to my lastest PM ;) . Oh, I remember it well, that's why I won't lose sleep over any kind of boat either.

 

Talking about being a huge fan... Where actually is Green Comm??? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm still not willing and able to put my suspicion in the closet, I must admit that I like GGYC's/BOR's approach, e.g. inviting non-team-associated designers.

Regretfully, I really don't like that approach. As Ceccarelli says, if the teams are there the poor ones push for a cheap design whil,e the richer ones push for something expensive. however, what you have is a debate with the people who count, the teams. By having designers there independently, you are simply hoping that the boat they come up with meets the (cost) needs of the teams. There might also be a lot of other constraints teams would like to see, maybe on crew numbers for instance, which would impact the boat. Independent designers want to come up with the best boat they can according to their own criteria. Surely it should be the participants who count.

I hope/think that this is one of the first steps in the consultative process, gathering ideas, see what may be feasible, that kind of stuff. A team consultation must follow. In the end someone (BOR/ML?) has to decide, and probably will anger some of the formerly consulted, but that's the nature of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it should be the participants who count.

For sure cost will be one of the heavily-weighted factors. But again, GD on that subject:

 

Dalton said today that Team NZ's strength lay in monohulls, but multihull racing, if a box rule were to be brought in to contain costs, offered an exciting challenge.

 

It is a tempting idea to create a spreadsheet listing what they have said are the important attributes as a list of rows, and then put subjective weights to those factors in the next column, and then guess at what monos and multis rate in the next two columns, then do the multiplications and see what style wins out overall based on those guesses. The format here, where you can't insert and copy html tables into these text boxes, unfortunately makes that a little difficult to interact with in a conveniently democratic way. Too bad, since we do have that list:

 

Among the requirements for the new boat:

 

•Must be able to race in wind ranges of 5-35 knots.

 

•Distinctive to the America's Cup.

 

•Advanced in technology, but cost-effective.

 

•Easily transported and maintained (to support the cycle-round, international regattas associated with the America's Cup).

 

•Demanding athletically while dynamic and maneuverable in close-quarter racing.

 

edit: there's a better list somewhere, where ~fast~ was at the top :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally, the America's Cup was intended to foster progress and innovation in the design of offshore sailing yachts. If you look at the boats that compete for the Jules Verne Trophy you will see that they aren't monohulls. The only way monohulls can boost their performance is to try get more righting moment like a multihull which they use canting keels for. Who wants powered canting keels on the next AC boats? Not me. Who wants to hand crank the canting keels from side to side during a tacking duel? Won't happen. Multihulls are just a better solution to sailing an exciting high performance yacht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it should be the participants who count.

For sure cost will be one of the heavily-weighted factors. But again, GD on that subject:

 

Dalton said today that Team NZ's strength lay in monohulls, but multihull racing, if a box rule were to be brought in to contain costs, offered an exciting challenge.

 

It is a tempting idea to create a spreadsheet listing what they have said are the important attributes as a list of rows, and then put subjective weights to those factors in the next column, and then guess at what monos and multis rate in the next two columns, then do the multiplications and see what style wins out overall based on those guesses. The format here, where you can't insert and copy html tables into these text boxes, unfortunately makes that a little difficult to interact with in a conveniently democratic way. Too bad, since we do have that list:

 

Among the requirements for the new boat:

 

•Must be able to race in wind ranges of 5-35 knots.

 

•Distinctive to the America's Cup.

 

•Advanced in technology, but cost-effective.

 

•Easily transported and maintained (to support the cycle-round, international regattas associated with the America's Cup).

 

•Demanding athletically while dynamic and maneuverable in close-quarter racing.

 

edit: there's a better list somewhere, where ~fast~ was at the top smile.gif

 

They'd have to be pretty small tris... or at least have removeable amas (not quite sure how that would work on a high end race boat). USA-17 took up a ton of deck space on OL. Even a 60x60 tri would require significant deck space. That would pretty much defeat the easily transported requirement. It would be even harder if they allow wing rigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'd have to be pretty small tris... or at least have removeable amas (not quite sure how that would work on a high end race boat). USA-17 took up a ton of deck space on OL. Even a 60x60 tri would require significant deck space. That would pretty much defeat the easily transported requirement. It would be even harder if they allow wing rigs.

 

Agreed, boats and wings would likely need to be designed to be modular somehow.

 

Ceccarelli also argues that bigger multis also equals more power and so therefore less close racing:

 

... The first crossing would have definitely been a port-starboard situation but due to the fact it was on huge multihulls sailing at 30 knots it didn't happen.

 

So, if you want to match race on multihulls, you have to go towards smaller boats. Nevertheless, those smaller yachts, in my opinion, put more limits and, after all, there are many classes of smaller multihulls and we would run the risk of confusing the Cup boats with them.

 

And argues that

Even some of the, let's say, "historical" challengers could be out if it's a multihull.

 

and says

I'd rather have BMW Oracle tell you (my read: 'admit') what percentage of favorable opinions had each concept.

 

It's a different take from what Bernard Nivelt had to say; both are interesting interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Pierre at VS has had two good interviews on his site over the last couple of days involving designers present at this meeting and not even The Stinger has a comment? When I get in front of a real computer I got some things to say about these interviews. Especially in regards to the chap representing ETNZ. Some cat named Botin I believe. Gee it aint hard to figure out what types of boats he favors. ;)

 

WetHog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites