• 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.  

Archived

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

GauchoGreg

Oracle AC72

Recommended Posts

My cousin who is on the inside of LR says they are hearing OR is making extremely fast progress in Warkworth, (north of Auckland) on their next wing mast. The mast they were hoping to bring out late just B4 next AC will be on the new boat earlier to make sure it is robust enough. My cousin has heard that the new mast is a bit revolutionary and has more power in it than the shattered mast that still partially lies in SF harbour.

Twist in the front element?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forget, what is the approximate shipping time be sea from Auk to SF?

 

18 days.

 

Per here

 

http://www.oceanworldshipping.com/lcl.htm

Thnx. I bet pjh is close.

 

RC says something about it in this week's ACD episode -although he was apparently speaking just a couple days after the Oct 16 capsize.

 

Am guessing at least Feb 1 before 17 sails again. Even if the wing is ahead of schedule it's apparently still there and there will surely be SF setup time even after completion and shipping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have the wing in SF in under 24 hours if you really cared to. No need to put the thing fully assembled on to a ship, there's gotta be viable air freight options.

 

 

Maybe the front rib is too long for a plane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have the wing in SF in under 24 hours if you really cared to. No need to put the thing fully assembled on to a ship, there's gotta be viable air freight options.

 

Maybe the front rib is too long for a plane?

 

I thought it came in 2 pieces meaning you could cram the whole thing in an Antonov 124

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have the wing in SF in under 24 hours if you really cared to. No need to put the thing fully assembled on to a ship, there's gotta be viable air freight options.

 

Maybe the front rib is too long for a plane?

 

I thought it came in 2 pieces meaning you could cram the whole thing in an Antonov 124

10.3 Further to Protocol Article 29.6, the Wing Spar shall be capable of being disassembled into

two separate sections. The lower Wing Spar section shall be at least 18.000 m, and no

more than 19.900 m in length. For the purposes of this rule, fittings shall not be considered

part of the Wing Spar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it came in 2 pieces meaning you could cram the whole thing in an Antonov 124

10.3 Further to Protocol Article 29.6, the Wing Spar shall be capable of being disassembled into

two separate sections. The lower Wing Spar section shall be at least 18.000 m, and no

more than 19.900 m in length. For the purposes of this rule, fittings shall not be considered

part of the Wing Spar.

Thanx TC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC specifically mentioned sea time in the ACD posted today but yes, you'd think a rethink might be in order - if the wing is the last item to be ready. He also suggested the boat was about to go in for a rebuild regardless the capsize but he also sounded borderline pissed about 'the events that led up to it' as well as the events in the aftermath. Didn't get specific but it's quite candid anyway, at about 20:00 into it iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My cousin who is on the inside of LR says they are hearing OR is making extremely fast progress in Warkworth, (north of Auckland) on their next wing mast. The mast they were hoping to bring out late just B4 next AC will be on the new boat earlier to make sure it is robust enough. My cousin has heard that the new mast is a bit revolutionary and has more power in it than the shattered mast that still partially lies in SF harbour.
Thats a good bit of juicy rumor, just what this thread needed ^_^

 

I say its gotta be a front element twist design.

Despite SimonNs protestations I'm pretty sure their designers/team must have shat bricks when they saw what the ETNZ wing can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ There's a piece at PD somewhere, where the guy writes his opinion about the possible fine tuneablity of the AR wing being perfect for SF gale conditions; and it's in context of quotes from (iirc) John Craig so may even have come from that well-educated direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC specifically mentioned sea time in the ACD posted today but yes, you'd think a rethink might be in order - if the wing is the last item to be ready. He also suggested the boat was about to go in for a rebuild regardless the capsize but he also sounded borderline pissed about 'the events that led up to it' as well as the events in the aftermath. Didn't get specific but it's quite candid anyway, at about 20:00 into it iirc.

 

Think he was more than borderline pissed.

If he uses that language and tone in an interview he would have prepped for, imagine what sort of tanty he would have thrown behind closed doors!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite SimonNs protestations I'm pretty sure their designers/team must have shat bricks when they saw what the ETNZ wing can do.

I really am at a complete loss by why you would think that. The ETNZ wing is what many felt would be the base line and the surprise would have been if none of the teams had done this. We aren't exactly talking new ideas. Yes, there would have been scaling issues, just like with any part of the wing, but this is a 15 year old design. The more interesting thing is that it is such an obvious start point for any wing discussion that we should be looking at why others havn't gone down this route. It won't be because they didn't think it could be done because I know for certain that other design teams knew it would be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more interesting thing is that it is such an obvious start point for any wing discussion that we should be looking at why others havn't gone down this route. It won't be because they didn't think it could be done because I know for certain that other design teams knew it would be done.
Limited design time, tight weight constraints.

 

As you say it is such an obvious baseline target that its astounding that 2 teams went for something else.

 

I think they just didn't believe they could get it done in time/weight-budget.

Thats far more believable than them thinking that barn-door trailing flaps is somehow more efficient than a proper smooth leading element twist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC specifically mentioned sea time in the ACD posted today but yes, you'd think a rethink might be in order - if the wing is the last item to be ready. He also suggested the boat was about to go in for a rebuild regardless the capsize but he also sounded borderline pissed about 'the events that led up to it' as well as the events in the aftermath. Didn't get specific but it's quite candid anyway, at about 20:00 into it iirc.

 

Think he was more than borderline pissed.

If he uses that language and tone in an interview he would have prepped for, imagine what sort of tanty he would have thrown behind closed doors!!!

Yep, agreed, glad you noticed too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC specifically mentioned sea time in the ACD posted today but yes, you'd think a rethink might be in order - if the wing is the last item to be ready. He also suggested the boat was about to go in for a rebuild regardless the capsize but he also sounded borderline pissed about 'the events that led up to it' as well as the events in the aftermath. Didn't get specific but it's quite candid anyway, at about 20:00 into it iirc.

 

Think he was more than borderline pissed.

If he uses that language and tone in an interview he would have prepped for, imagine what sort of tanty he would have thrown behind closed doors!!!

Yep, agreed, glad you noticed too

 

I'm not sure I'd say pissed. More like he was defensive and reluctantly coming to grips with the fact that the train had come off the tracks.

 

At the same time I'm sure that sparks flew in the debrief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more interesting thing is that it is such an obvious start point for any wing discussion that we should be looking at why others havn't gone down this route. It won't be because they didn't think it could be done because I know for certain that other design teams knew it would be done.
Limited design time, tight weight constraints.

 

As you say it is such an obvious baseline target that its astounding that 2 teams went for something else.

 

I think they just didn't believe they could get it done in time/weight-budget.

Thats far more believable than them thinking that barn-door trailing flaps is somehow more efficient than a proper smooth leading element twist.

You make something that is extremely complex sound simple and obvious. It isn't. You suggest that the ETNZ approach is the one that would be the most problematic/time consuming to design and build. I think that "honour" belongs to the Artemis wing. Artemis certainly haven't gone for a wing that is quicker to design and build, because it is new ground, and I cannot see any evidence that teams have dismissed the Cogito style wing on the grounds of lack of design time or weight. What would have been a surprise is if the ETNZ wing had been different to this, considering the heritage of their wing design team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, you say that its obvious & everyone had that as a base-line -> barn-door Artemis must be better.

I say its an obvious target but a scary/difficult prospect & Artemis/Oracle chickened out, going for a more conservative less efficient type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which do you think is more important, the significantly different slot system that AR is using or the gains from having a perfectly smooth leech twist rather than the AR system? If you know the answer to that, you are either the leading aerodynamist in sailing, or you are in the wrong job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat looks too deeply immersed and the wing looks 'agricultural'.

 

They didn't even align the ribs with the airflow FCS!

 

It's great to see an apparently different take on the boards and foiling options though.

 

Hope it finishes better than it started - good luck to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which do you think is more important, the significantly different slot system that AR is using or the gains from having a perfectly smooth leech twist rather than the AR system? If you know the answer to that, you are either the leading aerodynamist in sailing, or you are in the wrong job!

It depends on what will be more important in an actual race with the short legs and limited crew .. If the more aerodynamic wing is as easy to control and can be set up fast it will be the preferred setup but if the crew are unable to get it right quickly the less aerodynamic wing may be faster .. my inclination is to favour the simple system but it will be very interesting to see both in action in the LV .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't even align the ribs with the airflow FCS!

Interesting that you see that as a bad thing. You seem to assume that they simply got it wrong, when it looks every bit as if it was designed that way. The way I tend to think is why would a group of experienced aerodynamisists make that decision because by asking that, you might learn something. I suspect that there are a couple of reasons. My first recation was that it reduces one of the problems with ribbed wings, which is that the material in between the ribs simply tries to flatten, losing aerodynamic shape betwen the ribs. Steve Clark's new wing has solid panels to cover the wing to improve this situation. By raking the ribs, I think it helps to maintain the shape of the wing covering, a problem we have seen on the ETNZ boat. I also note that Artemis have designed their rig to be raked more than the others, again clearly deliberately because of the boom box angle.Again, this is only guessing, but i wonder if they are adjusting rake as a means to vary the power from the section as the length of the chord changes with rake.

 

I don't know if I am on the rightbtrack or not, but I think the least likely reason for the ribs to be oriented the way they are is that they either didn't think of it or got it wrong. there is too much intent in what we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which do you think is more important, the significantly different slot system that AR is using or the gains from having a perfectly smooth leech twist rather than the AR system? If you know the answer to that, you are either the leading aerodynamist in sailing, or you are in the wrong job!

It depends on what will be more important in an actual race with the short legs and limited crew .. If the more aerodynamic wing is as easy to control and can be set up fast it will be the preferred setup but if the crew are unable to get it right quickly the less aerodynamic wing may be faster .. my inclination is to favour the simple system but it will be very interesting to see both in action in the LV .

So answer me this. Which wing is more aerodynamic? Is it the one with the smoother twist or the one with better slot control? It's not even that simple. And the aerodynamic requirements are different for each point of sailing. For instance, upwind, the priority is probably low drag. Downwind, it is probably power. (BTW, I believe that the OR wing is the least aerodynamic in every respect of the 3 we have seen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which do you think is more important, the significantly different slot system that AR is using or the gains from having a perfectly smooth leech twist rather than the AR system? If you know the answer to that, you are either the leading aerodynamist in sailing, or you are in the wrong job!

It depends on what will be more important in an actual race with the short legs and limited crew .. If the more aerodynamic wing is as easy to control and can be set up fast it will be the preferred setup but if the crew are unable to get it right quickly the less aerodynamic wing may be faster .. my inclination is to favour the simple system but it will be very interesting to see both in action in the LV .

So answer me this. Which wing is more aerodynamic? Is it the one with the smoother twist or the one with better slot control? It's not even that simple. And the aerodynamic requirements are different for each point of sailing. For instance, upwind, the priority is probably low drag. Downwind, it is probably power. (BTW, I believe that the OR wing is the least aerodynamic in every respect of the 3 we have seen).

I am not in a position to judge which wing is the more aerodynamic but as I said that might not be the deciding criteria .. particularly if the difference is slight .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't even align the ribs with the airflow FCS!

 

Interesting that you see that as a bad thing. You seem to assume that they simply got it wrong, when it looks every bit as if it was designed that way. The way I tend to think is why would a group of experienced aerodynamisists make that decision because by asking that, you might learn something. I suspect that there are a couple of reasons. My first recation was that it reduces one of the problems with ribbed wings, which is that the material in between the ribs simply tries to flatten, losing aerodynamic shape betwen the ribs. Steve Clark's new wing has solid panels to cover the wing to improve this situation. By raking the ribs, I think it helps to maintain the shape of the wing covering, a problem we have seen on the ETNZ boat. I also note that Artemis have designed their rig to be raked more than the others, again clearly deliberately because of the boom box angle.Again, this is only guessing, but i wonder if they are adjusting rake as a means to vary the power from the section as the length of the chord changes with rake.

 

I don't know if I am on the rightbtrack or not, but I think the least likely reason for the ribs to be oriented the way they are is that they either didn't think of it or got it wrong. there is too much intent in what we see.

 

 

This is pure spin. The ribs are perpendicular to the spar - the standard build, a la AC45. Why you feel compelled to look for brilliance in floppy platforms and first gen mistakes like this I can't imagine.

 

And why the selective quoting? Unable to conjure up with any reason for the overly immersed hulls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oracle twist, well I think there is a smidgen there

CC121010-690.jpg

 

 

Looking again at this picture, what is amazing is how they did not pitchpole before. They were doomed.

 

How could this collection of brilliant sailors have been collectively so wrong ? who was the responsible behind ?

 

Some of us here were attacked because we mentioned they could be the first boat to pitchpole with the windward bow, it was not that hard to tell though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oracle twist, well I think there is a smidgen there

CC121010-690.jpg

 

 

 

How could this collection of brilliant sailors have been collectively so wrong ? who was the responsible behind ?

 

 

 

 

Unless somebody writes the book about the inner-workings of the syndicate, we may never know.

 

But we could start with the following:

 

1. It is a derivative of Dogzilla. They did not start with clean paper. Having won with the monster they thought they could one-up the opponents and turn their knowledge of DZ (and her wing) into a viable 72" defender. They even put in a centre-pod to make it more tri-ish.

 

2. Far too much money and hyperbole. Chasing too many rainbows. Conventional wisdom claims you need $$$ to win. Quite so! But too much money and too many people can turn into a monstrous distraction.

 

3. Inauthenticity. Look at the OR guys in that Red Bull escapade. Does that look like a winning AC syndicate? In this syndicate everything is "cool." "Oh man, it's just so cool ....." Cool, cool, cool! US youth culture. Cool man!

 

4. Hesitation on the syndicate helm. NZ'ers (and Coutts) know about this because failure in 1992 (with the NZ "litle red boat" with the fore and aft rudders) was partly attributed to problems at the top. Farr tried running the syndicate from Annapolis Blake was brought in to get it sorted. But it was too late. Coutts and Butterworth on the B boat were a big distraction. Not team players. Who knows what has happened inside OR? But Simmer was brought in to sort out messes! And, if the recent ACU interview with Sir Russell is any indication, there are problems in that group of men. That pitchpole was at the leading edge of individualist excess.

 

5. Intra-syndicate rivalry. This is the old Michael Fay 1987 "make-them-fight-for-their-jobs" model. It does NOT work. And is why Deano is guaranteed the NZ helm. When he goes home at night he is not worrying about his job. Inside OR there is a systemic fear of the boss. Having Spithill fight Ainslie for the wheel is how Larry operates. Larry thinks "competition" brings out the best in people. Hire me as your consultant and I will tell you working together is better. That flexible and dangerous Batmobile was put together by people who are arguing. Not working together. Grant does not serve "Big Cat" because of the beer. He serves it because that is what mates - working together - like to do. Go out for a beer on Friday night.

 

In the end, it is contest of cultures. Hence, along with No 8 wire, NZ serves home-made beer!

 

Inside OR, the "fastest boats, best sailors" commercial hyperbole is seriously OTT.

 

Might be congruent with doing business in California. But does not get the job done.

 

If you doubt it, ask the Terminator!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oracle twist, well I think there is a smidgen there

CC121010-690.jpg

 

 

How could this collection of brilliant sailors have been collectively so wrong ? who was the responsible behind ?

 

 

 

Unless somebody writes the book about the inner-workings of the syndicate, we may never know.

 

But we could start with the following:

 

1. It is a derivative of Dogzilla. They did not start with clean paper. Having won with the monster they thought they could one-up the opponents and turn their knowledge of DZ (and her wing) into a viable 72" defender. They even put in a centre-pod to make it more tri-ish.

 

2. Far too much money and hyperbole. Chasing too many rainbows. Conventional wisdom claims you need $$$ to win. Quite so! But too much money and too many people can turn into a monstrous distraction.

 

3. Inauthenticity. Look at the OR guys in that Red Bull escapade. Does that look like a winning AC syndicate? In this syndicate everything is "cool." "Oh man, it's just so cool ....." Cool, cool, cool! US youth culture. Cool man!

 

4. Hesitation on the syndicate helm. NZ'ers (and Coutts) know about this because failure in 1992 (with the NZ "litle red boat" with the fore and aft rudders) was partly attributed to problems at the top. Farr tried running the syndicate from Annapolis Blake was brought in to get it sorted. But it was too late. Coutts and Butterworth on the B boat were a big distraction. Not team players. Who knows what has happened inside OR? But Simmer was brought in to sort out messes! And, if the recent ACU interview with Sir Russell is any indication, there are problems in that group of men. That pitchpole was at the leading edge of individualist excess.

 

5. Intra-syndicate rivalry. This is the old Michael Fay 1987 "make-them-fight-for-their-jobs" model. It does NOT work. And is why Deano is guaranteed the NZ helm. When he goes home at night he is not worrying about his job. Inside OR there is a systemic fear of the boss. Having Spithill fight Ainslie for the wheel is how Larry operates. Larry thinks "competition" brings out the best in people. Hire me as your consultant and I will tell you working together is better. That flexible and dangerous Batmobile was put together by people who are arguing. Not working together. Grant does not serve "Big Cat" because of the beer. He serves it because that is what mates - working together - like to do. Go out for a beer on Friday night.

 

In the end, it is contest of cultures. Hence, along with No 8 wire, NZ serves home-made beer!

 

Inside OR, the "fastest boats, best sailors" commercial hyperbole is seriously OTT.

 

Might be congruent with doing business in California. But does not get the job done.

 

If you doubt it, ask the Terminator!

 

I'm sure others will be along soon enough to pile on top of your never ending comments of "everything Kiwi rules, and everything USA sucks, especially anything to do with Russell"....but for the moment I'll leave that alone.

 

I'll say that I agree with you on one point, the Red Bull Flugtag. Pretty sure that wasn't really well thought out, at least in terms of the reflection on Oracle/Larry. When the idea of putting pieces of 7217.1 together for this event first came out, I cringed. I could see what could potentially happen. You know this event is designed as a spectator stunt, so it is going to be a show that involves not achievement, but disaster. Probably to get higher ratings they should have put a Kardashian in as the pilot.

 

So, while the crash of 17 played out on the interweb around the world, it was just a sporting thing. Now, with the bits of the boat taking a swan dive off a platform, you just had to know that somewhere in the next tech conference by SAP/IBM/MS that footage will be used to make a joke about Oracle/Larry crashing. It happened faster than I thought it would, what with the banner ad on Bloomberg.com the last couple of days talking about the continuing crash of 17. A banner ad that touts "Larry Ellison's $8 million yacht crashing". A banner ad. Go figure.

 

Your rant is more about ACEA than it is about the team, and most know I was not in love with the direction ACEA took things early on. So the designers tried something and it didn't work out so well. Anyone remember The Hula? Or a broken mast in a Cup race? How did all that work out for the Kiwi culture?

 

And here's another question - how much money has Larry Ellison injected into the Kiwi economy since he started Oracle Racing? How many Kiwi's have made how much money from him? What's his payroll been for Kiwi sailors, designers, builders ect? How much money has resulted from the construction of boats and parts in Kiwiville? He didn't have to relax the CiC rule, yet he did for this cycle, and the net result of both his boat and Luna Rosa building a substantial part of their boat in Kiwiville. So, you want to talk about globalism, multicultural this and that, and be the recipient of foreign funds into your country, but yet you also want to scold those who dare to be different than your view of what appropriate culture should be. Seriously, is that a very enlightened world view?

 

Please, stop with all this cultural self-righteousness and polarization. ETNZ has a very good boat, but it remains to be seen how it will perform on SFO Bay.

 

Enjoy the show for what it is, but leave the cultural dissection for something that matters. No one, absolutely no, is going to give a rats ass about the culture of a kiwi sailing team, at least in the terms of solving global hunger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your rant is more about ACEA than it is about the team, and most know I was not in love with the direction ACEA took things early on. So the designers tried something and it didn't work out so well. Anyone remember The Hula? Or a broken mast in a Cup race? How did all that work out for the Kiwi culture?

 

And here's another question - how much money has Larry Ellison injected into the Kiwi economy since he started Oracle Racing?

 

Some good points in that post.

 

However, I thought I was talking about OR, not ACEA. Oh well !

 

Regarding $$$ Larry has put into NZ. It is greatly appreciated and I have said that many times.

 

The hula etc is a bit beside the point. The poster was asking about the Batmobile.

 

Smyth and the other guys at Core are doing a great job. It is fantastic that a small parish like Warkworth would have such a high-tech operation 1 mile from the nearest lamington shop.

 

I think you are painting my position as overly black/white. Contrary to what you might think, I am not overly anti-American and I do not endorse everything NZ stands for these days.

 

I will not bore you with the details but, over the years, I have put a fair bit of energy into pointing out aspects of NZ life and culture (such as the idiotic experiment with Friedmanite economics) that I do not like.

 

However, the previous poster asked - how could so many OR designers get it so wrong? I offered a few hypotheses. That's all. We are in the realm of discussion ... not black/white, right/wrong theorising.

 

Finally, I also have the greatest respect for Ian (Fresh) Burns. Bright man and good guy!

 

But it is still a good question. How did they get it so wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty hilarious when you consider that Oracle are regulary accused of being both nearly devoid of American involvement and at the same time crippled by American cultural deficiencies. Kiwis and Aussies must have a seriously weak constitution if they can get so easily corrupted by an excess of Larry's money. Not buying that and I'm not buying that American culture has a rat's ass to do with Oracle's setback. If trying to develop a proven commodity (Dogzilla) is a stupid idea, then reinventing the wheel every time is the answer. Failure is an inevitable part of progress, not the effect of cultural weakness.

And, to save you the hassle Hastings, no that's not another false dichotomy.

 

Instead, what we have here is simply over-exploitation of a proven successful idea (for a light air venue) and finding the limits of it. That's actually a rather conservative approach, if you have the money (and time) to pull it off. We don't yet know the answer to that one. The "American Way" might have been to start with a blank sheet of paper and throw money at it until works. They didn't do that, did they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Instead, what we have here is simply over-exploitation of a proven successful idea (for a light air venue) and finding the limits of it. That's actually a rather conservative approach, if you have the money (and time) to pull it off. We don't yet know the answer to that one. The "American Way" might have been to start with a blank sheet of paper and throw money at it until works. They didn't do that, did they?

 

These are good comments.

 

Small clarification. When I refer to "culture" it is mostly team (not the broader) culture.

 

So, what are the social practices inside this team? How do they do their tasks?

 

In this case, the question is rather obvious?

 

With all that research capacity, experience, intellectual firepower and access to California resources, how did they get it so wrong?

 

Over-exploitation of a "proven successful idea."

 

Mmmmmh ... yes ... good answer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you get tired of blabbering about the same argument time and time again ?

 

What do you really hope to accomplish ?

 

(that's a rhetorical question BTW - your MO is boringly apparent)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you manage to get so much wrong, so often? ;) And it's always the same points

 

Far too much money and hyperbole. Chasing too many rainbows. Conventional wisdom claims you need $$$ to win. Quite so! But too much money and too many people can turn into a monstrous distraction. When it was Alinghi winning the Cup from TNZ, it was all about how EB had simply bought the Cup. You can't have it both ways

 

4. Hesitation on the syndicate helm. NZ'ers (and Coutts) know about this because failure in 1992 (with the NZ "litle red boat" with the fore and aft rudders) was partly attributed to problems at the top. Farr tried running the syndicate from Annapolis Blake was brought in to get it sorted. But it was too late. Coutts and Butterworth on the B boat were a big distraction. Not team players. Who knows what has happened inside OR? But Simmer was brought in to sort out messes! And, if the recent ACU interview with Sir Russell is any indication, there are problems in that group of men. That pitchpole was at the leading edge of individualist excess. There is only one team that doesn't have competition for the helm's job. At AR you have TH, NO and LP, at LR you have CD and IM, at OR you have JS and BA. Only at ETNZ do you have one single helm with nobody close to challenging him, or, maybe more importantly, able to replace him. It seems like a very high risk strategy. What happens if, say, like GA, DB were to seriously hurt himslef the day before the event starts? The only way to get 2 helms up to their highest game is to pit them against each other, Anything else is simply fake.

 

5. Intra-syndicate rivalry. This is the old Michael Fay 1987 "make-them-fight-for-their-jobs" model. It does NOT work. And is why Deano is guaranteed the NZ helm. When he goes home at night he is not worrying about his job. Inside OR there is a systemic fear of the boss. Having Spithill fight Ainslie for the wheel is how Larry operates. Larry thinks "competition" brings out the best in people. Hire me as your consultant and I will tell you working together is better. That flexible and dangerous Batmobile was put together by people who are arguing. Not working together. Grant does not serve "Big Cat" because of the beer. He serves it because that is what mates - working together - like to do. Go out for a beer on Friday night.Again, this shows how little you understand about what is going on. JS's job is to win the Cup and he is now effectively in charge of the sailing side of the program. I am absolutely certain that if BA is the better man to helm for OR in the match, it willbe JS who makes that call first. That is what a real leader does and the more I see of JS, the more I see him as a real leader of the sailing team. Pretty impressive, I think.

 

NZ has a reasonable track record in the Cup. They did manage to win and defend it. However, the current management and team haven't. To hold up their methods as being the ones that work when they have failed to achieve their reason for existing (I am sure they aren't there just to win the LV) is, IMO, pretty premature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NZ has a reasonable track record in the Cup. They did manage to win and defend it. However, the current management and team haven't. To hold up their methods as being the ones that work when they have failed to achieve their reason for existing (I am sure they aren't there just to win the LV) is, IMO, pretty premature.

 

My post was about OR.

 

It was an attempt to answer the question "how did they (OR) get it so wrong?"

 

So all this noise in your answwer is not all that relevant.

 

Moreover, unlike you, I am not "absolutely certain" about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But it is still a good question. How did they get it so wrong?

 

It would help to be more precise. Who got what wrong?

 

Clearly, the first boards breaking had to be a design flaw. Who knows what went into that matrix.

 

But many of the Kiwi flavor here seem to think that the fact 7217.1 capsized is somehow one major fatal flaw. Jimmy manned up and said it was his fault.

 

The difference right now seems to be the size of the foils, which was a rule consideration. Kiwi's looked at the rule one way, Oracle and Artemis another. Point to Grant for hiring the guy that wrote the rule. Huge point. I was stunned Oracle didn't hire Melvin.

 

Could well be that Grant tipped his hand too soon. And the crash may be a blessing in disguise. Instead of screwing around with a less than optimal boat, Oracle now has no choice but to make major repairs to the boat. I'll be very surprised if they don't come up with a foil configuration that looks a lot like ETNZ.

 

So, yeah, Oracle made a bunch of mistakes early. But they have time to fix things, and money, which Grants claim to not have (yeah, right).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The crash may be a blessing in disguise. Instead of screwing around with a less than optimal boat, Oracle now has no choice but to make major repairs to the boat. I'll be very surprised if they don't come up with a foil configuration that looks a lot like ETNZ.

 

So, yeah, Oracle made a bunch of mistakes early. But they have time to fix things, and money, which Grants claim to not have (yeah, right).

 

Not "maybe."

 

It WAS a blessing in disguise (for the reasons you list).

 

Imagine if it happened in August, 2013?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy manned up and said it was his fault.

Spare us the BS please.

TC, your original question was the real BS. Your question stated an opinion as if it were a fact.

 

To me, and especially given all the intial debate and then ultimately proven success of the daddy of all twisters, DZ, the question is still wide open.

 

Just because 17 pitched during a bearaway in a howler coincident with the worst ebb tide of the year, does not prove the boat, or the program, or any of the bizarre shit TeKooti rambles on about by extension (California, US individualism, all the usual complete horseshit), or even prove that the a bad-ass Twisted Sister is not exactly the winning design corner.

 

Your question had a false premise, PH was the first to point that out instead of running with the BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy manned up and said it was his fault.

Spare us the BS please.

TC, your original question was the real BS. Your question stated an opinion as if it were a fact.

 

To me, and especially given all the intial debate and then ultimately proven success of the daddy of all twisters, DZ, the question is still wide open.

 

Just because 17 pitched during a bearaway in a howler coincident with the worst ebb tide of the year, does not prove the boat, or the program, or any of the bizarre shit TeKooti rambles on about by extension (California, US individualism, all the usual complete horseshit), or even prove that the a bad-ass Twisted Sister is not exactly the winning design corner.

 

Your question had a false premise, PH was the first to point that out instead of running with the BS.

LMAO

You are the one who wrote that:" He (RC) also suggested the boat was about to go in for a rebuild regardless the capsize but he also sounded borderline pissed about 'the events that led up to it' as well as the events in the aftermath."

 

My question is simple, why is he so pissed ? who is responsible ?

 

Now, to end this rehashed BS, if they want to rebuild the boat "whatever the capsize", that means the design was not good, isn't it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ For all we know, the rebuild had screw-all to do with the twist that you rant on, and on and on about. It ~could~ be stiffer in it's next mode but we don't know that yet and so it could just as easily twist even more.

 

Yes, Tornado Cats are all about stiffness. This is a much different design arena.

 

'How could they screw up so badly?' is just your own twisted supposition that has f*ck all to do with Fay or bailing wire, or even necessarily twist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dixie posted several weeks back that she was told by OR that 17.1 was flexing more than it was designed to. Flawed design or build. End of story.

True.

 

We also have no idea if it was 99% too much twist or 1% too much twist. There is a lot of 'story' in between.

 

We also have no idea yet what the twist amount might be in its next incarnation.

 

Far too much has been made here of the design by the fact 17 capsized, IMO. The program's time implications are obvious, exactly as everyone at OR honestly admit, but the design? Jury's still out. JS sounded pretty damn cocky to me in his Clean chat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy manned up and said it was his fault.

Spare us the BS please.

TC, your original question was the real BS. Your question stated an opinion as if it were a fact.

 

To me, and especially given all the intial debate and then ultimately proven success of the daddy of all twisters, DZ, the question is still wide open.

 

Just because 17 pitched during a bearaway in a howler coincident with the worst ebb tide of the year, does not prove the boat, or the program, or any of the bizarre shit TeKooti rambles on about by extension (California, US individualism, all the usual complete horseshit), or even prove that the a bad-ass Twisted Sister is not exactly the winning design corner.

 

Your question had a false premise, PH was the first to point that out instead of running with the BS.

 

I think you are spot on when you say that OR might be in the right design corner (this is true of all the teams).

I also think that the question of bendy-boat or not bendy-boat has been put to rest. Clearly they need to stabilise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy manned up and said it was his fault.

Spare us the BS please.

TC, your original question was the real BS. Your question stated an opinion as if it were a fact.

 

To me, and especially given all the intial debate and then ultimately proven success of the daddy of all twisters, DZ, the question is still wide open.

 

Just because 17 pitched during a bearaway in a howler coincident with the worst ebb tide of the year, does not prove the boat, or the program, or any of the bizarre shit TeKooti rambles on about by extension (California, US individualism, all the usual complete horseshit), or even prove that the a bad-ass Twisted Sister is not exactly the winning design corner.

 

Your question had a false premise, PH was the first to point that out instead of running with the BS.

 

I think you are spot on when you say that OR might be in the right design corner (this is true of all the teams).

I also think that the question of bendy-boat or not bendy-boat has been put to rest. Clearly they need to stabilise it.

 

There are so many factors in play here it is not easy to know what Oracle should, or shouldn't do. I'd guess it isn't just about the twist in the platform, but has a good deal to do with the foil design and the control systems, like Doug's joystick (had to say it).

 

Maybe the boat needs to be tightened up a bit, maybe the foil needs to be redesigned (within the new understanding of the rule that the missed first time), maybe the foil control system needs a tweak. Maybe the rudders need something, maybe the wing needs something.

 

Maybe they just hit a wave at the wrong time, and maybe Jimmy farted just then too.

 

I just want to see the Kiwi boat sail in the same sea state. Can someone please find one video of them sailing in something like when 7217.1 crashed, especially bearing away - not the same breeze - the same breeze AND sea state.

 

What will everyone say if ETNZ stuffs it? That the boat is too stiff and the wing couldn't be eased enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

 

I just want to see the Kiwi boat sail in the same sea state. Can someone please find one video of them sailing in something like when 7217.1 crashed, especially bearing away - not the same breeze - the same breeze AND sea state.

 

What will everyone say if ETNZ stuffs it? That the boat is too stiff and the wing couldn't be eased enough?

You learn from someone else's mistakes as well as your own: why risk the boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to see the Kiwi boat sail in the same sea state.
Oracle went out in too strong winds & on a max ebb tide, stayed in the worst of it when there were flatter parts of the harbor, their bad choice.

 

The onus is on the Oracle fanboys to show Oracle foiling stably in the kind of conditions that ETNZ has been in.

There are plenty of pics, vids & sequences of Oracle still doing the ugly jumping jalopy floppy bunny hop motion & its nearly all in much easier conditions than the capsize - the same sort of conditions that ETNZ provably flies flat & fast in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

 

I just want to see the Kiwi boat sail in the same sea state. Can someone please find one video of them sailing in something like when 7217.1 crashed, especially bearing away - not the same breeze - the same breeze AND sea state.

 

What will everyone say if ETNZ stuffs it? That the boat is too stiff and the wing couldn't be eased enough?

You learn from someone else's mistakes as well as your own: why risk the boat?

 

Yeah, much easier to train on a lake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to see the Kiwi boat sail in the same sea state.
Oracle went out in too strong winds & on a max ebb tide, stayed in the worst of it when there were flatter parts of the harbor, their bad choice.

 

The onus is on the Oracle fanboys to show Oracle foiling stably in the kind of conditions that ETNZ has been in.

There are plenty of pics, vids & sequences of Oracle still doing the ugly jumping jalopy floppy bunny hop motion & its nearly all in much easier conditions than the capsize - the same sort of conditions that ETNZ provably flies flat & fast in.

 

Yeah, well Oracle found the edge and went over it.

 

It's no secret that Oracle got their foils wrong, and ETNZ got them correct.

 

Do you really think Oracle is going to stick with the same foil configuration and not make changes to both this boat and boat 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no reason for OR to be out in those conditions. they persevered and paid the price. For that you have to put the blame on the skipper. He should have called the day off if conditions were above the limits of the boat. His his first care is to look atfter the crew, then the boat. He was skipper of the boat in conditions that could have put the crew at risk.

 

TNZ would simply not have been out in conditions way beyond what they knew as their limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

......Yeah, much easier to train on a lake.

 

Training in the conditions you will race in is the smart thing to do.

 

So who will be right?

OR17 capsize conditions or Lake Hauraki?

 

Or are they both wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TNZ got 33 knots true wind on the top of the mast and 60 apparent on the platform. I am not even sure OR got that much when they pitchopoled.

It is true that their foils were not right (amazing, PH begin to recognize he was wrong to only blame JS :D ) .

However, whatever the foil, they would have pitchpoled, their foils have nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not Oracle capsize conditions but you can clearly see there is substantial short chop there & she's just cutting through/over it like its not there.

CC121016-322.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

And we know the Gulf can turn it on.

 

But ETNZ might not choose to take the risk because they know the range of conditions that the cup will be raced in.

 

Boy she looks good and reasonably fast.

 

To come first, first you have to finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no reason for OR to be out in those conditions. they persevered and paid the price. For that you have to put the blame on the skipper. He should have called the day off if conditions were above the limits of the boat. His his first care is to look atfter the crew, then the boat. He was skipper of the boat in conditions that could have put the crew at risk.

 

TNZ would simply not have been out in conditions way beyond what they knew as their limits.

 

Oracle was actually making a turn back to the barn, because the breeze had substantially increased during the day. They were one set of waves the wrong side of making it back into the south bay.

 

While the lost training time is clearly a big issue, the bigger issue is the broken wing.

 

If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience.

 

As it is, he just looks like a complaining cheap bastard, with a good boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Just for the fun, a few PH chosen pieces, just for the day:

 

- "Jimmy manned up and said it was his fault."

 

- "Maybe they just hit a wave at the wrong time, and maybe Jimmy farted just then too."

 

- "Yeah, much easier to train on a lake."

 

- " he (GD) just looks like a complaining cheap bastard"

 

No need to ask SWS to come back. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no reason for OR to be out in those conditions. they persevered and paid the price. For that you have to put the blame on the skipper. He should have called the day off if conditions were above the limits of the boat. His his first care is to look atfter the crew, then the boat. He was skipper of the boat in conditions that could have put the crew at risk.

 

TNZ would simply not have been out in conditions way beyond what they knew as their limits.

 

Oracle was actually making a turn back to the barn, because the breeze had substantially increased during the day. They were one set of waves the wrong side of making it back into the south bay.

 

While the lost training time is clearly a big issue, the bigger issue is the broken wing.

 

If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience.

 

As it is, he just looks like a complaining cheap bastard, with a good boat.

 

Haw, haw, haw! ROFL. And not at Oracle's predicament but at your take on events.

 

So, as I understand it, Jimmie had some bad luck and Grant should cut him some slack. You're shittin' me. You have plenty of insight and intelligence to offer here but this ain't it.

 

Never mind, Peter, the Oracalites will eventually be back in the water -- sooner rather than later, we hope -- and then perhaps you'll have something positive to focus on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they just hit a wave at the wrong time, and maybe Jimmy farted just then too.

 

I just want to see the Kiwi boat sail in the same sea state. Can someone please find one video of them sailing in something like when 7217.1 crashed, especially bearing away - not the same breeze - the same breeze AND sea state.

 

What will everyone say if ETNZ stuffs it? That the boat is too stiff and the wing couldn't be eased enough?

 

Jeez ... talk about US defensiveness !!!

 

The poster asked about what OR designers were doing?

 

Now otherwise informed SA posters turn it into a NZ versus OR "mine is bigger than yours" dispute!

 

Leave the pitchpole out of it.

 

Maybe the Batmobile was supposed to flex like that? If so, then fine!

 

But it doesn't look right.

 

And it sounds like at least some OR designers think likewise.

 

If OR designers are even half as defensive as some of our most sensitive US posters, it will be hard for them to make an appropriate response to what happened.

 

Fortunately, they are bright enough to be open to every possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience.

 

As it is, he just looks like a complaining cheap bastard, with a good boat.

 

Yeap good analysis PH I totally agree, obviously the AC is all about fair play, good sportsmanship and cutting the other guy as much slack as he needs.

 

Keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I enjoy the openness and sharing of information with the spectators,

 

to encourage participation and involvement. Being interested in the teams challenges and triumphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no reason for OR to be out in those conditions. they persevered and paid the price. For that you have to put the blame on the skipper. He should have called the day off if conditions were above the limits of the boat. His his first care is to look atfter the crew, then the boat. He was skipper of the boat in conditions that could have put the crew at risk.

 

TNZ would simply not have been out in conditions way beyond what they knew as their limits.

 

 

Oracle was actually making a turn back to the barn, because the breeze had substantially increased during the day. They were one set of waves the wrong side of making it back into the south bay.

 

While the lost training time is clearly a big issue, the bigger issue is the broken wing.

 

If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience.

 

As it is, he just looks like a complaining cheap bastard, with a good boat.

 

 

Ive listened to a load of shit all day at a crappy seminar about a crap subject with crap speakers BUT, that takes the cake. WOW......one set of waves.... If you were dalton.......r,eplacement rule a rethink......favor.....goodwill from the us audience.......cheap bastard........good boat.......at least you got one right...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no reason for OR to be out in those conditions. they persevered and paid the price. For that you have to put the blame on the skipper. He should have called the day off if conditions were above the limits of the boat. His his first care is to look atfter the crew, then the boat. He was skipper of the boat in conditions that could have put the crew at risk.

 

TNZ would simply not have been out in conditions way beyond what they knew as their limits.

 

 

 

If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience.

 

As it is, he just looks like a complaining cheap bastard, with a good boat.

 

 

Sorry, what wing replacement rule should be getting a rethink?

 

Each team is allowed to build 6 wing spar sections i.e 3 wings.

 

If OR had a second AC72 wing available then they could have been back sailing as soon as the platform was repaired.

 

OR however do not have a second wing. They had only just started building the second wing when 17.1 went tits up so now have to wait for the second wing, which take around 10,000 manhours to build.

 

You can't blame Dalt's for OR's logistic problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

 

I just want to see the Kiwi boat sail in the same sea state. Can someone please find one video of them sailing in something like when 7217.1 crashed, especially bearing away - not the same breeze - the same breeze AND sea state.

 

What will everyone say if ETNZ stuffs it? That the boat is too stiff and the wing couldn't be eased enough?

 

You learn from someone else's mistakes as well as your own: why risk the boat?

 

 

Yeah, much easier to train on a lake.

 

More prudent than showboating into oblivion :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis Connor "the only reason you'd build a fibreglass boat is to cheat"

NZ are building a 120 footer, lets build a 60ft cat and race them with that.

There are so many gems of USA willing to help challenger teams! NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience.

 

As it is, he just looks like a complaining cheap bastard, with a good boat.

 

there is no second your majesty

 

but if we stop our progress

 

to let the opposition catch up

 

the other team's supporters are more likely to stay tuned in so their sponsors get a better return on their investment

 

...........................

 

yes, i know it's not done in other sports like the olympics or any kind racing in general

 

but there is a demand in some quarters for more entertainment and less unpredictability

 

apparently the world pro wrestling league makes a lot of money by staging all the events for little boys

 

.............................

 

no, i don't think george schuler would have approved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no reason for OR to be out in those conditions. they persevered and paid the price. For that you have to put the blame on the skipper. He should have called the day off if conditions were above the limits of the boat. His his first care is to look atfter the crew, then the boat. He was skipper of the boat in conditions that could have put the crew at risk.

 

TNZ would simply not have been out in conditions way beyond what they knew as their limits.

 

Oracle was actually making a turn back to the barn, because the breeze had substantially increased during the day. They were one set of waves the wrong side of making it back into the south bay.

 

While the lost training time is clearly a big issue, the bigger issue is the broken wing.

 

If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience.

 

As it is, he just looks like a complaining cheap bastard, with a good boat.

 

For the love of god man !!!! Are you actually reading what your writing and do you have zero AC memory at all ?

 

 

OR would show absolutely no mercy to anyone. This is the AC not an PR campaign and an excercise in gathering goodwill do you want Kiwis to fix the boat aswell ??..... Oh Hold on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect Dalton has the gloves off and is in this game to win not appease the competition with 'get out of jail free' favors. Besides, why would he? The the defenders screwed him on the base deal. Maybe if OR wanted some good will in NZ they would back track on that one?

 

Being a tight ass with a fast boat is essentially the definition of being a true kiwi right? I'd take that as a compliment :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a tight ass with a fast boat is essentially the definition of being a true kiwi right? I'd take that as a compliment :-)

 

+1

 

sorry, not rich

 

but can sail

 

this is a sailing race isn't it?

 

sorry, couldn't afford the yacht club blazer

 

copyofofficersdockdz0.jpg

 

'cause i spent that money on a top-down furler

 

DSC01777.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some photos of the repairs being made to Oracle's hulls .. It seems that only minor repairs are involved to the hulls .. no evidence of a major rebuild ..
Yes looks like mostly pretty minor repairing the damage.

Though in the background of the 10th pic you can see they have chopped a big chunk out of the bottom of the other hull & it doesn't mean they aren't redoing the crossbeams for a rigid structure.

http://photos.mercurynews.com/2012/11/18/oracle-racing-boats-capsizing-sparks-questions-fears/#10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some photos of the repairs being made to Oracle's hulls .. It seems that only minor repairs are involved to the hulls .. no evidence of a major rebuild ..
Yes looks like mostly pretty minor repairing the damage.

Though in the background of the 10th pic you can see they have chopped a big chunk out of the bottom of the other hull & it doesn't mean they aren't redoing the crossbeams for a rigid structure.

http://photos.mercur...tions-fears/#10

 

 

could they be ripping out the daggerwells for some BIG foils?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, aside from the political comments, why do you think RC is a mad about what happened before and after the crash ?

 

 

Well, I do not claim to know RC well. But, from what I know, he is smart, driven and disciplined. You can attribute his 1984 Olympic gold medal (Finn) to those attributes (along with drinking NZ milk!).

 

So, to your question. First, smart. Flipping the boat was not smart. It lacked intelligence and was not "cool." RC is not pleased with the mess. He is smart enough to know this is a setback. And does not tolerate unintelligent behaviour.

 

Driven: Perhaps his most well-known attribute. During DZ preparations he even fooled me. I thought he was pissing around doing too many non-AC related assignments. But he was on the job and DZ went from bloody precarious and unwieldy right up to staying together for two entire races!

 

Russell told Larry he would defeat the detested Swiss. And he did! So, driven. N

 

ow to the present. Do you think a man as driven as Russell is looking out to the harbour - where his boat is NOT sailing? Because a bunch of overly-casual young men flipped it? No, not happy!

 

Disciplined: RC's drive is not sporadic and random. He has an annoying habit (of arriving late for meetings) but, in general, is a disciplined man. Again, check his 1984 Finn campaign. And the 1995 TNZ Schnack-attack that hobbled Dennis.

 

Now to the present. Do you think flipping the boat was a manifestation of the kind of discipline preferred by Russell?

 

No! So he is pissed!

 

But, for the same three reasons OR will be back.

 

Hate to say this. But Russell is the right guy to pull it out of the fire.

 

Why?

 

Because he is smart, driven and disciplined!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some photos of the repairs being made to Oracle's hulls .. It seems that only minor repairs are involved to the hulls .. no evidence of a major rebuild ..
Yes looks like mostly pretty minor repairing the damage.

Though in the background of the 10th pic you can see they have chopped a big chunk out of the bottom of the other hull & it doesn't mean they aren't redoing the crossbeams for a rigid structure.

http://photos.mercur...tions-fears/#10

 

could they be ripping out the daggerwells for some BIG foils?

 

Thanks for the link Terry. I see the pod and the two hulls. Plus a long curing tent? Looks like a fairly rudimentary set up - I'm a bit surprised. Longboarding from underneath? Why not flip the hull? Or does that all look kosher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they just hit a wave at the wrong time, and maybe Jimmy farted just then too.

 

I just want to see the Kiwi boat sail in the same sea state. Can someone please find one video of them sailing in something like when 7217.1 crashed, especially bearing away - not the same breeze - the same breeze AND sea state.

 

What will everyone say if ETNZ stuffs it? That the boat is too stiff and the wing couldn't be eased enough?

 

Jeez ... talk about US defensiveness !!!

 

The poster asked about what OR designers were doing?

 

Now otherwise informed SA posters turn it into a NZ versus OR "mine is bigger than yours" dispute!

 

Leave the pitchpole out of it.

 

Maybe the Batmobile was supposed to flex like that? If so, then fine!

 

But it doesn't look right.

 

And it sounds like at least some OR designers think likewise.

 

If OR designers are even half as defensive as some of our most sensitive US posters, it will be hard for them to make an appropriate response to what happened.

 

Fortunately, they are bright enough to be open to every possibility.

 

No...it is you Bible Thumping Kiwi's that keep preaching the Gospel according to Grant, the self-righteousness of all things Kiwi, and the pure Evil that is EllisonCoutts, that leads to the Kiwi single minded focus on one tiny aspect of what is wrong, when I have said it is probably a collection of things - the flexiboat being one. How did they get it wrong, fuck if I know. But for sure they have the resources to get it right now.

 

i just love the holier than thou Kiwi's around this place. You guys make the Religious Right in your hated Exicted States of America look positively liberal by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, aside from the political comments, why do you think RC is a mad about what happened before and after the crash ?

 

Well, I do not claim to know RC well. But, from what I know, he is smart, driven and disciplined. You can attribute his 1984 Olympic gold medal (Finn) to those attributes (along with drinking NZ milk!).

 

So, to your question. First, smart. Flipping the boat was not smart. It lacked intelligence and was not "cool." RC is not pleased with the mess. He is smart enough to know this is a setback. And does not tolerate unintelligent behaviour.

 

Driven: Perhaps his most well-known attribute. During DZ preparations he even fooled me. I thought he was pissing around doing too many non-AC related assignments. But he was on the job and DZ went from bloody precarious and unwieldy right up to staying together for two entire races!

 

Russell told Larry he would defeat the detested Swiss. And he did! So, driven. N

 

ow to the present. Do you think a man as driven as Russell is looking out to the harbour - where his boat is NOT sailing? Because a bunch of overly-casual young men flipped it? No, not happy!

 

Disciplined: RC's drive is not sporadic and random. He has an annoying habit (of arriving late for meetings) but, in general, is a disciplined man. Again, check his 1984 Finn campaign. And the 1995 TNZ Schnack-attack that hobbled Dennis.

 

Now to the present. Do you think flipping the boat was a manifestation of the kind of discipline preferred by Russell?

 

No! So he is pissed!

 

But, for the same three reasons OR will be back.

 

Hate to say this. But Russell is the right guy to pull it out of the fire.

 

Why?

 

Because he is smart, driven and disciplined!

 

I rarely say this in the forum, and i wish I could say it to your face.

 

Go fuck yourself with your comments about Jimmy and the crew of 7217.1 like this - one....Do you think a man as driven as Russell is looking out to the harbour - where his boat is NOT sailing? Because a bunch of overly-casual young men flipped it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites