Archived

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

scarecow

Perpetual AC-35 Protocol Wait Thread

Recommended Posts

I have heard a rumor the protocol is to be released this week...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Monday, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that the protocol was done weeks ago, but Larry is sparing no expense and having monks copy it by hand. Calligraphy and gold-leafing takes time if you want it done right!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry is sparing no expense and having monks copy it by hand.

 

You've misheard. In fact it's being typed by an infinite number of monkeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

This, from the guy for whom emoticons are anathema (that's why I didn't use one): it was a benevolent golf clap, clearly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure you've grasped the semantics of "golf clap". But never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the arrogant assholes who have imposed their way on the yachting world are being faulted for consulting and negotiating with stakeholders? And instead of rushing a premature version out are delaying until all the t's are crossed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

Oh Lord, they've forgotten to dot the eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the arrogant assholes who have imposed their way on the yachting world are being faulted for consulting and negotiating with stakeholders? And instead of rushing a premature version out are delaying until all the t's are crossed?

 

Consultation? Aha aha aha aha aha. I've got a bridge for sale, if you're looking.

You don't think that we're waiting for DdR's case to make it to Lausanne, so that one of the following can occur:

 

1) His ban (assuming it is 5 years as rumoured) is upheld. The Aussies then say "Look. We don't trust you as far as we can throw you. We insist on ISAF appointing the measurer/jury etc. And if you don't like it, tough. Look what happened last time."

or

2) His ban is reduced or overturned. RC then says "That settles it. ISAF are having nothing to do with my regatta. Final offer: take it or leave it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they move the date for the regatta to sometime in 2018 rather than 2017 then this delay would not be a big issue for anyone . It's not written in stone anywhere that the event HAS to take place in 2017 is it ? It also gives the cup another year to collect dust at GGYC which would not be a bad thing for them I suppose .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am struggling with the idea that a group of wealthy influential ambitious men are waiting for an amateur organization to decide on what its internal sanction on one of its member will be before deciding on the next Americas Cup. But probably all of you are better informed and this is a good learning opportunity for me, dotting my i's this time. I am sure that issues like LOA, 1design, format, sites, schedules, etc etc have no bearing and there is no real negotiation between interested parties about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to imagine what they can announce in Protocol V1.0 dates and venue-wise so far. Would sure be fun to see the initial Design Rule though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The huge debate over the format will likely be the same-old story.

 

If Challengers are allowed to build only one boat then how do you treat the Defender fairly, given they they might not get any hard competition close to the Match?

 

I think the answer would be for LE to fund two syndicates if he has to,regardless the arguments about their independence. It is too hard to Defend if everyone can build only one boat and the format decrees that a one-boat Defender gets to race nobody in the heat of close to the Match. The Defender needs a series too, even if in-house.

 

There has to be some kind of balance and fairness allowed or successfully Defending becomes impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

Agreed.

 

The likely entrants to AC35 all have plenty enough dosh to build two boats, it just shouldn't be a requirement you can build only one.

 

A lot depends on the rest, though. With foilers the basic hulls and platform, even the LOA, become relatively less important than the foils, wings, aero, and other factors. But unless you allow the Defender to compare boats, to trial in anger, then they can't have much chance against an experienced Challenger who did get that heat and survived. And between the probable Challs of LR, ETNZ, AR, perhaps a strong BAR and AUS too, well that survivor will be extremely hard to beat.

 

One boat per team places a lot on compute power IMO, which is possibly even more expensive a game and so therefore self-defeating to the original cost-cutting cause behind a one-boat restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

Brilliant sunseeker, how many OR boats when they won AC33 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

Brilliant sunseeker, how many OR boats when they won AC33 ?

Ever the idiot savant of this place, once again you display your stupidity. AC 33 was a dog match. Both sides could have built 10 boats. There was no rule to prevent that. This is about a rule to limit the number of boats per team. I know it's hard but try to keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

Brilliant sunseeker, how many OR boats when they won AC33 ?

post-24261-0-07456600-1398746269.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

Agreed.

 

The likely entrants to AC35 all have plenty enough dosh to build two boats, it just shouldn't be a requirement you can build only one.

 

A lot depends on the rest, though. With foilers the basic hulls and platform, even the LOA, become relatively less important than the foils, wings, aero, and other factors. But unless you allow the Defender to compare boats, to trial in anger, then they can't have much chance against an experienced Challenger who did get that heat and survived. And between the probable Challs of LR, ETNZ, AR, perhaps a strong BAR and AUS too, well that survivor will be extremely hard to beat.

 

One boat per team places a lot on compute power IMO, which is possibly even more expensive a game and so therefore self-defeating to the original cost-cutting cause behind a one-boat restriction.

 

This is an odd time, much like 1992, where the class is once again new and there are no old boats to go out and buy, so how can you limit everyone to just one boat? With the risk that is involved with a foiling multi-hull losing a boat in a one-boat program is pretty much a campaign killer. At a minimum parts for another complete boat would need to be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

 

 

With foilers the technological development is such that if a team crashes their best boat, they are no longer competitive anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

Brilliant sunseeker, how many OR boats when they won AC33 ?

 

 

Ever the idiot savant of this place, once again you display your stupidity. AC 33 was a dog match. Both sides could have built 10 boats. There was no rule to prevent that. This is about a rule to limit the number of boats per team. I know it's hard but try to keep up.

 

 

In a DOG match the challenger could have built 10 boats to sail around in, but they have to use the ONE boat they challenged with in the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One boat per team is just stupid. One major crash and you are done. If a team doesn't have the money for two boats they don't have enough money to win. Why set the game up to the lowest common denominator?

 

Agreed. How could they ever think that such idocies could make the America's Cup cheaper to win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One boat?

 

People must have ridiculously short memories.

 

Does anyone want a repeat of the AC34 LVC? Does Artemis ring any bells?

 

Little appears worse than a performer who can't appear on the stage at the appointed time. The audience doesn't care why.

 

That might have been prevented had Artemis not had other issues that affected the schedule, but it still illustrates the risk even when teams are allowed multiple boats.

 

Oracle had the relative luxury of wrecking their boat sooner, but I'm sure Larry still spent some extra lucre on getting that program back on track, and pushing his team to make up for the lost time.

 

There are still things that can't be scheduled around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What HHN suggests above about wide liberty to have spare parts would help alleviate a one-boat law.

 

But the age-old conundrum about how to allow the chance of a successful Defense if they can build only one boat is tricky, even if they do have spare parts.

 

I like the idea that teams can build two, perhaps more even, and the possible new Team Koreas of the world can still take their chances with one if that's where they're at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What HHN suggests above about wide liberty to have spare parts would help alleviate a one-boat law.

 

But the age-old conundrum about how to allow the chance of a successful Defense if they can build only one boat is tricky, even if they do have spare parts.

 

I like the idea that teams can build two, perhaps more even, and the possible new Team Koreas of the world can still take their chances with one if that's where they're at.

 

Perhaps, but by the time you have all the parts for a complete boat, you've in effect already built a 2nd boat, though there is the savings in not assembling it and running a parallel program. But if those parts aren't put in use, then the funds will have been spent little benefit, other than insurance.

 

And what of the regulations governing the parts? Would they be required to be identical? Or are revisions allowed? How is that to be policed?

 

To me, the benefits don't outweigh the pitfalls. The show must go on, and anything that puts that at risk is foolhardy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The huge debate over the format will likely be the same-old story.

 

If Challengers are allowed to build only one boat then how do you treat the Defender fairly, given they they might not get any hard competition close to the Match?

 

I think the answer would be for LE to fund two syndicates if he has to,regardless the arguments about their independence. It is too hard to Defend if everyone can build only one boat and the format decrees that a one-boat Defender gets to race nobody in the heat of close to the Match. The Defender needs a series too, even if in-house.

 

There has to be some kind of balance and fairness allowed or successfully Defending becomes impossible.

So here you are spinning up the possibility for the defenders to build two boats when the challengers can only build one each..

 

It's not so long ago that Alinghi proposed the exact same thing, and you and the rest of the west coast mafia were saying only someone as corrupt as eb could propose such a thing....

 

It was right around the time that you guys all said if lazza tried to game the system like eb, you would be the first ones to point the finger....

 

So here we are, tame cor and lame one second advantage to 2nd choice, wsl45 championship a bust, otusa cheat to win, massive SF land grab attempt, a good AC which no one watched and your 12 challengers turned one real one, questionable rule changes, venues now up for bid, and protocol and venue months late, meanwhile russels dealing with the his tame race director from 34....

 

Oh.... you have met russel twice and he could never lie...he's a legend....he gushed!.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So here you are spinning up the possibility for the defenders to build two boats when the challengers can only build one each..

.

Wrong again, never suggested any such thing.

 

But it's very possible the Defender this time is (again) pressing for the allowance to build at least two boats regardless of who else builds what. It's a reasonable expectation about their position and since the new Prot is imminent, and since that's one of the few points we can reasonably expect to see laid out, well it's fun for some of us to speculate on the subject.

 

Fun for those of us who come here not for an ass-holing attitude but are here instead for fun and intrigue, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be a very easy, though expensive , way for OR to get around not having a second boat to trial against .

 

What would prevent anyone , say Larry's son for example , to start up his own team to enter a challenge to defend ?

 

The end result would be a very accommodating " competitor " for Team USA :)

 

It's only money .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What HHN suggests above about wide liberty to have spare parts would help alleviate a one-boat law.

 

But the age-old conundrum about how to allow the chance of a successful Defense if they can build only one boat is tricky, even if they do have spare parts.

 

I like the idea that teams can build two, perhaps more even, and the possible new Team Koreas of the world can still take their chances with one if that's where they're at.

 

Perhaps, but by the time you have all the parts for a complete boat, you've in effect already built a 2nd boat, though there is the savings in not assembling it and running a parallel program. But if those parts aren't put in use, then the funds will have been spent little benefit, other than insurance.

 

And what of the regulations governing the parts? Would they be required to be identical? Or are revisions allowed? How is that to be policed?

 

To me, the benefits don't outweigh the pitfalls. The show must go on, and anything that puts that at risk is foolhardy.

 

It might work for maintenance issues to rotate the parts on and off the 'one' boat, with guidelines on what, if any, mods can be made to them so that the parts are not just a waste. Maybe it would help in a safety manner to review for fatigue, etc. and prevent a catastrophic failure of a fatigued part.

 

Then for the next cycle spare boats and parts would be out there for teams to train on for AC36 as had been available in previous cycles over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "easy" solution is to allow two boats be built, but only one sailed at a time - essentially what TNZ did last time. RC keeps saying that personal and design costs are the big buckets to attack . . . Actually constructing a second boat is a relatively small (by AC standards) cost.

 

My impression is that this is what was indicated in that recent article, which seemed to have some "inside infirmation" but which also made enough errors to make everything it said questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "easy" solution is to allow two boats be built, but only one sailed at a time - essentially what TNZ did last time. RC keeps saying that personal and design costs are the big buckets to attack . . . Actually constructing a second boat is a relatively small (by AC standards) cost.

 

My impression is that this is what was indicated in that recent article, which seemed to have some "inside infirmation" but which also made enough errors to make everything it said questionable.

Nobody's biting, but ... the "easy" solution would be going back to what genius Larry had foreseen in that famous interview, post AC33: 60' soft-sail cats, at $5M(..)/campaign. Taking for granted that flying tacks will be mastered in the meantime, the GC32 is showing the way - and the French have been sufficiently out of the loop to avoid them walking away with the Cup, which was probably the original fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

 

Ok, agreed.

 

But if we go down that sensible direction, then the truely easy solution, would have been TP52s, and we might actually have moderate costs and 15 competitive challengers (and even some defender candidates).

 

My point in the post above, was really not to suggest a better solution, but to suggest the "rumor" was perhaps being misinterperteted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apr 30, 2014, 3:00pm HST
Hawaii still in running to host America's Cup in 2017
Tina Yuen

Norbert Bajurin, commodore of the Golden Gate Yacht Club, current holder of the America's cup is seen with the actual America's Cup trophy, perched atop a Louis Vuitton trunk.

duane-shimogawa2013.jpg Duane Shimogawa Reporter-Pacific Business News Email | Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn

Norbert Bajurin, commodore of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Yacht Club, which is the current holder of the America’s Cup won by Larry Ellison’s Team Oracle USA, is not shutting the door completely on the prospects of having the next America’s Cup in Hawaii.

Bajurin, the keynote speaker at the Better Business Bureau of Hawaii’s 2014 Torch Awards on Wednesday, told the audience that he would love to have it back in San Francisco in 2017, but that Hawaii is beautiful, too.

“We will keep that in mind,” he said.

Bajurin previously told PBN that he thinks Hawaii would be great, with the winds the state has, and especially with the existing tourism infrastructure and airports.

After Oracle Team USA won in dramatic fashion last fall, Ellison, who purchased 98 percent of the island of Lanai in 2012, joked that the next America’s Cup could be held off the Pineapple Island.

A venue for the next America’s Cup has yet to be chosen, but as of Wednesday, Hawaii is still in the running, according to Bajurin.

Event winners at the BBB of Hawaii Torch Awards, which was held at the Sheraton Waikiki Hotel, included Kamaka Hawaii Inc. in the large category, Aloha Data Services and Staffing Solutions of Hawaii in a tie for the medium business award and Th!nk LLC took home the small business honors.

The public charity award went to Lemonade Alley and the Keauhou award was given to John Dean, president and CEO of Central Pacific Bank.

Click on the photo for a slideshow.

Duane Shimogawa covers energy, real estate and economic development for Pacific Business News.

Related links: Tourism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/sailing/americas-cup-teams-sent-designs-for-shorter-62foot-catamarans-9313634.html

--

The agonisingly slow process of organising and presenting the next Americas Cup takes a few steps forward this week as potential challengers are sent the design outlines for the boats to be used, 62-foot catamarans using wing sails and foils to skim across the top of the water. They are being asked for comments.

They would be 10 feet shorter than the boats which were featured last September in San Francisco when the defender, Larry Ellisons Oracle, came from being 1-8 down to win by 9-8 against Emirates Team New Zealand. There would also be some standard elements, principally in the wing and possibly in the main structural beams, which would cut some of the research and design budget. And the crew would be reduced to eight, with an all-up weight of 700kgs, though the full protocol governing the event would cover any nationality requirements.

 

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can they possibly be sending the design outlines for the boats to potential challengers? That's not how defenders are supposed to act. Is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From S-W (TNZ won't be doing the VOR):

 

"Despite the comment by the team that an America's Cup Protocol announcement is imminent, it is believed that is not the case, although the AC62 draft class rule has been circulated to the potential teams for comment ahead of the the issuance of the Protocol, in which there are believed to be significant areas of alternative view between the Challenger of Record, Hamilton Island Yacht Club, and Oracle Team USA."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can they possibly be sending the design outlines for the boats to potential challengers? That's not how defenders are supposed to act. Is it?

 

They had a big pow-wow with teams and designers back in 89-90 to develop the IACC rule in SD, so not unprecedented. IM was involved in that one too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can they possibly be sending the design outlines for the boats to potential challengers? That's not how defenders are supposed to act. Is it?

They had a big pow-wow with teams and designers back in 89-90 to develop the IACC rule in SD, so not unprecedented. IM was involved in that one too.

My comment was satire. GGYC is doing it right, as I would expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The agonisingly slow process of organising and presenting the next America’s Cup takes a few steps forward this week as potential challengers are sent the design outlines for the boats to be used, 62-foot catamarans using wing sails and foils to skim across the top of the water. They are being asked for comments.


They would be 10 feet shorter than the boats which were featured last September in San Francisco when the defender, Larry Ellison’s Oracle, came from being 1-8 down to win by 9-8 against Emirates Team New Zealand. There would also be some standard elements, principally in the wing and possibly in the main structural beams, which would cut some of the research and design budget. And the crew would be reduced to eight, with an all-up weight of 700kgs, though the full protocol governing the event would cover any nationality requirements.


Some, like the New Zealanders, would like a substantial return to a nationality rule and Britain’s Sir Ben Ainslie has said that any British challenge would have no difficulty meeting much more than the modest 25 per cent. which is being discussed. That would imply a minimum of two per boat.


Details like the structure of the event, including the methods and venues for the qualifying races for the finals in 2017, continue to exercise Russell Coutts, boss of the Oracle racing team, and Iain Murray, acting on behalf of the Challenger of Record, Australia’s Hamilton Island Yacht Club. Murray, who was chief executive of the event’s race management in 2013, has been joined by Richard Slater, who was Oracle’s rules adviser for AC34.


The venue is also unlikely to be announced in the near future, with a repeat in San Francisco not ruled out as the defender keeps up the pressure by mentioning other venues like Chicago, Newport, Rhode Island, San Diego, and even Hawaii. The venue will considerably influence the design work but may not be known until much later this year.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that GGYC only knows pressure tactics. Anyway, Hawai is out because Norb speaks too much. It will probably be SF but some cities are remaining.

PH may perhaps expect another contract from Tom to slander SF, I mean ISAF :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and I never thought I'd be saying this, but: "Vincenzo come back, all is forgiven .. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(love the two-boats stipulation for the Defender)

Marvellous. Will challengers also be required to tow a bucket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ and... "Murray confirmed that the Defenders will sail in some part of the Challenger Selection Series...". Does anyone else have a sudden urge to re-read Animal Farm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

and ... the beauty of that is the second boat cannot be sailed until the Defender opts out of the CSS: meaning it can be upgraded in real time from CSS experience until the Defender is satisfied everything has been incorporated - something Challengers will have very little time to carry out in between races ..

 

But you see, personally I'm quite happy: I had considered VO's acquiescence as little less than a national disgrace. TT doesn't count, but seeing what a "testy octogenarian" (plus of course knight-in-shining-armor IM) are agreeing to evens the score. In fact, it's time to bring out the Aussie poodles .. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

twat |twät|noun vulgar slanga woman's genitals.a person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: of unknown origin.

 

arsehole |ˈasˌhōl|noun vulgar slangthe anus.an irritating or contemptible person.

 

biased |ˈbīəst|adjectiveunfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something:

bias |ˈbīəs|noun1 prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair:

 

 

 

 

OR = Biased arseholes and twats

 

I take it back from an earlier post supporting the Aussie camp

The Aussies are a bunch of fucking poodles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

twat |twät|noun vulgar slanga woman's genitals.a person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: of unknown origin.

 

arsehole |ˈasˌhōl|noun vulgar slangthe anus.an irritating or contemptible person.

 

biased |ˈbīəst|adjectiveunfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something:

bias |ˈbīəs|noun1 prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair:

 

 

 

 

OR = Biased arseholes and twats

 

I take it back from an earlier post supporting the Aussie camp

The Aussies are a bunch of fucking poodles

 

Idiot = ?

 

Screw the dictionary, we have the above post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

twat |twät|noun vulgar slanga woman's genitals.• a person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: of unknown origin.

 

arsehole |ˈasˌhōl|noun vulgar slangthe anus.• an irritating or contemptible person.

 

biased |ˈbīəst|adjectiveunfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something:

bias |ˈbīəs|noun1 prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair:

 

 

 

 

OR = Biased arseholes and twats

 

I take it back from an earlier post supporting the Aussie camp

The Aussies are a bunch of fucking poodles

Of all your various " personalities " this the most naughty .

 

Why so harsh ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/Americas-Cup:-Iain-Murray-interviewed-on-the-Protocol-and-AC62/121816

 

Discuss ..

 

(love the two-boats stipulation for the Defender)

 

A counter to the suggestion it is unfair:

 

Since the Defender can't race in the CSS Semi's or Finals (something that OR also pressed to keep Alinghi out of; although OR was willing to let them into the RR's) then: It makes sense to allow the Defender two boats for the primary reason that they can conduct in-house racing to train up. Otherwise, they get no racing at all as the Cup approaches and with learning and development time so important at that stage, it'd be impossible to Defend otherwise. This way they maintain a chance.

 

The physical-boat advantage of being able to build two is not as great as in the monohull days, when hull shapes were so important. And regardless whether you can build two or one boat, it sounds like there's going to be a tight design rule, and a lot of leeway given to spare wing parts, foils, etc, the stuff that's far more important in foiling muiti's anyway. You can improve your one boat just as much as OR might improve their boats.

 

Lastly: It's entirely possible that OR never actually gave a rip about if Challs had the option to build only one boat, or if they had the option to build two. It may very well simply be the Aussies (and perhaps others) pressing for that.

 

 

One thing I do hope to see resolved somehow is the situation where if there is live data coming off the Chall boats again during the CSS Semi's and Finals, then this time the Defender should be required to provide the same live data, should be required to have 'formal' DSS racing if that's what it takes. Even if that data was not terribly useful (and it apparently was not so useful, given how OR got so surprised by their upwind speed deficit to the Kiwi's), it was not a good look last time and ETNZ's protest on it should probably have been upheld.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what Larry stated on 17 October 2008 in a letter to Bertarelli:

 

"You will say that, with only one boat per team, the Defender must be able to sail in the Challenger Selection Series. Fundamentally, we do not agree with this as there is a risk that the impact and suspense of the America's Cup Match will be diluted. To have the Defender race in the Challenger Selection Series is a radical departure from the Cup's long history and tradition and we need to be careful about making such changes."

 

 

 

 

A counter to the suggestion it is unfair:

 

Since the Defender can't race in the CSS Semi's or Finals (something that OR also pressed to keep Alinghi out of; although OR was willing to let them into the RR's) then: It makes sense to allow the Defender two boats for the primary reason that they can conduct in-house racing to train up. Otherwise, they get no racing at all as the Cup approaches and with learning and development time so important at that stage, it'd be impossible to Defend otherwise. This way they maintain a chance.

 

The physical-boat advantage of being able to build two is not as great as in the monohull days, when hull shapes were so important. And regardless whether you can build two or one boat, it sounds like there's going to be a tight design rule, and a lot of leeway given to spare wing parts, foils, etc, the stuff that's far more important in foiling muiti's anyway. You can improve your one boat just as much as OR might improve their boats.

 

Lastly: It's entirely possible that OR never actually gave a rip about if Challs had the option to build only one boat, or if they had the option to build two. It may very well simply be the Aussies (and perhaps others) pressing for that.

 

 

One thing I do hope to see resolved somehow is the situation where if there is live data coming off the Chall boats again during the CSS Semi's and Finals, then this time the Defender should be required to provide the same live data, should be required to have 'formal' DSS racing if that's what it takes. Even if that data was not terribly useful (and it apparently was not so useful, given how OR got so surprised by their upwind speed deficit to the Kiwi's), it was not a good look last time and ETNZ's protest on it should probably have been upheld.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is what Larry stated on 17 October 2008 in a letter to Bertarelli:

 

"You will say that, with only one boat per team, the Defender must be able to sail in the Challenger Selection Series. Fundamentally, we do not agree with this as there is a risk that the impact and suspense of the America's Cup Match will be diluted. To have the Defender race in the Challenger Selection Series is a radical departure from the Cup's long history and tradition and we need to be careful about making such changes."

 

(valenciasailing)

 

Si, pero se ha vuelto la tortilla!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In late 2007 when GGYC was still trying to negotiate a multi-Chall event, at least one of the back and forth offers allowed Alinghi the right to sail in the RR's, but: Not past that. And it was the 'past that point' that was such a major sticking point.

 

I doubt there will be much of a RR series anyway, the later stages will be where the real Challenger action and developments happen, as is usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the defender should ever race against a potential challenger until the match. That said, if the defender races in the RR of the CSS, there sure as H*LL shouldn't be any points awarded for races against the defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"This is what Larry stated on 17 October 2008 in a letter to Bertarelli:

 

"You will say that, with only one boat per team, the Defender must be able to sail in the Challenger Selection Series. Fundamentally, we do not agree with this as there is a risk that the impact and suspense of the America's Cup Match will be diluted. To have the Defender race in the Challenger Selection Series is a radical departure from the Cup's long history and tradition and we need to be careful about making such changes."

 

(valenciasailing)

 

Si, pero se ha vuelto la tortilla!

And now Mr. Ellison wants to do the exact same thing. Ridiculous.
Nope. Since the Defender is allowed to train up with two boats, they will step aside following the RR's. Alinghi wanted to build only one, and race deep into the CSS, with those deep races counting so as to ensure the Challs couldn't hide their speed. It also gave Alinghi sudden-death knockout ability.

 

This is a lot different to what Alinghi was pressing for. The Defender is taking on the burden of making their own competition, in the critical late weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were more than one competent American team willing to attempt to be the defender, this would be a lot simpler. There has only been a single potential defender since 2000, and it hasn't been an improvement over the prior 140 or so years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting remark by RG from his talk with IM:

 

"The key point is that only at the point at which Oracle Team USA is broken away from the CSS will they be allowed to sail their second AC62. The key point is that there is a strong incentive for the Defender to not compete in the CSS at all."

 

me: could be be a tough decision for them, a difficult call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

Kindly refer to my post #62

 

No mention of IJ selection, btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

and ... the beauty of that is the second boat cannot be sailed until the Defender opts out of the CSS: meaning it can be upgraded in real time from CSS experience until the Defender is satisfied everything has been incorporated - something Challengers will have very little time to carry out in between races ..

 

But you see, personally I'm quite happy: I had considered VO's acquiescence as little less than a national disgrace. TT doesn't count, but seeing what a "testy octogenarian" (plus of course knight-in-shining-armor IM) are agreeing to evens the score. In fact, it's time to bring out the Aussie poodles .. :D

 

I disagree, the Oatleys might have been naive thinking they could negotiate with a 500 pound gorilla, but they were always going to get bent over and butt-fucked.

 

I suspect Iain Murray has done the best he could in the circumstances, as HIYC was never going to have the financial resources to be able to threaten a DoG match, the only real way of bringing a recalcitrant defender to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray confirmed that the Defenders will sail in some part of the Challenger Selection Series, but in the Round Robin phase only.

 

Don't like the sound of this one bit. It was bull shit when EB and his stooges tried that for their version of AC33, and it is bull shit if GGYC and HIYC allow this. The Defender should never participate, and affect the outcome of, the CSS. No exceptions.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physical-boat advantage of being able to build two is not as great as in the monohull days, when hull shapes were so important. And regardless whether you can build two or one boat, it sounds like there's going to be a tight design rule, and a lot of leeway given to spare wing parts, foils, etc, the stuff that's far more important in foiling muiti's anyway. You can improve your one boat just as much as OR might improve their boats.

Is that so? And who says the only variable is hull shape? It is not hard to find counter-evidence - that the defender being able to build a second boat is a huge advantage.

 

In the AC34 final, both teams used their generation 2 boats.

 

In the LVC final, the generation 2 boat completely outclassed the generation 1 from the same designers.

 

I don't much want to get drawn into discussion on protocol before it is published but it isn't looking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bullshit. This will ruin the whole anticipation aspect of waiting for the 1st race to go off. That goes hand and hand with the design aspect of the AC. It's not the AC if it is a one design and the defender races against the challengers. Why do they even need this advantage? Do any of the challengers look at all strong? It will be interesting to see if they actually try this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

Typical example would be, going back to AC34: most boats, including the Defender's, come out with tillers - except one that has wheel steering. During initial racing it becomes apparent that it's a much better solution but switching involves a not insignificant amount of rework. The Defender is able to incorporate this into its yet-to-be-launched boat 2, other teams not so much.

 

Edit: the most egregious example would be OR's "feedback" daggerboard case, of course. Imagine ETNZ having the time to copy that ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard it WAS released... but then Larry took it back until he could find out why Dalton isn't entering Team New Zealand into the V.O.R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There will be surrogate boat use restrictions similar to the last America’s Cup preliminary phase, with SL33’s being the maximum size that will be permitted."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

However the recent interview with Dalton suggested lots of pesos going on treating AC45s as a development platform (in lieu of 2nd AC62). So presumably, again, AC45s won't be surrogates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could these be teasers to generate public reaction, then make final decisions before releasing the protocol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

However the recent interview with Dalton suggested lots of pesos going on treating AC45s as a development platform (in lieu of 2nd AC62). So presumably, again, AC45s won't be surrogates.

 

Probably the same rule as last time that specifically names AC45s as excluded from being considered surrogates, and interpreted as referring to the hulls, with teams allowed to mess with the foils, beams, wings, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could these be teasers to generate public reaction, then make final decisions before releasing the protocol?

Public reaction probably doesn't count for much. It will be the reaction from potential challenging teams that might matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Could these be teasers to generate public reaction, then make final decisions before releasing the protocol?

Public reaction probably doesn't count for much. It will be the reaction from potential challenging teams that might matter.
it will be interesting to see if the syndicates go after Oracle or Hamilton Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Murray confirmed that the Defenders will sail in some part of the Challenger Selection Series, but in the Round Robin phase only.

 

Don't like the sound of this one bit. It was bull shit when EB and his stooges tried that for their version of AC33, and it is bull shit if GGYC and HIYC allow this. The Defender should never participate, and affect the outcome of, the CSS. No exceptions.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

I don't think this quote tells us much at all. I'll wait for the real protocol, I guess. I hear its coming out next week.

 

Not that my opinion counted for much, but when Ernesto suggested that as a defender his team would play an integral part in the challenger series, then "anyone but Alinghi" became a real simple argument to make around here. However, spite and stupid have become more the norm on this forum since then, so my guess is we have less influence as a group now than four or five years ago.

 

Koukel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my guess is we have less influence as a group now than four or five years ago.

None then, none now. If you think peace and love ever reigned here, then distance has lent enchantment to the view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since some here want to compare it to the Protocol EB had pressed for, here is a snap from one of the many back-and-forth letters between the parties in late 2007.

 

In this one, GGYC was trying to bend over quite far backwards to accommodate with a compromise offer on EB's push for building and crewing just one boat - and racing very deep into the CSS.

 

post-41620-0-19639000-1399401833_thumb.jpg

I have the original SNG proposal somewhere too, just can't be arsed to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites