Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

Sorry Rennmaus but I don't see how you would read https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/construct and conclude that "construct" means "designed and built".

A good argument for that being the meaning, is that the Trustee, the NYYC, declared it to be so in the very first ‘resolution’ they made, way back in 1958.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

A good argument for that being the meaning, is that the Trustee, the NYYC, declared it to be so in the very first ‘resolution’ they made, way back in 1958.

No, that is no argument at all. The suggestion was that a reading of the OED definition leads to "designed and built". A NYYC resolution has no bearing on whether that logic holds water.

What actually happened in 1958 was a bit of horse trading. The "sailing on own bottom" clause in the DoG was struck out and the more restrictive interpretation of CiC was adopted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless the OED, from https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Deed_of_Gift

Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees on March 27, 1958Edit

(The "1958 Resolution")

...

NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the expressed intent of the donors of the America’s Cup that is should be "perpetually a Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries," and the fact that in accordance with that intent and commencing with the first race for the Cup in 1870 down to the present time every challenger has been both designed and constructed in the country of the defending Club so that every challenger and every defender has been in all respects truly representative of the countries of the challenging and defending club and the Cup has become by tradition the symbol of the yachting supremacy of the country of the Club winning the challenge match:

RESOLVED that the word "constructed" wherever it appeared in the Deed of Gift of the America’s Cup shall always be construed as "designed and built".

W. Mahlon Dickerson, Secretary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure but since it was not a DoG change, it doesn't all that much matter what was resolved in 1958.

In 1980 the NYYC Board of Trustees resolved that all crew should be nationals. That didn't last very long.

And in 2004 we have: The Trustee Interpretive Resolutions require updating to take into account contemporary circumstances. The content of such Resolutions have been considered and, where appropriate, addressed by mutual consent in this Protocol. All Trustee Interpretive Resolutions including those in effect as at the end of the last race of the 31st America’s Cup match (2 March 2003) have no further effect for any purpose whatsoever.

Goodbye interpretative resolutions, hello protocol.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogwatch said:

Sorry Rennmaus but I don't see how you would read https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/construct and conclude that "construct" means "designed and built".

I don't see how that is not the case. Bold mine, from the link:

construct

1 Build or make (something, typically a building, road, or machine)
‘a company that constructs oil rigs’

1.1 Form (an idea or theory) by bringing together various conceptual elements.
‘poetics should construct a theory of literary discourse’

1.2 Grammar Form (a sentence) according to grammatical rules.
‘these rules tell us how to construct a grammatical sentence in a given language’

1.3 Geometry Draw or delineate (a geometrical figure) accurately to given conditions.
‘construct a square equal in area to a given circle’


But my post was more about the the whole tradition thing anyway, so it makes no sense to just pick on one half sentence.
Constructed is more than just a couple of inches of carbon fiber laminated somewhere, and national boat IP will not come from an Italian designer in New Zealand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

But my post was more about the the whole tradition thing anyway, so it makes no sense to just pick on one half sentence.
Constructed is more than just a couple of inches of carbon fiber laminated somewhere, and national boat IP will not come from an Italian designer in New Zealand.

If you want to define construct as "design and build" and then extend it to the country this would require the word "build" to be given an expanded definition in the original document.

Then with your need to concern yourself about the nationalities of members of the design team this would also need to have a "who" specified in the original document.

But that is not enough, you would also need to specify the nationalities of the people who actually built the boat and maybe the people who swept the floor and made the tea.

Clearly it is a nonsense to concern your self with the nationality of team members in the design and build area, if they reside in the country where the boat is being built, that is enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

If you want to define construct as "design and build" and then extend it to the country this would require the word "build" to be given an expanded definition in the original document.

No, at the time the original document was written, when a boat was built somewhere it included the design.

There were no docs sent by web around the world. In Europe you even speak, regarding old yachts, of boat from this or that place to tell about the design.

And don't forget, the AC is not a sailors contest, it's a design contest between countries.

It was not the case with OR, no more with ETNZ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

If you want to define construct as "design and build" and then extend it to the country this would require the word "build" to be given an expanded definition in the original document.

Then with your need to concern yourself about the nationalities of members of the design team this would also need to have a "who" specified in the original document.

But that is not enough, you would also need to specify the nationalities of the people who actually built the boat and maybe the people who swept the floor and made the tea.

Clearly it is a nonsense to concern your self with the nationality of team members in the design and build area, if they reside in the country where the boat is being built, that is enough. 

I don't concern myself with anything relating the AC. It's just a disappointment after all this tradition and "real sense of the DoG" talk we had to endure by two Defenders in a row now.

The original Tradition was "we build better boats than you", an clearly national affair. Do with this information what you want.

EDIT: For once I agree with @Tornado-Cat. Thanks for the additional view back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

No, at the time the original document was written when a boat was built somewhere it included the design.

There were no docs sent by web around the world. In Europe you even speak, regarding old yachts, of boat from this or that place to tell about the design.

And don't forget, the AC is not a sailors contest, it's a design contest between countries.

It was not the case with OR, no more with ETNZ.

The fact that the builders employed the designers rather than the client employing the designers does not alter the fact that the design is a separate function to the build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC is a mean for a commercial event requiring to twist the Deed. Both OR and ETNZ were pretending to be the white knight saving the cup and did worse than their respective predecessor.

But receiving lessons from ETNZ while they do the same thing is just too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

The fact that the builders employed the designers rather than the client employing the designers does not alter the fact that the design is a separate function to the build.

Most fishing boats. and others, at the time, were designed and contructed by the same person. When I was young I knew an old man constructing wooden boats, he was both designer and manufacturer.

And the dictionary Rennmaus quoted implies the same interpretation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogwatch said:

Sure but since it was not a DoG change, it doesn't all that much matter what was resolved in 1958.

In 1980 the NYYC Board of Trustees resolved that all crew should be nationals. That didn't last very long.

And in 2004 we have: The Trustee Interpretive Resolutions require updating to take into account contemporary circumstances. The content of such Resolutions have been considered and, where appropriate, addressed by mutual consent in this Protocol. All Trustee Interpretive Resolutions including those in effect as at the end of the last race of the 31st America’s Cup match (2 March 2003) have no further effect for any purpose whatsoever.

Goodbye interpretative resolutions, hello protocol.

 

 

The 1958 Resolution at least clarified a specific term in the DoG, ‘constructed in the Country of.’

Here’s an explanation of the ‘Rose Rule’ from 1980, which IMO was an abomination.

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/04/28/nationality-the-history-of-this-americas-cup-clause/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An amusing discussion, but IMHO irrelevant. It's as if there was a Tutankhamun Cup, and people were arguing whether the hieroglyph for "build" included "design."

The simple fact is that the context in which the DoG was conceived and which remained in place down to the time of the 1958 NYYC resolution no longer exists. That context was made up of distinct, national technology bases,  each of which was "truly representative" of a particular nation. A 1958 Toyota was "truly representative" of the  Japanese automotive technology base, as  a 1958 Chevrolet was of the American.

Globalization killed that context, never to be resurrected.  This is true not only of maritime technology but also automobiles, civil aviation, and electronics. A 2019 Toyota is no longer "truly" Japanese any more than a 2019 Chevrolet is "truly" American. A race between two vehicles carrying those labels (which is supposed to happen next year in NASCAR) is about as far from a "competition between foreign countries" as you can get.

So all that we have left is a Victorian jug with no bottom and a bunch of people trying to figure out how to monetize it without melting it down.  So far that has not been a particularly edifying spectacle, at least to me.

Cheers,

Earl

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

The 1958 Resolution at least clarified a specific term in the DoG, ‘constructed in the Country of.’

Here’s an explanation of the ‘Rose Rule’ from 1980, which IMO was an abomination.

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/04/28/nationality-the-history-of-this-americas-cup-clause/

Good article, except "And so it was until the 2003 Match when the Kiwis changed the Deed to remove the Nationality clause."
I hate it when an actually informative piece is tarnished by errors of this magnitude. Diminishes the credibility of the author.
 

6 minutes ago, Earl Boebert said:

An amusing discussion, but IMHO irrelevant. It's as if there was a Tutankhamun Cup, and people were arguing whether the hieroglyph for "build" included "design."

The simple fact is that the context in which the DoG was conceived and which remained in place down to the time of the 1958 NYYC resolution no longer exists. That context was made up of distinct, national technology bases,  each of which was "truly representative" of a particular nation. A 1958 Toyota was "truly representative" of the  Japanese automotive technology base, as  a 1958 Chevrolet was of the American.

Globalization killed that context, never to be resurrected.  This is true not only of maritime technology but also automobiles, civil aviation, and electronics. A 2019 Toyota is no longer "truly" Japanese any more than a 2019 Chevrolet is "truly" American. A race between two vehicles carrying those labels (which is supposed to happen next year in NASCAR) is about as far from a "competition between foreign countries" as you can get.

So all that we have left is a Victorian jug with no bottom and a bunch of people trying to figure out how to monetize it without melting it down.  So far that has not been a particularly edifying spectacle, at least to me.

Cheers,

Earl


Bold: Well, currently it looks like pure nationalism in sourcing, build and retail is the way to go, especially in the USA. Never say never...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it is partly a matter of which point in the past 160+ years you want to declare 'traditional'.

There will always be some aspect you can use to beat on the COR/D if that is your aim

I agree in general that the defender supplying 'a package' to anyone is not ideal. Obviously they are hurting for numbers - they have out-teched almost everybody

But applying sportsmanship and transparency as the basis for competition is still a huge step forward IMO

Trying to fit traditional, cutting edge, affordable, great match races, performance, fair, best in the sport, multiple teams, DOG legal, international, 'popular timezone', wide distribution, sponsor friendly, elitist, non-elitist etc etc all under one umbrella is a big ask....... better is a start - 'cause perfect for everyone it can't be.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rennmaus said:

I don't see how that is not the case. Bold mine, from the link:

construct

1 Build or make (something, typically a building, road, or machine)
‘a company that constructs oil rigs’

1.1 Form (an idea or theory) by bringing together various conceptual elements.
‘poetics should construct a theory of literary discourse’

1.2 Grammar Form (a sentence) according to grammatical rules.
‘these rules tell us how to construct a grammatical sentence in a given language’

1.3 Geometry Draw or delineate (a geometrical figure) accurately to given conditions.
‘construct a square equal in area to a given circle’

 

Those are alternative meanings. To put it another way there is an implicit OR between each sentence, not an implicit AND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

Those are alternative meanings. To put it another way there is an implicit OR between each sentence, not an implicit AND.

I cannot follow you. There is no "or" between build and form an idea. According to above, "constructed" means "build", "form...", "draw...". It has different meanings, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

I cannot follow you. There is no "or" between build and form an idea. According to above, "constructed" means "build", "form...", "draw...". It has different meanings, that's all.

It has alternative meanings. Construct means "Build" or "form an idea" or "form a sentence" etc. The "or" is implicit between each sentence.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that "construct" means "build" and "form an idea" (design) and that "construct" therefore means "construct and design". Sorry, that isn't a correct interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah good. We're getting down to what is the definition of "is" part of the AC cycle. Hopefully we get some shots soon of the surrogates sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

It has alternative meanings. Construct means "Build" or "form an idea" or "form a sentence" etc. The "or" is implicit between each sentence.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that "construct" means "build" and "form an idea" (design) and that "construct" therefore means "construct and design". Sorry, that isn't a correct interpretation.

Implicit, got it :lol:.
I still think, my interpretation is as good as anyone's. We need to agree to disagree here, but I'm "having" a good time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

Implicit, got it :lol:.
I still think, my interpretation is as good as anyone's. We need to agree to disagree here, but I'm "having" a good time.

Aboard a keel yacht, hopefully?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rennmaus said:

Good article, except "And so it was until the 2003 Match when the Kiwis changed the Deed to remove the Nationality clause."
I hate it when an actually informative piece is tarnished by errors of this magnitude. Diminishes the credibility of the author.
 


Bold: Well, currently it looks like pure nationalism in sourcing, build and retail is the way to go, especially in the USA. Never say never...

I was referring to the technology base. Once a part of that is outsourced, it is practically impossible to pull it back in. The outfit you outsourced to will see to that. (I worked for one of those, and making the customer dependent upon us was basic to our business plan and our number one marketing priority.)

The other stuff you mention are parts of the supply chain and you can force them inside national boundaries, or at least try.

Cheers,

Earl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

Aboard a keel yacht, hopefully?

Hahaha, unfortunately not :D.
 

18 minutes ago, Earl Boebert said:

I was referring to the technology base. Once a part of that is outsourced, it is practically impossible to pull it back in. The outfit you outsourced to will see to that. (I worked for one of those, and making the customer dependent upon us was basic to our business plan and our number one marketing priority.)

The other stuff you mention are parts of the supply chain and you can force them inside national boundaries, or at least try.

Cheers,

Earl

I forgot to apply the sarcasm color, sorry. You are right, right, right.
sarcasm and a hint at the irrational things going on in the US   <- sarcasm color

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogwatch said:

It has alternative meanings. Construct means "Build" or "form an idea" or "form a sentence" etc. The "or" is implicit between each sentence.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that "construct" means "build" and "form an idea" (design) and that "construct" therefore means "construct and design". Sorry, that isn't a correct interpretation.

So, if they are mutually exclusive, at the time, was construct, "built" or "designed" ? while we know it was both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 8:03 AM, Stingray~ said:

Agreed. Neither GGYC nor RNZYS are enforcing this most basic-to-the-DoG  principle. The phrase ‘Constructed in the Country Of’ in the Deed means ‘Designed and Built in the Country Of.’

Which part of this Article from DoG can't you wrap your feeble brain around?? Fuckwit!!

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual
consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses,
number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of
the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nav said:

Trying to fit traditional, cutting edge, affordable, great match races, performance, fair, best in the sport, multiple teams, DOG legal, international, 'popular timezone', wide distribution, sponsor friendly, elitist, non-elitist etc etc all under one umbrella is a big ask....... better is a start - 'cause perfect for everyone it can't be.....

I agree it's honestly impossible to put everything under the same umbrella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Indio said:

Which part of this Article from DoG can't you wrap your feeble brain around?? Fuckwit!!

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual
consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses,
number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of
the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived."

Dumbiot, do you mean that the MC supercedes the CIC  ? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Dumbiot, do you mean that the MC supercedes the CIC  ? :lol:

Right, CiC as such is not MCable. 

It is/was bent and broken, because "constructed" is not defined and Defenders interpret it for their advantage, but it can't be waived altogether. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2018/07/team-new-zealand-s-design-turning-challengers-away-butterworth.html

Former Team New Zealand tactician Brad Butterworth believes potential challengers for the 2021 America's Cup have been put off by the new boats.

Team New Zealand revealed the new monohull racing yachts that will be sailed at the Cup after collaboration with Luna Rossa's design team.

Speaking to Andrew Gourdie and Jim Kayes on RadioLIVE, Butterworth revealed what he thinks is turning challengers away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rennmaus said:

Right, CiC as such is not MCable. 

It is/was bent and broken, because "constructed" is not defined and Defenders interpret it for their advantage, but it can't be waived altogether. 

Correct, waiwing it would go against the Raison d'Être of the Deed which is a competition between countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stingray~ said:

Former Team New Zealand tactician Brad Butterworth believes potential challengers for the 2021 America's Cup have been put off by the new boats. He joined Sunday Sport to discuss

I don't think Butterworth's opinion is any more valid than the various posters in this forum but it apply does to Alinghi who have already said that the boat puts them off. 

I think it is the cost of making a challenge and the nationality rules rather than the boat that puts teams off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terry Hollis said:

I don't think Butterworth's opinion is any more valid than the various posters in this forum but it apply does to Alinghi who have already said that the boat puts them off. 

I think it is the cost of making a challenge and the nationality rules rather than the boat that puts teams off.

I think he’s right. That’s not meant in a bad way. It’s just that it seems like the biggest cycles were when the designs carried over. Start up teams could by used boats to get going. It takes a lot less R&D to be a middle of the road first year team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Former Team New Zealand tactician Brad Butterworth believes potential challengers for the 2021 America's Cup have been put off by the new boats. He joined Sunday Sport to discuss

Includes quotes

https://www.sail-world.com/news/207431/Four-time-Am-Cup-winner-on-low-entries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

at https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2018/07/team-new-zealand-s-design-turning-challengers-away-butterworth.html

Former Team New Zealand tactician Brad Butterworth believes potential challengers for the 2021 America's Cup have been put off by the new boats.

Team New Zealand revealed the new monohull racing yachts that will be sailed at the Cup after collaboration with Luna Rossa's design team.

Speaking to Andrew Gourdie and Jim Kayes on RadioLIVE, Butterworth revealed what he thinks is turning challengers away.

tuswdk5_preview.jpg.67c0b57c7e5709592b7cefbaa270071e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just learned that there is another secret team.  Details are kind of sketchy, but here is a spy picture that has caught the boat on the water...  looks like it could walk on water...

 

AC36 boat.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Terry Hollis said:

I don't think Butterworth's opinion is any more valid than the various posters in this forum but it apply does to Alinghi who have already said that the boat puts them off. 

I think it is the cost of making a challenge and the nationality rules rather than the boat that puts teams off.

The boat, this time around, IS a large driving factor in the cost of making a challenge. 

If they had stuck with the cats, the costs would have been a quarter or a third of the amount that INEOS and LR are going to spend. Heck, if they had gone back to IACC boats, the cost would have been less. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 2Newts said:

The boat, this time around, IS a large driving factor in the cost of making a challenge. 

If they had stuck with the cats, the costs would have been a quarter or a third of the amount that INEOS and LR are going to spend. Heck, if they had gone back to IACC boats, the cost would have been less. 

Right, or scaled-up TP52s.
The design would have been standard, well known and proven, and the real money spent for the smallest advantages. So, the rich teams would have spent rich anyway, but the poorer teams would at least have a chance to enter at all... to gain experience, convince additional sponsors with a good performance, and with a bit of luck or knowledge score the one or other point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

Right, or scaled-up TP52s.
The design would have been standard, well known and proven, and the real money spent for the smallest advantages. So, the rich teams would have spent rich anyway, but the poorer teams would at least have a chance to enter at all... to gain experience, convince additional sponsors with a good performance, and with a bit of luck or knowledge score the one or other point.

Hallelujah Ren - spot on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Herfy said:

Just learned that there is another secret team.  Details are kind of sketchy, but here is a spy picture that has caught the boat on the water...  looks like it could walk on water...

 

AC36 boat.jpg

Good one :D

Did you craft this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 2Newts said:

Hallelujah Ren - spot on. 

too bad the AC is at least partially a design contest that differentiates it from a JAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Rennmaus said:

Right, or scaled-up TP52s.
The design would have been standard, well known and proven, and the real money spent for the smallest advantages. So, the rich teams would have spent rich anyway, but the poorer teams would at least have a chance to enter at all... to gain experience, convince additional sponsors with a good performance, and with a bit of luck or knowledge score the one or other point.

I'm sure they wanted to get back to Match Racing as well, ah well, maybe next time ........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, barfy said:

too bad the AC is at least partially a design contest that differentiates it from a JAR.

Hardly the point that either Ran or I were making. I'm not advocating for a one-design AC and, if you read any of Renmaus' posts, neither is she. The point is that if you had started with a known platform, either monohull or catamaran, the costs of the upcoming AC would be much lower. You could take any of the IACC, AC50, or TP52 and create a box design rule (which the IACC was to begin with) and, presto, you have an AC that combines design and sailing skills with far lower cost than by introducing a new design with radical elements. Simpler boat platform would have led to lower cost (my rebuttal point to Mr. Hollis); lower cost would have led to more competitors, including those who just want to get experience or convince wary sponsors to sign up (Ren's point).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, barfy said:

too bad the AC is at least partially a design contest that differentiates it from a JAR.

Of course, an unlimited design contest with strict CiC would be my wet dream, but then nobody should complain that there would be only one Challenger - if at all.
We had that in AC33, and it was perfect.

But I think we were talking about how to get more participants into the game, no?
 

53 minutes ago, 2Newts said:

Hardly the point that either Ran or I were making. I'm not advocating for a one-design AC and, if you read any of Renmaus' posts, neither is she. The point is that if you had started with a known platform, either monohull or catamaran, the costs of the upcoming AC would be much lower. You could take any of the IACC, AC50, or TP52 and create a box design rule (which the IACC was to begin with) and, presto, you have an AC that combines design and sailing skills with far lower cost than by introducing a new design with radical elements. Simpler boat platform would have led to lower cost (my rebuttal point to Mr. Hollis); lower cost would have led to more competitors, including those who just want to get experience or convince wary sponsors to sign up (Ren's point).  

Right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t stop in too often but I have to admit and say that the thread has taken a turn towards reality with the posts by Ren and 2Newts etc. ET was going in the rite direction towards regaining some of the interest from the sailing community but blew it with the foils . Now they are wondering why almost no one wants to come play .The AC lost relevancy and interest of both competitors and fans ever since they gained a hull and foils .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly my point at post #1313...

I would love to see the total advertising and  sponsorship dollars for the last IACC cup vs the last multi cup....

I am a Cat sailor and the 72s were impressive, but I would rather spend a summer watching 11 challengers in an elimination series and then race a defender that did not participate until the Cup - even if it was a 68 foot high performance non-foiling or semi-foiling mono that is not the highest speed cutting edge sailing contraption...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 2Newts said:

Hardly the point that either Ran or I were making. I'm not advocating for a one-design AC and, if you read any of Renmaus' posts, neither is she. The point is that if you had started with a known platform, either monohull or catamaran, the costs of the upcoming AC would be much lower. You could take any of the IACC, AC50, or TP52 and create a box design rule (which the IACC was to begin with) and, presto, you have an AC that combines design and sailing skills with far lower cost than by introducing a new design with radical elements. Simpler boat platform would have led to lower cost (my rebuttal point to Mr. Hollis); lower cost would have led to more competitors, including those who just want to get experience or convince wary sponsors to sign up (Ren's point).  

 

1 hour ago, DHFiend said:

Exactly my point at post #1313...

I would love to see the total advertising and  sponsorship dollars for the last IACC cup vs the last multi cup....

I am a Cat sailor and the 72s were impressive, but I would rather spend a summer watching 11 challengers in an elimination series and then race a defender that did not participate until the Cup - even if it was a 68 foot high performance non-foiling or semi-foiling mono that is not the highest speed cutting edge sailing contraption...

Right! This idea that the AC is always the most cutting edge sailing technology, period, no exceptions - to the point of dreaming up a new type of boat that has never existed before - is a pretty new concept. Yes, the Cup always pushed technology, but it was within the context of already-proven platforms. Consider that the 12 Meter was already a 50 year old class when it was first adopted for the Cup, and it was adopted to contain costs in the postwar economy.

Pick an inshore rule that works and roll with it. I just want to see a sailboat race.

On a side note, people are always nostalgic for 1987, but 2000 was the first Cup I watched, and I always feel like it's underrated. Just 18 years ago, we had 11 challengers with 5 US teams for us yanks to pick from, and mostly national crews. The final was anticlimactic, but the parity in the LVC that summer was amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rennmaus said:

Of course, an unlimited design contest with strict CiC would be my wet dream, but then nobody should complain that there would be only one Challenger - if at all.
We had that in AC33, and it was perfect.

But I think we were talking about how to get more participants into the game, no?
 

 

but who's complaining about 2-3 strong Chals? 

Has the offer of a leg up by GD rubbed everyone the wrong way? still infinitely better than what was on offer from the gang of 5 in terms of seeing some design differential between teams. This time around the boats may even look different!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This time we will see all challengers trying to win. Trying to beat the defender, not help them retain for the sake of some Framework Agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 10:50 AM, Rennmaus said:

Right, or scaled-up TP52s.
The design would have been standard, well known and proven, and the real money spent for the smallest advantages. So, the rich teams would have spent rich anyway, but the poorer teams would at least have a chance to enter at all... to gain experience, convince additional sponsors with a good performance, and with a bit of luck or knowledge score the one or other point.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  ;) 

GD had his chance to do what he said he would do, bring the AC back to what average sailors know and enjoy.  Instead he had to kowtow to his Poodle COR and we have what we have.   

Ultimately though whats the point?  The boat design has been chose and there is no going back. All we can hope for is a competitive PC final and an AC final.  Not sure we will get either though.

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, barfy said:

but who's complaining about 2-3 strong Chals? 

Has the offer of a leg up by GD rubbed everyone the wrong way? still infinitely better than what was on offer from the gang of 5 in terms of seeing some design differential between teams. This time around the boats may even look different!

The city of Auckland for one . With less than half the teams showing up that were expected the monetary value of the event is seriously diminished . The local establishments , bars especially , will all see far less income than what they may have been expecting based on more successful AC’s. The pie in the sky numbers that were thrown about when the wooing of the city was going on will not come close to being achieved . The only good news is that it will be much easier to accomadate the few teams that do actually show up space wise in the harbor . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WetHog said:

Couldn't have said it better myself.  ;) 

GD had his chance to do what he said he would do, bring the AC back to what average sailors know and enjoy.  Instead he had to kowtow to his Poodle COR and we have what we have.   

Ultimately though whats the point?  The boat design has been chose and there is no going back. All we can hope for is a competitive PC final and an AC final.  Not sure we will get either though.

WetHog  :ph34r:

now the CoR is the poodle again? Riddle me this - are you suggesting that PB didn't want a regular mono ala scaled up TP52?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh2600 said:

now the CoR is the poodle again? Riddle me this - are you suggesting that PB didn't want a regular mono ala scaled up TP52?

PB will always be The Poodle because Patrizio the Poodle has a nice ring to it.  ;)

As for what The Poodle wanted, who the fuck cares at this point?  The decision is made.  So lets get ready for a 3 team challenger series and hope its better than AC34.  Won't hold my breath though.  :blink:

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WetHog said:

PB will always be The Poodle because Patrizio the Poodle has a nice ring to it.  ;)

As for what The Poodle wanted, who the fuck cares at this point?  The decision is made.  So lets get ready for a 3 team challenger series and hope its better than AC34.  Won't hold my breath though.  :blink:

WetHog  :ph34r:

Remembering the AC34 3-team challenger series was only a 3-team challenger series because of ETNZ. If not for ETNZ, there would not have been a challenger series, and the AC would've been a training run for Oracle against a very weak Artemis Racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mfluder said:

Remembering the AC34 3-team challenger series was only a 3-team challenger series because of ETNZ. If not for ETNZ, there would not have been a challenger series, and the AC would've been a training run for Oracle against a very weak Artemis Racing.

Ok, and because of ETNZ there will only be a 3 team challenger series for AC36.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WetHog said:

Ok, and because of ETNZ there will only be a 3 team challenger series for AC36.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Are you sure about that? The entry period is still open for another 4 and a half months yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mfluder said:

Are you sure about that? The entry period is still open for another 4 and a half months yet.

The entry period is closed and there are 3 challengers.

n1zbqa.jpg

https://www.americascup.com/en/news/16_AC36-CHALLENGER-ENTRY-PERIOD-OPENS-ON-1-JANUARY-2018.html

For another 4 months a team can challenge under the late entry period, paying a 1 mil fee.  Far from a guarantee.

WetHog  :ph34r:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WetHog said:

 

As for what The Poodle wanted, who the fuck cares at this point?  

Well clearly you do mate because you were the one banging on about it :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rh2600 said:

Well clearly you do mate because you were the one banging on about it :blink:

I care but there isn't a thing I can do about it.

Sad thing is you don't.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, WetHog said:

The entry period is closed and there are 3 challengers.

n1zbqa.jpg

https://www.americascup.com/en/news/16_AC36-CHALLENGER-ENTRY-PERIOD-OPENS-ON-1-JANUARY-2018.html

For another 4 months a team can challenge under the late entry period, paying a 1 mil fee.  Far from a guarantee.

WetHog  :ph34r:  

Agreed. But we can't yet say definitely that there will only be 3 challengers in 2021.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mfluder said:

Agreed. But we can't yet say definitely that there will only be 3 challengers in 2021.

We can't but at this point if a team hasn't entered by now whats the point?

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WetHog said:

We can't but at this point if a team hasn't entered by now whats the point?

WetHog  :ph34r:

Winning. If we learned anything from last time, the team with the biggest budget doesn't necessarily win the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mfluder said:

Winning. If we learned anything from last time, the team with the biggest budget doesn't necessarily win the cup.

It's not about the size of a teams budget.  Its lost time to design/build a boat, or two.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, WetHog said:

I care but there isn't a thing I can do about it.

Sad thing is you don't.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Pinot's kicked in eh? You are making no sense... in your fervent desire to piss away your sour grapes you aren't even keeping up with yourself...here's what just happened...

Rennie said she wished for regular monos ala 'scaled-up TP52s"

you said you 'couldn't agree more' and then blamed PB for the monos not being regular, as GD 'had to kowtow to his Poodle COR'

Which is wrong - ironically Rennmaus and PB (and you too if you could make your mind up) are probably in agreement in their wishes for a regular mono...

Blame GD all you want for the AC75 freaky bits, but suggesting it was due to kowtowing LR is just plain wrong... you seem desperate to add that little dig to everything you write...even when logic defies it... that is what is sad...

BTW - There will only ever be one set of poodles mate... your efforts to change that are futile and petty... invent another name for PB if you want...but everyone knows who the poodles were/are...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, WetHog said:

It's not about the size of a teams budget.  Its lost time to design/build a boat, or two.

WetHog  :ph34r:

You can do that without entering of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, WetHog said:

It's not about the size of a teams budget.  Its lost time to design/build a boat, or two.

WetHog  :ph34r:

But then again, if you buy a design package, then you save significantly on design costs and time. A lot of the components are one design anyway, so is entering early really that important? at least one of the "Potential teams" has said the $1million late fee isn't a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD is trying like hell to get more teams, has indicated as much, Auckland City Council and the Govt are/were expecting more teams for the massive investment and ‘host fee’ based on the Economic Impact’s report that depended largely on the number of Challengers, the two radio guys who interviewed Brad B kept harping on about if the event is getting short-changed and about if GD’s relationship with potential Challs could be a reason why it’s gone this way, and I think BB’s response about the in-bed relationship between ‘blunt nail’ GD and PB rings true as being a major factor in some $B’s decisions to just go elsewhere - BB’s friend EB included.

Back in about 2013 there was a charity event in NZ and both GD and RC were invited. GD started off by making RC answer to his very barbed question about there being only 3 Challengers. The question GD asked was: (something like)

“How did this (AC34) go so badly wrong?”

Those Auckland sports radio guys were asking BB that same question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me there are 3 most powerful challengers.  Having some training teams, (which there might be) toward the next cup is not so important for me.

Personally I think all  four teams have about equal chance of winning which is the most important thing for me.

Because of this equality this will be a fantastic cup, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

GD is trying like hell to get more teams, has indicated as much, Auckland City Council and the Govt are/were expecting more teams for the massive investment and ‘host fee’ based on the Economic Impact’s report that depended largely on the number of Challengers, the two radio guys who interviewed Brad B kept harping on about if the event is getting short-changed and about if GD’s relationship with potential Challs could be a reason why it’s gone this way, and I think BB’s response about the in-bed relationship between ‘blunt nail’ GD and PB rings true as being a major factor in some $B’s decisions to just go elsewhere - BB’s friend EB included.

Back in about 2013 there was a charity event in NZ and both GD and RC were invited. GD started off by making RC answer to his very barbed question about there being only 3 Challengers. The question GD asked was: (something like)

“How did this (AC34) go so badly wrong?”

Those Auckland sports radio guys were asking BB that same question.

The answer was the same then as it is now and will be, until the damage done by Oracle Team USA is undone. That answer being...Larry Ellison came along.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mfluder said:

The answer was the same then as it is now and will be, until the damage done by Oracle Team USA is undone. That answer being...Larry Ellison came along.

 

You can keep endlessly repeating your dogma all you want but that’s all it is.

For many reasons, there will be only 3 Challengers in the PRADA Cup. GD referrered to them as being ‘super’ and RG is now for presumably promotional reasons labelling them as the ‘Super Teams’ but the B’s and money looks to me like much the same as in the AC34 event that GD so publicly derided. 

LE’s $Billions lavished on AC events will be missed, he like some others haven chosen to move on instead of dealing with this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

You can keep endlessly repeating your dogma all you want but that’s all it is.

For many reasons, there will be only 3 Challengers in the PRADA Cup. GD referrered to them as being ‘super’ and RG is now for presumably promotional reasons labelling them as the ‘Super Teams’ but the B’s and money looks to me like much the same as in the AC34 event that GD so publicly derided. 

LE’s $Billions lavished on AC events will be missed, he like some others haven chosen to move on instead of dealing with this situation.

The money in the Americas Cup will always look much the same as it always does. The reason GD and many of the sailing community "publicly derided" AC34 was because they spent years in court and did serious harm to the reputation of the Americas Cup, and they did it by saying one thing, then when it came time to walk their talk, they turned around and did another, and created more unwanted scandal and inflicted even more harm on the event than they'd already done. Now the next defending team is left to deal with the aftermath and clean up the trail of destruction left behind while Ellison choses to "move on".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Didn't Michael Fay spend a great deal of time in court also but that would be OK because it was an NZ challenge

No not really... that Fay wound up in court is not regarded in NZ as our finest hour in AC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Didn't Michael Fay spend a great deal of time in court also but that would be OK because it was an NZ challenge

Yes he did. And even won the cup (for a short time) but the saving grace was through court action it spawned a new IACC class which had longevity and saw some of the greatest AC events in recent history. Ellisons court actions were completely self serving, but were disguised as "Fighting the good fight" for the good of all Challengers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.........

LE’s $Billions lavished on AC events will be missed, he like some others haven chosen to move on instead of dealing with this situation.

Could not see away to beat risk & innovation, where money wasn't guaranteed to win? and own the event? IMHO 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Back in about 2013 there was a charity event in NZ and both GD and RC were invited. GD started off by making RC answer to his very barbed question about there being only 3 Challengers. The question GD asked was: (something like)

“How did this (AC34) go so badly wrong?”

I remember this well.

I'm an ETNZ fan through and through ... but I feel uncomfortable that GD is now defending a very expensive boat with, lets be honest, not many challengers. The very things he has been strongly criticising for years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rh2600 said:

No not really... that Fay wound up in court is not regarded in NZ as our finest hour in AC...

Actually, that's not quite correct. It's recognised in NZ as using the yanks' own predisposition to lawsuits against them, and he won. Until xenophobia overturned the court ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Indio said:

Actually, that's not quite correct. It's recognised in NZ as using the yanks' own predisposition to lawsuits against them, and he won. Until xenophobia overturned the court ruling.

True, but we do prefer to win things on the field ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 1:26 AM, Terry Hollis said:

I don't think Butterworth's opinion is any more valid than the various posters in this forum but it apply does to Alinghi who have already said that the boat puts them off. 

I think it is the cost of making a challenge and the nationality rules rather than the boat that puts teams off.

There is a very strong correlation between the choice of boat and cost, I don't think you can dismiss that so lightly.

Imagine how many challengers there would be if there was a very simple 10m or 15m monohull box rule with no restriction on foiling. That would have met many of the intentions of this AC round and opened up the field considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobG said:

There is a very strong correlation between the choice of boat and cost, I don't think you can dismiss that so lightly.

Imagine how many challengers there would be if there was a very simple 10m or 15m monohull box rule with no restriction on foiling. That would have met many of the intentions of this AC round and opened up the field considerably.

I don't understand why people are getting upset over the number of Challengers. AC36 has attracted the 3 best and most well-funded and -resourced Challengers ever, from whom the Challenger will be very tough to beat. Perth had the most number of Challengers, but Dennis-the-menace was realistically the only competitive Challenger with any chance of winning. Valencia 2007 likewise, with only LR and ETNZ realistic Challengers. AC35 - well, there was only 1 team in it, and they duly won.

Roll on 2021!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Indio said:

I don't understand why people are getting upset over the number of Challengers. AC36 has attracted the 3 best and most well-funded and -resourced Challengers ever, from whom the Challenger will be very tough to beat. Perth had the most number of Challengers, but Dennis-the-menace was realistically the only competitive Challenger with any chance of winning. Valencia 2007 likewise, with only LR and ETNZ realistic Challengers. AC35 - well, there was only 1 team in it, and they duly won.

Roll on 2021!

You can choose whatever criteria you want and make it look good. By the argument you put forward, you are right, but it is a very poor criteria. Most challengers need a few attempts to get really competitive and as we have seen many times, being well funded and resourced doesn't mean you will be competitive. look at Luna Rossa or Ellison who have both struggled, or Artemis first time around or Ainslie last time. How many have won first time (one)? If you aren't attracting new teams, where are the future winners going to come from? You need new teams to survive and 1 new team is not enough.

The other problem I have with your argument is that it goes against what most people have said over the years. There is no doubt that most consider the number of competitors as an indicator of the attractiveness and relevance of the America's Cup. Most were highly critical of the lack of challengers for AC34. Most important, Grant Dalton, on behalf of ETNZ, used 3 challengers as evidence it had gone badly wrong and most (all?) agreed. Surely we should be applying the same standard now as was used then. Dalton and others set the standard, we are simply using their standard to judge.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobG said:

There is a very strong correlation between the choice of boat and cost, I don't think you can dismiss that so lightly.

Imagine how many challengers there would be if there was a very simple 10m or 15m monohull box rule with no restriction on foiling. That would have met many of the intentions of this AC round and opened up the field considerably.

The boat may be expensive but that is not the point, the boat is only a fraction of the cost of doing the America's cup. 

Butterworth is saying that it is the boat that puts people off but in Alinghi's case it would be the problem of getting a crew together of the nationality of the yacht club that has an annual regattas.

The same could be said of Artemis, how do they find a crew living in Sweden for a year when there is no sailing for 6 months of the year?

Oracle, an AC50 or we walk.

The French, it's clearly a money issue.

The Australian's, money issue.

What we have is three well funded challengers who will make it an interesting contest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three challengers in previous cup events was once seen as a sign that the event was a failure but suddenly it’s a good thing ? Try telling that to those in power in the city that were promised a far larger financial return than what they will receive .

Instead of “ all black “ they might be seeing “ all red “. Come to think of it that might end up being the header for one or more scathing editorials in the local press.