Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, hoom said:

risking their single boats in unfamiliar waters.

This argument doesn't wash with me. The two boat teams will all want to race their second boat. If they damage it, they'll want to repair it rather than go back to their old boat. I don't think you can approach a sailing event and not want to sail your boat out of fear of damaging it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hoom said:

Me.

I still think a 60-65' non or semi-foiling wing cat would have been more immediately convincing, have produced spectacular racing & more useful design solutions for 'normal' sailors.

I liked the AC50's, even though I thought them a bit small for a premier event like the AC. I'm happy that they've dropped the wing for AC36, which I don't think relates to everyday sailing at all. As Brad Butterworth said, it's more like an aeroplane. I'm fully on board with the AC75 concept. It's a big boat that's going to be challenging to design, build and sail. Everything the AC should be in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 2:37 PM, Terry Hollis said:

It will really amusing if the ETNZ of the shelf design proves to be much faster than the big three and Malta with a one boat challenge wins the PRADA cup.

There is no "[off] the shelf" AC75.

Share this post


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

There is no "[off] the shelf" AC75

I think it's pretty obvious Terry is referring to the ETNZ supplied AC75 design package, that the Maltese entry have intimated that they intend to use.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Only when we actually see 5+ teams put JC75s in the water.

5+ teams being accepted is nice but as others pointed out there's still a long way to go & previous ACs have had a lot of entries drop out.

 

Me.

I still think a 60-65' non or semi-foiling wing cat would have been more immediately convincing, have produced spectacular racing & more useful design solutions for 'normal' sailors.

 

Going straight up to 75' Jesus Lizard design is still a huge risk & with no smaller AC45 equivalent the teams are going to have to ship them off from their bases to ACWS events soon after launch, losing practice/testing time & risking their single boats in unfamiliar waters.

That's good..make dem young fellas earn their money risking their ringpiece.

At least it won't be as bad as 5 teams fleet racing ac50s when they only had two weeks training and the much vaunted sim doesn't do manoeuvres.

Share this post


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

Once you're entered, you're in. Conditions have been satisfied between Defender and Challenger.

Wing sailed Cats are old news. It would've also been a bad look to have downsized the AC62 to an AC50 mid-cycle because it was too expensive, only to upsize it again for the following cycle. Foiling Cats have been seen for the last 7 years. ETNZ have come up with a new, unique and revolutionary design. 

It is a huge risk, but a risk worth taking it seems.

Teams were shipping boats around for years in the Americas Cup. Its the way it should be. After all, Its not a beach regatta 

There are no shortage of examples of teams that entered & later pulled out of previous iterations, including 2* CoRs in the last AC.

Until they launch boats there's every possibility that teams will not eventuate & there's even been a few who pulled out after launching their boat.

 

People wanted more relatable boats with some actual sail-handling.

The only way to get sail-handling is slowing them down & that means displacement or semi-foiling.

These JC Lizard boats have soft sails but if they're doing full foiling round the course they're probably not gonna use their Code 0s & twin-skin mains aren't exactly relatable.

 

I don't believe teams have shipped race boats around the world for prelim regattas other than the finals location except for Valencia 2007.

Those events were mostly held in Valencia, several in other Western Med ports and relatively close Sweden. Italy is nearly as far as possible from Auckland

There were several generations of IACC around by then & teams were only bringing current-gen race boats for the last few.

Before that you have TNZ prelims using matched pairs of previous generation & 'Worlds' held in finals locations.

Share this post


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

This argument doesn't wash with me. The two boat teams will all want to race their second boat. If they damage it, they'll want to repair it rather than go back to their old boat. I don't think you can approach a sailing event and not want to sail your boat out of fear of damaging it.

But single boat teams learning a completely new concept of boat will have to pack up, send it all to the other side of the world & if its damaged in process/shipping they will have to wait for it to be returned to base before they can fix it.

And I think most/all teams will have only 1 boat at the time of at least the first event so that risk also applies to them.

 

 

Edit: also some good stuff here https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12173564

Suggests not separate China & Japan teams but a joint China-Japan team :huh:

Apparently the Malta team is the 2nd Italian team backed by Altus, switched due to the Club demanding a big 'donation' to use their name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hoom said:

But single boat teams learning a completely new concept of boat will have to pack up, send it all to the other side of the world & if its damaged in process/shipping they will have to wait for it to be returned to base before they can fix it.

This scenario is not determined by the class of boat though. If an AC75 can be damaged in transit, then so could a 62ft cat, or any other boat. The Maltese stated in their press release, that because it's a new class, they felt that it leveled the playing field, giving a new entrant a decent shot at it. Yes they are late, and will need to get their build under way tout suite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the key success of the AC45 concept: a robust & cheap 'one-design' available early, small enough to be easily shipped & not disruptive of the main race boat programme.

GD complained about even having to send the crew away & sent B teams to some ACWS events, imagine the stink he'd have made about having to send his single race boat off to Italy & back just for a few days of sailing :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hoom said:

That was the key success of the AC45 concept: a robust & cheap 'one-design' available early, small enough to be easily shipped & not disruptive of the main race boat programme.

I get what you're saying, a mandated surrogate could have been useful from a portability aspect, and not subjecting the main boat to risk. Perhaps Dalts and Co thought time in the full sized boat was necessary for all the teams, being as it were a totally new concept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dg_sailingfan said:

SailGP will be as good & exciting as the AC, you watch.

Agreed exiting to watch but nobody will really care who wins

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That was the key success of the AC45 concept: a robust & cheap 'one-design' available early, small enough to be easily shipped & not disruptive of the main race boat programme.

GD complained about even having to send the crew away & sent B teams to some ACWS events, imagine the stink he'd have made about having to send his single race boat off to Italy & back just for a few days of sailing :ph34r:

To be fair they can have a no sailing period for all teams until all the boats arrive at the venue of their next regatta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mfluder said:

Once you're entered, you're in. Conditions have been satisfied between Defender and Challenger.

Wing sailed Cats are old news. It would've also been a bad look to have downsized the AC62 to an AC50 mid-cycle because it was too expensive, only to upsize it again for the following cycle. Foiling Cats have been seen for the last 7 years. ETNZ have come up with a new, unique and revolutionary design. 

It is a huge risk, but a risk worth taking it seems.

Teams were shipping boats around for years in the Americas Cup. Its the way it should be. After all, Its not a beach regatta

Make up your mind buddy. You were in love with Grumpy’s PR about reducing costs, now you’re advocating shipping 75 footers all over the place. At some point you just kind of look stupid. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Make up your mind buddy. You were in love with Grumpy’s PR about reducing costs, now you’re advocating shipping 75 footers all over the place. At some point you just kind of look stupid. 

One of the best Comments I've ever read here! Nice :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hoom said:

There are no shortage of examples of teams that entered & later pulled out of previous iterations, including 2* CoRs in the last AC.

Until they launch boats there's every possibility that teams will not eventuate & there's even been a few who pulled out after launching their boat.

 

People wanted more relatable boats with some actual sail-handling.

The only way to get sail-handling is slowing them down & that means displacement or semi-foiling.

These JC Lizard boats have soft sails but if they're doing full foiling round the course they're probably not gonna use their Code 0s & twin-skin mains aren't exactly relatable.

 

I don't believe teams have shipped race boats around the world for prelim regattas other than the finals location except for Valencia 2007.

Those events were mostly held in Valencia, several in other Western Med ports and relatively close Sweden. Italy is nearly as far as possible from Auckland

There were several generations of IACC around by then & teams were only bringing current-gen race boats for the last few.

Before that you have TNZ prelims using matched pairs of previous generation & 'Worlds' held in finals locations.

Good catch! The Preliminary Events in the Run-Up to AC 32 were all been held in Europe:

Act 1 Marseille, Acts 2-5 in VLC, Act 6-7 in Malmo, Acts 8-9 in Trapani, Acts 10-13 in VLC.

For AC 34 & 35 we had the AC 45 and AC 45F's which could easily being shipped to various Towns (Cities) around the World.

Now we have these AC 75's MONSTER BOATS and every Challenger has to pay a 1M $ Performance Bond/Fee for every ACWS. Absolutely ridiculous!

American Magic/NYYC has to built their Boat in Bristol and then ship it half way around the World for a lousy Preliminary Event where they even can't gain Points.

If they wanted to race in AC 75's ETNZ/RNZYS and LR/CoR should have scrubbed the ACWS altogether.

AC 30 & 31 in Auckland didn't have any Pre-Events and that worked out well.

The size of these boats are making a huge Difference whether you should consider holding Pre-Events or not IMO.

Share this post


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

Good catch! The Preliminary Events in the Run-Up to AC 32 were all been held in Europe:

Act 1 Marseille, Acts 2-5 in VLC, Act 6-7 in Malmo, Acts 8-9 in Trapani, Acts 10-13 in VLC.

For AC 34 & 35 we had the AC 45 and AC 45F's which could easily being shipped to various Towns (Cities) around the World.

Now we have these AC 75's MONSTER BOATS and every Challenger has to pay a 1M $ Performance Bond/Fee for every ACWS. Absolutely ridiculous!

American Magic/NYYC has to built their Boat in Bristol and then ship it half way around the World for a lousy Preliminary Event where they even can't gain Points.

If they wanted to race in AC 75's ETNZ/RNZYS and LR/CoR should have scrubbed the ACWS altogether.

AC 30 & 31 in Auckland didn't have any Pre-Events and that worked out well.

The size of these boats are making a huge Difference whether you should consider holding Pre-Events or not IMO.

And the only one complaining is you.

Share this post


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

And the only one complaining is you.

Really! You are changing your Positions as often as people change their underwear, always going how the wind blows. @Monkey is totally right on this. Make up your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, SClarke. Which time were you full of shit?  Will it be a cheaper event, or is it okay to spend a fortune shipping the boats around?  

You can’t have it both ways. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Seriously, SClarke. Which time were you full of shit?  Will it be a cheaper event, or is it okay to spend a fortune shipping the boats around?  

You can’t have it both ways. 

Well, he's crazy in that regard. Maybe we should call him "Crazy SCarke" at times :D

Share this post


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

Make up your mind buddy. You were in love with Grumpy’s PR about reducing costs, now you’re advocating shipping 75 footers all over the place. At some point you just kind of look stupid. 

Serious question...

What do we think the proportion of budget is allocated to logistics/transport for extracarricular races vs actual yacht development?

Share this post


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

Really! You are changing your Positions as often as people change their underwear, always going how the wind blows. @Monkey is totally right on this. Make up your mind.

Sure he is, just like you "expected 5 challengers" and thought there was no performance bond in AC35 and a performance bond was one of Daltons hypocritical ideas lol

And quit trying to bring others down with you. Just because you're always wrong doesn't mean you have to bring others down when you get embarrassed.

Share this post


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

Seriously, SClarke. Which time were you full of shit?  Will it be a cheaper event, or is it okay to spend a fortune shipping the boats around?  

You can’t have it both ways. 

Cheaper than what? Cheaper than Oracles budget in 2013? Yes. Cheaper than ETNZ's budget in 2017, Probably not. Like I said, its relative. Ive said that the whole time.

The Americas cup costs a fortune. Always has, always will. Its an investment. 

Share this post


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

Really! You are changing your Positions as often as people change their underwear, always going how the wind blows. @Monkey is totally right on this. Make up your mind.

In what way?

Share this post


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

Well, he's crazy in that regard. Maybe we should call him "Crazy SCarke" at times :D

Maybe we should call you dumb as a rock sailing fan lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry SClarke, but I just can’t take you seriously. You’re basically New Zealand’s slightly less informed version of Stingray. You regurgitate anything favorable mentioned in the press and just go with it. I’m pretty sure you’re not capable of free thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Sorry SClarke, but I just can’t take you seriously. You’re basically New Zealand’s slightly less informed version of Stingray. You regurgitate anything favorable mentioned in the press and just go with it. I’m pretty sure you’re not capable of free thinking. 

I guess that makes you a slightly less informed A4E. You just make up stories, and regurgitate them over and over again. Ya see here's the thing...making up stories isn't "free thinking" Its just straight up bullshitting.

Share this post


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

 

Haha true to form. Seems to be the only way you guys cope with being embarrassed. Hey, its not my fault you don't know what you're talking about and keep getting called out and embarrassed for your bullshit. Here's a tip...do some research, and actually learn a thing or two about the subject matter you're talking about. That way,  you won't get owned over and over again. You're welcome

Share this post


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

I guess that makes you a slightly less informed A4E. You just make up stories, and regurgitate them over and over again. Ya see here's the thing...making up stories isn't "free thinking" Its just straight up bullshitting.

Umm.  Show me one story I’ve made up. I’ll wait. 

Edit:  You’d better come up with something or you’re going to look really stupid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Umm.  Show me one story I’ve made up. I’ll wait. 

Edit:  You’d better come up with something or you’re going to look really stupid!

"You’re basically New Zealand’s slightly less informed version of Stingray. You regurgitate anything favorable mentioned in the press and just go with it" - Like I said, making up stories is straight up bullshitting.

Share this post


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

"You’re basically New Zealand’s slightly less informed version of Stingray. You regurgitate anything favorable mentioned in the press and just go with it" - Like I said, making up stories is straight up bullshitting.

So you can’t back up your accusations. You’re a liar and an idiot just like I thought. Seriously, show me one example of what you accused me of. Again, I’ll wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Stinger, bless his lil cut and paste soul, does just that, but when he actually posts it's bitter, it's mellow vitriol. Fluder stays positive.

 

Share this post


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

"You’re basically New Zealand’s slightly less informed version of Stingray. You regurgitate anything favorable mentioned in the press and just go with it" - Like I said, making up stories is straight up bullshitting.

To be fair Stingray isn't a dickhead like SClarke.

Share this post


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

Well, while you two wait it out,

Can I suggest you pleas don't quote the troll mfluder? 

I apologize. I’ll put the muppet on ignore to avoid future wasted time. 

Share this post


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

To be fair Stingray isn't a dickhead like SClarke.

But you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is where those who have bagged this AC, fall over. First, you pick apart the protocol claiming its unfair (even though no one has complained about it) then you complain about the new class of boat saying "Its too expensive, and too dangerous, and they should've just stayed with the Cats" and "The Boat is stupid, GR75, JC75 yada yada yada) when the number of existing/ accepted/ Potential Challengers would seem to discredit that argument altogether. Then you said the CoR shouldn't have Veto rights, even though according to the Deed Of Gift, MUTUAL CONSENT exists only between Defender and Challenger, therefor its the only way it could work. Also, the last time LR gave up their Veto rights, they were shafted by a group of Challengers beholden to Larry Ellison and his vision.

Then you said "Dalton complained during AC34 about costs and now he's being a hypocrite) So take your earmuffs off for a second and stop screaming lalalala so you actually understand WHY and HOW the situation differs. 

* AC34 was much more expensive than AC32, it was a new class of boat, and a new direction. It was steered away from Monohulls into Multihulls

* First we had Mascalzone Latino who were CoR following BMW Oracle's win in Valencia in 2010.

* They soon withdrew due to the costs being too high (something Dalton argued many times, and was ultimately correct)

* Artemis Racing became CoR

* ETNZ and LR entered making 3 Challengers. LR was late and bought a design package off ETNZ

* Artemis suffered disaster, after disaster, after disaster and were bundled out by LR.

* ETNZ introduces Foiling, which becomes the new norm in the Americas Cup.

* Last minute Rule Changes directly impact the Cup match, ETNZ is not able to adapt and overcome, and they lose the Cup.

* Bermuda happens, two CoR's withdraw, one due to costs being too high (Again) the other due to their own Naivety thinking if they waived their veto rights as CoR, the Challengers would work together to defeat the Challenger, where the opposite happened and the challengers worked together to try and help the Defender retain.

A whole slew of underhanded tactics on the part of ACEA/ Oracle Team USA to try and stop the ETNZ/ LR partnership failed in its attempts.

* ETNZ wins the Cup

* They introduce the AC75, they attract what is now 5 Challengers, with potential for more, still those who "disagree" with Dalton say he's a hypocrite, when in reality, the costs compared to the previous cycle aren't that different. To your average everyday non-sailor, YES they are ridiculous, but they've always been ridiculous! they've never been cheap, even in Bermuda the costs skyrocketed.

in terms of previous costs they're actually not that different. Its all relative. The previous cycle was supposedly also focused on cost-cutting, yet we still only had 5 teams, and we had teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars on their campaigns. Max Sirena (The Skipper of a current AC team) said a team could compete this time around on a 50-60 million dollar budget, the problem is the good old Sailing Anarchy folks who obviously know better, don't believe him! haha!

The real issue is, they're bitter because ETNZ won, and Dalton was right all along. They want LR to give up their CoR rights again, even though they got shafted last time because of it.

They want a "Cheap event" (Even when there has NEVER been a cheap event). They bitched and moaned about only 3 challengers, and how its a failure because there's not many teams, and now they're bitching and moaning because there's too many and they're hoping there won't be any more entries because that would mean more teams than last time and they can't bitch and moan about costs anymore (even though they will) and they only want teams who are serious about winning this time, and teams focused on the future are a waste of time anyway.

They think Dalton is a hypocrite because he complained about costs during AC34 , even though he was right.

They think the AC75 is stupid and too dangerous, even though Bernasconi has said they are doing everything they can to mitigate the chances of harm to boats and sailors (The problem is, again those same old Sailing Anarchy posters don't believe the head of a design team who clearly out-designed every other team, because they somehow know better than he does)

They think the AC75 is "Stupid" even though no team has bagged the AC75 and is excited and looking forward to sailing it, but of course, they're lying because what else are they)

They think the Press is bias towards ETNZ and they don't like people who quote stories from the Press, because the Press only report the "Favorable stuff" 

All of the reasons for bagging this Cup are all BS. Yet they still put their fingers in their ears and yell lalalala because they don't want to hear the truth.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Monkey said:
  4 hours ago, barfy said:

Well, while you two wait it out,

Can I suggest you pleas don't quote the troll mfluder? 

I actually was asking mfluder to not quote a4e ha ha.

Funny that

Share this post


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

I actually was asking mfluder to not quote a4e ha ha.

Funny that

It was an excellent Freudian slip!  They’re both a bit “special.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Stupid and dangerous?" Too soon to tell. "Questionable?" Definitely, IMHO.

Anyone who has engaged in high-consequence engineering learns very quickly that questions are a good thing, because they force you to rethink your assumptions. For example, one has to question whether an event such as the America's Cup is the proper context in which to introduce a radically new configuration of flying machine.

The principal issue is one of schedule. The Cup has a fixed schedule, and the new machine will launch to that schedule, ready or not. In this regard it is not like the rollout of a new aircraft, where the first test flight happens when the powers that be deem it to be ready. Rather it is like the construction of an interplanetary probe, where one is constrained by a fixed launch window and missing it means waiting years for the next one. I worked on one of those projects (Pioneer 2) and was taught the value of caution and conservatism when a lot of money and reputation are on the line and the clock is ticking.

Another set of questions is raised by the provision of flight- and safety-critical equipment by the defender to the challengers, e.g.,  maintenance of this gear, redress in case of its failure, and the process for determining if failure did indeed occur. It seems to me that TNZ is missing a potentially valuable set of inputs by not publishing the details of this equipment as soon as they are ready, analogous to open source software development. Since all the participants presumably get the same gear, there seems no obvious reason to keep details of the furnished equipment closely-held.

One could go on and on, but it seems obvious to me that at this stage (which, given the complexity of the vehicle, is relatively late) and the paucity of engineering detail that has been furnished, assertions are inappropriate but questions definitely are not.

Cheers,

Earl

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, what's the Point here:

The Issue is that mfluder wants to put "HIS OPINION" under everyone's THROAT so what he says is "Right" and what everyone else says is "Wrong". Once he doesn't get what he wants he starts to insult other Board Members personally.

In the meantime he consistently trashing the new SailGP League 24/7.

Maybe someone should tell him that "Sailing Anarchy" and all it's Forums are "Discussion Forums". People allowed to have different Opinions because that's what Forums are for and his opinion ain't the "Golden Standard".

Suggestion: Maybe we should rename the "America's Cup Forum" into "mfluders Forum".

Share this post


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

Seriously, what's the Point here:

The Issue is that mfluder wants to put "HIS OPINION" under everyone's THROAT so what he says is "Right" and what everyone else says is "Wrong". Once he doesn't get what he wants he starts to insult other Board Members personally.

In the meantime he consistently trashing the new SailGP League 24/7.

Maybe someone should tell him that "Sailing Anarchy" and all it's Forums are "Discussion Forums". People allowed to have different Opinions because that's what Forums are for and his opinion ain't the "Golden Standard".

Suggestion: Maybe we should rename the "America's Cup Forum" into "mfluders Forum".

I see I have got under your skin.

Here's the thing...if you insult Me, I'll insult you. Then, and only then. So if you feel insulted, its only because you've insulted Me at some stage. You give as good as you get my friend. And I think that's only fair. 

As for SA being a discussion forum, I agree, but here's a tip...if you want to have an informed discussion, it pays to know a little bit about what you're talking about, so you have something worthwhile to contribute to that discussion, especially if you're going to claim to know more than the sailors involved in the Americas Cup itself. 

And by the way, calling someone out for something, insulting them, and then crying about people bullying you when you realise it was actually you who was wrong is pretty childish also.

As for the rest...white noise. I have posted in depth comments as to my reasoning when it comes to my opinions, all in the hopes of having an "informed" discussion, but what do I get, "Oh you just quote anything favorable from the Press" and "Dalton, Bernasconi and Sirena are all liars, and don't believe Ben Ainslie, Terry Hutchinson, Peter Burling, or  even Jimmy Spithill, because they will say anything to keep Bertelli and Dalton happy, Richard Gladwell is an ETNZ hack. But you should all believe Me because i know better than any of them because I'm on Sailing Anarchy Forums" is not an informed discussion. 

So moral of the story, I'm all for informed discussion, and I'll admit when I'm wrong, when proved wrong. If the discussion deteriorates, its your doing, not mine. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I see I have got under your skin.

Here's the thing...if you insult Me, I'll insult you. Then, and only then. So if you feel insulted, its only because you've insulted Me at some stage. You give as good as you get my friend. And I think that's only fair. 

As for SA being a discussion forum, I agree, but here's a tip...if you want to have an informed discussion, it pays to know a little bit about what you're talking about, so you have something worthwhile to contribute to that discussion, especially if you're going to claim to know more than the sailors involved in the Americas Cup itself. 

And by the way, calling someone out for something, insulting them, and then crying about people bullying you when you realise it was actually you who was wrong is pretty childish also.

As for the rest...white noise. I have posted in depth comments as to my reasoning when it comes to my opinions, all in the hopes of having an "informed" discussion, but what do I get, "Oh you just quote anything favorable from the Press" and "Dalton, Bernasconi and Sirena are all liars, and don't believe Ben Ainslie, Terry Hutchinson, Peter Burling, or  even Jimmy Spithill, because they will say anything to keep Bertelli and Dalton happy, Richard Gladwell is an ETNZ hack. But you should all believe Me because i know better than any of them because I'm on Sailing Anarchy Forums" is not an informed discussion. 

So moral of the story, I'm all for informed discussion, and I'll admit when I'm wrong, when proved wrong. If the discussion deteriorates, its your doing, not mine.

Please "Define" informed Dicsussion. In your view we have only an informed Discussion when

# 1 We worship Dalts/ETNZ

# 2 Say Yes and Amen to everything they do

That's not a Discussion in my view.

Why can't you admit that you want every Comment here to be "Pro ETNZ/Dalts/RNZYS". You're basically sitting in a NZ Glass House.

Like it or not most of the Members here are right when they say folks like "Ainslie, Hutchinson, Spithill" will say anything to keep Dalton happy.

Share this post


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

"Stupid and dangerous?" Too soon to tell. "Questionable?" Definitely, IMHO.

Anyone who has engaged in high-consequence engineering learns very quickly that questions are a good thing, because they force you to rethink your assumptions. For example, one has to question whether an event such as the America's Cup is the proper context in which to introduce a radically new configuration of flying machine.

The principal issue is one of schedule. The Cup has a fixed schedule, and the new machine will launch to that schedule, ready or not. In this regard it is not like the rollout of a new aircraft, where the first test flight happens when the powers that be deem it to be ready. Rather it is like the construction of an interplanetary probe, where one is constrained by a fixed launch window and missing it means waiting years for the next one. I worked on one of those projects (Pioneer 2) and was taught the value of caution and conservatism when a lot of money and reputation are on the line and the clock is ticking.

Another set of questions is raised by the provision of flight- and safety-critical equipment by the defender to the challengers, e.g.,  maintenance of this gear, redress in case of its failure, and the process for determining if failure did indeed occur. It seems to me that TNZ is missing a potentially valuable set of inputs by not publishing the details of this equipment as soon as they are ready, analogous to open source software development. Since all the participants presumably get the same gear, there seems no obvious reason to keep details of the furnished equipment closely-held.

One could go on and on, but it seems obvious to me that at this stage (which, given the complexity of the vehicle, is relatively late) and the paucity of engineering detail that has been furnished, assertions are inappropriate but questions definitely are not.

Cheers,

Earl

 

Could etnz be working with the teams on these challenges? Seems there were representatives present at the infamous arm testing, would this not extend to other important bits, but not be in the public domain yet?

Share this post


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

Could etnz be working with the teams on these challenges? Seems there were representatives present at the infamous arm testing, would this not extend to other important bits, but not be in the public domain yet?

Quite possibly. I just think everyone would benefit if the process was for addressing these issues were to be documented and made public, if only through the mechanism of media questions to the TNZ management.

Cheers,

Earl

Share this post


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

Please "Define" informed Dicsussion. In your view we have only an informed Discussion when

# 1 We worship Dalts/ETNZ

# 2 Say Yes and Amen to everything they do

That's not a Discussion in my view.

Why can't you admit that you want every Comment here to be "Pro ETNZ/Dalts/RNZYS". You're basically sitting in a NZ Glass House.

Like it or not most of the Members here are right when they say folks like "Ainslie, Hutchinson, Spithill" will say anything to keep Dalton happy.

If you need to ask what the definition of Informed discussion is, you're probably not ready to have one. And you should've known the definition of it before you asked for one anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 4:01 PM, dg_sailingfan said:

SailGP will be as good & exciting as the AC, you watch.

May well be.. But its is not the AC.

Many would prefer to watch the extreme sailing series, superfoilers, 18ft skiffs... Some watch Peppa Pig... 

None of those carry the kudos of competing for an incredible trophy which is at the heart of yacht racing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Purple Headed Warrior said:

May well be.. But its is not the AC.

Many would prefer to watch the extreme sailing series, superfoilers, 18ft skiffs... Some watch Peppa Pig... 

None of those carry the kudos of competing for an incredible trophy which is at the heart of yacht racing.

When the Extreme Sailing Series came up I was very excited. Now, it got pretty boring. Too many Delays, only 2 Days of Live Coverage. I think it's a poorly run Event looking at TV Coverage. They could have done much more with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dg_sailingfan said:

When the Extreme Sailing Series came up I was very excited. Now, it got pretty boring. Too many Delays, only 2 Days of Live Coverage. I think it's a poorly run Event looking at TV Coverage. They could have done much more with it.

I agree.....

My favorite event to watch is the TP52s.... I used to sail in the fleet which helps... But, it is superb yacht racing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Purple Headed Warrior said:

I agree.....

My favorite event to watch is the TP52s.... I used to sail in the fleet which helps... But, it is superb yacht racing!

Really cool that you could sail in the TP52's :)

I think SailGP will do well. They had to do something that's fast & exciting given that we will have to wait until Oct 2019 for any AC Sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

When the Extreme Sailing Series came up I was very excited. Now, it got pretty boring. Too many Delays, only 2 Days of Live Coverage. I think it's a poorly run Event looking at TV Coverage. They could have done much more with it.

Feel free to shoot a couple of million bucks into the series. Then they can video cover the complete events and buy air time at TV stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Earl Boebert said:

Quite possibly. I just think everyone would benefit if the process was for addressing these issues were to be documented and made public, if only through the mechanism of media questions to the TNZ management.

Cheers,

Earl

well it would certainly make for more interesting discussions than the troll is initiating. And an increase in fan engagement (all 27 here).

Seeing that there is no gag rule, and no-one is complaining, perhaps all the teams involved in the dev at this point are happy to be quiet. I get that no-one wants to slag the event because of sponsor's expectations, but the cone of silence from all teams regarding their co-operation in the process is interesting. It's been commented on previously by other SA'ers as well i believe.

Share this post


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

well it would certainly make for more interesting discussions than the troll is initiating. And an increase in fan engagement (all 27 here).

Seeing that there is no gag rule, and no-one is complaining, perhaps all the teams involved in the dev at this point are happy to be quiet. I get that no-one wants to slag the event because of sponsor's expectations, but the cone of silence from all teams regarding their co-operation in the process is interesting. It's been commented on previously by other SA'ers as well i believe.

I with you @barfy on this. If it is all helping and learning could be very interesting.  Some one might spot an angle and keep quiet and play along.  Who knows! everyone would have been on cycles last time though?

Share this post


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

I with you @barfy on this. If it is all helping and learning could be very interesting.  Some one might spot an angle and keep quiet and play along.  Who knows! everyone would have been on cycles last time though?

fuck, the sailing team wore padded jackets to hide the fact their legs were like tree stumps. Might be a bit more open, but as you say, I would expect everyone to be super introspective about their ideas, and keep the spies in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great interview from a few months back, and explains a lot of the questions being answered (queue the "Daltons a liar" comments)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the headquarters is a re purposed event Center.so no intent to change the structure. and although fascinating reading, it seems Parkinson is making a case for iterative design methods with his essay on buildings, which the NZ team would be intimately familiar with. Throw the ball as far as you can then see if you can catch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sail-world.com/news/212958/A-tsunami-of-Am-Cup-Challenges-hits-Auckland

Gladwell's Line: America's Cup Challengers - a nice problem to have

"That being the case, there is no way that they can have a Challenge accepted in early December, and be on the start line in October 2019 for the first of the America's Cup World Series event set down for Cagliari, Sardinia. So expect to see that Protocol requirement adjusted for the single AC75 teams.

Expect also to have the 380 days residency rule softened for teams who have competitors involved in Olympic programs, and similar. Ultimately it is to the advantage of the America's Cup regatta to have current Olympic champions and competitors sailing in the fleet. They add credence to the Cup.

Expect some of the Entry Fee, Late Fee and Performance Bonds to be paid on a deferred basis or a changed date - but not eliminated altogether. Sail-World has raised the issue of the Late Fee previously with two of the teams that are either accepted - Malta Altus Challenge, and the next expected Challenger - Team USA21.

Both have said the Late Entry Fee is not a significant barrier to entry. The second Entry Fee, due on November 30 can be put onto a time payment - with the final instalment due in August 2019.

Other than those three changes, there is not a lot of others possible without impacting strategy decisions already made by the initial Challenger group. The Challenger of Record, Circolo della Vela Sicilia is unlikely to agree to any major Protocol changes"

Sounds pretty fair to Me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a one boat challenge you are going to want to build a second generation boat not a first generation New zealand design pack 

So most likely want to build surrogate/Mule to that design to learn and see how the first three boats look,which could be very different particularly in hull shape 

Then build second generation boat therefore the protocol changes you will be looking for are not competing in first years ACWS which as they do not have any foil arms may be acceptable and play out to the  smaller late entry teams benefit keeping there own cards closer to their chest while learning from others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 2:22 AM, Monkey said:

C’mon buddy. Your credibility is on the line. 

That went out the window years ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 2:59 AM, Monkey said:

I apologize. I’ll put the muppet on ignore to avoid future wasted time. 

It does make the reading of AC threads a lot easier

Share this post


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

If you are a one boat challenge you are going to want to build a second generation boat not a first generation New zealand design pack 

So most likely want to build surrogate/Mule to that design to learn and see how the first three boats look,which could be very different particularly in hull shape 

Then build second generation boat therefore the protocol changes you will be looking for are not competing in first years ACWS which as they do not have any foil arms may be acceptable and play out to the  smaller late entry teams benefit keeping there own cards closer to their chest while learning from others

Well, NZL is carving here in a big time way to the "Late Entries". I don't like this Rule that Teams having only one Boat being spared to race the ACWS in 2019. INEOS, AM, LR have spent a year trying to gain a Advantage over potential new Challengers. That will all be nullified if they go ahead with this. The Residency Rule shouldn't be amended as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

Well, NZL is carving here in a big time way to the "Late Entries". I don't like this Rule that Teams having only one Boat being spared to race the ACWS in 2019. INEOS, AM, LR have spent a year trying to gain a Advantage over potential new Challengers. That will all be nullified if they go ahead with this. The Residency Rule shouldn't be amended as well.

Let me get this straight... You think ETNZ is not being fair, but then you don't want them to ease any rules to accommodate teams, or make it easier for them? 

Share this post


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

Let me get this straight... You think ETNZ is not being fair, but then you don't want them to ease any rules to accommodate teams, or make it easier for them? 

The Rules shouldn't be eased in favour of the Late Entries and that's what ETNZ will do here. That's not fair to the 3 "Super Teams". Either you built a boat to compete in time for the ACWS 2019 or you don't and bow out of the Competition. The more time the Late Challengers get, the more they will narrow the Advantage the 3 established Teams have.

If ETNZ/LR want to make this fair they should cancel the ACWS in 2019 and start fresh with 3 or 4 Events in 2020. That would be fair.

Share this post


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

The Rules shouldn't be eased in favour of the Late Entries and that's what ETNZ will do here. That's not fair to the 3 "Super Teams". Either you built a boat to compete in time for the ACWS 2019 or you don't and bow out of the Competition. The more time the Late Challengers get, the more they will narrow the Advantage the 3 established Teams have.

If ETNZ/LR want to make this fair they should cancel the ACWS in 2019 and start fresh with 3 or 4 Events in 2020. That would be fair.

How is it not fair to the "Super Teams"? You've already said the late teams already have a huge mountain to climb to catch up to the other challengers. Wouldn't having more competitive teams also be an advantage to the Super Teams? The more competition they have, the more they will improve. 

How would cancelling the event in 2019 be "fair" to those Super Teams? Especially LR? The protocol always stated there was to be an event in 2019, thats what they have been preparing for, so cancelling the event would only throw their schedule out wouldn't it? The Super teams may have seen the 2019 events as critical to getting time on the water in their Boat 1. It may also be detrimental to the LR campaign as well. 

Surely easing the rules for the late teams while allowing the Super teams to compete is by far the most "Fair" option for everyone, as well as the event itself. You need to see the big picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I usually agree with @mfluder, I have to disagree this time. There should only be one set of rules that is known before the teams enter. It should stay unchanged, because it is a contract both parties agreed to and need to adhere to.
Why can't/shouldn't the AC do what hundreds of other sporting events do every day?

Share this post


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

While I usually agree with @mfluder, I have to disagree this time. There should only be one set of rules that is known before the teams enter. It should stay unchanged, because it is a contract both parties agreed to and need to adhere to.
Why can't/shouldn't the AC do what hundreds of other sporting events do every day?

Assuming that Malta will purchase a Basic Design Package from ETNZ and the still Unannounced 5th Challenger will do as well they should be able to have an AC 75 ready to sail by Oct. 2019. This is 9 months folks. Even my grandfather can built a boat in that timeframe, lol.

Why does Gladwell think the Rules should be changed is beyond me?

Also, the CoR Luna Rossa would need to agree to these Protocol Changes and it's unclear they will.

Share this post


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

The Rules shouldn't be eased in favour of the Late Entries and that's what ETNZ will do here. That's not fair to the 3 "Super Teams". Either you built a boat to compete in time for the ACWS 2019 or you don't and bow out of the Competition. The more time the Late Challengers get, the more they will narrow the Advantage the 3 established Teams have.

If ETNZ/LR want to make this fair they should cancel the ACWS in 2019 and start fresh with 3 or 4 Events in 2020. That would be fair.

Just out of curiosity what was your stance on the move to the AC50?

That it was the most extreme easing of the rules imaginable and expressly against the wishes of two of the super competitors and there were an awful lot of people who seemed to think it was acceptable.

Personally I would hope ETNZ and LR would run any easements past the existing teams first and try and move forward with agreement as seems to be the way so far this time around, but time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think USA21 has been in for a long time just keeping their powder dry.

I hope they are right on the cutting edge with their simulator and come out of left field at the last minute with a challenging design to keep ETNZ on their toes.

Close competition, please.  The way to the best ideas and the biggest improvements.

Share this post


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

While I usually agree with @mfluder, I have to disagree this time. There should only be one set of rules that is known before the teams enter. It should stay unchanged, because it is a contract both parties agreed to and need to adhere to.
Why can't/shouldn't the AC do what hundreds of other sporting events do every day?

I do agree with you, but I think we have to be realistic. It would be great if the AC was like hundreds of other sports, but it never has been. But thats what makes the AC special and unique.

The AC is bound by the Deed of Gift. The Deed of gift makes no provision for "Challengers" only for a "Challenger and a Defender" in which together (by Mutual consent) they can write a protocol by which to hold the event. 

No other sport does this. Most sports are run by an authority group who manage the event, unlike the Americas Cup, which is why they can be so consistently successful, but the AC is basically run by the Defender and Challenger, or what ever group they choose to appoint to that role.

While it is not ideal to be changing rules, it is certainly in all teams interests, as well as the event, to be able to have flexibility in the protocol. 

The AC ran the risk of becoming an "exclusive" event, where it needs to be an "inclusive" event. 

Do I think the DoG is an old, outdated, antiquated document that has no place in modern day sport? Absolutely. But I also think the AC would not be the AC without the DoG. It would become just another sporting event. 

Share this post


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

Just out of curiosity what was your stance on the move to the AC50?

That it was the most extreme easing of the rules imaginable and expressly against the wishes of two of the super competitors and there were an awful lot of people who seemed to think it was acceptable.

Personally I would hope ETNZ and LR would run any easements past the existing teams first and try and move forward with agreement as seems to be the way so far this time around, but time will tell.

To answer your Question:

I would have stayed with the originally planned AC 62's so I wasn't pleased when they downsized it. It was a desperate Attempt by OTUSA to get more Teams involved. Groupama wouldn't have had the Budget for an AC 62 and to lesser extend SBTJ as well.

Now to AC 36:

If you look at the Protocol the supposed ACWS 2019 Events were "Optional" meaning that they "could" cancel them if the Late Entries are unable to compete and start the ACWS in 2020. That's my take.

I find it stupid tbh letting LR, AM and INEOS race in 2019 and the other Challengers ain't. It should be either all or no one and wait until 2020.

Share this post


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

I do agree with you, but I think we have to be realistic. It would be great if the AC was like hundreds of other sports, but it never has been. But thats what makes the AC special and unique.

The AC is bound by the Deed of Gift. The Deed of gift makes no provision for "Challengers" only for a "Challenger and a Defender" in which together (by Mutual consent) they can write a protocol by which to hold the event. 

No other sport does this. Most sports are run by an authority group who manage the event, unlike the Americas Cup, which is why they can be so consistently successful, but the AC is basically run by the Defender and Challenger, or what ever group they choose to appoint to that role.

While it is not ideal to be changing rules, it is certainly in all teams interests, as well as the event, to be able to have flexibility in the protocol. 

The AC ran the risk of becoming an "exclusive" event, where it needs to be an "inclusive" event. 

You contradict yourself above. The AC is super exclusive by nature, because - as you correctly wrote - it is only about Defender and the one Challenger.
The rest is handled via the CSS, ideally organized by the construct of the CoR. The CSS rules compose the contract every potential Challenger signs, like in every other sporting event. Caveat: Of course the CoR is not independent in its decisions, because the Defender needs to agree to race whichever team is the last left in the CSS.

Anyway, it's all guesswork now, as long as there's no announcement of a rule change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kiwing said:

I think USA21 has been in for a long time just keeping their powder dry.

I hope they are right on the cutting edge with their simulator and come out of left field at the last minute with a challenging design to keep ETNZ on their toes.

Close competition, please.  The way to the best ideas and the biggest improvements.

Unlikely to happen mate ;)

I also disagree with you on "Them being IN for a long time".

I have had conversations with Jack Griffin from "CupExperience" and he said Canfield has a Private Backer to cover half the Budget but he needed to find Sponsors elsewhere to cover the other half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a new team chooses to go down the route of purchasing the ETNZ design package then there is no reason why they can't be ready for the 2019 event/s. With so many of the components being one design then they could conceivably do exactly what ETNZ have done in the past, build and sail boat one then strip components off that to complete boat 2 to their own design having learnt how to sail the beast and come up with their own refinements to the ETNZ package. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the super teams did this. With modern performance monitoring electronics and computer modeling the need for two boat testing is a luxury rather than essential. The need for two fully functional boats only really applies to ETNZ as whilst the Prada cup is in progress thay can get some match racing practice in whilst the challangers are match racing for real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 5:48 PM, mfluder said:

 

They want a "Cheap event" (Even when there has NEVER been a cheap event).

 

So how much did it cost to run an AC challenge in earlier eras, when adjusted for inflation?  How much, in 2018 dollars or Euros, did Lipton or Packer spend?  Have you done the research and the sums and what do you call a "cheap event"?

Share this post


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

So how much did it cost to run an AC challenge in earlier eras, when adjusted for inflation?  How much, in 2018 dollars or Euros, did Lipton or Packer spend?  Have you done the research and the sums and what do you call a "cheap event"?

I have no idea. And I don't think they do either. That was my point.

The costs are relative. They are much more expensive than say the 1995 days. But around the same as they were last time - or more, or less depending on who you're talking about.

The AC has never been cheap, its always been expensive. Team NZ won it on a budget of $27 million NZD in 1995. You probably wouldn't even get to the start line on a $27 million budget these days. 

Ben has a sponsorship deal worth over $200 million, he had a budget of over $130 million last time and was disappointing, where it is widely known ETNZ had nowhere near the budget of Ben Ainslie and won, so its all relative. But we're never going to have a cheap event, there never has been a cheap event, and never will be a cheap event. 

So how can you possibly say Dalton is a hypocrite in terms of the cost? No one has complained about the costs, no one has withdrawn, we have the smallest country ever to enter the AC competing, and the number of entries matches those of Bermuda (even though they needed a class change to reduce the cost of competing to allow 5 entries in Bermuda). 

If you're going to say the AC should be cheap, or even Cheap(er), than you need to introduce a fixed campaign finance total, and you need to cap that price to stop teams spending over that amount.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can sheet home the spiraling costs just down to Dalts. Across the board everything is more expensive, from professional sailors wages to the army of back room guys - designers, engineers, builders etc. Carbon is not cheap, neither is shipping the boats around. It is what it is....Ben is going to spend $200 million regardless of whatever boat was chosen. God knows what Larry's total spend has been for all his cup campaigns - $500 million? A billion? Bertarelli's dropped a bit into it as well - neither seem to be crying poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a truism and it might even be a quote from someone that you could hold the America's Cup in Opties and the top teams would still spend 100 million dollars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spiraling costs are a function of really rich people getting much much richer compared to normal people, it's a rich mans game and these clowns have more money than ever before, even if the rest of us haven't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and we are in the midst of a bubbling pot of technological advances never before imagined, built on the crazy processor speeds; the shift.

you can't keep up with the ideas and the machines without a shitpot of $$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dg_sailingfan said:

To answer your Question:

I would have stayed with the originally planned AC 62's so I wasn't pleased when they downsized it. It was a desperate Attempt by OTUSA to get more Teams involved. Groupama wouldn't have had the Budget for an AC 62 and to lesser extend SBTJ as well.

Now to AC 36:

If you look at the Protocol the supposed ACWS 2019 Events were "Optional" meaning that they "could" cancel them if the Late Entries are unable to compete and start the ACWS in 2020. That's my take.

I find it stupid tbh letting LR, AM and INEOS race in 2019 and the other Challengers ain't. It should be either all or no one and wait until 2020.

So, let me get this straight. You think GD is a hypocrite, because he has chosen a boat you believe is too expensive, yet you would've stayed with the AC62, even though the AC50 was chosen because the 62 was too expensive? So it would've been okay to go with the 62 footer which was deemed too expensive, but not ok to go with the AC75 because its too expensive?

I don't think the 2019 ACWS events are "Optional" the protocol states:

2.1 COR shall organise and conduct the preliminary regattas, which are comprised of:

a) Possibly an initial one or two events during the second half of 2019 counting towards the Americas Cup World Series regattas ("ACWS") at venues decided by COR/D and announced on or before 31 March 2019. Then it goes on to talk about the Christmas Race.

2.2 Each competitor shall be required to enter and participate in all events of the ACWS. Any Challenger that does not meet this requirement will no longer be eligible to participate in either the Christmas Race, or the Challenger Selection Series. 

Maybe this part of the protocol could be amended to allow the smaller teams to sit out the 2019 regattas and start in 2020. If it means those teams are able to enter, so be it. More teams is better for the event as a whole. 

Share this post


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

The Rules shouldn't be eased in favour of the Late Entries and that's what ETNZ will do here. That's not fair to the 3 "Super Teams". Either you built a boat to compete in time for the ACWS 2019 or you don't and bow out of the Competition. The more time the Late Challengers get, the more they will narrow the Advantage the 3 established Teams have.

In the other hand, they are very restricted in how much they can change on their boat (20%?) meaning that once they have produced their boat, they are already committing to a good part of the design. I guess they will have to release their boat sooner than any 2nd boat from the big team (but later than their first boat) making them at a disadvantage to expose whatever they might have found before the big teams and they will have less time on their boat.

I still hope we will get more than 3 boats for the 2019 serie but will have to see if they favor time on the boat with minimum changes or want to go after performance but less training (or maybe they will lack time and resources to build their first boat in time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has never been sufficient money issue for the Americas cup to be cancelled sometimes there more entries and sometimes less but it it only takes 2  this is affected by many things more than the overall cost.

·         The overall world economy ( billionaires do always exist though)

·         The potential to win it (could be argued that is greatest in the first cycle of a class)

·         The potential for it to be fair (low in very early days then improving up to Valencia 1 then deteriorating)

The Americas cup has never been or should be just about sailing it is about Sailing/Design/MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES /and POWER and that is why it appeals to billionaires of each generation and the most egoistical and characterful sailors of each generation.

This Cycle has shocked us all a bit by the choice of a boat that looked like it could never work but clearly does, to the number of potential entrants.

The only thing that really matters Is The Prada/Louis Vuitton Cup and The Match itself  hopefully during an amazing New Zealand summer.

So Forget  the importance and obligations of the ACWS nice froth but who cares expand the round robins of the Prada cup. Let the entrants in …..crazy, underfunded, super talented, more money than sense, The winner, who cares more potential more to talk/bitch about.  The 2 boat teams will always have an advantage but the closer the opposition the greater the chance is for the challenger

Share this post


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

 

I don't think the 2019 ACWS events are "Optional" the protocol states:

2.1 COR shall organise and conduct the preliminary regattas, which are comprised of:

a) Possibly an initial one or two events during the second half of 2019 counting towards the Americas Cup World Series regattas ("ACWS") at venues decided by COR/D and announced on or before 31 March 2019. Then it goes on to talk about the Christmas Race.

2.2 Each competitor shall be required to enter and participate in all events of the ACWS. Any Challenger that does not meet this requirement will no longer be eligible to participate in either the Christmas Race, or the Challenger Selection Series. 

Maybe this part of the protocol could be amended to allow the smaller teams to sit out the 2019 regattas and start in 2020. If it means those teams are able to enter, so be it. More teams is better for the event as a whole. 

There you have it. I guess you don't know the word "Possible or Possibly". That means that the 2019 ACWS Events ain't required to be held per AC Protocol. They can cancel or delay them if they want to and the CoR Luna Rossa agrees to it.

Share this post


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

I have no idea. And I don't think they do either. That was my point.

The costs are relative. They are much more expensive than say the 1995 days. But around the same as they were last time - or more, or less depending on who you're talking about.

The AC has never been cheap, its always been expensive. Team NZ won it on a budget of $27 million NZD in 1995. You probably wouldn't even get to the start line on a $27 million budget these days. 

Ben has a sponsorship deal worth over $200 million, he had a budget of over $130 million last time and was disappointing, where it is widely known ETNZ had nowhere near the budget of Ben Ainslie and won, so its all relative. But we're never going to have a cheap event, there never has been a cheap event, and never will be a cheap event. 

So how can you possibly say Dalton is a hypocrite in terms of the cost? No one has complained about the costs, no one has withdrawn, we have the smallest country ever to enter the AC competing, and the number of entries matches those of Bermuda (even though they needed a class change to reduce the cost of competing to allow 5 entries in Bermuda). 

If you're going to say the AC should be cheap, or even Cheap(er), than you need to introduce a fixed campaign finance total, and you need to cap that price to stop teams spending over that amount.

 

Where do you get that shit that Ainslie had $130M for Bermuda 2017. That is nowhere to be true. Ben's Budget for AC 35 was £85M = USD$106M and this is from a person I know who was directly involved in the Bermuda Campaign.

Ainslie's AC Dream would be OVER if he hadn't found Ratcliffe (INEOS) as Sponsor.

In an CNN Article shortly after the INEOS Deal was announced Ben said the new AC 75 Design by ETNZ/LR required a different Approach. He said because of that Design the costs to run an effective 2-Boat Campaign raised by 30% (Thirty Percent increase in costs) meaning he would need £110M instead of the £85M. Jaguar Land Rover & 11th Hour Racing, CMC, COUTTS, BT, etc. among others were unwilling (didn't have the money to pay) to give him that much so he had to looks somewhere else.

So, Dalton is indeed a hypocrite by blasting the AC 72's as too costly and expensive during AC 34 YET he chosed a Design that instantly spiraled the costs out of control.

Finally, your Country New Zealand has the weakest $ in the world. Any reasonable Team who wants to challenge for AC 36 are operating their Financial Resources out of the American $USD.

Dollars

# 1 $USD, # 2 $Canada, # 3 $Singapore, # 4 $Australia, # 5 $New Zealand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Horn Rock said:

I don't think you can sheet home the spiraling costs just down to Dalts. Across the board everything is more expensive, from professional sailors wages to the army of back room guys - designers, engineers, builders etc. Carbon is not cheap, neither is shipping the boats around. It is what it is....Ben is going to spend $200 million regardless of whatever boat was chosen. God knows what Larry's total spend has been for all his cup campaigns - $500 million? A billion? Bertarelli's dropped a bit into it as well - neither seem to be crying poor.

Wrong, as I outlined without Ineos Ben would have been done and dusted & Game Over.

Which $ do you mean? £110M British Sterling Pound = $USD137M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites