• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Xlot said:

But won't Challengers' stay in AKL be much shorter this time around, due to  ACWS Preliminary Races?

 

The Preliminary Races should be CANCELLED or all been held in Auckland. That's the next Issue where the CoR has a big Advantage. They have control over these Preliminary Events.

Luna Rossa has to announce the first 2 Events by 31th March 2019 and the following 3 Events by 30th November 2019.

Challengers/Teams from the US/Australia would need to built a boat and then ship it all over the world for lousy Preliminary Event(s) which only determines the Seedings for the Prada Cup. There is basically nothing on the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I don't think it needs to, as the protocol post-dates the challenge by Circolo della Vela Sicilia which was deed legal at the time it was submitted.  I don't believe anything in the protocol (which is effectively the mutual consent part) can invalidate the original challenge.

Share this post


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

No, I did not emphasize "having:wub:

ah yes:

"...the Deed expressly requires one specific attribute, namely, that the club have an annual regatta. [...] To ascertain that intent, the court construes the phrase at issue - 'having for its annual regatta on the sea or arm of the sea' -by affording it its plain and natural meaning (Mercury Buy, 76 NY2d at 261). That phrase is plainly understood to mean that it is an on-going activity; the activity has taken place and is continuing. It implies that the organization has had one or more regattas in the past, and will continue to have them in the future." 

Share this post


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

^^ I don't think it needs to, as the protocol post-dates the challenge by Circolo della Vela Sicilia which was deed legal at the time it was submitted.  I don't believe anything in the protocol (which is effectively the mutual consent part) can invalidate the original challenge.

Right, it's not the position of the language in the Deed, it's the position in the protocol, resp. the sequence of events (CoR challenge before other challenges).
It's all rather weird with the CSS so interlaced with the AC, but it's a bit better now than during the Oracle era.

 

1 minute ago, 2Newts said:

ah yes:

"...the Deed expressly requires one specific attribute, namely, that the club have an annual regatta. [...] To ascertain that intent, the court construes the phrase at issue - 'having for its annual regatta on the sea or arm of the sea' -by affording it its plain and natural meaning (Mercury Buy, 76 NY2d at 261). That phrase is plainly understood to mean that it is an on-going activity; the activity has taken place and is continuing. It implies that the organization has had one or more regattas in the past, and will continue to have them in the future." 

Good times! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/10/2017 at 5:57 PM, Indio said:

What a dumbass statement! Please enlighten us as to precisely what powers does the CoR have to "defavorize" any of the challengers. Didn't think so...

The Arbitration Panel and Measurement Committee (through the AC36 Protocol and AC75 Class Rule) and ultimately the NYYC are bodies who will ensure that OR-Xerox's self-dealings and rules manipulations are a shameful practice consigned to history, inextricably linked to the name Oracle Racing

Indio, you are pretty good at insulting but after having to rest your case in the DoG match fantasies, you slip again.

1) The CoR imposed his boat to the challengers in order to prevent them from using their advance on multis

2) This article means that the COR can eliminate at its discretion any challenger that does not pay THEM an amount that is not determined YET. Ben is right to talk of conflict on interest.

7.8 COR may require additional funds from each Challenger in the form of cash, a performance bond, or a letter of credit, for the purpose of ensuring Challengers' participation in the CSS. Those funds or financial instruments may be required at such time and in such amount as is determined by COR and approved by RNZYS.

 

Indio, keep open your solenoid bullship valve :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only is Renmaus right but even more about the last clause. What do they mean by pro-rata basis ? in all YC I have been a member rates were different depending of the age, the number of years as a member, whether you have a bot or not.

So, who do they want to eliminate ? and why is it not Deed Compliant ?

RNZYS shall not accept a challenge from a Yacht Club that does not meet the requirements of the Deed of Gift such as it is incorporated and has its annual regatta and meets each of the following criteria by the Final Race 2017:

it must have been in existence for a minimum of five years;

it must maintain a membership of at least 200 members;

it must be financially supported by a majority of its membership on a pro-rata basis;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's to prevent another OR/GGYC situation where the team effectively buys a club in order to control it.  It means that the members must pay their share of the dues (the pro-rated part means a member would pay 1/200 in a 200 person club) rather than being propped up by a billionaire.  I'm not really sure how they'll test it if required - perhaps clubs will have to expose their books to the arbitration panel if their standing is called into question?

Share this post


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

^ That's to prevent another OR/GGYC situation where the team effectively buys a club in order to control it.  It means that the members must pay their share of the dues (the pro-rated part means a member would pay 1/200 in a 200 person club) rather than being propped up by a billionaire.  I'm not really sure how they'll test it if required - perhaps clubs will have to expose their books to the arbitration panel if their standing is called into question?

I agree it is to prevent what happened to GGYC, but the question is the application they will make of it. And the only one interested in eliminating other teams before they compete is the COR.

Anyway, not Deed compliant.

Share this post


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

Not only is Renmaus right but even more about the last clause. What do they mean by pro-rata basis ? in all YC I have been a member rates were different depending of the age, the number of years as a member, whether you have a bot or not.

So, who do they want to eliminate ? and why is it not Deed Compliant ?

RNZYS shall not accept a challenge from a Yacht Club that does not meet the requirements of the Deed of Gift such as it is incorporated and has its annual regatta and meets each of the following criteria by the Final Race 2017:

 

it must have been in existence for a minimum of five years;

 

it must maintain a membership of at least 200 members;

 

it must be financially supported by a majority of its membership on a pro-rata basis;

 

It seems pretty obvious to me.

Must have at least 200 members and at least half of them must have paid their membership. 

I guess it is supposed to stop puppet yacht clubs. But seems pointless given how the GGYC behaved.

Share this post


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

Anyway, not Deed compliant.

See the earlier conversation with Rennmaus, but I think it is deed compliant as the qualifying language in the deed applies to the 'Challenging Club' which is the challenger of record (the deed only contemplates a single challenger).  This extra stuff falls under the mutual consent provision.  The CoR succession in modern cups is covered by the protocol, and notwithstanding the elimination of the CoR the existing challenge remains valid without the need for a new one upon each passing of the torch. Deed non-compliance is thrown around a lot here, but these protocols are passed through rounds of lawyers before they're released so I'd be surprised if they hadn't thought long and hard about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This eligibility clause is another BS, ill thought out addition and I suspect is not DOG compliant.

It would not stop GGYC from entering. There are so many ways to structure the funds Larry put into the club that there are ways around that. It also fails to stop the GGYC situation because any club might decide they would like to be associated with a challenge and are happy to hand over all matters referring to that challenge to the team. It seems to me that this clause is purely there to stick one up Larry.

I also suspect it could stop some very legitimate clubs from entering. I wonder the situation with NYYC, because they have a significant amount of cash donated by members and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't qualify under the pro-rata rule. Any club that has cash surpluses due to donations by past members could be in trouble on this one.

The DOG compliance is an interesting one. It is clear that as written, it is the defender that is imposing that rule. At some point, the COR either becomes the challenger or the step aside for another who will then be the challenger. In this case, the defender is setting terms for who they will or will not allow to be the challenger. I believe that this is actually laid out by the DOG and cannot be changed by mutual consent.

The reality is that nobody will challenge this provision so it stands as is.

Share this post


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

This eligibility clause is another BS, ill thought out addition and I suspect is not DOG compliant.

It would not stop GGYC from entering. There are so many ways to structure the funds Larry put into the club that there are ways around that. It also fails to stop the GGYC situation because any club might decide they would like to be associated with a challenge and are happy to hand over all matters referring to that challenge to the team. It seems to me that this clause is purely there to stick one up Larry.

I also suspect it could stop some very legitimate clubs from entering. I wonder the situation with NYYC, because they have a significant amount of cash donated by members and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't qualify under the pro-rata rule. Any club that has cash surpluses due to donations by past members could be in trouble on this one.

The DOG compliance is an interesting one. It is clear that as written, it is the defender that is imposing that rule. At some point, the COR either becomes the challenger or the step aside for another who will then be the challenger. In this case, the defender is setting terms for who they will or will not allow to be the challenger. I believe that this is actually laid out by the DOG and cannot be changed by mutual consent.

The reality is that nobody will challenge this provision so it stands as is.

The COR challenge must comply with the DOG .. The rest of the challengers are accepted under the rules generated by the mutual consent of the defender and the COR.

Share this post


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

I see where you're going with this, but if you 'need' some ballast (IE there is a minimum righting moment required any time the boat drops below speeds where the foils can do the work), does it really matter whether it is in the form of a lead bulb (canting or not) as opposed to water? I feel like a relatively light fixed bulb would be more efficient.

That is what the AC is about .. to test who has the fastest theory .. If the boat is sailed flat it seems that external ballast does not increase the righting moment but does increase drag. It might even contribute to a pitch pole capsize but reduce the chances of a broach capsize but if we have the best sailors in the world that should not matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ And something like that is supposed to be superior in the rough conditions off Auckland than the AC50s? I think it's much more likely that we'll see really tweaked 75' TP52 style designs with fixed keels (far better for match racing, plus no motors required) that have foils that provide 100% lift on powered up reaches, and merely foil assist the rest of the time. Once you accept heel (as is the case with the IMOCA 60s), you can increase the righting moment of the fixed keel hydrodynamically as necessary via a flap that generates downforce as I've already noted, and the only real liability is the additional load on the foils from the heeled rig.

I think a lot of work will be done to optimize a nominally conventional rig to bring it closer to the general L/D ball park of the solid wings - probably via a 30% or more rotating solid wing mast, but still augmented by powerful reaching sails to offset the weight penalty of the fixed keel.

I guess we'll find out in November!

 

Share this post


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

The COR challenge must comply with the DOG .. The rest of the challengers are accepted under the rules generated by the mutual consent of the defender and the COR.

I do not believe that is correct. There are rules which cannot be changed by mutual consent. I am pretty sure this has been looked at before, both when Fast 200 challenged and when Alinghi challenged. I also think it was a key point of the Oracle case against Alinghi, because you will hopefully remember they threw more than just the validity of the COR at them. One of the things that was covered was the claimed right by Alinghi to accept or decline any challenger for any reason. I am pretty sure the Supreme Court ruled on that and the answer was that the DOG didn't allow the defender to set terms beyond what is in the DOG. It's like the dates for the different hemispheres. They cannot be changed by mutual consent, which is why they had to modify the DOG to allow the southern hemisphere to host during their summer.

Interesting debate, but unless somebody is willing to test it, it is pretty pointless.

Share this post


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

I do not believe that is correct. There are rules which cannot be changed by mutual consent. I am pretty sure this has been looked at before, both when Fast 200 challenged and when Alinghi challenged. I also think it was a key point of the Oracle case against Alinghi, because you will hopefully remember they threw more than just the validity of the COR at them. One of the things that was covered was the claimed right by Alinghi to accept or decline any challenger for any reason. I am pretty sure the Supreme Court ruled on that and the answer was that the DOG didn't allow the defender to set terms beyond what is in the DOG. It's like the dates for the different hemispheres. They cannot be changed by mutual consent, which is why they had to modify the DOG to allow the southern hemisphere to host during their summer.

Interesting debate, but unless somebody is willing to test it, it is pretty pointless.

Multiple challengers only exist under the mutual consent prerogative of the Defender and Challenger spelled out in the Deed of Gift: without mutual consent, it's a 3-race DoG Match. Reading tea leaves won't help your credibility: try citing the appropriate references from NYSC rulings on the AC33 BS. Try this for a start - 

"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."

Share this post


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

^ That's to prevent another OR/GGYC situation where the team effectively buys a club in order to control it.  It means that the members must pay their share of the dues (the pro-rated part means a member would pay 1/200 in a 200 person club) rather than being propped up by a billionaire.  I'm not really sure how they'll test it if required - perhaps clubs will have to expose their books to the arbitration panel if their standing is called into question?

Tornado-Cat is too thick to see the relevance of that clause in preventing another Larry Ellison-GGYC farce. Good requirement.

Share this post


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

See the earlier conversation with Rennmaus, but I think it is deed compliant as the qualifying language in the deed applies to the 'Challenging Club' which is the challenger of record (the deed only contemplates a single challenger).  This extra stuff falls under the mutual consent provision.  The CoR succession in modern cups is covered by the protocol, and notwithstanding the elimination of the CoR the existing challenge remains valid without the need for a new one upon each passing of the torch. Deed non-compliance is thrown around a lot here, but these protocols are passed through rounds of lawyers before they're released so I'd be surprised if they hadn't thought long and hard about this.

 

4 hours ago, Terry Hollis said:

The COR challenge must comply with the DOG .. The rest of the challengers are accepted under the rules generated by the mutual consent of the defender and the COR.

 

7 minutes ago, Indio said:

Multiple challengers only exist under the mutual consent prerogative of the Defender and Challenger spelled out in the Deed of Gift: without mutual consent, it's a 3-race DoG Match. Reading tea leaves won't help your credibility: try citing the appropriate references from NYSC rulings on the AC33 BS. Try this for a start - 

"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."

You all convinced me.
In a nutshell: As the CSS is no part of the Deed (AC) anyway, its rules can be set up by Defender and CoR at their discretion. The CSS is "just a regatta" by application/invitation. The Deed mandated requirements are fulfilled with the previous "CoR" challenge.
Got it, thanks.

Share this post


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

The COR challenge must comply with the DOG .. The rest of the challengers are accepted under the rules generated by the mutual consent of the defender and the COR.

There is no notion of COR in the Deed, only challlenger, and it is defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yes, but there's also only one challenger recognized in the deed.  If you look at the document, a defender cannot consider another challenge until it has dealt with the first in line.  The CoR and built-in succession concept (via mutual consent) is designed to allow multiple challengers under the same deed-compliant challenge without each having to wait their turn.  

Share this post


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

There is no notion of COR in the Deed, only challlenger, and it is defined.

If you want to call the COR something else that's fine but no one will know what you are talking about.  The challenger under the DOG becomes the COR because with the defender by mutual consent it is agreed that other challengers will be accepted.

Share this post


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

If you want to call the COR something else that's fine but no one will know what you are talking about.  The challenger under the DOG becomes the COR because with the defender by mutual consent it is agreed that other challengers will be accepted.

Ok, let's call it the COR in order to understand better. If you consider that other competitors are not bound by the Deed as far as they are in the CSS, what about when one of them gets to be the COR ? why would he have to fulfill more than the Deed requirements even though being the only challlenger ?

Share this post


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

Ok, let's call it the COR in order to understand better. If you consider that other competitors are not bound by the Deed as far as they are in the CSS, what about when one of them gets to be the COR ? why would he have to fulfill more than the Deed requirements even though being the only challlenger ?

If you COR is eliminated it makes no difference because they are no longer racing under the DOG rules they are racing under the rules of the Protocol as agreed.

Share this post


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

If you COR is eliminated it makes no difference because they are no longer racing under the DOG rules they are racing under the rules of the Protocol as agreed.

I was expecting this answer as the mechanical explanation, but it does not change the fact that any COR other than LR will have to fullfill more than what is required by the Deed. So, depending whether you look at it by steps or as a whole, the result is not the same. Even more disturbing is that any new competitor has to follow the Deed.... but is not under the Deed.

Share this post


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

Tornado-Cat is too thick to see the relevance of that clause in preventing another Larry Ellison-GGYC farce. Good requirement.

The intent is good, the redaction and application lets the possibility to block other valuable competitors.

Not even sure LR can comply, but they are not bound by the clause.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the LR/CVS challenge has to have been accepted before a Protocol can be written, the 'entry requirements' it contains are necessarily concerned with 'additional Challengers' (I wont say '2nd tier').

But that is not to say the same does not apply to both RNYS and CVS and that these requirements are there in an attempt to ensure any future Trustee from amongst the Challenging YCs is a properly established Club, as per GS - with a few additions added in light of the action of a couple of unscrupulous Billionaire$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to summarise:

Our weather is shitty and we have no decent sailors - unfair!

Our Clubs are a joke, not to be taken seriously and couldn't run and AC if they won it - unfair!

The Class design is still under consideration - unfair!

Share this post


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

Given that the LR/CVS challenge has to have been accepted before a Protocol can be written, the 'entry requirements' it contains are necessarily concerned with 'additional Challengers' (I wont say '2nd tier').

But that is not to say the same does not apply to both RNYS and CVS and that these requirements are there in an attempt to ensure any future Trustee from amongst the Challenging YCs is a properly established Club, as per GS - with a few additions added in light of the action of a couple of unscrupulous Billionaire$

I understand what you mean but the conditions are under article 6, so the defender and the COR are not bound :

 ACCEPTANCE OF FURTHER CHALLENGES.

Share this post


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

Just to summarise:

Our weather is shitty and we have no decent sailors - unfair!

Our Clubs are a joke, not to be taken seriously and couldn't run and AC if they won it - unfair!

The Class design is still under consideration - unfair!

IMO, weather is perfect, sailors are excellent, Club is fine, but the COR extracted so much from the defender that it makes an a very unbalanced protocol, to say the least.

Share this post


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

I understand what you mean but the conditions are under article 6, so the defender and the COR are not bound :

 ACCEPTANCE OF FURTHER CHALLENGES.

 

:(

As I stated councillor, they are not bound, but that they qualify anyway, like 99.9% of Club's would. Just which is the mickey mouse YC you are concerned wont be able to send their otherwise ready to dominate team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

... but the COR extracted so much from the defender...

Only in your head... This is the very early stage of assumptions where your conspiracy theories kick in and head you off into cuckoo land

Where in the protocol do you see evidence of this, and that you don't like?

Are you suggesting ETNZ didn't want to go back to monos? Are you suggesting DB isn't responsible for the new mono design? Are you suggesting GD was opposed to Prada paying its way to being the sponsor? LR pushed the nationality rule?

No didn't think so... You'll never be able to determine what ETNZ wanted, got, or conceded (if any) so can never demonstrate that they were any more bent over than any other defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a protocol, a strong COR, a sponsor of the challenger series,an exciting new class of boat, and early signs of interest from other challengers. and its only 3 months from the last AC.

Why is anyone complaining?

Credit should go to TNZ, LR and RNZYS.

Share this post


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

Why is anyone complaining?

Because with ETNZ the Defender someone needs to fill the Kiwi fans role on this site.  :lol:

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Let us know when you find a group with even close to the same knowledge, history and interest;)

Share this post


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

^ Let us know when you find a group with even close to the same knowledge, history and interest;)

Right here.  Group of one.  :P

And thanks to the Protocol cheat sheet Renny provided in another thread I ran into some interesting details I was unaware of.  Especially the bit where not only can Challengers not sail both of THEIR boats at the same time, or against other Challengers (accept during the Prada World Series and Prada Cup), but only one boat can be modified up to 25%.  Add to that the restrictions on building materials/techniques and bans on testing techniques out of the water and the Challengers success will depend on hiring designers that guess right on their design for the most part.  Seems fair.

Also, everyones favorite, the Repechage, is back.  Yipee!

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

Right here.  Group of one.  :P

And thanks to the Protocol cheat sheet Renny provided in another thread I ran into some interesting details I was unaware of.  Especially the bit where not only can Challengers not sail both of THEIR boats at the same time, or against other Challengers (accept during the Prada World Series and Prada Cup), but only one boat can be modified up to 25%.  Add to that the restrictions on building materials/techniques and bans on testing techniques out of the water and the Challengers success will depend on hiring designers that guess right on their design for the most part.  Seems fair.

Also, everyones favorite, the Repechage, is back.  Yipee!

WetHog  :ph34r:

Might look more like the best match racing in the world right now, the Congressional Cup. Now, if they will only 'rub' each other now and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ~HHN92~ said:

Might look more like the best match racing in the world right now, the Congressional Cup. Now, if they will only 'rub' each other now and again.

It might. 

I respect your opinion on here as  much as anyone, so here is a question for you.  Lets say there are 8 Challengers.  Of those 8 how many will be able to create a boat no one has ever designed and built before that will be competitive based on the restrictions I listed above (also consider the however slight venue uncertainty)?  Prada will, because they will have the boat rule way before any other Challenger, but I can't see more than 3 (including Prada) unless a Challenger gets lucky.  Thats 3 serious Challengers and 5 wannabes filling out the event.   

If this turns out to be true than that explains why the Repechage is making its triumphant return to the AC.  ;)

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

It might. 

I respect your opinion on here as  much as anyone, so here is a question for you.  Lets say there are 8 Challengers.  Of those 8 how many will be able to create a boat no one has ever designed and built before that will be competitive based on the restrictions I listed above (also consider the however slight venue uncertainty)?  Prada will, because they will have the boat rule way before any other Challenger, but I can't see more than 3 (including Prada) unless a Challenger gets lucky.  Thats 3 serious Challengers and 5 wannabes filling out the event.   

If this turns out to be true than that explains why the Repechage is making its triumphant return to the AC.  ;)

WetHog  :ph34r:

These guys going to the TP52's know something, more than just 'training'. Not knowing more than we do about the boat it is hard to tell what anybody can come-up with. The repechage will allow the late bloomers a last chance to make the big dance. Steak N Kidney would have benefitted in '87 as a fast boat coming together late. Then again, if there is a big separation between the top dogs and the others it could be meaningless.

Just too early to tell between the design and the players we do not know about yet. If Q locks-up Botin, and it is a TP52 style box rule, they may have a lead in this thing.

 

Share this post


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

Right here.  Group of one.  :P

And thanks to the Protocol cheat sheet Renny provided in another thread I ran into some interesting details I was unaware of.  Especially the bit where not only can Challengers not sail both of THEIR boats at the same time, or against other Challengers (accept during the Prada World Series and Prada Cup), but only one boat can be modified up to 25%.  Add to that the restrictions on building materials/techniques and bans on testing techniques out of the water and the Challengers success will depend on hiring designers that guess right on their design for the most part.  Seems fair.

Also, everyones favorite, the Repechage, is back.  Yipee!

WetHog  :ph34r:

Don't confuse boat with hull for the 25% modification rule, they are not the same thing at all.

I assume the intention is that your final hull shape is your second boat, the 25% modification allows you to bring your first boat up to as close as possible to this shape to make it a viable reserver boat in the event of damage.

At this point you appear to still be able to continue modify all appendages and rigging and other components as much as you like (this may of course change in the final release).

It's also worth noting the defender can ONLY sail against their second boat during the Challenger Selection series, unless you expect ETNZ race in the CSS or to turn up to race one with ZERO match racing practice it pretty much has to be this way.

Share this post


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

Don't confuse boat with hull for the 25% modification rule, they are not the same thing at all.

I assume the intention is that your final hull shape is your second boat, the 25% modification allows you to bring your first boat up to as close as possible to this shape to make it a viable reserver boat in the event of damage.

At this point you appear to still be able to continue modify all appendages and rigging and other components as much as you like (this may of course change in the final release).

It's also worth noting the defender can ONLY sail against their second boat during the Challenger Selection series, unless you expect ETNZ race in the CSS or to turn up to race one with ZERO match racing practice it pretty much has to be this way.

Who might the reserve helm be on ETNZ and who will steer the B boat during the defender tune up to the match? The return of DB? Haha

Share this post


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

At this point you appear to still be able to continue modify all appendages and rigging and other components as much as you like (this may of course change in the final release).

No matter which boat you mod 25% of the hull shape on, yes it appears to be a free for all on the rest. A second boat may not be that important, actually.

Share this post


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

Who might the reserve helm be on ETNZ and who will steer the B boat during the defender tune up to the match? The return of DB? Haha

It's actually an interesting question, ETNZ are in effect going to need possibly 24 people on the sailing crew, thats a fairly large crew budget right there!

Share this post


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

It's actually an interesting question, ETNZ are in effect going to need possibly 24 people on the sailing crew, thats a fairly large crew budget right there!

This is assuming that they consider a second team for tune up necessary.

They did fine without it last time and even Orifice saw little value in it.

Clearly they will almost definitely build a second boat, but I'm not so convinced about hiring a second crew.

Share this post


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

No matter which boat you mod 25% of the hull shape on, yes it appears to be a free for all on the rest. A second boat may not be that important, actually.

I wonder if they won't add some restrictions to some of the other components as the class rule becomes clear, with foils being an obvious target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ~HHN92~ said:

Just too early to tell between the design and the players we do not know about yet. If Q locks-up Botin, and it is a TP52 style box rule, they may have a lead in this thing.

 

1

Stop making sense: people would think you had Kiwi blood in you.

Share this post


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

Who might the reserve helm be on ETNZ and who will steer the B boat during the defender tune up to the match? The return of DB? Haha

Isaac McHardie. He will push Burling by the time 2021 rolls around...

59d40ecccf780_IsaacMcHardie.jpg.10905676b1701eb9fdde0d98a6149ed9.jpg

Share this post


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

I wonder if they won't add some restrictions to some of the other components as the class rule becomes clear, with foils being an obvious target.

Would those restrictions be in a Protocol change or in a coming Design Rule spec? 

Share this post


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

This is assuming that they consider a second team for tune up necessary.

They did fine without it last time and even Orifice saw little value in it.

Clearly they will almost definitely build a second boat, but I'm not so convinced about hiring a second crew.

But Oracle was racing in the CSS which makes a big difference to your match readiness.

Share this post


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

But Oracle was racing in the CSS which makes a big difference to your match readiness.

Oracle had the exact same chance as anyone else to earn that 1 point and iirc got it only on a tie breaker or ETNZ would have won it. It was that damn close.

ETNZ will race among the Challengers too, will also likely affect the CSS standings, they simply bow out a few weeks earlier than what Oracle did, but unlike Oracle may run a second boat.

Which is all good but the time difference is not that huge.

 

Share this post


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

Oracle had the exact same chance as anyone else to earn that 1 point and iirc got it only on a tie breaker or ETNZ would have won it. It was that damn close.

ETNZ will race among the Challengers too, will also likely affect the CSS standings, they simply bow out a few weeks earlier than what Oracle did, but unlike Oracle may run a second boat.

Which is all good but the time difference is not that huge.

 

Don't be such a stupid fuckwit - just read the Protocol of get a homeless bum to do it to you. ETNZ will race in the ACWS events but will NOT take points if they finish in the points standings after each race, with teams moving up one spot and earning points accordingly - unlike the cheaters OR-Xerox who took points in the ACWS events leading to AC35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
Oct 4, 2017

The 7 times Volvo Ocean Race competitor and first time America’s Cup winner talks about the obstacles faced by Emirates Team New Zealand on the road to Bermuda, and spends more than an hour with host Alan Block going over the plans for the next America’s Cup in Auckland, NZ. They talk boat choice, venue choice, and much, much more in this long-overdue chat between to bald guys with gravelly voices.

Show Notes:

00:00-10:27 Intro
11:27 Who wrote the protocol and explanation of its genesis
13:17 Off-water battles in the Bermuda Cup buildup, and obstacles thrown up by Coutts & friends
14:47 Why should challengers trust you to be more fair as organizer than the America’s Cup Event Authority were to ETNZ?
15:34 “The most ridiculous stacking of the deck in modern times came from Alinghi"
15:57 How much has Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron been involved in the protocol process?
16:57 About the Cup’s national NZ road show coming up
18:07 Why is it OK to take the Cup to a boat show but not a car show?
18:57 How the RNZYS will help lessen the load for Dalton and the TNZ staff.
20:57 What information did you base your decision to go to a monohull? What's the real motivation?
25:57 The density of breeze in Auckland and the frailty of the Cup cats. Dalts: "16 knots here would pull an AC50 to pieces"
26:41 On NZ’s huge tech advantage in Bermuda. “For the life of me I can't figure out how all the other teams were so far behind us"
26:57 How keeping the AC50 would almost definitely guarantee another TNZ win
28:07 How many concepts are being considered for the actual boat? Are ETNZ consulting with other potential challengers besides Luna Rossa?
30:03 Does the design rule schedule mean TNZ and Luna Rossa get an unreasonable head start over other challengers?
30:57 Why can't you say whether or not the boat will lift out of the water?
31:57 Would you lose Glenn and Burling and the other speed junkie tech heads if you go to a heavier, more conventional type of boat?
32:47 Ashby's huge beard and his two months on walkabout
34:07 Dalts' motorcycle crash in the Isle of Man TT
36:02 Bicycle grinders and the openness of the AC36 design rule. "We have no intention of banning bicycles"
38:52 Box rules vs open Rules, and the element in the next AC of "one-design supplied parts”. Don’t want to stop innovation in areas that can help the average yacht racer, eventually.
41:30 Clean's disappointment with the residency requirement, and Dalts explanation of what he thinks people are misunderstanding about the new nationality/residency rule.
43:24 Finding the balance between a rule that would exclude many countries and one that will help reduce the mercenary culture in the sport, and how to get teams to look to their own countrymen first for crew.
48:07 Dalts: "They commit to a team and a country rather than a worldwide circus where they're guns for hire to an owner who doesn't realize he's getting ripped off"
48:57 Surrogate boats, regatta schedules, and high entry fees for the pre-regattas. "This will allow us to create a financial pool so we don't have to be beholden to a city for funds.” Dalton says ACWS events were driven by venue fees in bad places or at bad times for sailing. “Make it great for the yachties, and the rest is easy."
52:27 With the residency requirements and lack of venue certainty right now, how does ETNZ ensure teams spend enough time in Auckland to justify the money the venue will have to spend to prepare for the Cup?
53:42 Dalts' sample schedule for Challengers.
57:12 Is the Italian Option really just Dalts holding Auckland's feet to the fire? What's with the natural disaster thing?
59:05 Two boat testing for ETNZ and no one else? How about a defender challenge?
60:58 There are ways around two-boat bans, but it might not help anyone. Dalts: "SoftBank was Oracles B boat, but they couldn't get it up to speed fast enough"
61:42 Fan questions begin: Soft sails or hard sails? Hybrids?
62:51 Limiting electronics? More PlayStation type controls? Dalts analogy for ac35: "Oracle were still a mobile phone and we were a supercomputer"
64:27 Sailhandling, stored power and the team's philosophical problem with combustion engines on AC boats.
65:37 What happened with the AC34 and 35 Facebook pages and videos? Were they stolen?
67:06 IF you can get the media back, will you publish all the video from those Cups for free to the world?
67:57 who owns the Liveline graphics system and do you intend to have them back in the mix for the worldwide audience?
69:02 Free to air distribution for AC36!
74:37 Omega time, Swiss Timing, and how am entirely new graphics system might be going into the AC46 broadcast
76:27 Entry period closes before venue announced. How is that ok? (Answer, it might not be).
77:57 What are you looking to get from Auckland and the NZ government to make the event possible?
80:01 How much will a basic, unembarassing campaign cost? "People will still spend 160 million" to try to win
81:38 Biggest sponsorship mistake made by most campaigns
82:57 Happy to see Louis Vuitton go, or will you miss them?
84:07 Burlington vs Tuke, Mark Turner’s shock departure from the Volvo Ocean Race, and Dalts’ picks for the 2017 VOR
86:42 Uniting the major races, World Sailing, and where the sport is headed at the pinnacle.
87:42 Exactly what they're releasing in November and how Dalts will judge whether it was the kind of technological success he hopes for.
88:47 What's by far the most read site in New Zealand (guess?), AC Anarchist Stingray gets a shoutout, and out.


Read more at http://www.sailinganarchy.libsyn.com/#ruqXrv41zt6M4ImV.99

Share this post


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

This is assuming that they consider a second team for tune up necessary.

They did fine without it last time and even Orifice saw little value in it.

Clearly they will almost definitely build a second boat, but I'm not so convinced about hiring a second crew.

WTF!! Did you miss all the 2 boat sailing that Oracle did with the AC45 surrogates? They didn't need to build a second AC50 to be able to go 2 boat testing. Admittedly, they did stop the 2 boat programme after the CSS began, but I th\ink that was because they needed all their efforts to get the AC50 right and didn't have the manpower to keep 2 boats going. Once SBTJ were out, they had their second boat anyway.

Share this post


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

WTF!! Did you miss all the 2 boat sailing that Oracle did with the AC45 surrogates? They didn't need to build a second AC50 to be able to go 2 boat testing. Admittedly, they did stop the 2 boat programme after the CSS began, but I th\ink that was because they needed all their efforts to get the AC50 right and didn't have the manpower to keep 2 boats going. Once SBTJ were out, they had their second boat anyway.

Remember I am talking about tune up rather than two boat testing because Etnz as the defender can ONLY run two boats during the challenger series. At this point,  boat development is pretty much over and the focus is specifically on perfecting sailing techniques to get the boat you have to its maximum potential. 

Ergo, I am not sure the value this would add would justify the cost of a 2nd crew.

Share this post


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

 

 

You all convinced me.
In a nutshell: As the CSS is no part of the Deed (AC) anyway, its rules can be set up by Defender and CoR at their discretion. The CSS is "just a regatta" by application/invitation. The Deed mandated requirements are fulfilled with the previous "CoR" challenge.
Got it, thanks.

In a nutshell, Rennie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jaysper said:

This is assuming that they consider a second team for tune up necessary.

They did fine without it last time and even Orifice saw little value in it.

Clearly they will almost definitely build a second boat, but I'm not so convinced about hiring a second crew.

Except that GD said in Clean's interview that they will 'definitely' be going with a second boat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listened to Dalts and Clean

I can see Dalts thinking about the 3 people 20% and living in the country stuff is more about continual employment and not mercenary crewing.

I guess his thinking is to keep the price down of crew yet engineer them to have more long term jobs?

He does mention its a race between yacht clubs not countries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like would prefer high %age national but can't do it legally, so they've come up with something that still allows non-nationals but handicaps any team that tried it so much that they would be there for the canapé only. In general protocol, and GDs answers, only go so far with fairness that they doesn't impact ETNZ. So no defender trail but 2 boat tuning. Nationality requirement for the crew but no restriction on where the funding or design talent can come from.

May be, given how poor as church mice ETNZ will no doubt be compared to loads-a-money-bosh-bosh Luna Prada, that is a funny kind of fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty clear what the pitch to the money is

PRADAS THROWING A PARTY!

COME ALONG, HAVE A GOOD TIME

IT'S GOING TO BE REAL SWELL

(BIO RSVP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point that Prada is coming in as a sponsor, is an enormous benefit and GD's mention of Omega's interest.

These are 2 mega brands that are likely to be just the start.

This is really positive for the cup (despite the thoughts of some people)

Share this post


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

Except that GD said in Clean's interview that they will 'definitely' be going with a second boat 

Yes, but didn't say whether they would run them both simultaneously. 

They could easily do the same as in 2013.

Share this post


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

The point that Prada is coming in as a sponsor, is an enormous benefit and GD's mention of Omega's interest.

These are 2 mega brands that are likely to be just the start.

This is really positive for the cup (despite the thoughts of some people)

+1

Share this post


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

'Emirates Team New Zealand's relationship with Luna Rossa has been described as an America's Cup 'duopoly' - but the syndicates say there's a fair division between them, reports Suzanne McFadden'

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/04/51538/team-nz-luna-rossa-friendship-goes-head-to-toe

Good read. 

Share this post


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

Good read. 

Definitely.

The whole situation sounds like the old Lipton days (?), when "all conditions of the match" had been agreed between Defender and Challenger, and only after this agreement the challenge was made. With a lot of respect between the two parties.
Feels good... (for how long?)

Share this post


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

The point that Prada is coming in as a sponsor, is an enormous benefit and GD's mention of Omega's interest.

These are 2 mega brands that are likely to be just the start.

This is really positive for the cup (despite the thoughts of some people)

I think the involvement of Swiss Timing via ETNZ's relationship with OMEGA will bring more snazzy graphics and on-screen overlays to the race broadcasts, building on Stan Honey's excellent work to date. I don't think Honey will be involved in AC36 reading between the lines in Dalt's interview with Clean - something about ownership of Honey's development & technology...

Share this post


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

The point that Prada is coming in as a sponsor, is an enormous benefit and GD's mention of Omega's interest.

His talk about Omega did sound convincing, may explain the photo's that TC says he has of GD in Switzerland recently too, but:

How can you get drones to be as accurate as 5cm (!) from simple drone cameras, given what LiveLine dumped into that precision using helicopters and the FLIR cameras etc? It is so damn good that the umpires have been using it, for almost instant officiating, with almost zero pressback from teams given the accuracy of the evidence.

GD's description of the Omega devices along ski ramps are reasonable, maybe even his discrediting of how the lay lines on TV were computed too, but those ski ramp devices aren't moving in 3D. 

Omega could be a sponsor benefactor but the challenge to them to raise that bar would be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sat corrected GPS is close to 5cm so the drone could know where it is, thats a start with range finding camera's

If racing is close to the shore you could get it more accurate

Maybe the boats need this so the data coming back is very accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 10:23 PM, Rennmaus said:

You all convinced me.
In a nutshell: As the CSS is no part of the Deed (AC) anyway, its rules can be set up by Defender and CoR at their discretion. The CSS is "just a regatta" by application/invitation. The Deed mandated requirements are fulfilled with the previous "CoR" challenge.
Got it, thanks.

 

I like the requirement that unless a challenging Yacht Club existed before the end of the final race of the AC35 Match, they are not eligible to challenge.

Share this post


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

I think the involvement of Swiss Timing via ETNZ's relationship with OMEGA will bring more snazzy graphics and on-screen overlays to the race broadcasts, building on Stan Honey's excellent work to date. I don't think Honey will be involved in AC36 reading between the lines in Dalt's interview with Clean - something about ownership of Honey's development & technology...

If Stan Honey owns the development and technology, this edition of the AC will have to start from scratch with who ever is doing the broadcast.  More dollars to be spent by RNZYS, it could all add up to a large sum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trt131 said:

If Stan Honey owns the development and technology, this edition of the AC will have to start from scratch with who ever is doing the broadcast.  More dollars to be spent by RNZYS, it could all add up to a large sum.

Grant sounded like he thinks Ellison owns Honey's developments. The Swiss Timing option looks pretty snazzy - I don't think we'll miss out on the quality of Honey's great efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have worked with Swiss Timing at another event and they weren't really up to snuff.  I hope they have evolved a bit  since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gladwell has a good look at the protocol and some other stuff:

America's Cup - Russell Green on Protocol's return to Cup traditions

by Richard Gladwell, Sail-World.com/nz on 5 Oct

In a second interview after the main media conference, last Friday Sail-World spoke to Russell Green - Team New Zealand's long-time rules and legal adviser and a key figure in the Protocol negotiation for the 36th Match for the America's Cup, to be held in Auckland or Italy.

While the Protocol has been signed off by the Commodores of the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and Circolo della Vela Sicilia, there are still some key announcements to come.

'Next step is the boat,' Green explains. 'The Class Rule has to be published on March 31 - not in the Protocol, but what we are saying is that we will produce the concept for prospective competitors and media to look at by the end of November.'

(All that is said in the Protocol is that the boat will be known as the AC75 – a reference to the name of the class and a probable indicator of overall length.)

 

Class and rules changes

Challenger Selection Series Sponsor Switch

TV Revenue to be shared

Arbitration Panel, Jury Committee

Nationality

Dalton Clause

 

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup---Russell-Green-on-Protocols-return-to-Cup-traditions/157791?source=l.facebook

Share this post


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

Gladwell has a good look at the protocol and some other stuff:

America's Cup - Russell Green on Protocol's return to Cup traditions

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup---Russell-Green-on-Protocols-return-to-Cup-traditions/157791?source=l.facebook

New things I've learned from this article:

- Didn't know LR actually built and christened an AC62.  ;)

- 3 month window after March 31 where the Class rule can be changed by the COR and Defender alone, other Challengers have no say.  They say to fix mistakes but...

- Potential media representative observing the arbitration process to act as a pool reporter for other media members.

- No more Challenger Committee.  Up to LR how to manage the other Challengers in regards to rules issues and the like.  LR has ultimate veto power.

Good interview, thanks for sharing.

WetHog  :ph34r:

 

 

Share this post


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

- Didn't know LR actually built and christened an AC62.  ;)

 

And in 2012 no less. Very prescient of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 10:26 PM, Barnyb said:

Gladwell has a good look at the protocol and some other stuff:

America's Cup - Russell Green on Protocol's return to Cup traditions

by Richard Gladwell, Sail-World.com/nz on 5 Oct

In a second interview after the main media conference, last Friday Sail-World spoke to Russell Green - Team New Zealand's long-time rules and legal adviser and a key figure in the Protocol negotiation for the 36th Match for the America's Cup, to be held in Auckland or Italy.

While the Protocol has been signed off by the Commodores of the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and Circolo della Vela Sicilia, there are still some key announcements to come.

'Next step is the boat,' Green explains. 'The Class Rule has to be published on March 31 - not in the Protocol, but what we are saying is that we will produce the concept for prospective competitors and media to look at by the end of November.'

(All that is said in the Protocol is that the boat will be known as the AC75 – a reference to the name of the class and a probable indicator of overall length.)

 

Class and rules changes

Challenger Selection Series Sponsor Switch

TV Revenue to be shared

Arbitration Panel, Jury Committee

Nationality

Dalton Clause

 

http://www.sail-world.com/NZ/Americas-Cup---Russell-Green-on-Protocols-return-to-Cup-traditions/157791?source=l.facebook

Good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good to see the dalton clause gone. it will add a boat load more spice if the challs can say what they want. and then of course we here on SA can judge them :)

Hell, BA can even punch Gladwell in the head and jump off the wharf.

 

Share this post


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

good to see the dalton clause gone. it will add a boat load more spice if the challs can say what they want. and then of course we here on SA can judge them :)

Hell, BA can even punch Gladwell in the head and jump off WHAT'S LEFT OF the wharf.

 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone tune that in? Green was okay, provided insight on some of the guiding ideas.

One interesting point that came up was them leaving design sharing open, intentionally. It jives somewhat with the idea to leave designers out of the nat restrictions. He said 'CiC' rules on designers would also be too expensive, a point I disagree with since then why impose it on sailors? The answer of course, is that - as Green pointedly stated/admitted - the nat rules on sailors is all about one thing only: public interest and therefore making money through the commercialization of it.

Sailor nat rules will cost-hurt Challengers more than they will ETNZ, whereas designer nat rules might hurt ETNZ more than anybody else, and the latter is for certain truer to the Deed (TE even pointed to that in NYYC history) but Green didn't go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from that, at https://i.stuff.co.nz/nz-newspapers/central-north-island/sport/sport-region-6459/97761827/New-York-and-Bermuda-tipped-to-host-Americas-Cup-warm-up-regattas

New York and Bermuda loom as America's Cup warmup options ahead of the real deal in Auckland 2021.

Team New Zealand rules expert Russell Green revealed some of the thinking around the build-up to the event as he discussed the protocol recently released by the defenders and challenger of record Luna Rossa in a live chat with American-based website Sailing Illustrated on Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from there,

Team New Zealand will be involved in all of the pre-regattas, including the Christmas Cup, before separating from the challengers and only  reappearing for the America's Cup match against the top overseas outfit.

That differs to Bermuda where defenders Oracle Team USA inserted themselves in the challenger round-robin series for the first time in the history of the event.

me: It's not all that different from Bermuda since the Defender will still 'insert themselves' in an event very close to the Match before stepping aside. It's not as close in time but it's only a matter of degree. The big difference is in them not being able to gain an early point which would have forced everyone to race hard and honestly. Which may or may not be good for anyone, time will tell. Challs will earn a point towards the RR's regardless who wins, in races against the Def in that series.

Share this post


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

Anyone tune that in? Green was okay, provided insight on some of the guiding ideas.

One interesting point that came up was them leaving design sharing open, intentionally. It jives somewhat with the idea to leave designers out of the nat restrictions. He said 'CiC' rules on designers would also be too expensive, a point I disagree with since then why impose it on sailors? The answer of course, is that - as Green pointedly stated/admitted - the nat rules on sailors is all about one thing only: public interest and therefore making money through the commercialization of it.

Sailor nat rules will cost-hurt Challengers more than they will ETNZ, whereas designer nat rules might hurt ETNZ more than anybody else, and the latter is for certain truer to the Deed (TE even pointed to that in NYYC history) but Green didn't go there.

Who it will hurt was not their aim - you've already described the rationale above.

If you live in a world where decisions can only be made when their impact is equally agreed by all that it effects all the same, then you are living on another planet.

Share this post


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

Also from there,

Team New Zealand will be involved in all of the pre-regattas, including the Christmas Cup, before separating from the challengers and only  reappearing for the America's Cup match against the top overseas outfit.

That differs to Bermuda where defenders Oracle Team USA inserted themselves in the challenger round-robin series for the first time in the history of the event.

me: It's not all that different from Bermuda since the Defender will still 'insert themselves' in an event very close to the Match before stepping aside. It's not as close in time but it's only a matter of degree. The big difference is in them not being able to gain an early point which would have forced everyone to race hard and honestly. Which may or may not be good for anyone, time will tell. Challs will earn a point towards the RR's regardless who wins, in races against the Def in that series.

We don't need time to tell us this is different to Oracle's dickishness in the RRs - despite your best attempts to conflate the two.

Come'on mate... give it a rest and talk about something productive and fun! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I have posted that the Prot is reasonable, many times. There are aspects that will favor ETNZ but within reason that is their prerogative.

A close reading of the Prot does definitely suggest that LR and Prada have a great deal of power to screw the other Challs should they choose to, completely unchecked as Ainslie already pointed out, but maybe P$B actually values their interests more highly versus his own interests? Could be. Somehow.

Share this post


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

Also from there,

Team New Zealand will be involved in all of the pre-regattas, including the Christmas Cup, before separating from the challengers and only  reappearing for the America's Cup match against the top overseas outfit.

That differs to Bermuda where defenders Oracle Team USA inserted themselves in the challenger round-robin series for the first time in the history of the event.

me: It's not all that different from Bermuda since the Defender will still 'insert themselves' in an event very close to the Match before stepping aside. It's not as close in time but it's only a matter of degree. The big difference is in them not being able to gain an early point which would have forced everyone to race hard and honestly. Which may or may not be good for anyone, time will tell. Challs will earn a point towards the RR's regardless who wins, in races against the Def in that series.

His comment also included that it was like the ACTS before the 32nd Cup, no more. It was also indicated, maybe not here, that the teams would race their 1st gen boats, not their Cup boats.

The designers left off the nationality list helps the US effort IMO, I would be totally surprised if Botin is not on the BMQRA design team, or maybe even J/V. So not so biased, and RG noted that small 'start-up' nations could meet the residency rules also, even bringing in outside talent. They are not trying to disadvantage anybody, just doing the obvious to get the fans re-engaged.

It was also noted that both ETNZ and LR wanted the separation between defender and challengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ~HHN92~ said:

.. It was also indicated, maybe not here, that the teams would race their 1st gen boats, not their Cup boats.

Nope, Green specifically said teams would expected to 'leapfrog' their two boats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ~HHN92~ said:

.. They are not trying to disadvantage anybody, just doing the obvious to get the fans re-engaged.

Again, he flat out admitted that they chose to make sailors instead of designers subject to the restrictions for one reason only: $elling it. 

It's their pregogative but to argue that sailor nat restrictions is being forced for Deed reasons of 'friendly competition between nations' deviously ignores what that competition is defined in the Deed to be about: Constructed In Country, which by most reasonable definitions means that is was all National boat designers and about national boat builders. 

 

 

Share this post


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

^ I have posted that the Prot is reasonable, many times. There are aspects that will favor ETNZ but within reason that is their prerogative.

A close reading of the Prot does definitely suggest that LR and Prada have a great deal of power to screw the other Challs should they choose to, completely unchecked as Ainslie already pointed out, but maybe P$B actually values their interests more highly versus his own interests? Could be. Somehow.

LR as CoR has all the rights they should have through the mutual consent process. They are the "Representative" of the challengers, which mean the challengers negotiate with the defender through LR. That is exactly how the CoR position works. They are the representative/ the spokesperson, so that the inmates don't end up running the asylum. PB is in a position where he will do exactly what he feels is best for the challengers. BUT they must remember, there is no majority vote, which can be easily manipulated by the defender to disadvantage certain teams, as it did last time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites