Recommended Posts

On 10/6/2020 at 12:29 PM, XPRO said:

All this talk about copying is a bit silly, the rule will drive the boats to a corner over time

Like everyone had cyclors, hydraulic sail controls, two accumulators last cycle.

Yeah right

Share this post


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

Like everyone had cyclors, hydraulic sail controls, two accumulators last cycle.

Yeah right

If they used the same rule for this cup, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please launch Patriot American Magic! So I can enjoy this thread again. Geez, think of the people please!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for historical accuracy: 

Way back before there was agreement on what class the America’s Cup would be sailed in, the Challenger pretty much named the tune.  In effect, we are bringing an blah blah blah blah to challenge for the Cup. See you off Sandy Hook next September.  Things got a bit more disciplined with various measurement rules being used to define the size and type of yacht.  J Class and 12 meters being the ones people most remember.

When the IAAC Class was first  being developed in 1989, there was a large and inclusive group of America’s Cup designers and stakeholders involved in developing the boat type and class rule.  The DOG fracas after AC 32 was initiated because Alinghi proposed a new class that did not have similar stakeholder buy in. Oracle argued that the closed development of this class by Alinghi gave them such a head start that fair competition was impossible. There were other problems with Alinghi’s AC 33 plans, that could also be seen as self serving, and the whole thing went pear shaped.

Oracle maintained a veneer of impartiality by delegating the AC 72 rule development to Morrelli and Melvin.  Pete was under contract with ETNZ at the time.  The step down to 62 and then 50 was a scale question that wasn’t as drastic as proposing an entirely new class of racing yacht.

The argument Oracle made in 2007 can reasonably be made now.  The AC75 is a completely new type of racing vessel, and by developing the concept and rules without consultation of other likely participants does advantage the Defender and Challenger of Record over other competitors.  There are some issues that smell pretty funny to me, but I am not a Kiwi and know not to trust my instincts on such matters.

SHC

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steve Clark said:

Just for historical accuracy: 

Way back before there was agreement on what class the America’s Cup would be sailed in, the Challenger pretty much named the tune.  In effect, we are bringing an blah blah blah blah to challenge for the Cup. See you off Sandy Hook next September.  Things got a bit more disciplined with various measurement rules being used to define the size and type of yacht.  J Class and 12 meters being the ones people most remember.

When the IAAC Class was first  being developed in 1989, there was a large and inclusive group of America’s Cup designers and stakeholders involved in developing the boat type and class rule.  The DOG fracas after AC 32 was initiated because Alinghi proposed a new class that did not have similar stakeholder buy in. Oracle argued that the closed development of this class by Alinghi gave them such a head start that fair competition was impossible. There were other problems with Alinghi’s AC 33 plans, that could also be seen as self serving, and the whole thing went pear shaped.

Oracle maintained a veneer of impartiality by delegating the AC 72 rule development to Morrelli and Melvin.  Pete was under contract with ETNZ at the time.  The step down to 62 and then 50 was a scale question that wasn’t as drastic as proposing an entirely new class of racing yacht.

The argument Oracle made in 2007 can reasonably be made now.  The AC75 is a completely new type of racing vessel, and by developing the concept and rules without consultation of other likely participants does advantage the Defender and Challenger of Record over other competitors.  There are some issues that smell pretty funny to me, but I am not a Kiwi and know not to trust my instincts on such matters.

SHC

This is all pretty much nonsense, but I'll begin with your assertion that Pete was under contract with ETNZ whilst he was developing AC72 class.

Do tell.

Share this post


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

Just for historical accuracy: 

Way back before there was agreement on what class the America’s Cup would be sailed in, the Challenger pretty much named the tune.  In effect, we are bringing an blah blah blah blah to challenge for the Cup. See you off Sandy Hook next September.  Things got a bit more disciplined with various measurement rules being used to define the size and type of yacht.  J Class and 12 meters being the ones people most remember.

When the IAAC Class was first  being developed in 1989, there was a large and inclusive group of America’s Cup designers and stakeholders involved in developing the boat type and class rule.  The DOG fracas after AC 32 was initiated because Alinghi proposed a new class that did not have similar stakeholder buy in. Oracle argued that the closed development of this class by Alinghi gave them such a head start that fair competition was impossible. There were other problems with Alinghi’s AC 33 plans, that could also be seen as self serving, and the whole thing went pear shaped.

Oracle maintained a veneer of impartiality by delegating the AC 72 rule development to Morrelli and Melvin.  Pete was under contract with ETNZ at the time.  The step down to 62 and then 50 was a scale question that wasn’t as drastic as proposing an entirely new class of racing yacht.

The argument Oracle made in 2007 can reasonably be made now.  The AC75 is a completely new type of racing vessel, and by developing the concept and rules without consultation of other likely participants does advantage the Defender and Challenger of Record over other competitors.  There are some issues that smell pretty funny to me, but I am not a Kiwi and know not to trust my instincts on such matters.

SHC

So you're in the, "it's unfair camp", Steve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh3000 said:

This is all pretty much nonsense, but I'll begin with your assertion that Pete was under contract with ETNZ whilst he was developing AC72 class.

Do tell.

Shouldn't the onus be on you to refute it? No it's just the typical Kiwi bullshit that if it doesn't fit the Kiwi narrative then it is nonsense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

if it doesn't fit the Kiwi narrative then it is nonsense.

Most correct Pussy and evidently so when it comes to matters AC which resides at this address 181 Westhaven Drive, Westhaven Marina, Auckland 1011.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Shouldn't the onus be on you to refute it? No it's just the typical Kiwi bullshit that if it doesn't fit the Kiwi narrative then it is nonsense.

Awww cmon puss... you know you can't disprove a negative.

If someone wants to state the M&M were simultaneously working for ETNZ and OTUSA whilst developing AC72 then they need to show some form of proof. There's a plethora of accounts from this time, including firsthand interviews that declare exactly who was working where and when, again by the participants themselves.

If that's news to those spouting such nonesense then it says it all really.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the January 17, 2011 How Did the 2013 America's Cup End Up in Multihulls? Pete is talking as if he was just wrapping up his work on the rule.

From the February 3, 2011 Wingsails for the AC72: 2013 America's Cup The text included (see below) clearly indicates he rolled directly over into designing for ETNZ.

With the AC72 Rule officially adopted, these days Melvin has taken off his writing hat and replaced it with his designing hat, working with a heretofore-unnamed Cup team on their first boat.  Leaving so much up in the air is great for the rule writer, but for the designer?  Not so much.  Some might wonder about a conflict of interest when a Class Rule author becomes a designer of that very same class, but for Melvin the design task is no easier because of it.  He faces the same questions everyone else does.  It’s difficult to know for sure which paths to pursue with the new boat. 

Steve indicated that Pete was under contract while working on the rule. Given the timing, I see no reason to doubt that ETNZ had arranged for Pete's employment before he finished his work on the rule. A perfectly above board and smart move by ETNZ.

When reading through these articles, it seems that a big advantage that ETNZ gained was their ability to quickly move forward with using his SL 33 design for testing. Pete shared that this testing is where they figured out that fast and stable full foiling was possible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, I14RACER said:

Please launch Patriot American Magic! So I can enjoy this thread again. Geez, think of the people please!

 I  agree with you, on this issue. Everyone’s beliefs are so intractable at the moment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Just for historical accuracy: 

Way back before there was agreement on what class the America’s Cup would be sailed in, the Challenger pretty much named the tune.  In effect, we are bringing an blah blah blah blah to challenge for the Cup. See you off Sandy Hook next September.  Things got a bit more disciplined with various measurement rules being used to define the size and type of yacht.  J Class and 12 meters being the ones people most remember.

When the IAAC Class was first  being developed in 1989, there was a large and inclusive group of America’s Cup designers and stakeholders involved in developing the boat type and class rule.  The DOG fracas after AC 32 was initiated because Alinghi proposed a new class that did not have similar stakeholder buy in. Oracle argued that the closed development of this class by Alinghi gave them such a head start that fair competition was impossible. There were other problems with Alinghi’s AC 33 plans, that could also be seen as self serving, and the whole thing went pear shaped.

Oracle maintained a veneer of impartiality by delegating the AC 72 rule development to Morrelli and Melvin.  Pete was under contract with ETNZ at the time.  The step down to 62 and then 50 was a scale question that wasn’t as drastic as proposing an entirely new class of racing yacht.

The argument Oracle made in 2007 can reasonably be made now.  The AC75 is a completely new type of racing vessel, and by developing the concept and rules without consultation of other likely participants does advantage the Defender and Challenger of Record over other competitors.  There are some issues that smell pretty funny to me, but I am not a Kiwi and know not to trust my instincts on such matters.

SHC

They had taken a slight pause in the off topic discussion and here you go and drag it back up...  Please go to the other thread to discuss that stuff....

 

Share this post


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

Just for historical accuracy: 

......

The DOG fracas after AC 32 was initiated because Alinghi proposed a new class that did not have similar stakeholder buy in. Oracle argued that the closed development of this class by Alinghi gave them such a head start that fair competition was impossible. There were other problems with Alinghi’s AC 33 plans, that could also be seen as self serving, and the whole thing went pear shaped.

SHC

BMWO with Ehman's sleazy behind-the-scenes handiwork, engineered the disagreement with the Defender which led to the DoG match in AC33. After NYSC disqualified CNEV and made BMWO CoR, Alinghi were still keen on a multi-Challenger AC33 but in multihulls - something some syndicates who had entered AC33 did not agree with, among them Areva and ETNZ. The only ones keen on multihulls were a few Frenchies who, as history has shown, were more talk than action. Notheless there were enough starters for a multi-Challenger elimination series which BMWO did not like (they'd never made it through a Challenger Selection Series).....

...and the rest, as they say, is history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, you missed the point.

 I was talking about Oracle not ETNZ.  Russell and Oracle were deeply involved in creating the boat and rule.  But By asking 3rd party to do the work and thus avoided the charge of using the rule writing period to do design research.  Certainly they had prior knowledge, but they placed a Chinese wall in between their design team and the rule drafting team.  I consulted with Nat Shaver, who worked for M&M at the time. Most of my recommendations were rejected an Nat stated that the rejection came from Russell. There was no veiled criticism of ETNZ intended or implied regarding AC 32.

I have been told by “WetHog” (who ever that is) to fuck off. Thanks buddy, have a nice day.

SHC

fucking off

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Well done, you missed the point.

 I was talking about Oracle not ETNZ.  Russell and Oracle were deeply involved in creating the boat and rule.  But By asking 3rd party to do the work and thus avoided the charge of using the rule writing period to do design research.  Certainly they had prior knowledge, but they placed a Chinese wall in between their design team and the rule drafting team.  I consulted with Nat Shaver, who worked for M&M at the time. Most of my recommendations were rejected an Nat stated that the rejection came from Russell. There was no veiled criticism of ETNZ intended or implied regarding AC 32.

I have been told by “WetHog” (who ever that is) to fuck off. Thanks buddy, have a nice day.

SHC

fucking off

 

 

 

Thanks for the insight Steve. Funny, I can name plenty of instances were people who say they want access to the AC scoop then drive those in the know and take the time offer behind the scenes visibility away from this forum by simply being pretty poor human beings. Thanks for taking the time to respond. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

have been told by “WetHog” (who ever that is) to fuck off. Thanks buddy, have a nice day.

SHC

fucking off

Hey buddy that’s not the spirit here, since your being too nice I’ll have to do it for you 

Hey Wet Hogg go fuck  yourself. This isn’t Nazi Germany you goose stepping prick.  Etc etc etc and so on and so on

With people like Steve Clark around this place might become mature and talk about sailing...... god forbid !!

I for one find your post very interesting 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My earlier post was to point out that ETNZ and LR did not let other interested parties even ~listen~ in on the evolution, of the AC75 Rule. For 6 months, everyone else was kept completely blind to it, while Def and CoR got heavily into modeling and Sim-sailing variations of it. Is that supposed to be fair ‘Because ETNZ is the Def and LR the CoR’? No! Never happened before.

I agree it was an excellent team of designers, probably the best-suited in the world to the task. And I love this concept, the boats will be spectacular. And am not arguing that others need to have influenced the design, include too many chefs and such, just this:

To make it a fairer design competition others should be been allowed to listen! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My earlier post was to point out that ETNZ and LR did not let other interested parties even ~listen~ in on the evolution, of the AC75 Rule. For 6 months, everyone else was kept completely blind to it, while Def and CoR got heavily into modeling and Sim-sailing variations of it. Is that supposed to be fair ‘Because ETNZ is the Def and LR the CoR’? No! Never happened before.

I agree it was an excellent team of designers, probably the best-suited in the world to the task. And I love this concept, the boats will be spectacular. And am not arguing that others need to have influenced the design, include too many chefs and such, just this:

To make it a fairer design competition others should be been allowed to listen! 

Which others?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My earlier post was to point out that ETNZ and LR did not let other interested parties even ~listen~ in on the evolution, of the AC75 Rule. For 6 months, everyone else was kept completely blind to it, while Def and CoR got heavily into modeling and Sim-sailing variations of it. Is that supposed to be fair ‘Because ETNZ is the Def and LR the CoR’? No! Never happened before.

I agree it was an excellent team of designers, probably the best-suited in the world to the task. And I love this concept, the boats will be spectacular. And am not arguing that others need to have influenced the design, include too many chefs and such, just this:

To make it a fairer design competition others should be been allowed to listen! 

Out of curiosity, at what point did NYYC and (at the time) BAR challenge compared to the release of the class rule? Serious question, cause I didn't keep track of that.

Would it be fair to say at whatever point that was, they knew that ETNZ and LR had been developing the rule and would have a head start? If the challengers knowingly continued to enter their challenges without the rule in hand, and that ETNZ and LR would potentially benefit from developing the rule without consulting them, why are we doing this song and dance? They have obviously accepted it and moved on - so should the collective we.

Share this post


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

Just for historical accuracy: 

Way back before there was agreement on what class the America’s Cup would be sailed in, the Challenger pretty much named the tune.  In effect, we are bringing an blah blah blah blah to challenge for the Cup. See you off Sandy Hook next September.  Things got a bit more disciplined with various measurement rules being used to define the size and type of yacht.  J Class and 12 meters being the ones people most remember.

When the IAAC Class was first  being developed in 1989, there was a large and inclusive group of America’s Cup designers and stakeholders involved in developing the boat type and class rule.  The DOG fracas after AC 32 was initiated because Alinghi proposed a new class that did not have similar stakeholder buy in. Oracle argued that the closed development of this class by Alinghi gave them such a head start that fair competition was impossible. There were other problems with Alinghi’s AC 33 plans, that could also be seen as self serving, and the whole thing went pear shaped.

Oracle maintained a veneer of impartiality by delegating the AC 72 rule development to Morrelli and Melvin.  Pete was under contract with ETNZ at the time.  The step down to 62 and then 50 was a scale question that wasn’t as drastic as proposing an entirely new class of racing yacht.

The argument Oracle made in 2007 can reasonably be made now.  The AC75 is a completely new type of racing vessel, and by developing the concept and rules without consultation of other likely participants does advantage the Defender and Challenger of Record over other competitors.  There are some issues that smell pretty funny to me, but I am not a Kiwi and know not to trust my instincts on such matters.

SHC

Cripes since your created a well thought out reply without insults....I’m not sure how to respond.....Ok swapping insult hat  to logic hat....Feels very strange

 

Steve you make a very fair point and I’m saying this as a Kiwi

It would of been better if this class of boat was designed in a more inclusive manner. Sadly it wasn’t, but putting the blame on ETNZ and LR and no one else is unfair ( You haven’t done this, but others have). Both of these syndicates were right royally shafted in the previous cup. For some to complain about the unfairness of this now, since the boot is on the other foot is a bit rich. This spirit of ruthless behaviour was not started by ETNZ or LR but by Oracle and the other smaller syndicates. Does two wrongs make a right ...no. But we’re dealing with human beings with strong egos on both side. 
 

Did ETNZ get a small advantage with the AC75 design....yes they did. Did they get a six month advantage claimed by some, highly unlikely ( not you but others complaining) After reading about the development of the AC72 rule...it’s clear that it takes time to develop a rule.  Of course having an idea of how the boat will turn out is an advantage. But before you can get too serious with CFD you need the exact dimensions. Did ETNZ have the exact dimension six months before other syndicates....very unlikely. LR was also involved in the design and the chances of both sides agreeing on a boat and designing it in 3 months.....well not likely at all.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

They had taken a slight pause in the off topic discussion and here you go and drag it back up...  Please go to the other thread to discuss that stuff....

You got it ass backwards...this is the off topic thread, the other one is the "new deal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Cripes since your created a well thought out reply without insults....I’m not sure how to respond.....Ok swapping insult hat  to logic hat....Feels very strange

 

Steve you make a very fair point and I’m saying this as a Kiwi

It would of been better if this class of boat was designed in a more inclusive manner. Sadly it wasn’t, but putting the blame on ETNZ and LR and no one else is unfair ( You haven’t done this, but others have). Both of these syndicates were right royally shafted in the previous cup. For some to complain about the unfairness of this now, since the boot is on the other foot is a bit rich. This spirit of ruthless behaviour was not started by ETNZ or LR but by Oracle and the other smaller syndicates. Does two wrongs make a right ...no. But we’re dealing with human beings with strong egos on both side. 
 

Did ETNZ get a small advantage with the AC75 design....yes they did. Did they get a six month advantage claimed by some, highly unlikely ( not you but others complaining) After reading about the development of the AC72 rule...it’s clear that it takes time to develop a rule.  Of course having an idea of how the boat will turn out is an advantage. But before you can get too serious with CFD you need the exact dimensions. Did ETNZ have the exact dimension six months before other syndicates....very unlikely. LR was also involved in the design and the chances of both sides agreeing on a boat and designing it in 3 months.....well not likely at all.  

LR bears the most responsibility here. As Challenger of Record their role is to represent the interests of all challengers. As you say, Mr. Bertelli has a long memory on such matters, and seeing that the principal and GM of Ineos were working for the defender last time, you can understand why Bertelli may not have been consultative as he could have been. In this context, AM are collateral damage. There are some ex-ORTAUS member's in there, but it's a bit odd if you exclude one challenger and not the other, so you exclude both.

The America's Cup and fairness have been pretty much mutually exclusive for the best part of 150 years. Why fairness should start now is beyond me...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They have obviously accepted it and moved on - so should the collective we."

AM & Ben were involved early on.   In order to be in the game they had to take what was given them.  

Just because they chose to compete, does not change the sequence of events.  

The advantage gained by ETNZ and LR was a significant amount of time with respect to this radical new design.  That advantage is not impossible to overcome, and that is why any loss by either ETNZ in the final or LR in the selection series will be so much sweeter.  

The much hated Oracle (by Kiwis) went out of their way to "be fair" and avoid any appearance of using the boat selection or rule writing process to any significant advantage with the AC 72.  ETNZ and LR have done pretty much an exact 180 degree turn from the good example set in 2011 by Russell & Larry.  I know that some kiwi fanboys do not want to admit it, but at least please stop bad mouthing the AM and Ineos B1 efforts as mistakes / bad design decisions / etc. given the facts of how this round got started.  

As far as Oracle actions after 2011, I know that some they seem feel justified in trying to get revenge.  Focus on revenge is generally a bad attitude that will be judged poorly by history.   

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

They have obviously accepted it and moved on - so should the collective we.

True, and both THutch and BA have said as much. But they also bring up the significant point that it was unfair! 
 

Criminy :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NZL3481 said:

LR bears the most responsibility here. As Challenger of Record their role is to represent the interests of all challengers. As you say, Mr. Bertelli has a long memory on such matters, and seeing that the principal and GM of Ineos were working for the defender last time, you can understand why Bertelli may not have been consultative as he could have been. In this context, AM are collateral damage. There are some ex-ORTAUS member's in there, but it's a bit odd if you exclude one challenger and not the other, so you exclude both.

The America's Cup and fairness have been pretty much mutually exclusive for the best part of 150 years. Why fairness should start now is beyond me...

 

It’s a bit like playing a game of rugby and side A starts playing dirty. Going in with cheap shots and rucking the hell out of everyone. In the second half side B starts doing the same. Then side A starts moaning to the ref about team B playing dirty. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mako23 said:

It’s a bit like playing a game of rugby and side A starts playing dirty. Going in with cheap shots and rucking the hell out of everyone. In the second half side B starts doing the same. Then side A starts moaning to the ref about team B playing dirty. 

Not that the All Black would know anything about that sort of carry-on, Mako. Right? ;-)

Share this post


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

The much hated Oracle (by Kiwis) went out of their way to "be fair" and avoid any appearance of using the boat selection or rule writing process to any significant advantage with the AC 72.  ETNZ and LR have done pretty much an exact 180 degree turn from the good example set in 2011 by Russell & Larry. 

Hey let me say this, as a Kiwi I have no problem with Oracle and the America’s cup using the  AC72  boats. In fact I have respect in the way the beat us on the water. Nor do I believe in any of the conspiracy theories about there turn around in speed. Full credit goes to them. In this America’s cup Larry and Russell acted well

However it’s the last America’s cup was when things went wrong and were true animosity was generated. Changing the rules half way during the game with a different boat design was very bad. I’ve yet seen an American acknowledge this issue. It wasn’t the right thing to do. LR left in disgust and ETNZ was shutout out of any consultation. It was appalling behaviour and is the reason why opposing syndicates were shut out. I’m talking about team GB. I do feel a little sorry for AM who did nothing to create this situation. They are the victims of a war that was started by another American syndicate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mako23 said:

LR left in disgust and ETNZ was shutout out of any consultation. 

Nope, both ETNZ and LR were allowed to listen in on the AC50 Design details, and to then (like everyone else) vote on making the change. Even Max was shocked when PB pulled the plug on the LR team. 
 

But your larger argument alleging that ‘they played dirty so ETNZ should do it too’ is a bunch of rubbish too. The way this was done, as SHC basically pointed out already, was bullshit. 
 

Oh well! 

Share this post


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

"They have obviously accepted it and moved on - so should the collective we."

AM & Ben were involved early on.   In order to be in the game they had to take what was given them.  

Just because they chose to compete, does not change the sequence of events.  

The advantage gained by ETNZ and LR was a significant amount of time with respect to this radical new design.  That advantage is not impossible to overcome, and that is why any loss by either ETNZ in the final or LR in the selection series will be so much sweeter.  

The much hated Oracle (by Kiwis) went out of their way to "be fair" and avoid any appearance of using the boat selection or rule writing process to any significant advantage with the AC 72.  ETNZ and LR have done pretty much an exact 180 degree turn from the good example set in 2011 by Russell & Larry.  I know that some kiwi fanboys do not want to admit it, but at least please stop bad mouthing the AM and Ineos B1 efforts as mistakes / bad design decisions / etc. given the facts of how this round got started.  

As far as Oracle actions after 2011, I know that some they seem feel justified in trying to get revenge.  Focus on revenge is generally a bad attitude that will be judged poorly by history.   

 

This is a crock. A good example? Oracle  provided the design brief, the parameters of the AC72 to M&M and told them to write the rule. If you think ETNZ could design their AC75 alongside writing the class rule then you must also believe that Oracle could do the same. The fact that they got M&M to write the rule is simply a save face method to fool the gullible like yourself into thinking they were fighting the good fight when in reality, they weren’t.

Share this post


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

Not that the All Black would know anything about that sort of carry-on, Mako. Right? ;-)

Hey Popeye you should know that all the All Bkacks were orphans raised by Nuns. They go to church weekly and sing in the choir. On Monday they feed the poor and look after the sick. After the Pope they are the most righteous men on earth. Never would an ungodly action ever enter their mind. On Friday’s they prey for the souls of their opposition. They prey that the Springbok will stop taking steroids before World cups or put poison in tea cups.  But most of all they pray for the poor maligned souls of rugby referees who wrongly malign them with unjust penalties or who suffer terrible blindness because they can’t see forward passes. 
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mako23 said:

Hey Popeye you should now that all the All Bkacks were orphans raised by Nuns. They go to church weekly and sing in the choir. On Monday they feed the poor and look after the sick. After the Pope they are the most righteous men on earth. Never would an ungodly action ever enter their mind. On Friday’s they prey for the souls of their opposition. They prey that the Springbok will stop taking steroids before World cups or put poison in tea cups.  But most of all they pray for the poor maligned souls of rugby referees who wrongly malign them with unjust penalties or who suffer terrible blindness because they can’t see forward passes. 
 

Couldn't have put it better myself. ;-)

Share this post


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

Blah blah blah ... The fact that they got M&M to write the rule is simply a save face method to fool the gullible like yourself into thinking they were fighting the good fight when in reality, they weren’t.

When OR commissioned M&M to work up the DR for the AC72 Class for AC34 SF (and then for the follow-ons for AC35) Kiwis here screamed like hell - convinced that the Rule Writers were (despite being independent and inviting input from designers including from ETNZ) just suck ups to OR who must surely have been about to hire them, in a secret plan to fuck everyone else. Did it eventuate that OR pulled that shit? Did they have the Rule writers already in their own pocket? Did they even hire them?? Nooo! 
 

But that was the big fear here. When ETNZ does it even more insidiously, that as-was-suspected crime is suddenly okay???


Okay then :D ‘Herbie’ anyone? :D 

Share this post


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

I just scroll until i see a photo........

Here you go. That'll keep you occupied for a bit...

images.jpeg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Changing the rules half way during the game with a different boat design was very bad. I’ve yet seen an American acknowledge this issue."

The change was made for a reason.  From a technical standpoint, it may not have been great , but it was not "very bad".  I think some overestimate any real "unfairness" generated by the change.  Most design work done based on the longer boat probably scaled down just fine. 

From memory, I really do not recall any real basis being established for why this change gave the defender an unfair advantage as compared to the challengers.  I know ETNZ and LR did not like the change, but while the change was being considered I do not remember thinking of it as that terrible of a thing. 

However I will most certainly admit that there was a big downside.  The real downside was the degree of bad feelings created and the LR withdrawal and subsequent deal made with ETNZ.   

Although hindsight makes it easy to say that the decision was a mistake, I think the bigger mistake was Oracle's selection of LR as a replacement COR without really understanding how LR would expected to be treated as COR.   

Share this post


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

"Changing the rules half way during the game with a different boat design was very bad. I’ve yet seen an American acknowledge this issue."

The change was made for a reason.  From a technical standpoint, it may not have been great , but it was not "very bad".  I think some overestimate any real "unfairness" generated by the change.  Most design work done based on the longer boat probably scaled down just fine. 

From memory, I really do not recall any real basis being established for why this change gave the defender an unfair advantages as compared to the challengers.  I know ETNZ and LR did not like the change, but while the change was being considered I do not remember thinking of it as that terrible of a thing. 

However I will most certainly admit that there was a big downside.  The real downside was the degree of bad feelings created and the LR withdrawal and subsequent deal made with ETNZ.   

Although hindsight makes it easy to say that the decision was a mistake, I think the bigger mistake was Oracle's selection of LR as a replacement COR without really understanding how LR would expected to be treated as COR.   

Thank you for your considered response, even though I don’t agree with everything you say, I can see that your trying to see both sides of the argument. Something that Stinger could take note of :)

you at least acknowledge that changing the rules from ac62 to ac50 has caused a lot of BAD BLOOD. Yes there might of been a vote, but it wasn’t a fair vote with Oracle holding the aces. But what further created further tension was the removal of NZ in the qualifying series that cost ETNZ support from the government.  Removing Auckland was just plain nasty, and done in spite. It did hurt ETNZ and it’s not forgotten. In AC35 oracle played viciously with the rules and has  it has been not forgotten. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here you go. That'll keep you occupied for a bit...

images.jpeg

So peddling porn now I see

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

This is a crock. A good example? Oracle  provided the design brief, the parameters of the AC72 to M&M and told them to write the rule. If you think ETNZ could design their AC75 alongside writing the class rule then you must also believe that Oracle could do the same. The fact that they got M&M to write the rule is simply a save face method to fool the gullible like yourself into thinking they were fighting the good fight when in reality, they weren’t.

Why do you think that Morrelli and Melvin would lie about having done the 72 design independently, particularly after they went to work for ETNZ. The only time I have ever heard the view that Oracle might have got advance information on the design rule is from you and this forum.

Oracle did a load of shit things including cheating during that cup cycle, but on this issue, they had a point to prove. One of their key gripes with Alinghi was that Alinghi had a head start on the cup boats because they had written the design rule. There is a lot of evidence that suggests this was the biggest single problem they had, rather than the technical issue of an illegal challenger. My evidence for this is that throughout the negotiations to try to avoid a court case, the proposed agreements (which were made public) would have left the CoR in place.

At the time of the launch of the AC72 class rules, ETNZ acknowledged that the rule had been written independently of the defender. All teams had been given the opportunity to provide input into the rule. Everybody knew they were writing a rule for a large cat, including the general public. Those are facts.

ETNZ wrote the class rule for this edition of the cup by themselves Until it was announced, nobody had any idea of what type of boat it was going to be. The CoR was expecting a monohull and had made plans accordingly (as had Ainslie and his team). It would have been impossible to develop the rule without a lot of design development to understand what would work and what would not. It would have been impossible to predict performance (which they did on announcement) without developing the predictive models capable of working with a concept that had never been used before. Forget Oracle and the AC72 for one moment. Anybody who doesn't think that ETNZ gained a huge advantage from that doesn't understand how boats are designed today.

I have seen that some justify this obvious advantage as just being a function of having won the AC. Under most circumstances, I might accept that, but I cannot accept that when you consider how much ETNZ protested at how unfair it was that Alinghi wrote the rule and gained a head start over everybody, and that was for a monohull which everybody had suitable predictive modelling capabilities for. 

Am I really that upset or surprised about it? Not at all. The defender doing all they can to gain an advantage over the challengers is as old as the cup itself. I would say that I was disappointed in ETNZ. I had hoped they were better than that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But your larger argument alleging that ‘they played dirty so ETNZ should do it too’ is a bunch of rubbish too. The way this was done, as SHC basically pointed out already, was bullshit. 
 

Oh well! 

Your myopic memory seems to forget some facts. Removing Auckland from the challenger series was nasty. It cost ETNZ money and that’s exactly why Oracle did this. All because they dared to challenge the great Oracle. I’ll be surprised if you respond to me in this Stinger. I’ll be interested how you twist this one around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The venue selection process and resultant choices were certainly not a highlight for the previous cup. 

As far as actual sailing, Bermuda worked out.  But still, few people seemed to feel good about the selection.

It was interesting to note that even back in 2011, there was hand wringing over the reality of transporting the boats around.  Having some but not all teams feel the need to fly big boats around has an unavoidable element of cost / unfairness.  Of course this is all against the history of long ocean trips by challengers 

Share this post


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

Here you go. That'll keep you occupied for a bit...

images.jpeg

I have to go and take a cold shower now...........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, P Flados said:

The venue selection process and resultant choices were certainly not a highlight for the previous cup. 

As far as actual sailing, Bermuda worked out.  But still, few people seemed to feel good about the selection.

It was interesting to note that even back in 2011, there was hand wringing over the reality of transporting the boats around.  Having some but not all teams feel the need to fly big boats around has an unavoidable element of cost / unfairness.  Of course this is all against the history of long ocean trips by challengers 

I can understand your point but in this series the boats could be broken down into a small unit that was easy for shipment. That’s one advantage a cat has versus monohull. Hence the shipment costs would not be too high. The real cost would be crew, but once again you don’t need a massive  crew. It wasn’t enough of a good reason in removing Auckland.  

Share this post


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

Am I really that upset or surprised about it? Not at all. The defender doing all they can to gain an advantage over the challengers is as old as the cup itself. I would say that I was disappointed in ETNZ. I had hoped they were better than that.

Don’t disagree with what you say until last paragraph. I don’t think your fairly acknowledging what happened in AC35. A lot of dubious things happened with one syndicate being at the wrong end of all decisions. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Okay then :D ‘Herbie’ anyone? :D 

Stinger. I'm glad you bought that up. No wait.... ;-)

Share this post


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

I just scroll until i see a photo........

 

DSC_2518.jpg

DSC_2522.jpg

DSC_2538.jpg

DSC_2564.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mako23 said:

Hey Popeye you should know that all the All Bkacks were orphans raised by Nuns. They go to church weekly and sing in the choir. On Monday they feed the poor and look after the sick. After the Pope they are the most righteous men on earth. Never would an ungodly action ever enter their mind. On Friday’s they prey for the souls of their opposition. They prey that the Springbok will stop taking steroids before World cups or put poison in tea cups.  But most of all they pray for the poor maligned souls of rugby referees who wrongly malign them with unjust penalties or who suffer terrible blindness because they can’t see forward passes. 
 

Popeye says, Hey Shark.! :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I just scroll until i see a photo........

Oh, you mean American Magic?

But watch this space ...

DSC_2513.jpg

Share this post


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

Why do you think that Morrelli and Melvin would lie about having done the 72 design independently, particularly after they went to work for ETNZ. The only time I have ever heard the view that Oracle might have got advance information on the design rule is from you and this forum.

Oracle did a load of shit things including cheating during that cup cycle, but on this issue, they had a point to prove. One of their key gripes with Alinghi was that Alinghi had a head start on the cup boats because they had written the design rule. There is a lot of evidence that suggests this was the biggest single problem they had, rather than the technical issue of an illegal challenger. My evidence for this is that throughout the negotiations to try to avoid a court case, the proposed agreements (which were made public) would have left the CoR in place.

At the time of the launch of the AC72 class rules, ETNZ acknowledged that the rule had been written independently of the defender. All teams had been given the opportunity to provide input into the rule. Everybody knew they were writing a rule for a large cat, including the general public. Those are facts.

ETNZ wrote the class rule for this edition of the cup by themselves Until it was announced, nobody had any idea of what type of boat it was going to be. The CoR was expecting a monohull and had made plans accordingly (as had Ainslie and his team). It would have been impossible to develop the rule without a lot of design development to understand what would work and what would not. It would have been impossible to predict performance (which they did on announcement) without developing the predictive models capable of working with a concept that had never been used before. Forget Oracle and the AC72 for one moment. Anybody who doesn't think that ETNZ gained a huge advantage from that doesn't understand how boats are designed today.

I have seen that some justify this obvious advantage as just being a function of having won the AC. Under most circumstances, I might accept that, but I cannot accept that when you consider how much ETNZ protested at how unfair it was that Alinghi wrote the rule and gained a head start over everybody, and that was for a monohull which everybody had suitable predictive modelling capabilities for. 

Am I really that upset or surprised about it? Not at all. The defender doing all they can to gain an advantage over the challengers is as old as the cup itself. I would say that I was disappointed in ETNZ. I had hoped they were better than that.

https://www.sailingworld.com/racing/writing-rule/

The 72 seems to be a designer’s dream and a sailor’s nightmare. How did you get to the boat we have today?

GM: Most of the 72 was dictated by Russell [Coutts] and the Oracle guys. After the 2010 Oracle campaign, they retained us [morrelli & Melvin] to do some performance analysis on different sized trimarans— a trimaran being the original contender with a soft rig. We did all kinds of analysis on things from 60 to 90 feet—cost estimates, performance estimates, and providing them with a matrix of options there.

The cat was part of an early allegiance to move boats from one country to another—de-mounting boats and shipping boats on planes around the world—cats would simplify this craziness, [with] less parts. The transition to the wing on top of it—there was no real research done on our part—was just like a declaration by Oracle, “We want a wing. Tell us how big a wing we can put on.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the rule was written independently, thats what they were hired to do. Write a rule around a concept given to them by Oracle.

That was the advantage Oracle had. They had designed and developed a wing sailed multihull during the 2010 Cup. None of the other teams had even raced a multihull, let alone a giant wing sailed Catamaran. 

You can say "But M&M wrote the rule independently" and yes they did, but that doesn't change the fact that Oracle had a whole campaign under their belt, design tools that were proven, a development program, data and multihull experience that clearly paid dividends for them in the previous Cup. The other teams at that stage were still monohull IACC teams. Oracle had trained on catamarans leading into the 2010 cup and designed, built, evaluated, developed, and raced a large wing sailed multihull around an Americas Cup course, which gave them a huge advantage.

This time, ETNZ have designed a completely new concept, even for them. None of the teams, including ETNZ had sailed this concept before, unlike Oracle before the shift to Multihulls. Yes they wrote the rule themselves, but they also relied completely on their simulator program to do it.

At the end of the day, the DoG governs the Americas Cup match. The Deed only makes provision for Challenger and Defender. The Protocol respects the DoG that governs the Americas Cup. Only the current Challenge is considered, which was submitted and accepted by LR. They are the only team required to establish mutual consent with the Defender to produce a protocol governing the event. No other teams are relevant until the current Challenge has been decided.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I just scroll until i see a photo........

Almost missed this post. Was scrolling...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, so they got their new toy out, gave it a stress test and we haven’t seen it again since.

The cynics amongst us might soon consider conspiracy theories.  

Share this post


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

You can say "But M&M wrote the rule independently" and yes they did, but that doesn't change the fact that Oracle had a whole campaign under their belt, design tools that were proven, a development program, data and multihull experience that clearly paid dividends for them in the previous Cup. The other teams at that stage were still monohull IACC teams. Oracle had trained on catamarans leading into the 2010 cup and designed, built, evaluated, developed, and raced a large wing sailed multihull around an Americas Cup course, which gave them a huge advantage.

 

Don’t let our American friends see this. Some suffer from ODS which is Oracle Delusional Syndrome, These poor individuals suffer from an disability of processing the truth. Every evening they pray facing San Francisco towards their lord and master.  Sadly there is no known cure for this condition other than high speed lead. Ironically most are heavily armed and pray for the day the can go to NZ for Devine retribution. 
 

ps By the way ..apart from people with ODS I love America and it’s people and have enjoyed my visits there 
 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

When OR commissioned M&M to work up the DR for the AC72 Class for AC34 SF (and then for the follow-ons for AC35) Kiwis here screamed like hell - convinced that the Rule Writers were (despite being independent and inviting input from designers including from ETNZ) just suck ups to OR who must surely have been about to hire them, in a secret plan to fuck everyone else. Did it eventuate that OR pulled that shit? Did they have the Rule writers already in their own pocket? Did they even hire them?? Nooo! 
 

But that was the big fear here. When ETNZ does it even more insidiously, that as-was-suspected crime is suddenly okay???


Okay then :D ‘Herbie’ anyone? :D 

If we're talking about "secret plans" how about you enlighten us all regarding the Auckland Qualifier event, and the aftermath of its removal.

You talk about trying to fuck teams over!? they fucked over the 2 strongest teams in the event by taking advantage of their obvious financial majority.

If you're saying, respecting the DoG provisions which are clear to ALL teams, then yes, very insidious.

Share this post


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

When the IAAC Class was first  being developed in 1989, there was a large and inclusive group of America’s Cup designers and stakeholders involved in developing the boat type and class rule.

I've been trying to remember who organised the committee, as I recall it was an official IYRU effort & I think that was the best practice way to develop a class.

Agree with the rest of it.

Will also add J & 12m classes were existing International classes managed independently from the AC.

Share this post


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

I've been trying to remember who organised the committee, as I recall it was an official IYRU effort & I think that was the best practice way to develop a class.

Agree with the rest of it.

Will also add J & 12m classes were existing International classes managed independently from the AC.

Derek Clark (Blue Arrow) was the facilitator, Bruce Farr was one of the leading lights along with Iain Murray, Bruce Nelson and  a core group of six designers later expanded to 25. It is all set out in Bob Fisher's book(s). IYRU was not involved.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The development of the AC 75 could not have been done by a committee of mono experts, they would still be arguing about it if they had been given the chance. 

As an unproven concept the only people who could make a contribution to the rules were the challenger and defender.  If I remember correctly the concept for AC 75 was announced three months after AC 35 had been concluded, a timetable was announced and they were on time until the arms being made by Persico caused a delay.

The defender and challenger probably gained some advantage but if it had been done any other way we wouldn't of had the brilliant AC 75 to play with, it would of been something else based on collective experience, just another boat.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Derek Clark (Blue Arrow) was the facilitator, Bruce Farr was one of the leading lights along with Iain Murray, Bruce Nelson and  a core group of six designers later expanded to 25. It is all set out in Bob Fisher's book(s). IYRU was not involved.

I'll take your word for them not being initiator but IYRU must have been involved in some way since it was recognised as an International class before the first boat was even launched.

I think first AC rules of racing came from that period too?

Share this post


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

The development of the AC 75 could not have been done by a committee of mono experts, they would still be arguing about it if they had been given the chance. 

As an unproven concept the only people who could make a contribution to the rules were the challenger and defender.  If I remember correctly the concept for AC 75 was announced three months after AC 35 had been concluded, a timetable was announced and they were on time until the arms being made by Persico caused a delay.

The defender and challenger probably gained some advantage but if it had been done any other way we wouldn't of had the brilliant AC 75 to play with, it would of been something else based on collective experience, just another boat.

They also had multiple concepts on the boil. To suggest that they were able to use all the time for their own development would be false too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, weta27 said:

 

DSC_2518.jpg

DSC_2522.jpg

DSC_2538.jpg

DSC_2564.jpg

Shot 1 showing the leech gap perfectly consistant to the head. If there wasn't a reason to have the gap, it would be closed a meter above the main sheet ram. 

Nice shot weta 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Shot 1 showing the leech gap perfectly consistant to the head. If there wasn't a reason to have the gap, it would be closed a meter above the main sheet ram. 

Nice shot weta 

Shot 1?  Do you mean shot 2?

Share this post


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

Shot 1?  Do you mean shot 2?

Both I suppose

Share this post


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

Both I suppose

@weta27can probably confirm with a photo but it looks to me that the leech tapes on each skin is black
 

For mine... Shot 2 - the “gap” looks to taper out near the second green draft stripe.

 I am looking forward to seeing if any of the teams find a solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rushman said:

@weta27can probably confirm with a photo but it looks to me that the leech tapes on each skin is black
 

For mine... Shot 2 - the “gap” looks to taper out near the second green draft stripe.

 I am looking forward to seeing if any of the teams find a solution

My point from day one is that it's a feature,not a bug.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Well done, you missed the point.

 I was talking about Oracle not ETNZ.  Russell and Oracle were deeply involved in creating the boat and rule.  But By asking 3rd party to do the work and thus avoided the charge of using the rule writing period to do design research.  Certainly they had prior knowledge, but they placed a Chinese wall in between their design team and the rule drafting team.  I consulted with Nat Shaver, who worked for M&M at the time. Most of my recommendations were rejected an Nat stated that the rejection came from Russell. There was no veiled criticism of ETNZ intended or implied regarding AC 32.

I have been told by “WetHog” (who ever that is) to fuck off. Thanks buddy, have a nice day.

SHC

fucking off

 

 

 

I told you to fuck off?  Interesting.  Can you refresh my memory as to when I did this?

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

They had taken a slight pause in the off topic discussion and here you go and drag it back up...  Please go to the other thread to discuss that stuff....

 

I guess this is me telling Steve Clark to fuck off.  This is the only post I can find that involves me in this current conversation.  Someone calling me a Nazi is a nice touch and so 2020. This place never disappoints. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

My point from day one is that it's a feature,not a bug.

It does look deliberate, narrowing up the sail as the sail chord reduces... trying to guess the purpose of it?

I had thought that maybe some air was allowed into the space between the skins to help the leeward skin maintain it's camber, and the gap to let it exhaust... but I can't find any evidence of venting around the luff, so don't think this is the answer.

 

Share this post


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

When OR commissioned M&M to work up the DR for the AC72 Class for AC34 SF (and then for the follow-ons for AC35) Kiwis here screamed like hell - convinced that the Rule Writers were (despite being independent and inviting input from designers including from ETNZ) just suck ups to OR who must surely have been about to hire them, in a secret plan to fuck everyone else. Did it eventuate that OR pulled that shit? Did they have the Rule writers already in their own pocket? Did they even hire them?? Nooo! 
 

But that was the big fear here. When ETNZ does it even more insidiously, that as-was-suspected crime is suddenly okay???


Okay then :D ‘Herbie’ anyone? :D 

After AC33, many or all possible challengers (20+ IIRC) were consulted by Oracle regarding the next boat class. The overwhelming majority voted for a monohull. Yes, that consultation went well...
 

12 hours ago, P Flados said:

"Changing the rules half way during the game with a different boat design was very bad. I’ve yet seen an American acknowledge this issue."

The change was made for a reason.  From a technical standpoint, it may not have been great , but it was not "very bad".  I think some overestimate any real "unfairness" generated by the change.  Most design work done based on the longer boat probably scaled down just fine. 

From memory, I really do not recall any real basis being established for why this change gave the defender an unfair advantage as compared to the challengers.  I know ETNZ and LR did not like the change, but while the change was being considered I do not remember thinking of it as that terrible of a thing. 

However I will most certainly admit that there was a big downside.  The real downside was the degree of bad feelings created and the LR withdrawal and subsequent deal made with ETNZ.   

Although hindsight makes it easy to say that the decision was a mistake, I think the bigger mistake was Oracle's selection of LR as a replacement COR without really understanding how LR would expected to be treated as COR.   

Bold: The biggest mistake was made by LR by transferring their CoR responsibilities to the committee of all challengers. The disaster was of their own making, unfortunately.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Hey, so they got their new toy out, gave it a stress test and we haven’t seen it again since.

The cynics amongst us might soon consider conspiracy theories.  

About a week away.

Share this post


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

It does look deliberate, narrowing up the sail as the sail chord reduces... trying to guess the purpose of it?

I had thought that maybe some air was allowed into the space between the skins to help the leeward skin maintain it's camber, and the gap to let it exhaust... but I can't find any evidence of venting around the luff, so don't think this is the answer.

 

Sure is hard to follow a conversation like this with all the other fckg spam arguing taking up the whole thread.

Share this post


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

You got it ass backwards...this is the off topic thread, the other one is the "new deal".

No, wet hog tried to start it as such, but it quickly became the spam thread.  This is the one where the “boat discussions” continued.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

About a week away.

That should be enough time for the epoxy to go off.

Share this post


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

Bold: The biggest mistake was made by LR by transferring their CoR responsibilities to the committee of all challengers. The disaster was of their own making, unfortunately.

Yes, and goes a long way to explaining the current approach by LR as an exclusive rather than inclusive COR.  ETNZ has on more than one occasion - yes, including during the design process - been surprised that LR had not sought input from AM and Ineos as was the expectation.  This played out publicly during the wind limit saga where LR was advocating a different position to that of the other challengers and didn't even bother to keep them informed.   This may be PB's last chance at winning the cup and he's acting like it.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Sure is hard to follow a conversation like this with all the other fckg spam arguing taking up the whole thread.

Yes a massive spam argument has taken place. However it’s not been all bad, a lot of new information has been put into public display.  I accept it’s not to everyone’s taste. Maybe we need a pure argument thread we’re people can discuss these matters. I agree it would be nice to get back to the boats. 

Share this post


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

I guess this is me telling Steve Clark to fuck off.  This is the only post I can find that involves me in this current conversation.  Someone calling me a Nazi is a nice touch and so 2020. This place never disappoints. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Yes that was me

I was joking with Steve Clark he was being too nice. I then gave him an EXAMPLE over the top insult as a possible retort.

of course I don’t think your a Nazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Yes that was me

I was joking with Steve Clark he was being too nice. I then gave him an EXAMPLE over the top insult as a possible retort.

of course I don’t think your a Nazi

These days you never know.  In the US Nazi gets thrown around a lot.  I’m glad you don’t think I am a Nazi.  Having said that, would you mind helping me figure out when I told Steve Clark to fuck off?  Still can’t figure it out. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

These days you never know.  In the US Nazi gets thrown around a lot.  I’m glad you don’t think I am a Nazi.  Having said that, would you mind helping me figure out when I told Steve Clark to fuck off?  Still can’t figure it out. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

I think your suggestion to him about him putting a message in another thread, was you politely telling him to “fuck off”

thats the way I interpreted it. I never thought you literally said the words 

 

Share this post


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

It does look deliberate, narrowing up the sail as the sail chord reduces... trying to guess the purpose of it?

I had thought that maybe some air was allowed into the space between the skins to help the leeward skin maintain it's camber, and the gap to let it exhaust... but I can't find any evidence of venting around the luff, so don't think this is the answer.

 

I was originally thinking along similar lines, Max until I realised that the leeward skin (the low pressure side of the sail) needs no encouragement to maintain it's camber, because it is automatically 'sucked into' the low pressure zone, just like a regular sail is - in effect, activated by lift.

I now think we may be trying to over-think this whole twin-skin thing.

But I still have no answers about whether the leeches are better open or closed. So....

Share this post


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

Shot 1 showing the leech gap perfectly consistant to the head. If there wasn't a reason to have the gap, it would be closed a meter above the main sheet ram. 

This - the gap is very gradually and evenly narrower towards the top of the sail, so is definitely deliberate.

The width of the gap seems to decrease, and there is evidence of the leeches of the two skins sliding past each other, with fuller sail shapes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, weta27 said:

This - the gap is very gradually and evenly narrower towards the top of the sail, so is definitely deliberate.

The width of the gap seems to decrease, and there is evidence of the leeches of the two skins sliding past each other, with fuller sail shapes.

Now it is a Kiwi thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Just a little repost to get us back on topic...

https://www.sailingworld.com/story/racing/faster-times-ahead-for-americas-cup-challenger/

One final burn back to the barn onboard American Magic’s AC75 Defiant is one experience Terry Hutchinson won’t soon forget. At the conclusion of another long day of training in late September, helmsman Dean Barker pointed the bulbous blue bow toward the base, some 11 miles away, with a 12-knot breeze tickling the back of his neck. Fifteen minutes later, they were home, having almost cracked the 50-knot barrier along the way. 

“It was exciting,” says Hutchinson, who experienced the high-speed tear from the boat’s 12th-man spot in the transom. “It was the first time I’d ever sailed in that spot and it was really good to see the starboard side of the yacht. I was hanging on for dear life because, at 40 knots there’s a lot of movement back there.” 

The jovial banter over his comms unit as his teammates chased the elusive five-oh on the speedo, passing powerboats as if they were standing still, is what he remembers most. “It was really cool,” he says, “and it was impressive to see the level of comfort. It’s like when you hear the Formula 1 guys talking to their pit guys as they’re going around the track at more than 100 miles per hour. Just awesome.”

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be epic.

Share this post


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

“It was exciting,” says Hutchinson, who experienced the high-speed tear from the boat’s 12th-man spot in the transom.

Wonder if it was this run, on 22 September, as described by mikenz2 at the time