Recommended Posts

On 10/8/2020 at 11:20 AM, 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.

 

 

 

This.

Thanks as always for your contribution Steve.

Share this post


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

Do you have any idea on how much compensation was payed ?

No I can't find a citation to back my memory up, I thought it was in the realm of $20 million but thats just what ETNZ lost from the government for not having the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing worse than a billionaire apologist is a billionaire apologist who has to 'refresh their memory' before explaining how legit' it all was

Share this post


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

 

However other members in this forum moaning like hell about ETNZ design process yet ignoring what Oracle did is hypocrisy. Maybe the real reason is they can’t stand that a small country out competed them. It’s not racism but an inbuilt big country arrogance that there better than anyone else. 


 

When was the last Cup where people didn't moan like hell about what Defender did wrt Rule and Protocol?

Share this post


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

Only thing worse than a billionaire apologist is a billionaire apologist who has to 'refresh their memory' before explaining how legit' it all was

Should INEOS be successful the one thing that can be guaranteed is the mean old Jim won’t be apologising to anyone. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The AC arbitration board did not agree with that assessment, indeed they ruled that dropping the event was unnecessarily costly and unfair to ETNZ so awarded them damages and ordered a (two week I believe) sailing black out for the other teams to compensate.

And that marketing/event organizer general had to leave. I can't remember his name, Schneider or some such?

8 hours ago, mako23 said:

Do you have any idea on how much compensation was payed ?

IIRC it was $10m, but might be wrong.

Share this post


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

When was the last Cup where people didn't moan like hell about what Defender did wrt Rule and Protocol?

Exactly. It's all part of the game. 

Share this post


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

And that marketing/event organizer general had to leave. I can't remember his name, Schneider or some such?

IIRC it was $10m, but might be wrong.

Thanks Renmaus, very interesting. The compensation was big , but did it fully compensate ETNZ ?

Anyway ETNZ was not left penniless in the process

Share this post


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

Thanks Renmaus, very interesting. The compensation was big , but did it fully compensate ETNZ ?

Anyway ETNZ was not left penniless in the process

The other teams were ordered to submit to a 28 day sailing blackout. If their AC50s had been splashed they were not allowed to modify those components. This was to equalise with ETNZ shipping their AC50 to Bermuda. 

ETNZ lost around $25 million dollars in funding from the NZ government by the cancelation of the Auckland ACWS event. So 25 - (cost of competing) + 10  + costs saved by shipping AC50 rather than flying = loss in millions of USD?

 

Share this post


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

And that marketing/event organizer general had to leave. I can't remember his name, Schneider or some such?

IIRC it was $10m, but might be wrong.

It was way less than that.  Under one mil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

When was the last Cup where people didn't moan like hell about what Defender did wrt Rule and Protocol?

1851?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It was way less than that.  Under one mil.

I don't recall the figure ever being publicized. Was there an nda?

Share this post


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

When was the last Cup where people didn't moan like hell about what Defender did wrt Rule and Protocol?

Fair point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘word is’ that ETNZ is now attacking LR in the ARB Panel over, guess what?

 

(big surprise) Money..... 

Share this post


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

(big surprise) Money..... 

Well, you at least are certiainly obsessed by it...

Share this post


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

‘word is’ that ETNZ is now attacking LR in the ARB Panel over, guess what?

 

(big surprise) Money..... 

Eichmann again? Ah...no. That would have been, "One hears..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not sure to make of it, maybe the decision or mediation will be made transparent, maybe not?

It does coincide timing-wise with LR hiring BB, and with the recent news about that other NZ guy being hired into ACE. Something’s up, probably. 
 

There are some balls still up in the air in NZ courts too, also about ETNZ lawsuits and about money. 

Share this post


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

‘word is’ that ETNZ is now attacking LR in the ARB Panel over, guess what?

 

(big surprise) Money..... 

Got any links to a news source

or is this a news flash in your mind

Share this post


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

They were the only syndicate in the world with experience with a big Cat and fixed wing. This advantage was far greater than any advantage that ETNZ has accumulated in this cup cycle. However I’m not moaning it’s standard practice

If you want to moan about GD fine no problem 

However other members in this forum moaning like hell about ETNZ design process yet ignoring what Oracle did is hypocrisy. Maybe the real reason is they can’t stand that a small country out competed them. It’s not racism but an inbuilt big country arrogance that there better than anyone else. 
 

There is a lot wrong with this. To start with, there were many syndicates and designers who had experience of big cats. It wasn't exactly a new art. As for wings, sure, Oracle had experience of a big wing that nobody else had, but that wing was very, very different from what was proposed for the AC72 and there were people who had designed and built far more relevant wings who were available and who were employed by teams. Bottom line is that cats and wings were nothing new. At best, you could argue there was a scaling advantage on the wing, but that was offset by the crudeness of the DoG challenge wing. There were at least 5 or 6 designers who had designed and built cats of that size or bigger (one sailed in the previous AC). Before Oracle announced the AC72 rule, I know there were teams who had been working on their multihull design tools and who had investigated wing rigs. Every team could and did employ both designers and sailors who had experience of both cats and wing rigs. Any lead that Oracle might have had was small. 

In contrast, the AC75's are a whole new type of boat that nobody had any experience of at all. When the rule was announced, the only designers who had any experience of designing and predicting performance of the class were the ETNZ designers who had spent 6 months working on it. The rig was a whole new thing and the ETNZ sailors had spent significant time sailing with a scaled down version. Again, nobody else had that experience or had built performance prediction models. When the rule was announced, both the sailors and designers of ETNZ were significantly ahead of every other team.

Those really are the facts. Did ETNZ do anything wrong? Not really. If it wasn't for what Dalton had said in the past, nobody could have any complaints. My only complaint is that Dalton, on behalf of ETNZ, had, in the past, bitterly complained about a defender gaining advantage over the challengers through the writing of the design rule. Arguments on this forum that defended Dalton centred around the idea that not only would ETNZ not do the same thing, but that RNZYS, being a proper club with cup experience, would keep the team in check. The reality is that Dalton, ETNZ and RNZYS have conveniently forgotten what they got so upset about in the past.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

The rig was a whole new thing and the ETNZ sailors had spent significant time sailing with a scaled down version.

Are you referring to Te Kahu, the Frackers Amway and the Handbags all had small boats too.

Share this post


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

There is a lot wrong with this. To start with, there were many syndicates and designers who had experience of big cats. It wasn't exactly a new art. As for wings, sure, Oracle had experience of a big wing that nobody else had, but that wing was very, very different from what was proposed for the AC72 and there were people who had designed and built far more relevant wings who were available and who were employed by teams. Bottom line is that cats and wings were nothing new. At best, you could argue there was a scaling advantage on the wing, but that was offset by the crudeness of the DoG challenge wing. There were at least 5 or 6 designers who had designed and built cats of that size or bigger (one sailed in the previous AC). Before Oracle announced the AC72 rule, I know there were teams who had been working on their multihull design tools and who had investigated wing rigs. Every team could and did employ both designers and sailors who had experience of both cats and wing rigs. Any lead that Oracle might have had was small. 

In contrast, the AC75's are a whole new type of boat that nobody had any experience of at all. When the rule was announced, the only designers who had any experience of designing and predicting performance of the class were the ETNZ designers who had spent 6 months working on it. The rig was a whole new thing and the ETNZ sailors had spent significant time sailing with a scaled down version. Again, nobody else had that experience or had built performance prediction models. When the rule was announced, both the sailors and designers of ETNZ were significantly ahead of every other team.

Those really are the facts. Did ETNZ do anything wrong? Not really. If it wasn't for what Dalton had said in the past, nobody could have any complaints. My only complaint is that Dalton, on behalf of ETNZ, had, in the past, bitterly complained about a defender gaining advantage over the challengers through the writing of the design rule. Arguments on this forum that defended Dalton centred around the idea that not only would ETNZ not do the same thing, but that RNZYS, being a proper club with cup experience, would keep the team in check. The reality is that Dalton, ETNZ and RNZYS have conveniently forgotten what they got so upset about in the past.

 

Ok I’m sure what you stated is your sincere beliefs 

However I have a different view

I believe and still believe Oracle had a large advantage and let me explain why

when designing a yacht you can use CFD or tank testing. Usually you start with CFD and use tank when you have a fewer models that have been eliminated by CFD

However CFD is not a solution that you can buy from a shop and then expect good results. In the last America’s cup many teams used the same company and software but got different results 

For CFD to work well you need to validate your results.  Having a previous boat with its performance data is important. You build a model of your old boat in CFD. You do performance predictions and match those with the real world results. You redefine some parameters then do more predictions to see how they work versus reality. Eventually your CFD will match your real world data.  CFD for a big multihull is going to be wildly different than a 80 foot maxi. Without previous data it’s almost useless when working in finer details.

In AC34 the only team with accurate Data to validate their design for a fixed wing large cat was Oracle. They ended up with a distinct CFD advantage over every one else

now let’s look at the AC75 yacht design. Did ETNZ have a previous boat to validate their AC75 design ....no they did not. Their CFD code could only make crude assessments. 
 

I leave a link for those who think that CFD validation is crap

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/wind/valid/tutorial/overview.html

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are you referring to Te Kahu, the Frackers Amway and the Handbags all had small boats too.

I think he was referring to the trimaran used very early on. 

Share this post


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

There is a lot wrong with this. To start with, there were many syndicates and designers who had experience of big cats. It wasn't exactly a new art. As for wings, sure, Oracle had experience of a big wing that nobody else had, but that wing was very, very different from what was proposed for the AC72 and there were people who had designed and built far more relevant wings who were available and who were employed by teams. Bottom line is that cats and wings were nothing new. At best, you could argue there was a scaling advantage on the wing, but that was offset by the crudeness of the DoG challenge wing. There were at least 5 or 6 designers who had designed and built cats of that size or bigger (one sailed in the previous AC). Before Oracle announced the AC72 rule, I know there were teams who had been working on their multihull design tools and who had investigated wing rigs. Every team could and did employ both designers and sailors who had experience of both cats and wing rigs. Any lead that Oracle might have had was small. 

In contrast, the AC75's are a whole new type of boat that nobody had any experience of at all. When the rule was announced, the only designers who had any experience of designing and predicting performance of the class were the ETNZ designers who had spent 6 months working on it. The rig was a whole new thing and the ETNZ sailors had spent significant time sailing with a scaled down version. Again, nobody else had that experience or had built performance prediction models. When the rule was announced, both the sailors and designers of ETNZ were significantly ahead of every other team.

Those really are the facts. Did ETNZ do anything wrong? Not really. If it wasn't for what Dalton had said in the past, nobody could have any complaints. My only complaint is that Dalton, on behalf of ETNZ, had, in the past, bitterly complained about a defender gaining advantage over the challengers through the writing of the design rule. Arguments on this forum that defended Dalton centred around the idea that not only would ETNZ not do the same thing, but that RNZYS, being a proper club with cup experience, would keep the team in check. The reality is that Dalton, ETNZ and RNZYS have conveniently forgotten what they got so upset about in the past.

 

This is completely false.

Cats and wings weren't new to sailing, however they were to the Americas Cup, and the Americas Cup teams. There were no Americas Cup teams, be it sailing teams or design teams competing at that time who had any relevant design or sailing experience in multihulls or wing sail technology.

This was evident when Artemis broke their first wing because the COG was off. It was also evident when their second boat disintegrated before the CSS started killing Andrew Simpson.

It was also evident in the fact that ETNZ, not having a benchmark, or any experience decided reliability and stability were more important factors in their approach than outright speed. Another reason was because the Class rule dictated a boat that could be raced in a wind range of 5 knots to 33 knots. 

The wing they designed for Valencia, no doubt had differences to the one they dictated for San Francisco, but they also had enough confidence in their experience, their design tools, their data and their performance analysis to date that ensured they could confidently handle and race a rigid wing similar to that which was used in Valencia and be competitive.

No other team had that same experience or confidence in either multihulls or rigid wing sails. That alone gave Oracle a HUGE head start over everyone else.

Fast forward to this cycle, and ETNZ, with no real world experience, chose a concept even they had no experience or confidence in designing other than what their simulator was telling them. They didn't build a test boat to gather data, they relied completely on the simulator which had achieved successful results in Bermuda.

As many have said on here, twin skinned mainsails or soft wings also are not new to sailing. They have been around for decades. They had designed a scaled down version and applied it, with input and feedback from other teams, to ensure the concept would work, so its not like double skinned mainsails were a new thing either.

While Dalton isn't perfect by any means, the writing of the class rule (if we're talking about Alinghi and the AC90) centered around the CoR being fake and a mutual consent to write that class rule with a fake challenger of record was not valid as per the DoG. That was what also sparked the Oracle legal challenge that meant Alinghi lost the Cup.

The AC90 Class rule was never legal, due to the fact that CNEV was never a valid challenger, so mutual consent was never achieved in order for that class rule to be valid in any way. This turned out to be completely true.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Forourselves said:

What the other challengers wanted is and was irrelevant. LR was CoR and they supported the event. This is the exact reason why this current AC Class rule would have become a nightmare if designed by committee. Too many stakeholders, too many agendas. 

You Kiwi's really are master contortionists. Fun to watch.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You Kiwi's really are master contortionists. Fun to watch.

Yep, this was fun to watch too...lol

1498711117809.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=m

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, amc said:

I think he was referring to the trimaran used very early on. 

Ahh I did't know about that.

Still considering the mast is a supplied element why would anybody have a moan about not having to undertake the R&D cost and effort as TNZ sells them off the shelf.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You Kiwi's really are master contortionists. Fun to watch.

Yup more fun here too.

 

Share this post


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

You Kiwi's really are master contortionists. Fun to watch.

To be a pussylicker you also have to a contortionist 

Share this post


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

Ok I’m sure what you stated is your sincere beliefs 

However I have a different view

I believe and still believe Oracle had a large advantage and let me explain why

when designing a yacht you can use CFD or tank testing. Usually you start with CFD and use tank when you have a fewer models that have been eliminated by CFD

However CFD is not a solution that you can buy from a shop and then expect good results. In the last America’s cup many teams used the same company and software but got different results 

For CFD to work well you need to validate your results.  Having a previous boat with its performance data is important. You build a model of your old boat in CFD. You do performance predictions and match those with the real world results. You redefine some parameters then do more predictions to see how they work versus reality. Eventually your CFD will match your real world data.  CFD for a big multihull is going to be wildly different than a 80 foot maxi. Without previous data it’s almost useless when working in finer details.

In AC34 the only team with accurate Data to validate their design for a fixed wing large cat was Oracle. They ended up with a distinct CFD advantage over every one else

now let’s look at the AC75 yacht design. Did ETNZ have a previous boat to validate their AC75 design ....no they did not. Their CFD code could only make crude assessments. 
 

I leave a link for those who think that CFD validation is crap

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/wind/valid/tutorial/overview.html

 

 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 

There is a reason why some say that CFD actually stands for "Colours for Directors". It's because those with knowledge can produce pretty coloured pictures and use them to convince people (directors with large budgets) of anything based on an interpretation of those pictures. I get asked by my clients how do they know that the pictures I show them are real and prove what I say they do (sorry, forgot to say I use CFD to model both air and temperature flows). I first modelled a cat design in CFD a year before the AC72 design rule was announced, but I admit that was taking an existing design (an A Class Flyer 1) to look at a few issues, rather than starting from scratch. 

You say that Oracle had an advantage over everybody else with the cat. I call bullshit on that. Let's start with the platform which is where all designs would start. You seem to have forgotten that in the previous cycle, Alinghi had designed and built a big cat, while Oracle built a tri (and yes, Alinghi did use CFD). On that basis alone, there was clearly at least one design team who would have been ahead of Oracle. However, there were a reasonable number of other design teams who had significantly more experience of designing cats in cfd than Oracle, such as Nigel Irens and VPLP (who designed the Oracle tri because Oracle didn't have the design experience). Designing large racing cats was not a new art. In fact, ETNZ employed a number of highly experienced large cat designers, including those who wrote the AC72 rule. I always thought that it was either very fair or stupid that Oracle didn't tie up M&M but instead, left them to take all their knowledge to another team.

The same is true when it comes to wing sails. The Oracle DoG wing was a very unsophisticated, non state of the art design. It was built in a very short timeframe with a very short design phase and it was over engineered because they needed to play it safe. They knew and admitted this. While the size was huge and that hadn't been done before, it was not at all ground breaking. There were a lot of people who could have designed that wing both from the aerodynamic and structural viewpoint. Way before Oracle came out with the wing, I had drawings and specifications for a far more sophisticated wing rig, a design that formed the basis of the AC72 rig of ETNZ. Again, ETNZ employed designers who had experience of advanced wing rigs and I believe that the ETNZ wings were ahead of the others in their aerodynamics because of that experience (I think they stuffed up the control systems and made it too heavy, but that's another story). Because of well know and understood scaling factors (look up Reynolds numbers), the size was never a major factor in the aerodynamic design of the AC72 wings.

Overall, loads and performance predictions for the AC72 could be made based on existing predictive software which was well proven and verified against real performance data.

In short, there were a significant number of people who had the design experience of both cats and wing rigs.

Now we look at the new AC75. This was a totally new type of boat, both in hull/platform terms and in rig terms. As you rightly point out, you cannot use predictive software optimised for a maxi on a cat, or in this case, you cannot use anything that existed. Teams had to start working on their predictive software from scratch. Because nobody had any real world experience of the boats to check their modelling against, they needed to run huge multiples of simulations and check the data against changes made to see if the changes predicted match the results produced. This iterative process is takes time - the more time you have before needing to commit to your first design, the more virtual tests and more iterations you can do. ETNZ had a huge head start that was impossible to catch up, because all teams would have had a very similar "drop dead" date for the design of the first boat.

As an aside, most top design teams these days have developed their own proprietary code for performance prediction. That code is a source of competitive advantage. That code is being constantly refined and many would find it surprising what some are doing to validate their models. For instance, one of the top design teams uses the A Class for this purpose, which is why we have seen so many different foils going through development. At last year's worlds, the production main foil was iteration 27 and I have lost count of how many rudder winglets we have tried. Despite the size difference, the results from the models and from real life testing on the A's at 18' long and 75 kgs are completely relevant to foiling boats 5 times bigger and many times heavier. That's why those designers spend so much time looking at A's (plus they are unreal fun to sail!)

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

To be a pussylicker you also have to a contortionist 

Especially if it's your own

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 

ETNZ had a huge head start that was impossible to catch up, because all teams would have had a very similar "drop dead" date for the design of the first boat.

ETNZ did not have huge head start, Luna Rossa, the COR, was part of the team which developed and proved the A75 concept and the class rules, the time to do this would not have been productive for the design of ETNZ's race boat, particularly with Luna Rossa looking over their shoulder. 

BAR got what they deserved after the Bermuda debacle, the NYYC were the only group that might have been unfairly slightly disadvantaged.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

The same is true when it comes to wing sails. The Oracle DoG wing was a very unsophisticated, non state of the art design. It was built in a very short timeframe with a very short design phase and it was over engineered because they needed to play it safe. They knew and admitted this. While the size was huge and that hadn't been done before, it was not at all ground breaking. There were a lot of people who could have designed that wing both from the aerodynamic and structural viewpoint. 

If I agree with everything you say, it doesn’t change the fact the racing of a large wing sail does provide data for verification of CFD code. To say this doesn’t matter is not true. If the wing is  a little over engineered is irrelevant for CFD verification.  I say this in regard to airflow models. Software that simulates structural loads is different and I doubt Oracle has an advantage here. 

2 hours ago, SimonN said:

Now we look at the new AC75. This was a totally new type of boat, both in hull/platform terms and in rig terms. As you rightly point out, you cannot use predictive software optimised for a maxi on a cat, or in this case, you cannot use anything that existed. Teams had to start working on their predictive software from scratch. Because nobody had any real world experience of the boats to check their modelling against, they needed to run huge multiples of simulations and check the data against changes made to see if the changes predicted match the results produced. 

 

How can you check to see if results match the real world unless you have a real boat to check it against. Until you have a real boat you can only make broad predictions. 
 

I guess that you being the high Priest of CFD and me being a mere mortal software engineer ( now retired) I should fuck off and keep my opinion to myself. However only after I bow down to your CFD crown of ultimate knowledge.
 

Of course I’m looking forward to you telling me what programming language you use to program CFD code in.  Do you use c++ or ar you old school and use “c”.  Maybe you use fortran, I’m looking forward to telling me what scientific libraries you use if your developing in this old language. Are you using Unix process or window threads ? . How are you achieving  SMP or are you just using message passing. 
 

of course this is all tongue in check , however if you are developing CFD code I truly will be impressed. Who knows maybe you do 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

ETNZ did not have huge head start, Luna Rossa, the COR, was part of the team which developed and proved the A75 concept and the class rules, the time to do this would not have been productive for the design of ETNZ's race boat, particularly with Luna Rossa looking over their shoulder. 

BAR got what they deserved after the Bermuda debacle, the NYYC were the only group that might have been unfairly slightly disadvantaged.

Got what they deserved? Chill out or did you catch ben with your wife?

but maybe they did though a billionaire backer to fully fund the campaign;-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Beattie Varley report also noted an outstanding contractual disagreement regarding whether the $3 million paid by ACE to Team NZ to cover costs of designing the AC75 boat class could be considered an event cost.”

This is what caught my attention. It seems very creative to turn the initial design process into billable hours.  Pretty sure that has never been done before.

Being a shit head, I wonder what the margin was?

SHC

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

“The Beattie Varley report also noted an outstanding contractual disagreement regarding whether the $3 million paid by ACE to Team NZ to cover costs of designing the AC75 boat class could be considered an event cost.”

This is what caught my attention. It seems very creative to turn the initial design process into billable hours.  Pretty sure that has never been done before.

Being a shit head, I wonder what the margin was?

SHC

This is in mediation and has been already discussed in the ETNZ (?) thread.

Share this post


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

“The Beattie Varley report also noted an outstanding contractual disagreement regarding whether the $3 million paid by ACE to Team NZ to cover costs of designing the AC75 boat class could be considered an event cost.”

This is what caught my attention. It seems very creative to turn the initial design process into billable hours.  Pretty sure that has never been done before.

Being a shit head, I wonder what the margin was?

SHC

Nothing wrong with this - all companies do it all the time. Hours spent on discussions and meetings on any new project are all billable to the client.

Share this post


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

I guess that you being the high Priest of CFD and me being a mere mortal software engineer ( now retired) I should fuck off and keep my opinion to myself. However only after I bow down to your CFD crown of ultimate knowledge.
 

Of course I’m looking forward to you telling me what programming language you use to program CFD code in.  Do you use c++ or ar you old school and use “c”.  Maybe you use fortran, I’m looking forward to telling me what scientific libraries you use if your developing in this old language. Are you using Unix process or window threads ? . How are you achieving  SMP or are you just using message passing. 
 

of course this is all tongue in check , however if you are developing CFD code I truly will be impressed. Who knows maybe you do 

Rather off topic but........

While I could write my own code, I stopped doing so about 30 years ago except for when I need to do some unusual parametric design when I  script in Python. For CFD, I cheat by using Autodesk CFD, not least because of the easy interface with the design and production software I use. Efficient and speedy workflows are key to what I do and to write code these days seems pointless as I cannot gain competitive advantage from it. I might save some money considering the eyewatering cost of Autodesk CFD but the time savings more than make up for the cost.

And yes, I am certainly old school, but have been updated. Started with Cobol.......

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Rather off topic but........

While I could write my own code, I stopped doing so about 30 years ago except for when I need to do some unusual parametric design when I  script in Python. For CFD, I cheat by using Autodesk CFD, not least because of the easy interface with the design and production software I use. Efficient and speedy workflows are key to what I do and to write code these days seems pointless as I cannot gain competitive advantage from it. I might save some money considering the eyewatering cost of Autodesk CFD but the time savings more than make up for the cost.

And yes, I am certainly old school, but have been updated. Started with Cobol.......

Considering the extremely acidic response I gave you, you reply was a text book response in keeping above the fray and has earned my respect. The fact that you have written in code also gains my respect , compared to those who just uses the package without understanding it’s inner workings. 
Anyone who programs in Cobol has earned their stripes and is not a Johnny Come Lately.  You have spent time in the Industry. 
So I apologize for my last post towards you

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 2:18 AM, Sailbydate said:

Eichmann again? Ah...no. That would have been, "One hears..."

You meant Ehman not Eichmann I am sure! Pretty different people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Main Man said:

You meant Ehman not Eichmann I am sure! Pretty different people...

Yes. Tom Ehman. My bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently in this forum there has been a lot of discussion about how the challenging syndicates were  given a serious disadvantage by ETNZ developing the AC75 rule and keeping the specification in-house for 9 months. So let’s examine how each challenger was affected....by the way AC75 design rule version 1 was released March 2018

LR

they help develop the rule so no damage 

Ineos UK

This syndicate runs on the money of Jim Ratcliffe a man with 20 Billion 

His syndicate did not launch until April 2018 which is AFTER when the rule was released. They suffered no damage

American Magic 

Did not launch until October 2017 so maybe affected by 5 months. However at Launch did they have all there designers and key people hired. Chief designer hired end of October. Other key design staff hired in January. Some CFD packages finalised in may 2018 which is after rule release 

At worse American Magic affected in minor way delayed by a few months 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one more side note

The Italians and ETNZ released a strong indication on what sort of boat was racing in the America’s cup in November 2017, here’s the link

https://www.americascup.com/en/news/14_THE-AMERICA-S-CUP-CLASS-AC75-BOAT-CONCEPT-REVEALED.html

so syndicates were not in the dark. They had a very  good idea of what boat they were racing. They would of had enough of an idea to start playing with CFD simulations. 
 

at this time Ineos didn’t exist and AM was only a month and a bit old and there chief designer had only been in place for 4 weeks

 

I hope this concludes the myth that other teams had been effected in a bad way 

 

https://www.sailingworld.com/americas-cup-75/

 

where a designer for AM said they were already running simulators for the boat before the first rule release

Share this post


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

Considering the extremely acidic response I gave you, you reply was a text book response in keeping above the fray and has earned my respect. The fact that you have written in code also gains my respect , compared to those who just uses the package without understanding it’s inner workings. 
Anyone who programs in Cobol has earned their stripes and is not a Johnny Come Lately.  You have spent time in the Industry. 
So I apologize for my last post towards you

It was obvious by SimonN's initial response that has spent time in the industry.  Even that fact that he has well over 10K posts to your 500 or so, should have alerted you to a him having some seasoning.

You handled it in a very childish manner by automatically attacking a person instead of maintaining a civil discussion.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me see if I have got this right.

This all started with multiple Kiwi fans slagging on AM and INEOS for "getting it wrong with scows".

A point was made that this was probably due to ETNZ and LR having a time advantage with AM and INEOS being left out in the cold. 

There was an immediate denial by the Kiwi horde that saint Dalton could ever be involved in anything less than perfection.

There was pushback from most all non-Kiwi corners laying out what happened.

There was eventual Kiwi admission that there was an unfair advantage, but INEOS deserved it and AM were collateral damage.  Efforts continued to minimize the extent of any unfairness.

It was also pointed out that it was all LR's fault so as to preserve the image of Dalton's sainthood.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I missed the side discussion of how it was pointed out that Oracle at least tried to be fair when they went to a totally new design.

This was immediately attacked by Kiwi fans because we all know that nothing good could come from evil RC.

Good solid information was then provided from an involved individual (with an incredible reputation for being knowledgeable, open and honest) that supported the position that Oracle tried to be as fair as they could.

Kiwi grumbling continued.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Just one more side note

The Italians and ETNZ released a strong indication on what sort of boat was racing in the America’s cup in November 2017, here’s the link

https://www.americascup.com/en/news/14_THE-AMERICA-S-CUP-CLASS-AC75-BOAT-CONCEPT-REVEALED.html

so syndicates were not in the dark. They had a very  good idea of what boat they were racing. They would of had enough of an idea to start playing with CFD simulations. 
 

at this time Ineos didn’t exist and AM was only a month and a bit old and there chief designer had only been in place for 4 weeks

 

I hope this concludes the myth that other teams had been effected in a bad way 

 

https://www.sailingworld.com/americas-cup-75/

 

where a designer for AM said they were already running simulators for the boat before the first rule release

Your logic is so full of holes.  By your message, NZ gave the competitors the first hint of the design by at least Nov 2017, but not the initial rules until March of 2018.  That is at least four months.  Now you have got to add how many months of design analysis went into testing and proving that design before it was locked in.  Since the last AC ended in June of 2017, NZ obviously started working on it at least in July 2017.  July to March gives you the 9 month that people are reporting.  They did evaluated various other designs which took time, but not all of the NZ designers were working on this part of the project.  How did NZ write the design rules and all of the specifications and measurement limits on each and every component without knowing all of the ins and outs of the design?  They had the design in their simulator for at least 4 to 9 months before AM of UK knew anything about the design. You seem to be claiming that no time was spent by any NZ engineers (even those not assigned to designing the rule) during those 9 months to further refine what would improve the boat performance.  That is ludicrous!  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They charged $ 3 *10^6  so they had to be doing a fuck load of something.

Kiwis are famous for getting better value for their dollar, so it would have cost everyone else more.

SHC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mako23

i particularly like the bit from Max, it ties in nicely with the “it’s taken 4 months” from Patrizio 

So 4 months of jointly developing the concept before showing the concept  and then further time until the rules were established and specifics laid out... and yet you maintain there was no advantage to LR and ETNZ?

two design offices going at it hard for 4 months? Gee I wonder why the first boats were so good.  (Falling over and breaking bits off excepted) 

AE9DEBE7-60C3-4B62-880A-33205CE9A3C2.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your logic is so full of holes.  By your message, NZ gave the competitors the first hint of the design by at least Nov 2017, but not the initial rules until March of 2018.  That is at least four months.  Now you have got to add how many months of design analysis went into testing and proving that design before it was locked in.  Since the last AC ended in June of 2017, NZ obviously started working on it at least in July 2017.  July to March gives you the 9 month that people are reporting.  They did evaluated various other designs which took time, but not all of the NZ designers were working on this part of the project.  How did NZ write the design rules and all of the specifications and measurement limits on each and every component without knowing all of the ins and outs of the design?  They had the design in their simulator for at least 4 to 9 months before AM of UK knew anything about the design. You seem to be claiming that no time was spent by any NZ engineers (even those not assigned to designing the rule) during those 9 months to further refine what would improve the boat performance.  That is ludicrous!  

How can a syndicate be harmed if they don’t exist ?

Ineos didn’t form until AFTER the rules were published 

AM didn’t form until October 2017 they had an initial idea of design in November, they lost 4 weeks 

Neither AM or Ineos are harmed between the months March 2017 and Start of October because they didn’t EXIST

also if you read what i posted AM we’re running simulations before March 2018, so they had lost 4 weeks at most 

AM stated that they had enough information after Nivaar 2017 to do simulation work 

Share this post


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

Oh and I missed the side discussion of how it was pointed out that Oracle at least tried to be fair when they went to a totally new design.

This was immediately attacked by Kiwi fans because we all know that nothing good could come from evil RC.

Good solid information was then provided from an involved individual (with an incredible reputation for being knowledgeable, open and honest) that supported the position that Oracle tried to be as fair as they could.

Kiwi grumbling continued.

 

Yet you fail to address is the timeline of the creation of challenging syndicates 

How are Ineos harmed if they formed after the rules are published ?????

Am was given concept design in November 2017 which was One month after there formation

and there designers admit they used this information to run simulations before the release of version 1 of the rules 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

You handled it in a very childish manner by automatically attacking a person instead of maintaining a civil discussion.    

Yet by attacking me and not maintains a civil discussion your doing the same thing which is slightly hypocritical 

Share this post


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

@mako23

i particularly like the bit from Max, it ties in nicely with the “it’s taken 4 months” from Patrizio 

 

How is Ineos harmed if they didn’t form until AFTER  the rule was published

How is its ETNZ fault or LR if it takes GB a whole YEAR before they created a syndicate

The fact that the Italians and Kiwis had syndicates on the ground for a whole year before GB is not their fault 

Share this post


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

Ok, let me see if I have got this right.

A point was made that this was probably due to ETNZ and LR having a time advantage with AM and INEOS being left out in the cold. 

How the hell is INEOS left out of the cold if they didn’t exist for a whole year ???? And when they did exist the rules had been published ?

Share this post


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

Ok, let me see if I have got this right.

This all started with multiple Kiwi fans slagging on AM and INEOS for "getting it wrong with scows".

Citation please

Share this post


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

Oh and I missed the side discussion of how it was pointed out that Oracle at least tried to be fair when they went to a totally new design.

This was immediately attacked by Kiwi fans because we all know that nothing good could come from evil RC.

Good solid information was then provided from an involved individual (with an incredible reputation for being knowledgeable, open and honest) that supported the position that Oracle tried to be as fair as they could.

Kiwi grumbling continued.

 

Hang on, you've missed the side of the argument that says: They won the cup, they make the rules, like it or lump it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Hang on, you've missed the side of the argument that says: They won the cup, they make the rules, like it or lump it.

I seem to recall that attitude leading to the DoG match.

Share this post


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

I seem to recall that attitude leading to the DoG match.

I guess time will tell.

Share this post


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

Your logic is so full of holes.  By your message, NZ gave the competitors the first hint of the design by at least Nov 2017, but not the initial rules until March of 2018.  That is at least four months.  Now you have got to add how many months of design analysis went into testing and proving that design before it was locked in.  Since the last AC ended in June of 2017, NZ obviously started working on it at least in July 2017.  July to March gives you the 9 month that people are reporting.  They did evaluated various other designs which took time, but not all of the NZ designers were working on this part of the project.  How did NZ write the design rules and all of the specifications and measurement limits on each and every component without knowing all of the ins and outs of the design?  They had the design in their simulator for at least 4 to 9 months before AM of UK knew anything about the design. You seem to be claiming that no time was spent by any NZ engineers (even those not assigned to designing the rule) during those 9 months to further refine what would improve the boat performance.  That is ludicrous!  

So ETNZ won the Cup on June 26th 2017, so by the time they've packed everything up, the guys have had time off and the team is back together after say (for arguments sake) its August (say). that means September/ October they developed the concept - 2 months, the concept is released in November, the teams have Christmas off, and come back in January, and thats another 2 months, so between June 2017, and March 2018, ETNZ had about 4 months in total working on the new concept.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be a difference between when teams form a publicly facing entity to challenge and when they begin organizing, recruiting, and looking to understand and develop concepts, and the latter can come before the former. 

Share this post


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

How is Ineos harmed if they didn’t form until AFTER  the rule was published

How is its ETNZ fault or LR if it takes GB a whole YEAR before they created a syndicate

The fact that the Italians and Kiwis had syndicates on the ground for a whole year before GB is not their fault 

Well before INEOS bought BAR Land Rover ( the team that contested in Bermuda) they were still waiting for clarification.

As BAR had announced while still in Bermuda that it would challenge and Land Rover were still on board.

so the delay still had effect on the team regardless of the name above the door and the people that now represent it 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There may be a difference between when teams form a publicly facing entity to challenge and when they begin organizing, recruiting, and looking to understand and develop concepts, and the latter can come before the former. 

A good point and something I investigated. 
AM started to hire designer after they had announced a syndicate 

Ineos took a whole year before announcing their challenge

Share this post


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

How can a syndicate be harmed if they don’t exist ?

Ineos didn’t form until AFTER the rules were published 

AM didn’t form until October 2017 they had an initial idea of design in November, they lost 4 weeks 

Neither AM or Ineos are harmed between the months March 2017 and Start of October because they didn’t EXIST

also if you read what i posted AM we’re running simulations before March 2018, so they had lost 4 weeks at most 

AM stated that they had enough information after Nivaar 2017 to do simulation work 

Now you are trying to come up with some very ridiculous reasoning.  

NZ and LR had a very distinct advantage that even they admit to a degree.  ANY teams that will compete against them are at a disadvantage because of the advantage they builtin into the process.  

The UK announced they are competing and how many AC has America not competed in?  It was know that both the UK and a USA team would compete, it doesn't matter if we knew the exact make up yet, they were not getting any of the inside information.

AM is a very aggressive team that tries to get an early start on everything.  How much simulation can you really accomplish by just having a few hints at what the boat may look like.  Most likely, they were just starting up a simulation program and plane with a few concepts.  That is on an entirely different level than if you are working on the specifications of every component of a new boat.

It is really very simple and obvious fact:

LR and NZ were doing simulation design on the boat design at least 4-9 months before the other 2 teams new of the actual boat design.  Fact! 

You can try to spin it and make all the assumptions you want.  If LR and NZ didn't learn anything about the performances of the boats in that time, they are idiots.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Yet by attacking me and not maintains a civil discussion your doing the same thing which is slightly hypocritical 

Really?  So you put my challenge to your response in the same order as your "fuck off" condescending tone that you even labeled as acidic?

Share this post


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

So ETNZ won the Cup on June 26th 2017, so by the time they've packed everything up, the guys have had time off and the team is back together after say (for arguments sake) its August (say). that means September/ October they developed the concept - 2 months, the concept is released in November, the teams have Christmas off, and come back in January, and thats another 2 months, so between June 2017, and March 2018, ETNZ had about 4 months in total working on the new concept.

 

Yah, Ok.... we just one the cup, let's all go on vacation for several months....   You know that NZ and LR were talking about going to monohulls long before the last cup.

If you ran the team organizing the cup would you just tell everyone to see you in September?  If you were the leader of the team and had a deadline on a new boat (that you claim they knew nothing about yet), would you take such a lackadaisical approach?  Especially coming from a culture where time is the most valuable resource?  Would you pay the team engineers for 9 months if they only were working for 4?  So what if they only paid them for the months you claimed they worked.  If you were a good engineer with a family to feed, would hang around for 9 month and only get paid for 4 month?

Your timeline is total BS, just to try and make up a timeline to fits what you want to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Kiwi grumbling and spinning continues.

The degree to which they are protesting is probably because of how obvious it is that the hated RC was much "more fair" than their beloved GD. 

Yes the dogzilla effort helped Oracle's understanding of a big fast multihull.  This was probably a big reason RC tried so hard to be a fair as possible with selection of the AC72 cat.  If he wanted to "win using all legal means" he could have done things like

  • Kept the 90' tri with the hard wing as the format.
  • Use M&M for both rule writing and design. 

Heck it would have still been "fair" to use M&M for the rule, but make them commit to not work for a challenger.  As it was, ETNZ got Pete, used him and his SL 33 to discover the secret to a fast full foiling cat, use this advantage to nearly win in San Fran.

Did any Kiwi express anything resembling a thanks to Russell for letting them grab Pete.

As for the RH request for citations of Kiwi's slagging the AM and INEOS B1s, you have got to be kidding me.   It was nauseating enough seeing all of the posts first time around.  I am not going back and digging them all up.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Now you are trying to come up with some very ridiculous reasoning.  

I wish you could maintain a civil discussions, 

Anyway it’s not ETNZ and LR fault if other syndicates don’t exist. Yes they gained an advantage because they had already formed. If AM had a syndicate on the ground at end of the last cup and had designer willing and wanting to work then you could claim of poor treatment. 
 

50 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

 

AM is a very aggressive team that tries to get an early start on everything.  How much simulation can you really accomplish by just having a few hints at what the boat may look like.  Most likely, they were just starting up a simulation program and plane with a few concepts.  That is on an entirely different level than if you are working on the specifications of every component of a new boat

If you read the link in my original post you would of read AM designers contradicting your  statement, I’ll copy out to you so you can seem 

 

The platform is known,” says Adolfo ­Carrau, with the design firm Botin Partners

Our in-house simulations confirm what they were predicting,” says Carrau. “Which is it should be able to foil in over 9 knots of true wind — both upwind and downwind.

 

This sounds to me good simulation work. To say the concept boat release was no help is wrong. No team had the exact specifications of the design when the concept boat was released. Both ETNZ and LR were working on the finer details.  For example initial design for the foiling arm was a failure which broke under testing and had to redesigned, further evidence that design had not finalised 

 

 

Share this post


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

Well before INEOS bought BAR Land Rover ( the team that contested in Bermuda) they were still waiting for clarification.

As BAR had announced while still in Bermuda that it would challenge and Land Rover were still on board.

so the delay still had effect on the team regardless of the name above the door and the people that now represent it 

Sorry I thought you said it was a different team? Now it's just the 'name above the door' and standard personnel churn?

I'm not sure you can have it both ways ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sorry I thought you said it was a different team? Now it's just the 'name above the door' and standard personnel churn?

I'm not sure you can have it both ways ;)

Actually I was going to say the same thing.....He has contradicted himself 

Share this post


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

As for the RH request for citations of Kiwi's slagging the AM and INEOS B1s, you have got to be kidding me.   It was nauseating enough seeing all of the posts first time around.  I am not going back and digging them all up.

 

So your pearl clutching is at fans of one team saying they prefer their teams boat over competitors? I guess you missed the part when thankfully booted trolls used to rail daily against Te Aihe. 

Even LR (who apparently had some sort of massive head start along with ETNZ) got pilloried for their front failing off.

It's going to be a long cup if every time AM and BAR make a mistake this excuse is going to be trotted out.

Share this post


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

Rather off topic but........

While I could write my own code, I stopped doing so about 30 years ago except for when I need to do some unusual parametric design when I  script in Python. For CFD, I cheat by using Autodesk CFD, not least because of the easy interface with the design and production software I use. Efficient and speedy workflows are key to what I do and to write code these days seems pointless as I cannot gain competitive advantage from it. I might save some money considering the eyewatering cost of Autodesk CFD but the time savings more than make up for the cost.

And yes, I am certainly old school, but have been updated. Started with Cobol.......

Hah! Whippersnappers!

When dinosaurs roamed the earth and  I was in graduate school (mid-1970s,  MSc applied mathematics and economics), we had original  FORTRAN, punchcards, and (as I recall, it's been 45 years or so) a creaky IBM mainframe with less memory than a modern hand calculator (if you still bother to use such things: I do). 

You would spend much of the day punching and assembling cards in boxes, trundling them to the computer lab, which ran large programs like mine on the overnight shift so as not to tie up the computer for other folks.

You went back in the morning praying to get a printout that was more than one page but less than a huge pile, which meant that maybe your instructions produced a valid operational program.

From the computational perspective, the changes since then rival those from the ancient Greeks to the age of space exploration.

How quickly some forget how hard it was, and how little others know about it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

Well before INEOS bought BAR Land Rover ( the team that contested in Bermuda) they were still waiting for clarification.

As BAR had announced while still in Bermuda that it would challenge and Land Rover were still on board.

so the delay still had effect on the team regardless of the name above the door and the people that now represent it 

Ok after some further research it does look Ben was still trying to setup a syndicate with existing infrastructure 

there chief designer was appointed in January 2018 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/americas-cup-sir-ben-ainslie-hires-former-team-new-zealand-designer-nick-holroyd/BDDTHC326KYNACUY435HVYWLOI/
 

so they were still late in forming a real syndicate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for comparison.

RC opened up the consultation to all interested parties in the boat selection and rule writing phase that ended with the AC72.

GD / LR shut everyone out.

The Kiwi excuse is that there were no official teams to talk to. 

BAR was obviously an interested and viable team.  AR was probably a strong potential entry until they saw the GD nationality rule that looked like it was intended to specifically gut the AR sailing crew. 

The fact that Ben ended up with with a better funded arrangement with INEOS does not change the fact that there were people to talk to that were shut out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hah! Whippersnappers!

When dinosaurs roamed the earth and  I was in graduate school (mid-1970s,  MSc applied mathematics and economics), we had original  FORTRAN, punchcards, and (as I recall, it's been 45 years or so) a creaky IBM mainframe with less memory than a modern hand calculator (if you still bother to use such things: I do). 

You would spend much of the day punching and assembling cards in boxes, trundling them to the computer lab, which ran large programs like mine on the overnight shift so as not to tie up the computer for other folks.

You went back in the morning praying to get a printout that was more than one page but less than a huge pile, which meant that maybe your instructions produced a valid operational program.

From the computational perspective, the changes since then rival those from the ancient Greeks to the age of space exploration.

How quickly some forget how hard it was, and how little others know about it.

Thank good when I started in early 80’s the university had removed punch cards 

Share this post


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

AR was probably a strong potential entry until they saw the GD nationality rule that looked like it was intended to specifically gut the AR sailing crew. 

Are you telling me that the massive United States with 330 million people was harmed by a nationality rule compared to NZ who has 5 million. This is bit of a stretch to say the least. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Sorry I thought you said it was a different team? Now it's just the 'name above the door' and standard personnel churn?

I'm not sure you can have it both ways ;)

+1

Share this post


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

Again, for comparison.

RC opened up the consultation to all interested parties in the boat selection and rule writing phase that ended with the AC72.

GD / LR shut everyone out.

The Kiwi excuse is that there were no official teams to talk to. 

BAR was obviously an interested and viable team.  AR was probably a strong potential entry until they saw the GD nationality rule that looked like it was intended to specifically gut the AR sailing crew. 

The fact that Ben ended up with with a better funded arrangement with INEOS does not change the fact that there were people to talk to that were shut out.

You have very rose tinted glasses when it comes to apparently the Burling-gifting, open-armed-collaborating-class-and-rule-maker that is Coutts.

To the rest of your comment I simply say 'Welcome to the Americas Cup'. :)

I'd encouraging you to do some reading on its rules, in particular the CoR parts.

Share this post


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

Again, for comparison.

RC opened up the consultation to all interested parties in the boat selection and rule writing phase that ended with the AC72.

GD / LR shut everyone out.

The Kiwi excuse is that there were no official teams to talk to. 

BAR was obviously an interested and viable team.  AR was probably a strong potential entry until they saw the GD nationality rule that looked like it was intended to specifically gut the AR sailing crew. 

The fact that Ben ended up with with a better funded arrangement with INEOS does not change the fact that there were people to talk to that were shut out.

RC opened up the consultation to all interested parties in the boat selection and rule writing phase that ended with the AC72 after most of the possible challengers opted for a different boat class.

FIFY

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

BAR was obviously an interested and viable team.  

Yes BAR was so viable that they didn’t hire a designer until January 2018 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

So your pearl clutching is at fans of one team saying they prefer their teams boat over competitors?

Not at all.  Given the B2's, it seems pretty obvious that ENTZ and LR had B1s with "more advanced designs".

The gripe is the over the top denials from Kiwis on why ENTZ and LR might be more advanced. 

It is really sad how hard certain fans are arguing against the obvious.  The Defender and COR (who ended up being the only two well established teams to enter this cycle) did pretty much everything they could to gain a "development time advantage" over the young / new teams that would have been at a disadvantage even if things had been done right.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Really?  So you put my challenge to your response in the same order as your "fuck off" condescending tone that you even labeled as acidic?

Calling someone childish is an attack, there was no need for you to be involved but you wanted to be a big man and come across condescending.  I accepted my faults publicly then you decided to get involved and tell me off. Yet you did the same thing, maybe not to the same degree. However it still makes you a person that is attacking the man and not being civil. 

Share this post


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

Are you telling me that the massive United States with 330 million people was harmed by a nationality rule compared to NZ who has 5 million. This is bit of a stretch to say the least. 

 

And AR was representing the US?   Try again.

No, I believe the anti Oracle rule was something about yacht club funding.  Oracle could have still have been a strong team for this round. I am pretty sure that they just really did not want to have to deal with the BS treatment that they would get from GD and LR.   

And yes, by this time there is ample basis for the revenge minded folks to claim that they deserved all the BS that GD and LR could dream up.

Share this post


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

It is really sad how hard certain fans are arguing against the obvious.  The Defender and COR (who ended up being the only two well established teams to enter this cycle) did pretty much everything they could to gain a "development time advantage" over the young / new teams that would have been at a disadvantage even if things had been done right.

Both AM and Ineos were late in getting organized. This is not the fault of LR or ETNZ. What do you expect these two syndicates should of done.  Are you saying they should of gone on holiday and waited for other syndicates to get up and running. 

Share this post


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

Yah, Ok.... we just one the cup, let's all go on vacation for several months....   You know that NZ and LR were talking about going to monohulls long before the last cup.

If you ran the team organizing the cup would you just tell everyone to see you in September?  If you were the leader of the team and had a deadline on a new boat (that you claim they knew nothing about yet), would you take such a lackadaisical approach?  Especially coming from a culture where time is the most valuable resource?  Would you pay the team engineers for 9 months if they only were working for 4?  So what if they only paid them for the months you claimed they worked.  If you were a good engineer with a family to feed, would hang around for 9 month and only get paid for 4 month?

Your timeline is total BS, just to try and make up a timeline to fits what you want to believe.

I would definitely give the guys a bit of time off considering the gruelling 4 year campaign they’d just been through. Sometimes it’s best to give the guys a bit of time off with family and to relax afterward. We know Pete and Blair deservedly took a month off afterward so makes sense that others might. We also know ETNZ took last Christmas off. We know because Glenn Ashby said so in their January video (unless you think he’s a liar too) so they probably don’t work through Christmas either. A lot of Kiwi businesses take the Christmas period off. So it’s your 9 month time frame that’s the most unbelievable.

 

Share this post


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

RC opened up the consultation to all interested parties in the boat selection and rule writing phase that ended with the AC72 after most of the possible challengers opted for a different boat class.

FIFY

Yes people with nothing but mono experience wanted monos.  In the words of Gomer Pyle, surprise, surprise, surprise.

They claimed that multis would be no good for match racing. 

Testing was done in Valencia with both monos and multis.  Based on the testing, multis looked to be acceptable for match racing. 

The result was the AC 72.  It proved to be acceptable for match racing and the San Fran match rated pretty good for excitement. 

I would characterize the choice for multis as a "vison for something new and exciting" not "arrogance" or an effort to achieve an unfair advantage.

Share this post


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

Yes people with nothing but mono experience wanted monos.  In the words of Gomer Pyle, surprise, surprise, surprise.

They claimed that multis would be no good for match racing. 

Testing was done in Valencia with both monos and multis.  Based on the testing, multis looked to be acceptable for match racing. 

The result was the AC 72.  It proved to be acceptable for match racing and the San Fran match rated pretty good for excitement. 

I would characterize the choice for multis as a "vison for something new and exciting" not "arrogance" or an effort to achieve an unfair advantage.

Then you could say the EXACT same for the AC75! You could also characterise the choice for the AC75 as a “vision for something new and exciting” not arrogance or an effort to achieve an unfair advantage. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites