• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
rh2600

Dan Bernasconi Describes The Three AC75 Concepts

Recommended Posts

Someone linked to Dan Bernasconi's interview on Radio NZ today - it's a great, short and interesting piece - including Dan describing what the three concepts are - evidently it's the gamut “We are looking at the complete spectrum of what you could imagine in monohulls,”.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018617276/team-nz-designer-how-we-won-the-cup

  1. Concept 1 “...a fairly conventional but high performance monohull...”
  2. Concept 2 “...a semi-foiling monohull...”
  3. Concept 3 “...is it possible to get a really big yacht fully foiling. The sailors who are listening will know about foiling Moths which are single-handed fully foiling boats which are great. But on those you use a lot of your body weight to balance, and that is something which is really difficult to scale up.”

Still good to know they are dedicating time to finding the answer for concept 3.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

noice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Good interview/er - thanks...

Just the barest generalities regarding concepts - didn't someone claim they are now considering/will be sharing just 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What's 3ft between friends?

2. Shit for match racing

3. All the criticisms of the AC50 will apply, except that it has 1 hull. Will require batteries. Will go fast enough not to require crew for sail handling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. is a little unfair given moths aren't an ideal platform for multiple foils which would be far more workable at 75 feet. Dan knows that as well. With a blank drawing board, I'd expect to see some fun going towards deliberately flying the mono.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can solve Option 3 (water ballast perhaps?), we may see worse horizon jobs over the longer races than the 800-1000-metres leads we saw in AC35.

Very informative hearing Bernasconi say that the primary driver for the cyclors was the need to free up the hands to help sail the boat, and the additional power generated was a bonus - albeit one which they were able to harness profitably.

Very well-deserved award.

Share this post


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

1 too boring?

2 too complicated?

3 too complicated and dangerous? ;)

1. Too boring?

2. Most likely?

3. Too complicated and expensive? 

If you are TNZ and you want to avoid the Italian preference for option #1, then its not surprising that you continue to develop the #3 concept so that both sides can agree on #2 as a compromise. 

 

Share this post


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

1. Too boring?

2. Most likely?

3. Too complicated and expensive? 

If you are TNZ and you want to avoid the Italian preference for option #1, then its not surprising that you continue to develop the #3 concept so that both sides can agree on #2 as a compromise. 

 

Could well be that they'll end up with option no two, ie with something that can sail in displacement mode, but also has some kind of foiling or skimming mode. Yet to see a foiling monohull (not dinghies) do well on a normal sausage course

Share this post


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

1. What's 3ft between friends?

2. Shit for match racing

3. All the criticisms of the AC50 will apply, except that it has 1 hull. Will require batteries. Will go fast enough not to require crew for sail handling.

I actually think that no 1 would be best for racing, even if it is the least interesting option from an engineering point of view. Obviously that option too, could lead to some approaches never seen before

Share this post


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

Could well be that they'll end up with option no two, ie with something that can sail in displacement mode, but also has some kind of foiling or skimming mode. Yet to see a foiling monohull (not dinghies) do well on a normal sausage course

DZ was basically this concept in a trimaran.

Share this post


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

1. Too boring?

2. Most likely?

3. Too complicated and expensive? 

If you are TNZ and you want to avoid the Italian preference for option #1, then its not surprising that you continue to develop the #3 concept so that both sides can agree on #2 as a compromise. 

 

Why would ETNZ want to "avoid the Italian preference for option #1"?? The choice of the type of boat is mutually agreed-to between the Defender and CoR which discharges any consideration ETNZ might have been obliged to take aboard, notwithstanding that ETNZ was always going back to monohulls. Working through the details to be documented in the AC75 Class Rule is a consultative process with stakeholders but ultimately, ETNZ have the final say.

Share this post


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

Is it safe to assume option 3 is out?

WetHog  :ph34r:

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

Share this post


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

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

I agree with your answer, but not your reason.

I could actually see DB designing a balls-to-the-wall pure #1, for entirely ETNZs own reasons, and not because somehow LR are commandeering the process.

The only reason why I think they won't do #1 is there is negligible trickle down right? Perhaps same issue with #3 too - too far ahead of what could trickle down to regular boats.

Simple fact - ETNZ have no interest wasting time and money pursuing concepts if LR is in the driving seat on the choice and it's already decided - if there's one thing you should know by now about ETNZ is they don't have any desire to invest energy into fools errands.

Share this post


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

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35,

 

Dream on :lol: Why don't you go resuscitate the African Diaspora Maritime Corporation Challenge from the grave to give you something to go with the chips on your shoulders? Because NYYC won't even let you darken their doorway...

Share this post


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

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

What evidence do you have that makes you assert that P$B "the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35"

Share this post


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

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

I don't think it's 'safe' to make assumptions about anything yet, anyone who thinks GD is rolling over for PB knows nothing about the man, or has an agenda...

goldielocks median?...alcohol fueled twattery if ever I heard it...

15-20 spinbot posts a day puts him back on his schedule for 50,000 quality posts before his head explodes from Kiwi/Italian/Brit hatred....

Share this post


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

What evidence do you have that makes you assert that P$B "the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35"

P$B said it himself, when he spilled the beans in Italy. It is a direct quote from that $Billionaire.

Share this post


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

Yet to see a foiling monohull (not dinghies) do well on a normal sausage course

If by "sausage course" you mean windward/leeward (W/L), then that is the type of course that most favours foilers. Like all apparent wind boats, they like to sail in a very narrow range of apparent wind, so don't like being forced to sail a particular course. Yachts rarely sail W/L courses, so foiling doesn't work so well for them.

The foiling IMOCA 60s only gain a couple of knots in skimming mode, so if they're forced to sail a non–skimming angle the additional wetted surface of the foils becomes a liability. Large foil–assist boats have been around for a number of years now (DSS, IMOCA 60s) but have not swept all before them, which is pretty good evidence that while foils have good points, they certainly aren't all round performers yet and are regularly beaten by non–foilers.

However, a dedicated event like the AC draws a lot of money for development so it could do for foiling monos what it's done for foiling multis. But I don't expect the AC monos to be any easier to sail than the AC multis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the problem with No1, good manageable boats that will possibly have an afterlife. Why does there have to be trickle down? There wasn't really any from the 12s or iacc boats, maybe a bit, but they were both great classes for the AC. 

Share this post


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

P$B said it himself, when he spilled the beans in Italy. It is a direct quote from that $Billionaire.

You will have to do better than that .. P$B does not speak English.

Share this post


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

You will have to do better than that .. P$B does not speak English.

and while you are at it see if you can find any evidence that P$B gave any $cash to TNZ. I have heard equipment and staff but have no evidence of money (apart from those supposedly in the know on SA)

Share this post


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

Yes, safe assumption because P$B otherwise would not have made the move back to a monohull a condition of helping ETNZ to make a go of it in AC35, back in 2015 when they do desperately needed saving.

If P$B wanted to keep pressing the extreme performance edge he'd have instead insisted on pursuing that end of the spectrum using the only platform capable of it: Bad-Ass wing-sailed full-out foiling multihulls.

It will be the Goldilocks median.

+1 Agree. Maybe even slightly conservative Goldilocks, I'm thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, we have to thanks TNZ to tell the 3 possible concepts, it may remotely help some teams.

However anything less that concept 3 will be discouraging and make us go back decades ago, at least years for option 2.

If it's not 3, we'd better watch J class.

Share this post


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

P$B said it himself, when he spilled the beans in Italy. It is a direct quote from that $Billionaire.

It was a direct quote from someone who claimed PB had said it. He was "directly quoted" as saying it.

Share this post


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

If by "sausage course" you mean windward/leeward (W/L), then that is the type of course that most favours foilers. Like all apparent wind boats, they like to sail in a very narrow range of apparent wind, so don't like being forced to sail a particular course. Yachts rarely sail W/L courses, so foiling doesn't work so well for them.

The foiling IMOCA 60s only gain a couple of knots in skimming mode, so if they're forced to sail a non–skimming angle the additional wetted surface of the foils becomes a liability. Large foil–assist boats have been around for a number of years now (DSS, IMOCA 60s) but have not swept all before them, which is pretty good evidence that while foils have good points, they certainly aren't all round performers yet and are regularly beaten by non–foilers.

However, a dedicated event like the AC draws a lot of money for development so it could do for foiling monos what it's done for foiling multis. But I don't expect the AC monos to be any easier to sail than the AC multis.

Good summary. What puzzles me is how Dan & Co. could VPP a radical, untested configuration with some degree of confidence *- don't forget they have to work out a box rule, which assumes a fair degree of accuracy. That's why I too expect some form of option 2 with a token foil - to be used possibly just in the mooted reaching legs

* for instance, on paper the DSS should be a cure-all, both going upwind and running. In practice, it doesn't serm to have lived up to expectations - until today, at least

Share this post


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

If by "sausage course" you mean windward/leeward (W/L), then that is the type of course that most favours foilers. Like all apparent wind boats, they like to sail in a very narrow range of apparent wind, so don't like being forced to sail a particular course. Yachts rarely sail W/L courses, so foiling doesn't work so well for them.

The foiling IMOCA 60s only gain a couple of knots in skimming mode, so if they're forced to sail a non–skimming angle the additional wetted surface of the foils becomes a liability. Large foil–assist boats have been around for a number of years now (DSS, IMOCA 60s) but have not swept all before them, which is pretty good evidence that while foils have good points, they certainly aren't all round performers yet and are regularly beaten by non–foilers.

However, a dedicated event like the AC draws a lot of money for development so it could do for foiling monos what it's done for foiling multis. But I don't expect the AC monos to be any easier to sail than the AC multis.

Yes was thinking of a W/L course. My point was merely that the current generation of monohulls with foils can't generate enough speed to be useful downwind. Not possible to "build up" the apparent like on a moth or a DN-iceboat. but as you say this could change with a little AC r&d.

Anyways not really disagreeing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would the traditionalists hate more?

A foiling monohull that's, for good match racing, fast enough to foil tack and gybe requiring battery stored power or all but 4 crew to be cyclors

A foiling multihull that's, for good match racing, fast enough to foil tack and gybe that doesn't require battery stored power or cyclors

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am ruling option #3 out not because of any hand shake between GD and The Poodle but because it appears a foiling mono would be to big a leap forward.  That only 1 or 2 teams would have the means to make it work and an AC with 8 total teams wouldn't be very compelling if only 2 teams are competitive.  

Option #2 seems like the upper limit of the design curve for AC36, IMO, and that might be stretching it to far for monos.

If foiling was a goal for the boats they should of stuck with multihulls.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

So what would the traditionalists hate more?

A foiling foil assisted monohull that's, for good match racing, fast enough to foil tack and gybe requiring battery stored power for its canting keel or all but 4 crew to be cyclors

A foiling multihull that's, for good match racing, fast enough to foil tack and gybe that doesn't require battery stored power or cyclors

?

Hope you don't mind - more realistic, IMO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Xlot said:

Hope you don't mind - more realistic, IMO

 

Not at all, but I doubt a foil assisted mono will be good for match racing. That just increases the cost of tacking and gybing and we'll be back to banging corners al la the IACC.

The eye of a needle you need is a boat that never foils upwind and always foils downwind. That's not going to be terribly high performance as what that means a fixed keel and high drag foils that only lift off speed with the help of additional down wind sails. That would at least add to the crew required but drafting suitable rules to constrain foiling has been shown to be difficult in the past. The obvious way to win is to push the foiling boundary as hard as you can resulting in minimal match racing.

Overall what you end up with is something that aesthetically, rather than performance, driven. To me that's art and not sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  ^ In the Dalton podcast (credit due to Clean) he said specifically that he doesn't want a boat that under certain conditions gets on its foils sooner than its opponent - because then it's game over. Your "eye of the needle" is narrow indeed ...

Share this post


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

 

  ^ In the Dalton podcast (credit due to Clean) he said specifically that he doesn't want a boat that under certain conditions gets on its foils sooner than its opponent - because then it's game over. Your "eye of the needle" is narrow indeed ...

Yes, I had noticed that too. So the eye of the needle is a excellent full time foiler or a old foil assist I guess.

Share this post


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

Why would ETNZ want to "avoid the Italian preference for option #1"?? The choice of the type of boat is mutually agreed-to between the Defender and CoR which discharges any consideration ETNZ might have been obliged to take aboard, notwithstanding that ETNZ was always going back to monohulls. Working through the details to be documented in the AC75 Class Rule is a consultative process with stakeholders but ultimately, ETNZ have the final say.

My reading is that the Challenger of Record and the Defender both have to mutually agree on the protocol or its a DoG match.  If they do not agree on a protocol then the Italians can leave their Challenge as a Deed of Gift Challenge.  Its not clear to me that ETNZ have the final say

If they disagree, they will try and find a compromise.

If they cannot find a compromise, who will blink first?

The Italians can threaten to throw their toys out of the sandbox and walk away taking their money and their challenge with them....or they can stick fast and insist on a Deed of Gift Challenge

The New Zealanders can threaten to accept a challenge from someone else ,   unless the Italians insist of a deed of gift challenge.  

I think it is more likely that they find a compromise.  A Deed of Gift Challenge would be very difficult for TNZ financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way for the Defender to have final say and control is to select a "poodle" challenger.   The Italians are not the poodle in this relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, animeproblem said:

I rather agree with what Sailbydate was onto, to muddy the waters a bit: option # 1.5?

Me too, SBD's Goldilocks, with her posing and barely exposing just one breast. Not too, too hot, just a tease performance.

Share this post


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

My reading is that the Challenger of Record and the Defender both have to mutually agree on the protocol or its a DoG match.  If they do not agree on a protocol then the Italians can leave their Challenge as a Deed of Gift Challenge.  Its not clear to me that ETNZ have the final say

If they disagree, they will try and find a compromise.

If they cannot find a compromise, who will blink first?

The Italians can threaten to throw their toys out of the sandbox and walk away taking their money and their challenge with them....or they can stick fast and insist on a Deed of Gift Challenge

The New Zealanders can threaten to accept a challenge from someone else ,   unless the Italians insist of a deed of gift challenge.  

I think it is more likely that they find a compromise.  A Deed of Gift Challenge would be very difficult for TNZ financially.

The italians can't leave it as DOG match, there is a certain AC50 around here that is currently the fastest boat around the bouys on the planet!

They can DOG if the want, ETNZ would just specify the minimum possible period befoer the match and then they wouldn't be the challenger or the defender...

Share this post


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

The italians can't leave it as DOG match, there is a certain AC50 around here that is currently the fastest boat around the bouys on the planet!

They can DOG if the want, ETNZ would just specify the minimum possible period befoer the match and then they wouldn't be the challenger or the defender...

I guess the italians would win with a mono as GD told us the AC50 would break into pieces at the venue :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Option 3 can be solved using differential lift on the port and starbord halfs of the foil to compensate for transiently unbalanced heeling forces.

Share this post


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

I guess the italians would win with a mono as GD told us the AC50 would break into pieces at the venue :)

They could always pick Bermuda as the DOG venue, their boat seemed to perform reasonably well there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as rules designed to prevent full foiling have a history of failing, we could end up with option 3 in any event. 

Share this post


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

The New Zealanders can threaten to accept a challenge from someone else ,   unless the Italians insist of a deed of gift challenge.  

2

No they cannot. They have accepted the LR Challenge which the Deed stipulates must be resolved before another Challenge can be considered.

A Deed of Gift Challenge would be very difficult for TNZ financially.

A DoG Match would hand ALL the advantages to ETNZ which would make a DoG Match very easy for ETNZ to win, because they could defend in whatever boats gives them the best chance to win - including AC50 multis. And the 10-month default DoG Match timeline would make it very difficult for LR to be competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prediction: Monohull and foil-less per se! Maybe a sexy keel but mono, this venue; freaky foil-less! IMHO. We will just have to see...NO HELmeTS!

 

Rest is bullroar for people who waste time!

Share this post


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

My reading is that the Challenger of Record and the Defender both have to mutually agree on the protocol or its a DoG match.  If they do not agree on a protocol then the Italians can leave their Challenge as a Deed of Gift Challenge.  Its not clear to me that ETNZ have the final say

If they disagree, they will try and find a compromise.

If they cannot find a compromise, who will blink first?

The Italians can threaten to throw their toys out of the sandbox and walk away taking their money and their challenge with them....or they can stick fast and insist on a Deed of Gift Challenge

The New Zealanders can threaten to accept a challenge from someone else ,   unless the Italians insist of a deed of gift challenge.  

I think it is more likely that they find a compromise.  A Deed of Gift Challenge would be very difficult for TNZ financially.

 

Why are you contemplating this scenario, while it's quite apparent both teams are full of the milk of human kindness? All Bertelli wants is "a monohull with sail changes", he's not interested in the "details" and he's leaving that to the Kiwis. For one thing, we haven't even heard of who (if anybody) is the LR designer acting as Dan's counterpart

 

Share this post


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

They could always pick Bermuda as the DOG venue, their boat seemed to perform reasonably well there...

Then P$B would probably buy one of the challenger previous boat, like Artemis, perhaps with the complete team and modify it with, CIC,  a dot to follow for control, and new foils. But it won't happen !

Share this post


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

Prediction: Monohull and foil-less per se! Maybe a sexy keel but mono, this venue; freaky foil-less! IMHO. We will just have to see...NO HELmeTS!

 

Rest is bullroar for people who waste time!

 

Like me! NO HELMETS!

Share this post


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

 

Why are you contemplating this scenario, while it's quite apparent both teams are full of the milk of human kindness? All Bertelli wants is "a monohull with sail changes", he's not interested in the "details" and he's leaving that to the Kiwis. For one thing, we haven't even heard of who (if anybody) is the LR designer acting as Dan's counterpart

 

Well, it's not Botin!  I think Martin Fischer perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Well, it's not Botin!  I think Martin Fischer perhaps?

Hope not! Martin Fischer is the mad scientist type :D  Like I said somewhere else, I wonder whether a closely monitored JuanK couldn't get a second chance, if it's a canter and somebody else is designing the keel hinge ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember they thought Reliance was a freak and it lead to the Universal Rule. So no freaks in the AC, a good HP monohull that makes a great match racer will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 1:58 PM, IPLore said:

The Italians can threaten to throw their toys out of the sandbox and walk away taking their money and their challenge with them....or they can stick fast and insist on a Deed of Gift Challenge

The New Zealanders can threaten to accept a challenge from someone else ,   unless the Italians insist of a deed of gift challenge.  

It's an interesting question. Totally academic, but interesting. 

The deed is silent on a lot of things. One thing it is clear on is: "In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup."

Can either team just walk away? The deed has no such provision.

I suppose if the Italians want to walk, the Kiwis could sail some "races" alone and therefore retain the cup. But there is no provision for what would happen if the defender wants to walk. There is a long section of what happens should the defender be dissolved, but nothing about walking away. 

The Italians could not just sail the race alone since that would require the Kiwis to select the course which, presumably, they would not do if they were wanting to walk away from the whole thing.

The Kiwis could not just give the cup to the Italians as there would have been no races sailed. Another club could easily lob in a challenge to RNYS and then pull a Larry and go to court. 

The Kiwis really do have to live up to the terms and conditions of the deed now that they have accepted a challenge, or they would be in breach of their contract with GGYC and, I suppose, GGYC could sue to get the cup back. 

Wouldn't that be a thing?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With what boat does a COR challenge in the first place? Do they always challenge with a 90x90 ft yacht just in case they can't agree on a protocol with the defender so they have a deed compliant Maxi yacht?

Has anyone ever seen the original challenges after 1987 except for the DoG Challenge from 2007 that I know?

Share this post


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

Then P$B would probably buy one of the challenger previous boat, like Artemis, perhaps with the complete team and modify it with, CIC,  a dot to follow for control, and new foils. But it won't happen !

They can't, a defeated boat can't compete in a DOG challenge until the next challenge has been completed.

They could try and argue in court that being defeated in the challenger series didn't count but I doubt that would fly as they were considered a legitimate challenger under mutual consent.

Share this post


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

Hope not! Martin Fischer is the mad scientist type :D  Like I said somewhere else, I wonder whether a closely monitored JuanK couldn't get a second chance, if it's a canter and somebody else is designing the keel hinge ...

 

JuanK might be cut out for this one.

Share this post


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

They can't, a defeated boat can't compete in a DOG challenge until the next challenge has been completed.

They could try and argue in court that being defeated in the challenger series didn't count but I doubt that would fly as they were considered a legitimate challenger under mutual consent.

You are 100% correct ! they would use their unused AC62 refit with a new control system and new foils. Won't happen though.

Share this post


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

They can't, a defeated boat can't compete in a DOG challenge until the next challenge has been completed.

They could try and argue in court that being defeated in the challenger series didn't count but I doubt that would fly as they were considered a legitimate challenger under mutual consent.

Its a moot point, but why can't it compete?

Share this post


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

You are 100% correct ! they would use their unused AC62 refit with a new control system and new foils. Won't happen though.

I actually think if you wanted to take a strict reading of the deed, only OR's boat would be disallowed as the CSS is not the AC so no other boat has technically been defeated

Share this post


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

I actually think if you wanted to take a strict reading of the deed, only OR's boat would be disallowed as the CSS is not the AC so no other boat has technically been defeated

Correct

Share this post


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

I actually think if you wanted to take a strict reading of the deed, only OR's boat would be disallowed as the CSS is not the AC so no other boat has technically been defeated

I think it would certainly be something for the courts to decide, it really comes down to what defines a challenger and what defines defeat and what defines a match and the deed specifically says pretty much anything can be defined under mutual consent, so if you if mutually consent to define additional challengers and you include the challenger selection series as part of the event where does that leave you?

It might be part of the reason why 2 years was selected in the London Agreement as this happens to be the expiry on the limitation.

Share this post


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

 

Meanwhile: forget the TP52 as a surrogate, Francesco Bruni is already playing with canting keel positions on the Melges 40. And no complaints about boat agility, apparently

http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/A-Dynamiq-day-at-Melges-40-Valencia-Grand-Prix/157930

Been looking more into the Melges 40. It's a Botín design (Clean's point), with a crew of 9 - 680 kg max. As noted by others, the 10-12 crew for the AC75 seems quite small

Can somebody restate the crew limit for Maxi72s? Saw it somewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:35 PM, Indio said:

"ultimately, ETNZ have the final say"

No, they don't. If the two parties don't agree it becomes a "Deed of Gift" match in which the challenger informs the defender what boat he will bring, and the defender says what they will defend with. Few restrictions other than less than 90 ft. This will not happen however because ETNZ and Prada are friendly, they will hammer out an agreement. ETNZ cannot and will not dictate the answer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 10:07 AM, Xlot said:

 

Meanwhile: forget the TP52 as a surrogate, Francesco Bruni is already playing with canting keel positions on the Melges 40. And no complaints about boat agility, apparently

http://www.sail-world.com/Europe/A-Dynamiq-day-at-Melges-40-Valencia-Grand-Prix/157930

Ed Baird is on the leading boat from Russia...

Share this post


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

Ed Baird is on the leading boat from Russia...

Bronenesco, right?

BIG money around there but maybe they are plenty happy racing the 52's.

Share this post


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

Bronenesco, right?

BIG money around there but maybe they are plenty happy with racing the 52's.

"Atop the charts overall is Valentin Zavadnikov's Dynamiq - Synergy Sailing Team with Ed Baird on tactics. They successfully submitted a one – two - two scoreline to take an early lead, while Porto Cervo champ Alessandro Rombelli at the helm of Stig with tactician Francesco Bruni gave the day a good run to finish up one point behind in second place."

Share this post


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

Ed Baird is on the leading boat from Russia...

Not after day 2 :)

Share this post


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

Valentin is the commodore of the St Petersburg YC, right? Who are the money guys, Gazprom?

Nope, this guy is not a commodore of St Peterburg YC. He is the owner of watste processing company, alcohol producer, and a lecturer in a university <_<. It does not seem like he has any connections to Gazprom.

Valentin is actually the leader of the Synergy racing team - the one which participated in ACWS in 2011 under the name of "Ё-Challange";) according to russian press https://itboat.com/articles/263-kubok-ameriki-rossiya-uchastvuet. I can not confirm this as I did not follow AC at that time, but there is a picture of the boat (could be photoshopped).
 main_yo1.jpg

The interesting thing is that Synergy wanted to compete in 34th AC, but the cost was too high."The cost has grown from 20 millions euro for 32 AC to 60millions for 34 AC... I am not sure that there is anybody willing to compete at that price in Russia" https://itboat.com/articles/183-kogda-nibud-my-ego-zaberem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says 'Auckland' in this one so maybe the idea of a Nov 15 meeting in Monaco, or maybe even London instead of Monaco as GD suggested in the Clean interview, has been dropped.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11933093

Potential challengers for the next America's Cup will have the opportunity to preview Team New Zealand's concept plans for the new monohull class in Auckland next month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Bermuda,

New Zealand face logistical nightmare

http://mobile.royalgazette.com/sailing/article/20171014/new-zealand-face-logistical-nightmare&template=mobileart

Winning the America’s Cup appears to have been more straightforward for New Zealand than developing the infrastructure to host the next event in Auckland in 2021.

The Kiwis have stumbled upon various logistical challenges in developing the main hub for the next instalment of the ‘Auld Mug’, which Bermuda overcame in its successful hosting of sailing’s holy grail this summer.

Which reminds me of a golden oldie

A Logistical Nightmare

http://anarkychallenge.blogspot.com/2009/02/logistical-nightmare.html?m=1

Alt_DSC04117.jpg
LVPS RR2 Day 3

With Emirates Team New Zealand and tens of thousands of spectators out on the water for hours on a steamy summer Saturday afternoon off Auckland, eagerly anticipating their key race matchup against arch rivals Alinghi, the action back on shore was getting even hotter.

Share this post


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

Mono's can look every bit as exciting as Multi's. Speed is not essential.

Aye! +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 7:24 AM, sclarke said:

Mono's can look every bit as exciting as Multi's. Speed is not essential.

If a 1 minute collage of clips from a 1 hour race isn't interesting, sack the editor and producer.

The full replay is a little less engaging. 

Share this post


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

If a 1 minute collage of clips from a 1 hour race isn't interesting, sack the editor and producer.

The full replay is a little less engaging. 

Still a very interesting race. And no doubt the boats look great on camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 5:47 AM, ~HHN92~ said:

Remember they thought Reliance was a freak and it lead to the Universal Rule. So no freaks in the AC, a good HP monohull that makes a great match racer will be fine.

Certainly good enough for this AC36 go-around. But it will have to have development potential to survive.

I'm liking what's going on with the Mini 6.5 Proto. Could work for ACC development too.

Share this post


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

Still a very interesting race. And no doubt the boats look great on camera.

1 tack/jibe per leg

extremely costly manouvers

literally 0 crew action apart from the 1 tack

What exactly was good about that race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites