Recommended Posts

Isn't it a bit late to start a new challenge? The other teams have been doing preliminary design work since the new boat was announced last year. This group doesn't seem to have even started yet.

Share this post


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

Looks like there is a real strong effort to create a second US team to go for the Cup.  It will be an All American effort.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/article/American-sailing-group-eyes-2021-America-s-Cup-12870135.php

 

Tell us something new, please.  This story from the AP's America's Cup writer is a week old by now and has appeared in various newspapers and digital media since it was first published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If sailboat racing was only comprised of teams that were confident they had the financial resources to win, it would be a much smaller and very boring sport at every level.  Pretty much everyone who wasn't already in the know on this project who watched ConCup had the same thought:  hmm, these guys are good and young and gelled together quickly as a team, hope they have some future plans.  And now, it appears, they do.  Maybe there is a model here that could be followed by many others:  be young and scrappy, under-promise and over-perform, perhaps take a chance on a design or designer,  minimize infrastructure and overhead, crowdsource everything, speak to the younger generations in the sport and be in it for the long run (at least two cycles).  Couldn't be more excited for them and will look for ways to support.  If this isn't a team that SAers can get behind, with money and otherwise, I don't know what is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 3:44 PM, Fireball said:

Isn't it a bit late to start a new challenge? The other teams have been doing preliminary design work since the new boat was announced last year. This group doesn't seem to have even started yet.

I don't know, a fair amount of the preliminary work was guesstimates anyway until the class rule was officially released, teams weren't even sure what components they could neccessarily put effort into.

That said now the rule is out teams will be putting real money and real simulation power into designs so you have to be quick at this point as things will really progress fast from here on in.

Share this post


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

I don't know, a fair amount of the preliminary work was guesstimates anyway until the class rule was officially released, teams weren't even sure what components they could neccessarily put effort into.

That said now the rule is out teams will be putting real money and real simulation power into designs so you have to be quick at this point as things will really progress fast from here on in.

The issue isn't so much the preliminary work on the design itself, although it does seem that BAR are ahead of the game on that with a trial boat being built. The real issue is the development of the predictive models for simulation. These aren't bought off the shelf and this is where the real work is. ETNZ, BAR and LR have been working on these since the end of the AC, and they had a head start because of work done for AC34 and 35. My take is that if you haven't got your design team working now, your only option is a shared design with another team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 10:09 AM, Annapolis 105er said:

 If this isn't a team that SAers can get behind, with money and otherwise, I don't know what is. 

The vacancy for "team supported by SAAC" was filled by ETNZ some time ago.

Share this post


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

The issue isn't so much the preliminary work on the design itself, although it does seem that BAR are ahead of the game on that with a trial boat being built. The real issue is the development of the predictive models for simulation. These aren't bought off the shelf and this is where the real work is. ETNZ, BAR and LR have been working on these since the end of the AC, and they had a head start because of work done for AC34 and 35. My take is that if you haven't got your design team working now, your only option is a shared design with another team.

What happened to the design teams of artemis and oracle and the French . Did someone buy their assets /hire the people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 5/4/2018 at 9:09 PM, Annapolis 105er said:

If sailboat racing was only comprised of teams that were confident they had the financial resources to win, it would be a much smaller and very boring sport at every level.  Pretty much everyone who wasn't already in the know on this project who watched ConCup had the same thought:  hmm, these guys are good and young and gelled together quickly as a team, hope they have some future plans.  And now, it appears, they do.  Maybe there is a model here that could be followed by many others:  be young and scrappy, under-promise and over-perform, perhaps take a chance on a design or designer,  minimize infrastructure and overhead, crowdsource everything, speak to the younger generations in the sport and be in it for the long run (at least two cycles).  Couldn't be more excited for them and will look for ways to support.  If this isn't a team that SAers can get behind, with money and otherwise, I don't know what is. 

Much of the approach you describe can be found in PB's approach for TNZ's 1995 campaign - a philosophy that still pervades the team today

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 11:09 AM, Annapolis 105er said:

If sailboat racing was only comprised of teams that were confident they had the financial resources to win, it would be a much smaller and very boring sport at every level.  Pretty much everyone who wasn't already in the know on this project who watched ConCup had the same thought:  hmm, these guys are good and young and gelled together quickly as a team, hope they have some future plans.  And now, it appears, they do.  Maybe there is a model here that could be followed by many others:  be young and scrappy, under-promise and over-perform, perhaps take a chance on a design or designer,  minimize infrastructure and overhead, crowdsource everything, speak to the younger generations in the sport and be in it for the long run (at least two cycles).  Couldn't be more excited for them and will look for ways to support.  If this isn't a team that SAers can get behind, with money and otherwise, I don't know what is. 

This. And incidentally, the budget they mention coincides with Max Sirena's much derided minimum figure

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jeez louise

https://www.sail-world.com/news/204970

America's Cup: Team USA 21 - second US Challenger emerges

A second US team for the America's Cup has been working on a challenge for over a year - predating Emirates Team New Zealand's win in Bermuda on June 26, 2017.

taylor canfield helming

eight figure budget

just needs a couple more backers

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sail-world.com/news/204970/A-second-Americas-Cup-Challenge-is-well-underway

A few key points:

"They've been talking to Emirates Team New Zealand and Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron for a similar period. Having been in the Cup market for 12 months, Buckley says he has tripped over several unannounced teams - a northern European team, an Italian team and a Chinese team. "I haven't spoken to anyone involved in those teams, but I have heard from our contacts, that they are, like us, trying to secure funding. I think it would be great if we can get eight teams to Auckland - the more, the merrier."

"Locations under consideration include southern Florida, the West Coast and Chicago"

""There are different options with different yacht clubs. Groups have come to us in each of those regions, but it is going to come down to what our sponsors want"

"He is coy about who encouraged the team to form, other than to say it was an America's Cup professional who was involved with the America's Cup Authority last time around - but no longer associated with a team" - Maybe Russell Coutts?

"He adds that the team is not fazed by the AC75 and that in their view it evens the game, as no-one has sailed a boat of that type before and there is no advantage"

"From what all the designers are saying and Emirates Team New Zealand are telling us, the AC75 should perform as well or better than the AC50

He notes that the class rule has been out publicly for just over a month and that most teams will have their design offices working from scratch with a new concept rather than updating for an AC50 type concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to them. They are already way late though. It isn't very relevant that the class rule has only recently been published, the general parameters have long since been known and designers will have been busy. 

Share this post


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

just needs a couple more backers

 

14 hours ago, sclarke said:

Buckley says he has tripped over several unannounced teams - a northern European team, an Italian team and a Chinese team. "I haven't spoken to anyone involved in those teams, but I have heard from our contacts, that they are, like us, trying to secure funding.

Which means they aren't a reality yet. How many times do we hear that line and it comes to nothing? A team "trying to secure funding" is nothing. 

13 hours ago, sclarke said:

"From what all the designers are saying and Emirates Team New Zealand are telling us, the AC75 should perform as well or better than the AC50

I guess that would be the same people who are pedalling the BS about it only costing $50m to do a competitive campaign.

13 hours ago, sclarke said:

He notes that the class rule has been out publicly for just over a month and that most teams will have their design offices working from scratch with a new concept rather than updating for an AC50 type concept.

The biggest challenge is setting up the design office and developing the design tools needed. These cannot be bought off the shelf. Anybody without all of that in place now is well behind the curve and money can't help you catch up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

 

Which means they aren't a reality yet. How many times do we hear that line and it comes to nothing? A team "trying to secure funding" is nothing. 

I guess that would be the same people who are pedalling the BS about it only costing $50m to do a competitive campaign.

The biggest challenge is setting up the design office and developing the design tools needed. These cannot be bought off the shelf. Anybody without all of that in place now is well behind the curve and money can't help you catch up. 

You know... everyone said the same thing about ETNZ last time. They were "Well behind the design curve" They were "well behind the Bermuda Teams and are missing out by not training in Bermuda" "Staying in Auckland so long was going to hurt their campaign" All of that was BS, ETNZ was the last team to enter, but as it turned out were well ahead of the design curve, and the decisions they took were clearly better than what anyone else made. You don't need money to catch up, you need to be smart with the money you do have.

I would not be surprised to see the Second US team beat the first US team.

Share this post


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

You know... everyone said the same thing about ETNZ last time. They were "Well behind the design curve" They were "well behind the Bermuda Teams and are missing out by not training in Bermuda" "Staying in Auckland so long was going to hurt their campaign" All of that was BS, ETNZ was the last team to enter, but as it turned out were well ahead of the design curve, and the decisions they took were clearly better than what anyone else made. You don't need money to catch up, you need to be smart with the money you do have.

I would not be surprised to see the Second US team beat the first US team.

You are getting confused. Nobody said they were behind the design curve. They were always well up on that because they had their own computer models developed over many years of AC campaigning. They were behind on the building and launching of their boat, which is something they admitted to. They also admitted that they would have done better to get to Bermuda earlier but in the end it didn't matter because they had the best design. After AC34, they never really stopped working on their design tools and began designing their boat for AC35 as soon as the rule was available and then again, when the rule was changed.

What you seem unable to grasp is that you cannot set up a team one day and start designing the next. One of ETNZ's great successes was their simulation program which allowed them to accurately forecast exactly how the boat would sail and what the optimum settings would be, so much so that they used it to set targets for the sailors to aim at. The software developed in house is what makes a team competitive. ETNZ has been developing their own software for many years. We are now at the point where the established teams have those tools in place and are designing. Any new team is playing catch up on design already, but without the software development, they are so far behind they cannot catch up. For the second US team to beat the first US team, the first one needs to seriously screw up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A Class Sailor said:

You are getting confused. Nobody said they were behind the design curve. They were always well up on that because they had their own computer models developed over many years of AC campaigning. They were behind on the building and launching of their boat, which is something they admitted to. They also admitted that they would have done better to get to Bermuda earlier but in the end it didn't matter because they had the best design. After AC34, they never really stopped working on their design tools and began designing their boat for AC35 as soon as the rule was available and then again, when the rule was changed.

What you seem unable to grasp is that you cannot set up a team one day and start designing the next. One of ETNZ's great successes was their simulation program which allowed them to accurately forecast exactly how the boat would sail and what the optimum settings would be, so much so that they used it to set targets for the sailors to aim at. The software developed in house is what makes a team competitive. ETNZ has been developing their own software for many years. We are now at the point where the established teams have those tools in place and are designing. Any new team is playing catch up on design already, but without the software development, they are so far behind they cannot catch up. For the second US team to beat the first US team, the first one needs to seriously screw up.

 

Haha sure they weren't.

The simulation software was developed for the Bermuda campaign. 

 

Share this post


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

Haha sure they weren't.

The simulation software was developed for the Bermuda campaign. 

 

ETNZ's simulation software had been developed to a high standard for the AC34 series .. clearly it would have been refined for AC35 and will continue to be refined for AC36 and beyond.  Even Oracle were left way behind .. other entrants have an uphill battle.

Share this post


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

ETNZ's simulation software had been developed to a high standard for the AC34 series .. clearly it would have been refined for AC35 and will continue to be refined for AC36 and beyond.  Even Oracle were left way behind .. other entrants have an uphill battle.

Thanks Terry. Agree with you. It's what makes it so hard for 1st time teams. To be a first time team who hasn't even started yet and therefore so far behind puts them in an impossible position

Share this post


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

ETNZ's simulation software had been developed to a high standard for the AC34 series .. clearly it would have been refined for AC35 and will continue to be refined for AC36 and beyond.  Even Oracle were left way behind .. other entrants have an uphill battle.

My understanding is that ETNZ also benefited from LR's IT in AC 35 - so very deep 'IT pockets' as it were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

My understanding is that ETNZ also benefited from LR's IT in AC 35 - so very deep 'IT pockets' as it were. 

Hah! I was going to jokingly write that it was actually LRs simulation, because pretty much everything good ETNZ did is now just assigned to LR whenever it gets mentioned, but you saved me the trouble with your predictable pot-shots.

But actually it wasn't deep pockets... It's this thing called ingenuity mate...

As our own great Sir Earnest Rutherford said "We've got no money, so we've got to think.”

You'll never understand this ethos, and so you'll argue that they *did* have more money that your beloved OTUSA and/or they got "IT" from LR. (Whatever the fuck vague term that is mate - care to clarify?)

You still don't get that it wasn't about how much money they depended on to win, it was they ensured they didn't only depend on deep pockets filled with money to win. They used ideas, something no one has a monopoly on, and something this second US team could be full of.

I find it really bizarre that some of you people are so negative about another US entrant - is it because another team ruins your ability to bitch about the number of entrants being "low"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

Hah! I was going to jokingly write that it was actually LRs simulation, because pretty much everything good ETNZ did is now just assigned to LR whenever it gets mentioned, but you saved me the trouble with your predictable pot-shots.

But actually it wasn't deep pockets... It's this thing called ingenuity mate...

As our own great Sir Earnest Rutherford said "We've got no money, so we've got to think.”

You'll never understand this ethos, and so you'll argue that they *did* have more money that your beloved OTUSA and/or they got "IT" from LR. (Whatever the fuck vague term that is mate - care to clarify?)

You still don't get that it wasn't about how much money they depended on to win, it was they ensured they didn't only depend on deep pockets filled with money to win. They used ideas, something no one has a monopoly on, and something this second US team could be full of.

I find it really bizarre that some of you people are so negative about another US entrant - is it because another team ruins your ability to bitch about the number of entrants being "low"?

The budget thing is both false - ETNZ's budgets are grossly understated as has been documented numerous times - and a red herring, since of course innovation can beat cash. OR won AC34 with ingenuity - they simply outdesigned ETNZ in the end with a faster, more slippery boat - and ETNZ turned around and did the same in AC35, finding and exploiting a loophole in the rule that allowed them to utilize computer-driven ride height plus a bunch of other great ideas including but not limited to the cyclors and the hydraulic wing control. There is no question that LR supplied IT to ETNZ, the only unknown is how much of it was critical to the innovation that ETNZ won the cup with - it is unlikely that either you or I will even know the answer to that.

'IT' means 'information technology'. You know - like simulations, data analysis etc. Sometimes I forget how uninformed some of you guys are - sorry about that.

I realize that you take factual information as a personal insult. That's fine - enjoy wallowing in that swamp - but unfortunately, that won't change reality.

Share this post


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

The budget thing is both false - ETNZ's budgets are grossly understated as has been documented numerous times - and a red herring, since of course innovation can beat cash. OR won AC34 with ingenuity - they simply outdesigned ETNZ in the end with a faster, more slippery boat - and ETNZ turned around and did the same in AC35, finding and exploiting a loophole in the rule that allowed them to utilize computer-driven ride height plus a bunch of other great ideas including but not limited to the cyclors and the hydraulic wing control. There is no question that LR supplied IT to ETNZ, the only unknown is how much of it was critical to the innovation that ETNZ won the cup with - it is unlikely that either you or I will even know the answer to that.

'IT' means 'information technology'. You know - like simulations, data analysis etc. Sometimes I forget how uninformed some of you guys are - sorry about that.

I realize that you take factual information as a personal insult. That's fine - enjoy wallowing in that swamp - but unfortunately, that won't change reality.

Ah so in this case you mean the simulation software and previous analysis of performance data.

Plus the auto-flight system too? That came from the Italians?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

Ah so in this case you mean the simulation software and previous analysis of performance data.

Plus the auto-flight system too? That came from the Italians?

 

As I clearly stated, it is unlikely that either of us will ever know what IT/IP came from LR, and what was generated by ETNZ, although I would expect most of it came from the latter - ETNZ’s design team were/are extremely innovative, and had a different hierarchical structure that also fostered out-of-the-box thinking.

Budgets are a different matter. LR essentially functioned as ETNZs partner for the last two cups, sharing development cost of the AC72s, and sharing valuable IT plus cash in AC35 - so in aggregate, it is extremely unlikely that OR outspent the total ETNZ program in AC34 by much, and almost certain that OR did not outspend them in AC35 unless you include the cost of running the regatta(s). 

Share this post


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

As I clearly stated, it is unlikely that either of us will ever know what IT/IP came from LR, and what was generated by ETNZ, although I would expect most of it came from the latter - ETNZ’s design team were/are extremely innovative, and had a different hierarchical structure that also fostered out-of-the-box thinking.

Budgets are a different matter. LR essentially functioned as ETNZs partner for the last two cups, sharing development cost of the AC72s, and sharing valuable IT plus cash in AC35 - so in aggregate, it is extremely unlikely that OR outspent the total ETNZ program in AC34 by much, and almost certain that OR did not outspend them in AC35 unless you include the cost of running the regatta(s). 

Ah yes, there's nothing like someone relying on rumour/"understanding" and vague blanket terms like IT to imply ETNZ relied on LR who then accuses others of not liking facts ;-)

Just for you, here are some facts to put this to bed...

After 6 years at McLaren Formula One Racing team - arguably one of the most technically sophisticated sports in the world - where he was had been leader of Data Analysis & Simulation, and Vehicle Modelling, Dan Bernasconi moved to the AC. After a brief stint at UG, he spent over 2 years at Alinghi in the lead up to DoGzilla working in performance prediction and hydrodynamics. (https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-bernasconi-65631626/)

He left Alinghi after their loss, and after some time off, wound up at ETNZ. He then spent the next 6 years focussed on racing simulations for sailing for ETNZ, (https://designersinstitute.nz/initiatives/black-pin/2017/dan-bernasconi/interview/) in particular using Ansys (also used by McLaren) to develop modelling and simulation technology that saw them defeat their chief rival Luna Rossa 7-0. (https://www.ansys-blog.com/ansys-congratulates-emirates-team-new-zealand/

Luna Rossa does not have any history of using Ansys at all (and likely still doesn't use it), so even if being a competitor wasn't enough of a reason, whatever tech they had, could not, and did not transfer to ETNZ at that time. But in any event the data from AC34 was essentially useless for AC35. (https://www.ansys.com/-/media/ansys/corporate/resourcelibrary/article/faster-than-the-wind-aa-v10-i3.pdf)

By the time of AC35 ETNZ's Ansys-based simulation tech had been over half a decade in the making, under the guidance of one of the most experienced and brilliant engineers working in *any* sport. Since then Dan and ETNZ haven't stopped, adding a playable simulation rig that was developed in-house - and clever AI was developed by a young fella who joined ETNZ from Puerto Rico (https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/98389574/how-team-new-zealand-used-artificial-intelligence-to-help-win-americas-cup). Despite clamouring for stories around foreigners working on ETNZ - no stories exist about this special golden package that you continue to ramble on about - not that there is anything to hide.

Perhaps LR offered some of their performance data from their early work in AC35? But in reality even if it was ported and made compatible it would have been at best a volatile baseline, and most likely quickly made redundant with the advances ETNZ were making in performance. It certainly wasn't simulation tech - unless you are suggesting that DB threw out almost 7 years of work on what had proven to be the most successful simulation tech outside of what Oracle may have had (although that might be a hard one).

So in closing, the suggestion that ETNZ somehow inherited a simulation software solution (ugh IT - nice vague term) from LR is both incompatible with the dates, timelines, and actual software technology used, but also massively ignorant of the technical talents of ETNZ's simulation team lead by one of the world's best, and a programme that began well before LR and ETNZ being frenemies was even a glint in anyone's eye - indeed it began whilst they were massive rivals (which they still are!).

sT7uOY.gif

Having seen ETNZ's flight control tech, I can tell you that is was most definitely ETNZ invented and engineered!

BTW - Yes, OTUSA's AC34 boat had a better performance envelope in the races we saw, the Tractor had a different performance envelope (something to do with also working in a higher wind-speed?)

I'll give you time to let the truth of the matter above sink in, and won't yet bother with your LR/ETNZ 'partnership' implication nonsense, which is comedic in it's blindness to the OTUSA/SBTJ JV (and associated spend) and makes LR and ETNZ look like mortal enemies with $5 each.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

1) OR was faster in high wind throughout AC34. So probably time to let that canard go. It was ETNZ - not OR - who successfully fought against raising the wind limits after they had arguably been lowered too much in response to the Artemis tragedy.

2) Having their own IT and inheriting IT from LR are not mutually exclusive.

3) LR only built one boat in AC34 - in other words, had zero chance of making the final - and didn’t even build a boat for AC 35, despite spending tens of millions of dollars. I’ll let you do the math.

4) Since 90% of your post is putting words in my mouth and then attacking them, I’ll let you fight your own battle with yourself. Have fun!

Share this post


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

You know... everyone said the same thing about ETNZ last time. They were "Well behind the design curve" They were "well behind the Bermuda Teams and are missing out by not training in Bermuda" "Staying in Auckland so long was going to hurt their campaign" All of that was BS, ETNZ was the last team to enter, but as it turned out were well ahead of the design curve, and the decisions they took were clearly better than what anyone else made. You don't need money to catch up, you need to be smart with the money you do have.

Thread drift ....... a look back through the ETNZ forum during the period in early 2017 when they were hunkered down in Auckland is bloody hilarious. Some of the regulars here made some pretty embarrassing statements about ETNZ's campaign and how they'd blown it not being in Bermuda.

</drift>

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

^

1) OR was faster in high wind throughout AC34. So probably time to let that canard go. It was ETNZ - not OR - who successfully fought against raising the wind limits after they had arguably been lowered too much in response to the Artemis tragedy.

2) Having their own IT and inheriting IT from LR are not mutually exclusive.

3) LR only built one boat in AC34 - in other words, had zero chance of making the final - and didn’t even build a boat for AC 35, despite spending tens of millions of dollars. I’ll let you do the math.

4) Since 90% of your post is putting words in my mouth and then attacking them, I’ll let you fight your own battle with yourself. Have fun!

1. Fair enough

2. I just explained how in regards to simulation software they pretty much are mutually exclusive (stop using IT as it's too vague - unless by now you are just meaning LR give ETNZ a couple of old Dell laptops and a inkjet printer with no ink?)

3. What was OTUSA+SBTJ combined budget? How many boats did they built in total together?

4. No, I used facts to explain why your words asserting that ETNZ inherited their IT (aka simulation tech) from LR was factually wrong.

PS didn't you promise to fuck off anyway? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sea Breeze 74 said:

Thread drift ....... a look back through the ETNZ forum during the period in early 2017 when they were hunkered down in Auckland is bloody hilarious. Some of the regulars here made some pretty embarrassing statements about ETNZ's campaign and how they'd blown it not being in Bermuda.

</drift>

Agreed - I still find it fascinating that the same people who are shitting on current AC36 entrant numbers, are also scoffing at young furtive teams getting together by suggesting they are behind the eight-ball and can't make it work, and are many of the same who tried to make the same accusations about ETNZ.

Some people will piss in anyone's fish tank...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ‘IT’ is not a vague term - you just didn’t know what it meant. I also think you are seriously underestimating the tech LR was going to throw at AC35 which they subsequently handed to ETNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

Agreed - I still find it fascinating that the same people who are shitting on current AC36 entrant numbers, are also scoffing at young furtive teams getting together by suggesting they are behind the eight-ball and can't make it work, and are many of the same who tried to make the same accusations about ETNZ.

Some people will piss in anyone's fish tank...

So on the one hand, ETNZ’s decade long IT program is a ‘huge advantage’, and on the other hand it doesn’t matter?

I sincerely hope they put a great second US team together. But to pretend it will not be an uphill battle for them tech-wise is delusional. 

Share this post


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

^ ‘IT’ is not a vague term - you just didn’t know what it meant. I also think you are seriously underestimating the tech LR was going to throw at AC35 which they subsequently handed to ETNZ.

Dear Surf, I'm fascinated by your assumption that I didn't know what IT stood for. I didn't ask for you to tell me what it stood for (duh) - I asked you to clarify what you meant by "IT" because it is such a fucking vague term that only the clueless or deliberately obtuse would rely on it when making the claims you and your ilk do.

You think I'm underestimating what LR gave ETNZ? Mate, you don't even know what they gave them, let alone in what quantity, nor what impact it had.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So on the one hand, ETNZ’s decade long IT program is a ‘huge advantage’, and on the other hand it doesn’t matter?

I sincerely hope they put a great second US team together. But to pretend it will not be an uphill battle for them tech-wise is delusional. 

Oh for fuck's sake, we've got another one going full retard over here...

Yes my dear little friend, of course ETNZ's (and other encumbents) IP and tech stacks that have come from ongoing campaigns are massive advantages. 

The difference between American Magic, and the USA 2 team two essentially brand new entrants - which is what this discussion was about - are basically inconsequential, given the right team, attitude and suitable budgets. Both will be in an uphill battle against the likes of ETNZ...

tenor.gif?itemid=4826167

Seriously, are you or have you been a board-shaper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

The difference between American Magic, and the USA 2 team two essentially brand new entrants - which is what this discussion was about - are basically inconsequential, given the right team, attitude and suitable budgets.

That is incorrect. American Magic has been established and building its performance and design software for some time. The second team hasn't started anything yet. They are therefore well behind and money cannot buy back time, which is what is needed to develop the design tools. What makes it even tougher is that they have said they will only use US designers etc. That is not meant as any disrespect to my american friends, but the pool of people with the right experience of developing the required tools is small enough without imposing even more constraints.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That is incorrect. American Magic has been established and building its performance and design software for some time. The second team hasn't started anything yet. They are therefore well behind and money cannot buy back time, which is what is needed to develop the design tools. What makes it even tougher is that they have said they will only use US designers etc. That is not meant as any disrespect to my american friends, but the pool of people with the right experience of developing the required tools is small enough without imposing even more constraints.

I think it's easy (and frankly a little lazy) to declare all the reasons why something isn't possible, without also using the imagination and vision it takes to realise what could be possible for this team.

It's why we had so many people scoffing at ETNZ, explaining all the ways they had fucked up, without taking into account the few significant ways they had done something amazing...and those turned out to be the only things that mattered right?

Can't we give this other team the opportunity exist and be competitive, rather than poo-pooing them before they even get started?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

Dear Surf, I'm fascinated by your assumption that I didn't know what IT stood for. I didn't ask for you to tell me what it stood for (duh) - I asked you to clarify what you meant by "IT" because it is such a fucking vague term that only the clueless or deliberately obtuse would rely on it when making the claims you and your ilk do.

You think I'm underestimating what LR gave ETNZ? Mate, you don't even know what they gave them, let alone in what quantity, nor what impact it had.

YOU are the only person who has claimed - over and over - to know what LR’s IT contribution was not. I merely noted that they donated it to ETNZ.

In the context of the AC in 2018, there is nothing ‘vague’ about what IT means. 

Share this post


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

YOU are the only person who has claimed - over and over - to know what LR’s IT contribution was not. I merely noted that they donated it to ETNZ.

In the context of the AC in 2018, there is nothing ‘vague’ about what IT means. 

Great - so please enlighten us all as to what this IT package from LR contained :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

Oh for fuck's sake, we've got another one going full retard over here...

Yes my dear little friend, of course ETNZ's (and other encumbents) IP and tech stacks that have come from ongoing campaigns are massive advantages. 

The difference between American Magic, and the USA 2 team two essentially brand new entrants - which is what this discussion was about - are basically inconsequential, given the right team, attitude and suitable budgets. Both will be in an uphill battle against the likes of ETNZ...

tenor.gif?itemid=4826167

Seriously, are you or have you been a board-shaper?

You of all people should not be calling people ‘retards’. Are you a Random sock?

You would perhaps be interested to learn that many aspects of IT/IP can move with the players - the code is of course proprietary, but knowledge of the code/IP/etc is not. Non disclosure documents are pretty much worthless in this context.

For a team arriving late to the game, that limited pool of designers/engineers with that key knowledge has already been picked over by fully funded teams. I think the combination of experienced and fresh design talent - as ETNZ used in AC35 -is the best approach, and my guess is this second US team will be at a disadvantage with regards to the former. 

But time will tell - it would be great to see this team come together and kick some ass.

Share this post


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

There is no question that LR supplied IT to ETNZ, the only unknown is how much of it was critical to the innovation that ETNZ won the cup with - it is unlikely that either you or I will even know the answer to that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rh2600 said:

I think it's easy (and frankly a little lazy) to declare all the reasons why something isn't possible, without also using the imagination and vision it takes to realise what could be possible for this team.

It's why we had so many people scoffing at ETNZ, explaining all the ways they had fucked up, without taking into account the few significant ways they had done something amazing...and those turned out to be the only things that mattered right?

Can't we give this other team the opportunity exist and be competitive, rather than poo-pooing them before they even get started?

Of course they have the opportunity to exist, and if they stay around for more than 1 edition, who knows, maybe they will become competitive, but its a fantasy to believe they can be competitive this time around. This isn't a case of being late with the delivery of their boat, which was the criticism of ETNZ. The fact is that others are designing right now while this team doesn't even have a design team, let alone the tools you need to design one of these boats. Without the tools, you could draw 25 alternatives and you might as well choose which to build by draw one out of a hat. There is a 1 in 25 chance it is the best of your designs and then it is a very long shot that it will be better than the ones designed using properly developed tools. Alternatively, when and if they ever get enough money to start, they could spend time developing some analytical and simulation tools before commencing design work, but they are already up against it time wise to give the designers enough time with those tools.

If they in it for the long haul, which means more than 1 cup cycle, then they can use this edition to learn and to develop both the skills and tools needed so they can be competitive next time around. That's a pretty good goal for a new team, but with their struggles to raise the money, I won't be holding my breath. To me, them going public now is the act of a desperate team. They claim to have been working on it for nearly a year, but haven't got all the funding in place. IMO, they are only saying something now as a last effort to find money, because if they really were on top of it a knew where the money might come from, they wouldn't need to say anything at this stage.

I hope I am wrong, but the signs don't look hopeful. Their biggest achievement will be to make it to the start line.

Share this post


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

^

1) ..... It was ETNZ - not OR - who successfully fought against raising the wind limits after they had arguably been lowered too much in response to the Artemis tragedy.

So many opinions, so much supposition, so much attitude - based on what? Just misplaced ego it seems

That BS above is nothing but an anti ETNZ talking point, dragged out to excuse some shocking mis-management, rule rigging and emotional blackmail.

Clever of JS to make the offer (it allows for the misinformed like you to make this claim - the whole point, as was obvious at the time )but it confirmed if there had reamained any doubt that OTUSA/IM were willing to set the limits up and down according to OTUSA's perceived advantage - not for 'safety' as claimed.

It's been done to death, not that I remember any contribution from you at the time.

Now you come along years later trotting it out again, proving how little real insight you have.

Carry on with the smug certainty, try not to trip too often....

Share this post


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

So many opinions, so much supposition, so much attitude - based on what? Just misplaced ego it seems

That BS above is nothing but an anti ETNZ talking point, dragged out to excuse some shocking mis-management, rule rigging and emotional blackmail.

Clever of JS to make the offer (it allows for the misinformed like you to make this claim - the whole point, as was obvious at the time )but it confirmed if there had reamained any doubt that OTUSA/IM were willing to set the limits up and down according to OTUSA's perceived advantage - not for 'safety' as claimed.

It's been done to death, not that I remember any contribution from you at the time.

Now you come along years later trotting it out again, proving how little real insight you have.

Carry on with the smug certainty, try not to trip too often....

Take it to the OR thread. I didn't bring it up, merely pointed out that the idea that ETNZ was faster in high wind was bullshit - even at the beginning of the regatta. 

P.S.:

"At the post race press conference this afternoon, Spithill said his team had written a letter to the race committee saying that raising the wind limit to 25 knots would be acceptable. Dean Barker countered that the rules had been set before the match, and his boat was set up for winds of 23 knots or less. Therefore, Barker did not think changing the rules in the middle of the regatta was fair."

https://www.nshof.org/sailing-an-american-experience/jobsons-ac34-notes/828-note-13-wind-limits-ebb-current-and-drama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small beer but, a post to get this serious thread drift back on its unsteady track.

NZ Herald woke up at last from its long weekend nap and told us today, Tuesday, about the second challenge from the US.  To be exact, someone on rewrite posted exact quotes from Gladwell's effort lhttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12051605  last Saturday, without even bothering to acknowledge their source. Talk about sleazy "journalism" form NZ's price-winning web site and newspaper. Lazy fuckers.

Share this post


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

Small beer but, a post to get this serious thread drift back on its unsteady track.

NZ Herald woke up at last from its long weekend nap and told us today, Tuesday, about the second challenge from the US.  To be exact, someone on rewrite posted exact quotes from Gladwell's effort lhttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12051605  last Saturday, without even bothering to acknowledge their source. Talk about sleazy "journalism" form NZ's price-winning web site and newspaper. Lazy fuckers.

Later version of he same story has attribution to sail.world.com   It says:  

"Team USA21, described as a grassroots effort built around Taylor Canfield's successful match-racing team, want to join the New York Yacht Club to contest the 2021 Cup in Auckland, reports Sail-World.com."

Fools rush in!  On a quick read anyone would think they want to hook up with NYYC but on a closer look it's more likely just sloppy writing.  That questionable line was not part of the sail-world story. https://www.sail-world.com/news/204970/A-second-Americas-Cup-Challenge-is-well-underway   

Opinions seem to differ around here but I can see no earthly way any yacht club in this era, however wealthy and gung-ho, would involve itself with two separate syndicates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

try reading it this way......

"Canfield et al want to find sponsors and an appropriate club - once a base location has been decided upon, under which to challenge the defender RNZYS - and so join the New York Yacht Club who are also a challenger to contest the 2021 Cup in Auckland

 

Share this post


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

 

Opinions seem to differ around here

Not sure they differ amongst those with a clue, the protocol pretty much excludes multi-team challengers as no trial process is possible. You may have been the first to point that out, I can't now remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Jack Griffin's re-started CupExperience:

"USA One received the green light from their backers to buy the computer gear for a simulator. They have hired a Chief Technology Officer with America's Cup experience. They say they need one or two more partners in order to be able to lodge an official challenge before the 30 June deadline."

Who might he be?

 

Share this post


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

For what its worth:

 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Early on Taylor turned down a job at AmerMag.  He could work for almost any team.  So could Buckley.  If they would only accept being on the B team...

Power to them.  Good bunch of guys and pretty much working on this nonstop since last summer.  Not sure how they have kept so much quiet for so long, lots of the midwest players knew about this for half a year.

I sort of think they won't make it this time around, because I don't think the budget is quite going to get there, and I know Buck or Taylor don't want to go on a shoestring and get embarrassed.  I have told them that I think they should do it regardless of how much they raise.  The learning experience they get will ensure that they are the most experienced youngish Americans in all of America's Cup land, and the talent they have combine with that experience will mean it should only be a matter of time before they can truly challenge for the Cup.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 3:27 AM, dogwatch said:

Not sure they differ amongst those with a clue, the protocol pretty much excludes multi-team challengers as no trial process is possible. You may have been the first to point that out, I can't now remember.

I please guilty to not paying attention to the Protocol on that one!   It's just always been my stance that there is no benefit to any challenger allaying itself with a second syndicate with all the attendant issues of funding, management, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. So this is getting repetitive but once more, a challenger is a yacht club. Protocol 11.1.f disallows a challenger from sailing more than one AC75 at a time. That would present a challenging yacht club with more than one team with a few issues.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 8:27 AM, dogwatch said:

Not sure they differ amongst those with a clue, the protocol pretty much excludes multi-team challengers as no trial process is possible. You may have been the first to point that out, I can't now remember.

How does the distinct possibility of a second Italian team fit that issue ? 

Share this post


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

How does the distinct possibility of a second Italian team fit that issue ? 

Different club so not a problem. The assertion that has been knocking around and does not work is that the 2nd USA challenge will also be through NYYC,

Share this post


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

Different club so not a problem. The assertion that has been knocking around and does not work is that the 2nd USA challenge will also be through NYYC,

Got it , thanks . 

Share this post


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

Different club so not a problem. The assertion that has been knocking around and does not work is that the 2nd USA challenge will also be through NYYC,

Well, actually the NYYC could select their representing team by a, let's say, Opti or Melges24 or AC50 tournament, so they ~could~ have an internal challenger selection. As long as they do not use 2 current AC boats at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they could. However as it is a design competition, that doesn't seem a very realistic proposal.

Share this post


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

Well, actually the NYYC could select their representing team by a, let's say, Opti or Melges24 or AC50 tournament, so they ~could~ have an internal challenger selection. As long as they do not use 2 current AC boats at the same time.

Nope, don't see how....

(Not that this is happening anyway but) while the Protocol does not ban a competitor racing any particular class......it does stop teams from racing in any boat over 12m (without permission of COR/D) that could give meaningful data in terms of AC75 design and sailing. So AC50s are out.

See Protocol amendment #1 Article 58 Surrogate Yacht

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qvkDISDrakm-grDPIPClu7t_sL1ztZnP/view

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this connection ... what do you think the Prot takes as definition of LOA?

 

Share this post


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

Nope, don't see how....

(Not that this is happening anyway but) while the Protocol does not ban a competitor racing any particular class......it does stop teams from racing in any boat over 12m (without permission of COR/D) that could give meaningful data in terms of AC75 design and sailing. So AC50s are out.

See Protocol amendment #1 Article 58 Surrogate Yacht

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qvkDISDrakm-grDPIPClu7t_sL1ztZnP/view

 

Then just take the Optis and Melges24. And determine in another thread, whether the AC50s have any significance for the current AC... SAAC "experts" are still discussing it.

In short: Nobody can prevent the NYYC to have a regatta and proclaim the winning team as its AC team. No need to split hares...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sure, they could just do a coin toss for that matter - or au courant, accept whoever makes the biggest investment ;) in their 'club programs'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

run design parameters through a third party simulation package and see who wins.

maybe have teams with VR googles driving as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now