Kiwing

How many challengers will there be?

How many challengers?  

126 members have voted

  1. 1. How many challengers will race the Prada Cup?

    • 3 - that is no new challengers
    • 4 that is one new challengers
    • 5 that is two new challengers
    • 6 that is three new challengers
    • more than three new challengers


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

Then why choose a billionaire's boat? I like the boat and that the AC is moving away from the one-design of the last cup, but it seems so much more complicated and expensive than just using TP52's and letting the billionaire's spend like crazy and the S and S's of the world actually compete in the Cup. This cup is more toward the unsustainable than the last cup.

You absolutely nailed it here.

If you want a sustainable America's Cup there are two options:

# 1 Use TP52 like you said

OR

# 2 Craft a Class Rule that is similar to the IACC Rule we had from 1992 to 2007.

These AC 72's (2013) and AC 75's (2021) are too complex, too expensive and not sustainable. The AC 75's will be ready for the museum just like the AC 72's were after this Cup IMO.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Then why choose a billionaire's boat? I like the boat and that the AC is moving away from the one-design of the last cup, but it seems so much more complicated and expensive than just using TP52's and letting the billionaire's spend like crazy and the S and S's of the world actually compete in the Cup. This cup is more toward the unsustainable than the last cup.

Its a balance. Watch Daltons interview, he explains why they went with the 75 (even though you probably won't believe him anyway) it was a compromise between going fast and appealing to the new generation, the younger generation which lets be honest, is what ETNZ is now in terms of a sailing crew. They had the youngest sailing crew of all of the teams in Bermuda, so they had to appeal to them, as well as their fans and supporters, but try to keep some semblance of traditionalism, which Dalton also states "Statistically, more sailors sail Monohulls, not Multihulls"

He also explains why they didn't go with the 50's (but you probably don't believe him there either).

No one wants to see boats going 9 or 10 knots if there is an opportunity to at least double those speeds for around the same price tag.

This time around ETNZ is picking up the pieces of a damaged event while trying to also maximise its potential.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Yes. It's not clear that allowing late entries has generated anything except confusion.

Ignore the late entries - my question still stands - should development only begin once all normal entries are in and paid? 

Share this post


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

You absolutely nailed it here.

If you want a sustainable America's Cup there are two options:

# 1 Use TP52 like you said

No one wants a TP52, if you do, go and watch the 52 Super Series. There are plenty of events to watch the TP52's, so don't act like it would be an option, because you know you'd shit on it because it doesn't go as fast as the AC50's.

OR

# 2 Craft a Class Rule that is similar to the IACC Rule we had from 1992 to 2007.

And what were the team budgets for an IACC campaign from 2003, and 2007? They were astronomical back then, and would be just as astronomical now, so if there is an opportunity to at least double the speeds of an IACC boat, for around the same price tag, I say do it.

These AC 72's (2013) and AC 75's (2021) are too complex, too expensive and not sustainable. The AC 75's will be ready for the museum just like the AC 72's were after this Cup IMO.

Maybe, but given only INEOS remains from the last cycle, I can't see anyone going back to the 50's after this, so if ETNZ or LR, or INEOS win, or possibly even Stars n Stripes, we would be more likely to see the 75, or something similar next time round as well. It will be the F50 that will be destined for the Museum once Larry gets sick of paying for them.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't all the rich people get to BE on their boats up until the 2013 Cup?  IIRC LE even *said* in 2012 interviews that he was going to be on the AC72.

With a monohull after 2021, if there are some younger billionaires maybe they can get on board literally as well as financially. I think the current rules allow guest racers.  Lure them on and sign them up for AC37.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

This is coming from the same guy who was ranting against commercialism during AC 35 when LE & RC tried to make it as commercially sustainable as they could by bringing down the costs.

As long as the AC has such complex boat classes driving costs through the roof it wouldn't and isn't commercially sustainable. Maybe this will get into your head some Day.

BTW, even Grant Dalton doesn't want it commercially sustainable saying repeatedly "The AC is an elusive Sporting Event not a Beach Event".

Bullshit! I was all for commercialism! Larry and Russell weren't making it commercially sustainable! Larry underwrote a lot of the event himself! as he's done for the ShitGP series. You got sucked in by Russells BS!

The AC has always had, and always will have complex boat classes, the AC50 was no different, as neither is the F50. The only reason those boats exist is because Ellison is paying for them to exist, once he gets sick of it, they'll go the way of Oracle Team USA.

The AC is an Elusive sporting event, but he's made no bones about the expense consistently saying the costs are high, and always will be high, its part of the game, always has been. always will be. Its about managing those costs. End of the day, unless you cap costs (which will never happen) teams will spend what ever they can, and what ever they have to win. Simmer said, if you manage your campaign right, you should run out of money at the same time you run out of time. As we saw last time, a smaller budget managed correctly can be a winning factor.

He has always said that. Last time was no different, and this time will be no different so there is no issue apart from the fake one in your head.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

And what were the team budgets for an IACC campaign from 2003, and 2007? They were astronomical back then, and would be just as astronomical now, so if there is an opportunity to at least double the speeds of an IACC boat, for around the same price tag, I say do it.

The Prize Tag to compete in AC 34 (San Francisco) and AC 36 (Auckland) is considerable HIGHER compared to the Prize Tag for AC 30, 31 (Auckland) & AC 32 (Valencia) because the Boats are simply much more expensive, complex to design, to built and to sail. You need a bigger Shore Crew as well. As much as I know American Magic & INEOS TEAM UK have been 150 and 180 People working on the Campaign FULL TIME, maybe even higher.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

The Prize Tag to compete in AC 34 (San Francisco) and AC 36 (Auckland) is considerable HIGHER compared to the Prize Tag for AC 30, 31 (Auckland) & AC 32 (Valencia) because the Boats are simply much more expensive, complex to design, to built and to sail. You need a bigger Shore Crew as well. As much as I know American Magic & INEOS TEAM UK have been 150 and 180 People working on the Campaign FULL TIME, maybe even higher.

Is it? Do you actually know how much Larry spent in Auckland in 2003? Do you actually know how much Larry and Ernesto spent in Valencia? Or are you just assuming?

Do you know how many people Ineos and AM have working on their campaigns? Or are these just made up numbers?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

The AC is an Elusive sporting event, but he's made no bones about the expense consistently saying the costs are high, and always will be high, its part of the game, always has been. always will be. Its about managing those costs.

He has always said that. Last time was no different, and this time will be no different so there is no issue apart from the fake one in your head.

Well, how would you manage those costs then, tell me?

There is a simple solution controlling & managing the costs: Choose a more sustainable Boat. The AC 75 Class proposed by ETNZ/LR aren't sustainable beyond AC 36 and most of the Team Principals & CEO's from the four Superteams Dalton, Bertelli, Hutchinson and Ainslie know that.

I really wish once this Cup Cycle is over no matter who wins among these 4 Teams that these four Gentleman would sit down on one table, sharing their ideas how to proceed forward BUT of course that's probably only a dream by me and it will never happen cuz we have too many egos involved.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Is it? Do you actually know how much Larry spent in Auckland in 2003? Do you actually know how much Larry and Ernesto spent in Valencia? Or are you just assuming?

Do you know how many people Ineos and AM have working on their campaigns? Or are these just made up numbers?

Mate, I think you're pretty naive to think that Larry spent more money in Auckland 2003 compared to San Francisco 2013.

OTUSA had about 200 People involved for AC 34 in San Francisco. Given that the AC 75's are in similar size and similar complex to maintain it's not too far fetched to think that Ineos & AM working in a similar ballpark given the Budgets they have.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Well, how would you manage those costs then, tell me?

There is a simple solution controlling & managing the costs: Choose a more sustainable Boat. The AC 75 Class proposed by ETNZ/LR aren't sustainable beyond AC 36 and most of the Team Principals & CEO's from the four Superteams Dalton, Bertelli, Hutchinson and Ainslie know that.

I really wish once this Cup Cycle is over no matter who wins among these 4 Teams that these four Gentleman would sit down on one table, sharing their ideas how to proceed forward BUT of course that's probably only a dream by me and it will never happen cuz we have too many egos involved.

Ask Grant Dalton, he managed to do it last time.

But it seems supplying parts and cutting design team costs may be a good way to do it. Its just you want costs to be cut, but not the way they're doing it.

You don't get it! It doesn't matter what boat is chosen, it could be an Opti, or a P-Class, teams will still find an excuse, a reason, and a way to spend what ever they feel they need to, to win. Did Ainslie have to spend as much as he did last time? Probably not, but he did it anyway, and still didn't win! 

Did Tornquist have to spend as much as he did last time? No, but he did it anyway and didn't win either. ETNZ spent what they could/ what they had, but managed them in a way that gave them what they thought was the best chance of winning and did win. Costs are part of the game, some will spend a lot, some won't, some will win, some won't. But just because you have a huge budget, doesn't mean you will win, and just because you have a tiny budget, doesn't mean you will lose.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Mate, I think you're pretty naive to think that Larry spent more money in Auckland 2003 compared to San Francisco 2013.

OTUSA had about 200 People involved for AC 34 in San Francisco. Given that the AC 75's are in similar size and similar complex to maintain it's not too far fetched to think that Ineos & AM working in a similar ballpark given the Budgets they have.

I didn't say that, I want you to back up your statement you made.

And given a lot of the parts are one design, and teams don't need to spend time and resources to design them, its not too far fetched to think that a lot of the costs are contained. I don't know what anyone is spending, and neither do you, but you're the one making bold statements you can't back up.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I didn't say that, I want you to back up your statement you made.

And given a lot of the parts are one design, and teams don't need to spend time and resources to design them, its not too far fetched to think that a lot of the costs are contained. I don't know what anyone is spending, and neither do you, but you're the one making bold statements you can't back up.

It's all about Maintainance with these Boats. You need a lot of people for that. It's not like a Hamburger Franchise from McDonald's

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

It's all about Maintainance with these Boats. You need a lot of people for that. It's not like a Hamburger Franchise from McDonald's

Its about maintenance with any boat! It doesn't matter whether its an AC72, an AC50, an AC75, an F50, or an IACC class boat, they all require maintenance, and they all require a lot of people! WTF!? 

You are fast running out of arguments, and now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have an informed guestimate of when the arms will be delivered?

1 month

2 months

3 months?

Share this post


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

Ask Grant Dalton, he managed to do it last time.

You don't get it! It doesn't matter what boat is chosen, it could be an Opti, or a P-Class, teams will still find an excuse, a reason, and a way to spend what ever they feel they need to, to win. Did Ainslie have to spend as much as he did last time? Probably not, but he did it anyway, and still didn't win! 

Did Tornquist have to spend as much as he did last time? No, but he did it anyway and didn't win either. ETNZ spent what they could/ what they had and did win. Costs are part of the game, some will spend a lot, some won't, some will win, some won't. But just because you have a huge budget, doesn't mean you will win, and just because you have a tiny budget, doesn't mean you will lose.

You are very ill-informed when it comes to the British Challenge of Ben Ainslie. Let me tell you this: Ben wanted his AC 36 Campaign run by a 80-90% commercially driven Team similar to Emirates Team New Zealand. That was his goal when his AC 35 Campaign in Bermuda 2017 ended. Land Rover was still onboard and so were his other Partners.

So, what changed his mind? The Boat!

Ben said in an Interview with CNN's Mainsail's Shirley Robertson in April 2018 that as soon as he saw the new AC 75 Foiling Monohull concept proposed by ETNZ/LR in Nov. 2017 it increased the Prize Tag by 40% from 85M Pounds to 110M Pounds for the Team and he had to look for someone to pay these extra 40%. (That Article I believe is still on the CNN Mainsail Page and if not you can google it and you find similar articles on this subject) Then via a friend he got connected to Jim Ratcliffe who offered to cover the entire cost for his AC 36 Campaign under the conditions that he (Ratcliffe) gets a blank sheet and rename the Team Ineos Team UK insteand of Land Rover BAR. Ben saw his chance and grabbed it and if I were him I probably would have done so too. Why? Ben & the Team can do their Business to design and built a competitive Boat and don't have to worry about funds. From a purely Sporting Point of View Ainslie made the right call. From a PR Point of View he made the wrong call.

Now, don't be naive mate. If someone similar to Ratcliffe came to Grant Dalton in 2014 when the Team was in dire straights and offered him a Deal that way Dalts would have grabbed it with both hands so this notion that Dalton & ETNZ would only challenge with a purely commercial driven Team is just complete nonsene for me.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Its about maintenance with any boat! It doesn't matter whether its an AC72, an AC50, an AC75, an F50, or an IACC class boat, they all require maintenance, and they all require a lot of people! WTF!?

Nonsense. The AC 50 required less people for Maintenance compared to the AC 72 or the new AC 75.

Less People = Less Costs.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Nonsense. The AC 50 required less people for Maintenance compared to the AC 72 or the new AC 75.

Less People = Less Costs.

Which is why One design and supplied parts works right? Thanks for proving my point.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Which is why One design and supplied parts works right? Thanks for proving my point.

The AC 75 isn't OD.

ETNZ/LR have fooled the entire AC Challenger Community for AC 36 that it would be OD. Aside from the Mast Tube and the Foil Arms nothing is OD.

Translation: Their cost-saving measures proposed/stipulated in the Protocol didn't work otherwise more Teams would have started building boats.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

You are very ill-informed when it comes to the British Challenge of Ben Ainslie. Let me tell you this: Ben wanted his AC 36 Campaign run by a 80-90% commercially driven Team similar to Emirates Team New Zealand. That was his goal when his AC 35 Campaign in Bermuda 2017 ended. Land Rover was still onboard and so were his other Partners.

So, what changed his mind? The Boat!

Ben said in an Interview with CNN's Mainsail's Shirley Robertson in April 2018 that as soon as he saw the new AC 75 Foiling Monohull concept proposed by ETNZ/LR in Nov. 2017 it increased the Prize Tag by 40% from 85M Pounds to 110M Pounds for the Team and he had to look for someone to pay these extra 40%. (That Article I believe is still on the CNN Mainsail Page and if not you can google it and you find similar articles on this subject) Then via a friend he got connected to Jim Ratcliffe who offered to cover the entire cost for his AC 36 Campaign under the conditions that he (Ratcliffe) gets a blank sheet and rename the Team Ineos Team UK insteand of Land Rover BAR. Ben saw his chance and grabbed it and if I were him I probably would have done so too. Why? Ben & the Team can do their Business to design and built a competitive Boat and don't have to worry about funds. From a purely Sporting Point of View Ainslie made the right call. From a PR Point of View he made the wrong call.

Now, don't be naive mate. If someone similar to Ratcliffe came to Grant Dalton in 2014 when the Team was in dire straights and offered him a Deal that way Dalts would have grabbed it with both hands so this notion that Dalton & ETNZ would only challenge with a purely commercial driven Team is just complete nonsene for me.

You mean this interview?

Firstly, Matteo De Nora is the team principle and ultimately its because of him that the team didn't close its doors. Dalton stated that in the final press conference, so they aren't completely commercial team.

For the most part they, are, they do rely heavily on sponsorship to continue, everyone knows that, its just that Dalts is a master at establishing relationships with sponsors and providing them the returns they require.

Your comment about challenging with or without billionaire money is irrelevant because its hypothetical. Its a what if.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

The AC 75 isn't OD.

ETNZ/LR have fooled the entire AC Challenger Community for AC 36 that it would be OD. Aside from the Mast Tube and the Foil Arms nothing is OD.

The foil cant system is one design with supplied parts. So the Foil control system, the foil arms and the mast tube is one design, key areas wouldn't you say?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

You mean this interview?

Firstly, Matteo De Nora is the team principle and ultimately its because of him that the team didn't close its doors. Dalton stated that in the final press conference, so they aren't completely commercial team.

For the most part they, are, they do rely heavily on sponsorship to continue, everyone knows that, its just that Dalts is a master at establishing relationships with sponsors and providing them the returns they require.

Your comment about challenging with or without billionaire money is irrelevant because its hypothetical. Its a what if.

 

No I meant this Article here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/sport/ben-ainslie-americas-cup-ineos-sponsor-spt/index.html

A few Days later he gave a similar Interview to CNN Mainsail's Shirley Robertson.

And the Key Part is here:

Cost increase

Speaking by phone to CNN from London, Ainslie said the increased cost of the 2021 America's Cup campaign had played an important part in his decision.

As defender of the longest continuous international competition in sport, Team New Zealand has decided the next America's Cup will be staged in a new class of boat. Instead of the twin-hulled foiling catamarans used in Bermuda, the 2021 Cup finals in Auckland will be held in 75-feet foiling monohull yachts.
"There is a completely new concept of boat, two 75-feet foiling monohulls, and the costs have gone up significantly and it requires a different approach," Ainslie said, after thanking Land Rover and his other backers for their support in his previous Cup bid.
"It was approximately a 30 percent increase in budget and we looked very long and hard at how we could fund the team.
"It became clear that the proposal from INEOS -- although it's a completely new team and structure -- also gives us that commitment level of funding to be able to build the right strategy, a winning strategy, to take on this technical and sailing challenge."
Although Ainslie acknowledged his previous investors and partners "are all disappointed that they're unable to remain involved with the team," he said "this was ultimately the team's decision and my decision to move forward under this new structure because of the commitment to the budget that we now have."

So guess what: I was right all along about the costs. If ETNZ/LR had chosen a more sustainable Boat like the AC 50's were, Ben wouldn't have needed to dump his Partners and sign Ineos.

But of course you blatantly said for the last couple of hours the AC can be done commercially. Ben clearly contradicts you here.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Article brings me back to our Late Challengers Stars & Stripes Team USA, Dutchsail and the Altus Challenge.

Reading the little quotes by Ben I'm going to say this: All 3 Late Challengers who are struggling for funding right now would have made it to Bermuda in 2017 without a shadow of a doubt. The increasing costs Ben Ainslie is eluding to have really contributed to the struggles of S & S, Dutch and Altus.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

This Article brings me back to our Late Challengers Stars & Stripes Team USA, Dutchsail and the Altus Challenge.

Reading the little quotes by Ben I'm going to say this: All 3 Late Challengers who are struggling for funding right now would have made it to Bermuda in 2017 without a shadow of a doubt. The increasing costs Ben Ainslie is eluding to have really contributed to the struggles of S & S, Dutch and Altus.

The difference is, they were waiting for someone else to win it. They weren't going to compete as long as Oracle held the Cup.

The article says nothing of the sort! The strategy Ben has decided to adopt is what he is paying for. Wonder what the comparison between Bens budget and ETNZ's budget looks like? Or even the comparison between Bens budget and Stars n Stripes budget is. Bens strategy seems to be to have an enormous budget because he thinks it will win him the Cup. So far that strategy hasn't worked for him, so only time will tell whether that strategy has paid off or not. But it didn't work last time.

Note: The AC75 may be 30% bigger, 30% more powerful, and 30% faster than an AC50 as well. You get what you pay for.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

The article says nothing of the sort! The strategy Ben has decided to adopt is what he is paying for. Wonder what the comparison between Bens budget and ETNZ's budget looks like? Or even the comparison between Bens budget and Stars n Stripes budget is. Bens strategy seems to be to have an enormous budget because he thinks it will win him the Cup. So far that strategy hasn't worked for him, so only time will tell whether that strategy has paid off or not. But it didn't work last time.

It didn't work last time because then Land Rover BAR was a 1st Time Challenger. They had to start a Design Team totally from scratch while ETNZ, Artemis and OTUSA had theirs in place so it wasn't a huge shock that their Boat was simply too slow.

No, Ben adopted this strategy not because what he is paying for. He adopted it because he had a 30% increase in the budget BECAUSE of the new Boat Concept and Land Rover & his other Partners didn't have the extra 30% he needed - Period. Maybe this will finally get into your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody want to guess how many times Ratliffe is on the boat whilst racing?  

 

Share this post


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

It didn't work last time because then Land Rover BAR was a 1st Time Challenger. They had to start a Design Team totally from scratch while ETNZ, Artemis and OTUSA had theirs in place so it wasn't a huge shock that their Boat was simply too slow.

No, Ben adopted this strategy not because what he is paying for. He adopted it because he had a 30% increase in the budget BECAUSE of the new Boat Concept and Land Rover & his other Partner didn't have the extra 30% he needed - Period. Maybe this will finally get into your head.

So its a 30% increase, and? The boat is 30% bigger and 30% more powerful, so you get what you pay for. End of the day, Ben could've stayed with his previous partners who were prepared to back him again. He just didn't think they would provide him the budget his strategy required. Whether that strategy pays off is the question. I'm willing to bet that Dutch Sail and Stars n Stripes would jump at the budget Bens previous partners were willing to provide and would be at least half way through the build by now. 

Like I said, its Bens strategy that has seen him require another enormous budget. It didn't work last time, and we'll see if it works this time. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

So its a 30% increase, and? The boat is 30% bigger and 30% more powerful, so you get what you pay for. End of the day, Ben could've stayed with his previous partners who were prepared to back him again. He just didn't think they would provide him the budget his strategy required. Whether that strategy pays off is the question. I'm willing to bet that Dutch Sail and Stars n Stripes would jump at the budget Bens previous partners were willing to provide and would be at least half way through the build by now. 

Like I said, its Bens strategy that has seen him require another enormous budget. It didn't work last time, and we'll see if it works this time. 

Ben's Budget in BDA wasn't that big. 85M Pounds which placed him second behind OTUSA but only slightly above ETNZ who had a huge cash infusion by Bertelli.

Secondly, if Ben had stayed with his old Partners he only could have built one boat and he felt it was necessary to built two boats like ETNZ, LR and AM will do as well. Ainslie isn't the kind of guy who does these kind of things class half full.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ben's Budget in BDA wasn't that big. 85M Pounds which placed him second behind OTUSA but only slightly above ETNZ who had a huge cash infusion by Bertelli.

Secondly, if Ben had stayed with his old Partners he only could have built one boat and he felt it was necessary to built two boats like ETNZ, LR and AM will do as well. Ainslie isn't the kind of guy who does these kind of things class half full.

"only slightly above ETNZ" Sure, what ever you say. So ETNZ's budget was larger than Artemis Racing? 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

"only slightly above ETNZ" Sure, what ever you say. So ETNZ's budget was larger than Artemis Racing? 

Yes, it was. You have to account for what Mr. Bertelli gave them as well.

Share this post


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

Anybody want to guess how many times Ratliffe is on the boat whilst racing?  

 

I don't know. Seems to me a very passionate guy although I don't like him. In fact a loathe him because of his Business.

Share this post


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

Yes, it was. You have to account for what Mr. Bertelli gave them as well.

Which was what exactly? again, some bold statements, and clearly contradictory to everything we've heard coming out of the ETNZ camp. Link?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kind of fun to watch the two village idiots play with each other!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Which was what exactly? again, some bold statements, and clearly contradictory to everything we've heard coming out of the ETNZ camp. Link?

Look, you won't change my Opinion on ETNZ, LR, what happened in BDA, the cost of the new Boat, etc. one bit and I won't change yours. How about giving up! Really, I am tired of talking to you cuz generally speaking of the entire "America's Cup Anarchy Forum" you are clearly the biggest Flip-Flopper here.

Share this post


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

Look, you won't change my Opinion on ETNZ, LR, what happened in BDA, the cost of the new Boat, etc. one bit and I won't change yours. How about giving up! Really, I am tired of talking to you cuz generally speaking of the entire "America's Cup Anarchy Forum" you are clearly the biggest Flip-Flopper here.

Because you keep saying shit thats not even true! Like ETNZ spent more money in Bermuda than Artemis which is clearly bullshit! Maybe stop saying blatant stupid shit cos you dont like someone so you dont make yourself look like an idiot! 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

This is kind of fun to watch the two village idiots play with each other!

And then the class clown cracks a joke and gets...crickets

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So reading all this my takeaway is you need several Team Obnoxious Egomaniac (Cheating?) Billionaire teams.  30% more anything? Shit, how much did crazed, er, determined LE spend on LITIGATION for the 2010 Cup? $250M? More?  

Share this post


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

So its a 30% increase, and? The boat is 30% bigger and 30% more powerful, so you get what you pay for. End of the day, Ben could've stayed with his previous partners who were prepared to back him again. He just didn't think they would provide him the budget his strategy required. Whether that strategy pays off is the question. I'm willing to bet that Dutch Sail and Stars n Stripes would jump at the budget Bens previous partners were willing to provide and would be at least half way through the build by now. 

Like I said, its Bens strategy that has seen him require another enormous budget. It didn't work last time, and we'll see if it works this time. 

30% bigger, 30% more powerful, 30% more expensive...same speed.   Less agile?  More fragile?   

Share this post


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

 

Note: The AC75 may be 30% bigger, 30% more powerful, and 30% faster than an AC50 as well. You get what you pay for.

 

By this logic the winner of AC 36 should have right to make the cup 30% bigger, 30% more powerful & 30% faster, I suggest hiring the guy that made the statue on the Moscow river, so it could look even more like a caterers’ rented champagne fountain at a working class wedding.

Share this post


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

30% bigger, 30% more powerful, 30% more expensive...same speed.   Less agile?  More fragile?   

Cant get any less agile than the F50. Those things cant even get up on the foils properly.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the teams get enough experience to do 100% fly time, what are you gonna do? Critique the paint jobs?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

When the teams get enough experience to do 100% fly time, what are you gonna do? Critique the paint jobs?  

I'm almost certain the paint jobs will not reach the level of Roy Liechtenstein's Mermaid or even Black Magic. 

How about two different teams both have red bows and black hulls.

Share this post


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

When the teams get enough experience to do 100% fly time, what are you gonna do? Critique the paint jobs?  

Given the AC50's were consistently pulling off 100% fly time laps or at least percentages in the high 90's, in 6, 7, 8 knots of breeze, a boat which is supposed to be a generation ahead, re-imagined, redefined blah blah, free from constraints, free from rules, with battery powered systems and dedicated flight controllers, effectively removing the need for grinders, that boat should be easily pulling off dry laps straight out of the box! 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the ETNZ AC50 was splashed, how soon were they doing dry laps? Same day?  Was 5 days sailing enough?  

Share this post


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

Given the AC50's were consistently pulling off 100% fly time laps or at least percentages in the high 90's, in 6, 7, 8 knots of breeze,

TNZ would not have been able to sail dry laps in Australia variable winds, even after months of training.

Share this post


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

TNZ would not have been able to sail dry laps in Australia variable winds, even after months of training.

Word at the time was they were sailing dry laps in Auckland before they left for Bermuda. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Word at the time was they were sailing dry laps in Auckland before they left for Bermuda. 

And how long had they been sailing before they left for Bermuda? 

Share this post


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

Word at the time was they were sailing dry laps in Auckland before they left for Bermuda. 

Bullshit. Where’s the press release stating this fact?  

Share this post


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

Bullshit. Where’s the press release stating this fact?  

Oh now you want a press release!? Lol i never stated it as fact, i said the word at the time was... 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

And how long had they been sailing before they left for Bermuda? 

The AC50 was launched on Feb 15 2017. They were in Bermuda by May, so 2 months, in which they were off the water for a couple of weeks after breaking their boards.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Bullshit. Where’s the press release stating this fact?  

Well this is the very first day in Bermuda, they rock up and we imediately get independent footage of multiple consecutive foiling tacks and a foiling mark rounding all in what look like pretty marginal low end conditions.  Safe to say on any better day in Auckland prior to this they must have been pretty much dry lapping when they got things rignt.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The AC50 was launched on Feb 15 2017. They were in Bermuda by May, so 2 months, in which they were off the water for a couple of weeks after breaking their boards.

Well that is most likely more time than most of the F50 teams got before Sydney.  So wait and see.  If they can't do dry laps by Cowes....

(NYC may just suck no matter what.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, they will.never.get.time.on.water.to.improve.

That's the way wuss wants it for some reason, prolly so the carbon doesn't go soft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well this is the very first day in Bermuda, they rock up and we imediately get independent footage of multiple consecutive foiling tacks and a foiling mark rounding all in what look like pretty marginal low end conditions.  Safe to say on any better day in Auckland prior to this they must have been pretty much dry lapping when they got things rignt.

 

You missed the sarcasm. I was catering to the village idiot (SClarke) who insists nothing really happened without a press release. 

Share this post


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

  So wait and see.  If they can't do dry laps by Cowes....

The F50 is faster, more powerful, better boat in all aspects, but they refused to include computer assist, unlike it was possible with the AC50

Share this post


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

You missed the sarcasm. I was catering to the village idiot (SClarke) who insists nothing really happened without a press release. 

to be fair I missed your sarcasm too...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh now you want a press release!? Lol i never stated it as fact, i said the word at the time was... 

:lol:

Share this post


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

The F50 is faster, more powerful, better boat in all aspects, but they refused to include computer assist, unlike it was possible with the AC50

I don't think it has been explicitly refused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2019 at 12:07 AM, Horn Rock said:

The defender puts out a rule. Whether the challengers agree with it is irrelevant. It's never been an "agreed" design. 

Never said it was  

Who says ETNZ are relying on the revenue from selling design packages? A huge assumption on your part, and quite frankly I find your contention horse shit

Try comprehension, it helps you not look a dick. My point was why would TNZ sell design details? Two possibilities are they need the cash or the design is to difficult. You may have other reasons, happy to consider them even if they are horse shit.

Collaboration has been around for yonks. LR/ETNZ have been sharing data and development since Valencia. Bertarelli (as defender) even put money into ETNZ because he wanted them at the regatta. This sort of shit has been going on for ages and is not a big deal. The AC50's were loaded with one design parts, yet it was still a good contest.

Collaboration may not be a big deal to you, for me it is. I preferred the days of here is the rule, build and bring your best. No pre-match functions, no tuning up against each other. Find out where you stand in the first race.

Yeah sorry, a bit too simple. You might want a dumbed down AC, but I don't. I love the new design concept. If you can't wrap your brain around it, bad fucking luck, go watch a beach regatta.

So, no I don’t want it simple, but I preferred the way it was. Not the commercial JAFR it is turning into. You are happy with a spectacle, even if it means standard parts (to make it cheaper/easier). Even if it means selling design data to help teams that need help because it is to hard a game to join any more. 

I said the same when previous cycles did the same thing and some here said the same when it was Oracle doing it. Yet it seems okay for TNZ to do it now.

The reality is it is you and your elk that are dumbing this shit show down, not me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Forourselves isn't a real Person. He is a 10 year old child, a disgrace to NZ Sailing Community just trying to make up Numbers.

Hey I can't help it if you're a dumbass that can't back up any of your stupid statements trying to pass them off as fact, then when you get called out you say "Stop bullying me, its my opinion" lol 

Then you go through and down vote all my comments because you know they're all true lol

Share this post


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

So, no I don’t want it simple, but I preferred the way it was. Not the commercial JAFR it is turning into. You are happy with a spectacle, even if it means standard parts (to make it cheaper/easier). Even if it means selling design data to help teams that need help because it is to hard a game to join any more. 

I said the same when previous cycles did the same thing and some here said the same when it was Oracle doing it. Yet it seems okay for TNZ to do it now.

The reality is it is you and your elk that are dumbing this shit show down, not me. 

Best Post I've ever read here. When OTUSA did it, it was bad. Now ETNZ is doing it, it's ok. I'm totally agreeing with you here.

You don't need these 3 Late Challengers to have a decent Event in Auckland. No one is helped when Ineos, LR or AM beat Dutchsail, Altus or S & S by 5 Minute + during the PRADA CUP like ETNZ did with LR in 2013.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Well this is the very first day in Bermuda, they rock up and we imediately get independent footage of multiple consecutive foiling tacks and a foiling mark rounding all in what look like pretty marginal low end conditions.  Safe to say on any better day in Auckland prior to this they must have been pretty much dry lapping when they got things rignt.

 

Good times. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The reality is it is you and your elk that are dumbing this shit show down, not me. 

I agree with @dg_sailingfan, this is one of the best posts I’ve ever read here.

 

I laughed so hard. 

F867E561-EF0C-47FF-B0D2-4252EE7F62F4.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Best Post I've ever read here. When OTUSA did it, it was bad. Now ETNZ is doing it, it's ok. I'm totally agreeing with you here.

You don't need these 3 Late Challengers to have a decent Event in Auckland. No one is helped when Ineos, LR or AM beat Dutchsail, Altus or S & S by 5 Minute + during the PRADA CUP like ETNZ did with LR in 2013.

How many times have ETNZ been busted cheating? Spying? replacing class rules mid way through a cycle? Thats right, none. Oracle established a reputation of rule breaking, cheating and unsportsmanlike behaviour, they built that reputation themselves, and never escaped it, and they deserved it.

They lost the respect of a huge swathe of the sailing community . They even created a fake challenger to try and give themselves a foot in the challenger camp while at the same time, having a training partner without having to build 2 boats themselves. They had a fake challenger to help them retain the cup. 

Fast forward to this cycle, ETNZ are faced with an event which has been damaged by the likes of Oracle, who have taken their ball and gone home leaving the event, taken its mates who also did not get their way even though they lost with them, and now new teams are needed to fill the void. ETNZ have offered these start up teams design packages to get them to the start line. Its about intent. When ETNZ gets busted cheating, or spying, or rule breaking, or replaces a class rule half way through the cycle, I'll be the first to call them out. But that hasn't happened.

Share this post


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

I agree with @dg_sailingfan, this is one of the best posts I’ve ever read here.

 

I laughed so hard. 

F867E561-EF0C-47FF-B0D2-4252EE7F62F4.jpeg

You're dumbing your life down if you're agreeing with that guy.

Share this post


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

How many times have ETNZ been busted cheating? Spying? replacing class rules mid way through a cycle? Thats right, none. Oracle established a reputation of rule breaking, cheating and unsportsmanlike behaviour, they built that reputation themselves, and never escaped it, and they deserved it.

They lost the respect of a huge swathe of the sailing community . They even created a fake challenger to try and give themselves a foot in the challenger camp while at the same time, having a training partner without having to build 2 boats themselves. They had a fake challenger to help them retain the cup. 

Fast forward to this cycle, ETNZ are faced with an event which has been damaged by the likes of Oracle, who have taken their ball and gone home leaving the event, taken its mates who also did not get their way even though they lost with them, and now new teams are needed to fill the void. ETNZ have offered these start up teams design packages to get them to the start line. Its about intent. When ETNZ gets busted cheating, or spying, or rule breaking, or replaces a class rule half way through the cycle, I'll be the first to call them out. But that hasn't happened.

So it is still all Oracles fault and TNZ are just the white knight coming in to save it. Yeah right. They want to keep it, and the gravy train, running. They are happy to take a challenge cup and turn it into JAFR. They justify making it commercially viable by claiming it is the only way the cup can survive and people like you swallow their bullshit hook, line and sinker. 

They want it to be anything but a challenge cup. That would mean it only happens hen someone decides to have a go. Then Dalts and all the other pros, sucking vigorously on the test of the cash cow would need to find a new job. Which would be a problem, as there isn’t that much work around. So TNZ is just finishing off the abortion that Oracle started. Taking a challenge cup and making it the Nascar of sailing. Not saying Nascar is bad, just that it isn’t a challenge cup. 

The fact TNZ need to skate the line on rules, sell design data and insist on one design parts is just the final nails in the cup coffin. The only step left is to sell the whole thing to Red Bull. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ben's Budget in BDA wasn't that big. 85M Pounds which placed him second behind OTUSA but only slightly above ETNZ who had a huge cash infusion by Bertelli.

Secondly, if Ben had stayed with his old Partners he only could have built one boat and he felt it was necessary to built two boats like ETNZ, LR and AM will do as well. Ainslie isn't the kind of guy who does these kind of things class half full.

Ben had a bigger budget for Bermuda than ETNZ. It was not lack of funds that made the UK Rover a dog, it was the design team that Ben hired. He is not as invincible as many think when he is not sailing solo one designs.

As for the new foiling monohulls, I think we are all agreed that they will not get past this AC. It is an ugly stupid design that makes no sense, hardly works and will make racing a farce.  If it had any chance of survival we would have seen the UK or the New York boat tacking and gybing by now.  It was Dalton's way of keeping Bertelli happy. He will rue the day.

And whilst I am on a rant I can see no chance of the Dutch or S&S making the start line. At least Malta has a slight chance because they have a very wealthy patron, though once he figures how much money he will have to throw away to look less than ordinary, even a fool, he might have a reality check and can the whole show.

I am not sure just what Mr Gladwell is smoking as he continues to talk up the hopeless teams like the Dutch. I guess it is just the NZ party line to keep talking up the event as he is no fool on things America's Cup.

Roll on the AC, don't you just love it!

 

 

Share this post


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

You're dumbing your life down if you're agreeing with that guy.

I don’t think we liked it for the same reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 10:07 PM, Horn Rock said:

The defender puts out a rule. Whether the challengers agree with it is irrelevant. It's never been an "agreed" design.

Incorrect. There have been many negotiations between challenger and defender, resulting in agreed designs. From the very first challenge there was a pattern of long negotiations between challenger and defender about rules. Ashbury's challenges are obvious examples; so too are the long negotiations by Dunraven, including the cancellation of his March 19 1889 challenge. The negotiations for his last challenge, for example, took, three months - because it WAS relevant whether the challengers agreed with the conditions set by the NYYC. When Lipton first challenged, the conditions were agreed upon in a series of meetings between his representative Charles Russell and the NYYC. For his second challenge, Lipton even stated the specific days and times on which he wanted to race. 

The NYYC in those days wanted challengers. They therefore agreed to many of the details of the racing and the designs involved. 

The same thing happened after WW2.  In April 1955 Henry Sears, Commodore of the NYYC, had several meetings with British sailors and people like Sir Ralph Gore, head of the RYA, about reviving the AC. They agreed to use the 12 Metre. The next big change came when parties agreed on the IACC design.

It HAS been an agreed design, and the challengers agreement IS relevant.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ben had a bigger budget for Bermuda than ETNZ. It was not lack of funds that made the UK Rover a dog, it was the design team that Ben hired. He is not as invincible as many think when he is not sailing solo one designs.

As for the new foiling monohulls, I think we are all agreed that they will not get past this AC. It is an ugly stupid design that makes no sense, hardly works and will make racing a farce.  If it had any chance of survival we would have seen the UK or the New York boat tacking and gybing by now.  It was Dalton's way of keeping Bertelli happy. He will rue the day.

And whilst I am on a rant I can see no chance of the Dutch or S&S making the start line. At least Malta has a slight chance because they have a very wealthy patron, though once he figures how much money he will have to throw away to look less than ordinary, even a fool, he might have a reality check and can the whole show.

I am not sure just what Mr Gladwell is smoking as he continues to talk up the hopeless teams like the Dutch. I guess it is just the NZ party line to keep talking up the event as he is no fool on things America's Cup.

Roll on the AC, don't you just love it!

 

 

On Ben:

I agree with you that Ben didn't get very far because he hired the wrong Design People and therefore his boat was too slow. That being said he "was forced" to go to some places like the F1 World he didn't like to go because all the good Designers had already being hired by other Teams.

On the Boats:

I already called them ready for the museum once this Cup is over. The AC75 just like the AC72 are just not sustainable. Too expensive, too complex to built & to sail as well.

On Gladwell:

Guess what: That's why I called him a partisan NZ Hack. He is bascially the Spokesperson for ETNZ writing shit after shit after shit in his Articles. His Articles are so far from reality like the Moon is from the Earth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Two possibilities are they need the cash or the design is to difficult

The design isn't easy - it is a technological contest, as it should be. The sort of expertise required is rare and expensive, the development costs are high. Yet ETNZ have gone this route. If they were hard up for cash, as you contend, why would they pick such a pricey design? Your arguments are contradictory. I have no problem ETNZ leveraging their IP, and I bet NZ tax payers don't either, or ETNZ sponsors. That a tiny country like NZ can be in such a position to sell critical IP to much larger nations does seem to irk some people. I don't give a fuck. Your opinion or approval is irrelevant. Want to change it? Go win it and implement your own protocol. Until then, well you know what......

4 hours ago, Gissie said:

Try comprehension, it helps you not look a dick.

I'll pass on the English lesson from someone who uses quiet for quite, and elk for ilk. Elk for fucks sake? Apologies for playing the man so hard, but all this seems way above your pay grade. I suggest you get angry about something else, like rugby league may be?

 

2 hours ago, Curious said:

It HAS been an agreed design, and the challengers agreement IS relevant.

Thanks for the history lesson, some good points there. However for this iteration of the cup, and certainly Oracle's tenure, the defender has wielded sweeping powers over the design, without a great deal of challenger input. I stand by what I said.

Share this post


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

I think we are all agreed that they will not get past this AC.

No we're not. Plenty of people that matter like the design, including all the challengers.

 

3 hours ago, winchfodder said:

If it had any chance of survival we would have seen the UK or the New York boat tacking and gybing by now.

AM have stated they're doing dry laps. Do you think Terry's lying? That footage isn't in the public domain does not mean it isn't happening.

 

3 hours ago, winchfodder said:

I guess it is just the NZ party line to keep talking up the event

As if they're ever going to talk down the cup - get real.

 

I think we can all agree your statements are nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 7:07 AM, Horn Rock said:

The defender puts out a rule. Whether the challengers agree with it is irrelevant. It's never been an "agreed" design.

 

Not in a MC match, it's mutual consent between the defender and challenger. If the challenger doesn't agree then its a DoG match.

Share this post


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

Not in a MC match, it's mutual consent between the defender and challenger. If the challenger doesn't agree then its a DoG match.

Two DoG matches in the last 36 years, suggests that for the majority of time the defender gets their way.

Share this post


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

The design isn't easy - it is a technological contest, as it should be. The sort of expertise required is rare and expensive, the development costs are high. Yet ETNZ have gone this route. If they were hard up for cash, as you contend, why would they pick such a pricey design? Your arguments are contradictory. I have no problem ETNZ leveraging their IP, and I bet NZ tax payers don't either, or ETNZ sponsors. That a tiny country like NZ can be in such a position to sell critical IP to much larger nations does seem to irk some people. I don't give a fuck. Your opinion or approval is irrelevant. Want to change it? Go win it and implement your own protocol. Until then, well you know what......

I'll pass on the English lesson from someone who uses quiet for quite, and elk for ilk. Elk for fucks sake? Apologies for playing the man so hard, but all this seems way above your pay grade. I suggest you get angry about something else, like rugby league may be?

 

Thanks for the history lesson, some good points there. However for this iteration of the cup, and certainly Oracle's tenure, the defender has wielded sweeping powers over the design, without a great deal of challenger input. I stand by what I said.

What an angry little fucker you are. Liberal Leftie maybe, only willing to listen to those that agree with your point of view. Everyone else is a moron. 

As for it being a tech contest, absolutely agree. Where we disagree is how it is dealt with. The contest dims when it is decided to supply pre-built parts. Sort of starts to limit out of the box thinking. But at least it keeps costs down, eh. Then only extremely financed and qualified teams can get to play. Sounds fine to me, it is a tech contest as you say. But you think selling IP on how to build a boat is a good thing for the contest. Was a shit fight when Oracle helped SoftBank, but it is okay for TNZ to sell stuff. In fact you think I should be proud of them for doing so. I don’t, not even a little. Firstly, why would you sell your good stuff. Well you don’t, you sell them shit that is already at minimum one generation old, more likely two or three. In other words you are selling snake oil to help teams that couldn’t enter sell the story to the money guys that they have a chance. Some contest you seem to be supporting. 

As for my opinion has no use unless I go out and win it first. What an arrogant asshole you are. And thanks so much for the English lesson. It is a bit of a convention in parts of anarchy to use elk instead of ilk. But that’s fine, you didn’t know so I will forgive the pedantic rant. As for playing the man hard, really, that’s what you think you did. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gissie said:

The contest dims when it is decided to supply pre-built parts. Sort of starts to limit out of the box thinking.

ETNZ came up with stacks of out of the box thinking in the last cup, which had heaps of one design elements. There goes that argument straight out the window. You really need to think a bit harder before coming out with this drivel. 

 

35 minutes ago, Gissie said:

In other words you are selling snake oil to help teams that couldn’t enter sell the story to the money guys that they have a chance. Some contest you seem to be supporting. 

Plenty of syndicates know they're not going to win on their first outing, but use it to develop their experience so as to be more competitive in subsequent campaigns. Being able to buy IP gets them into the game, so they can begin that journey. This is not fucking rocket science, but is dismissed by you, who has some hard arsed, narrow view of what the AC should be. I'm happy they disappoint you.

 

35 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Liberal Leftie maybe

Ha, not sure what my political views have to do with it, but I guess that makes you a racist, climate change denying, right wing nut-job, if we're bandying political labels about. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Two DoG matches in the last 36 years, suggests that for the majority of time the defender gets their way.

Which does not negate the mutual consent match, like we are supposed to have this AC.

Share this post


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

ETNZ came up with stacks of out of the box thinking in the last cup, which had heaps of one design elements. There goes that argument straight out the window. You really need to think a bit harder before coming out with this drivel. 

 

Plenty of syndicates know they're not going to win on their first outing, but use it to develop their experience so as to be more competitive in subsequent campaigns. Being able to buy IP gets them into the game, so they can begin that journey. This is not fucking rocket science, but is dismissed by you, who has some hard arsed, narrow view of what the AC should be. I'm happy they disappoint you.

 

Ha, not sure what my political views have to do with it, but I guess that makes you a racist, climate change denying, right wing nut-job, if we're bandying political labels about. 

Rant on dear man. We have different views and you are certainly not open to any form of discussion. To reiterate, I don’t care how technical of he boats are, design and build what you want to race, just make sure it fits the rules. No one design stuff at all. All because it was done before doesn’t make it right then or now, in my eyes. 

If you can afford it or have the skills to design it, go play in a sand box where you can. The cup shouldn’t be dumbed down by having to sell them out of date design work. It is a challenge cup for those that dream, not JAFR. 

I also disagree with the boats doing anything before the first race. If a team wants to showboat, go for it, but forcing teams to be on site before the first race is wrong. 

But then this would get in the way of the ‘spectacle’ that would raise interest and viewers and therefore money. The whole thing has become about money, the cup an old anachronism being whored out by the pros that want to keep earning. 

But enough, you just don’t want to give it a thought as long as it keeps you happy. As I said earlier, it is you and your elk that are doing the damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 12:22 PM, Forourselves said:

Its about maintenance with any boat! It doesn't matter whether its an AC72, an AC50, an AC75, an F50, or an IACC class boat, they all require maintenance, and they all require a lot of people! WTF!? 

You are fast running out of arguments, and now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You almost had it correct until you added the IACC boat to the mix . Just comparing the budget to get the boats in the water exhibits the difference in budget quite well .

81C1EE86-E1AB-4C47-B4ED-30BA8E4624C0.jpeg

6CF6F64E-38A7-4DE1-943F-D756A2EA72A4.gif

Share this post


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

Ever read the Oxford dic ?

I know what an elk is, it just doesn't work as a collective noun for humans. Even if it's an in house joke for Anarchists who like to boast about their third rate education.

Share this post


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

So it is still all Oracles fault and TNZ are just the white knight coming in to save it. Yeah right. They want to keep it, and the gravy train, running. They are happy to take a challenge cup and turn it into JAFR. They justify making it commercially viable by claiming it is the only way the cup can survive and people like you swallow their bullshit hook, line and sinker. 

They want it to be anything but a challenge cup. That would mean it only happens hen someone decides to have a go. Then Dalts and all the other pros, sucking vigorously on the test of the cash cow would need to find a new job. Which would be a problem, as there isn’t that much work around. So TNZ is just finishing off the abortion that Oracle started. Taking a challenge cup and making it the Nascar of sailing. Not saying Nascar is bad, just that it isn’t a challenge cup. 

The fact TNZ need to skate the line on rules, sell design data and insist on one design parts is just the final nails in the cup coffin. The only step left is to sell the whole thing to Red Bull. 

"They want" 

"They are happy to"

You know nothing about what "They" want, or what "They"are happy to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites