Kiwing

How many challengers will there be?

How many challengers?  

127 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

5 hours ago, dg_sailingfan said:

This isn't a conspiracy Theory. T-C is spot on. Luna Rossa would never accept more Challengers if they have to amend the Protocol for that. Every new Challenger makes it more unlikely they reach the AC Match himself.

Patrizio Bertelli himself made a special trip to NZ a few eeks ago, to negotiate the amendments to the protocol which allowed the new challengers to participate because he knows it doesn't end with winning. Should he win, it will then be up to him to put on a successful event, meaning he needs to maintain working relationships with current and potential challengers in order for his event to be successful. There is a bigger picture. It doesn't end when you win, its only the beginning.

Share this post


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

Clearly a shoe on the other foot situation and enjoyable to see Kiwi fans get back what they dished out 6 years ago.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Clearly sour grapes from you. Enjoyable to see your little band of haters exposed as trolls.

Share this post


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

Agreed!

Haha you're still an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a real estate development conspiracy to redevelop more of the Auckland base areas and open them to other uses later on. 

Share this post


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

Clearly sour grapes from you. Enjoyable to see your little band of haters exposed as trolls.

My give a shit level is at an all time low, has been since OR took the Cup defense to Bermuda, so not sure how I have sour grapes. 

Nice try though.

WetHog  :ph34r: 

Share this post


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

My give a shit level is at an all time low, has been since OR took the Cup defense to Bermuda, so not sure how I have sour grapes. 

Nice try though.

WetHog  :ph34r: 

You obviously do give a shit...because here you are.

Share this post


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

You're absolutely hilarious! PB only renegotiated the Bills & Entry Fees, etc. but you can't compete or race with NOTHING and like it or not the Altus Challenge AND DutchSail have have no boat at the moment. Worse, both Teams haven't even started building an AC 75.

Maybe Santa is going to built their AC 75...hahahaha.

I see you've re-phrased you rhetoric... a few days ago, it was "they're DEAD" now its "Oh they've got no boat at the moment" 

Share this post


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

You obviously do give a shit...because here you are.

I said it was at an all time low not zero.  If you had been around here up until AC35 you'd understand that.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

I said it was at an all time low not zero.  If you had been around here up until AC35 you'd understand that.

WetHog  :ph34r:

I don't give a shit about whether you give a shit. But here you are bagging Kiwi fans about the shoe being on the other foot, when its clear what was happening at that time was not within the rules anyway. And thats exactly the way it was ruled by the Arbitration panel at the time, So you should be agreeing with me. 

Share this post


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

They are DEAD if they have no boat. They would need to start building their AC 75 by now but all Indications are that they haven't even stated.

Is Simeon Tienpont asking the "Holy Ghost or Santa or an Easter Bunny" to built his AC 75?

Hahahaha

Unless a protocol amendment is imminent?

Share this post


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

I don't give a shit about whether you give a shit. But here you are bagging Kiwi fans about the shoe being on the other foot, when its clear what was happening at that time was not within the rules anyway. And thats exactly the way it was ruled by the Arbitration panel at the time, So you should be agreeing with me. 

You call it "bagging" and I call it highlighting hypocrisy.  To each his/her own.

My comparison between the two revolved around the introduction of new boats, team bases and the number of teams that ultimately participated not sure what an arbitration panel has to do with any of that but please feel free to refresh my memory because I don't remember what arbitration panel decision took place during AC34 and I wasn't paying attention when the arbitration panel made a decision recently.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You call it "bagging" and I call it highlighting hypocrisy.  To each his/her own.

My comparison between the two revolved around the introduction of new boats, team bases and the number of teams that ultimately participated not sure what an arbitration panel has to do with any of that but please feel free to refresh my memory because I don't remember what arbitration panel decision took place during AC34 and I wasn't paying attention when the arbitration panel made a decision recently.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

AC34? That was 6 years ago! There's been another cycle between AC34 and AC36. Time to let it go.

Share this post


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

If there is an protocol amendment imminent surely your so-called "Super Journalist Richard Gladwell" would have some scoop BUT ominously Gladwell has gone completely silent on the 3 Late Entries.

And?

Share this post


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

AC34? That was 6 years ago! There's been another cycle between AC34 and AC36. Time to let it go.

I have for the most part but every once in a while, like now, its nice to remind Kiwi fans.

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's a real estate development conspiracy to redevelop more of the Auckland base areas and open them to other uses later on. 

As has been for allegedly all modern ACs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Suggesting to me that things do not look good. I wonder how much longer particularly the Dutch & Malta can push the Boat Building Deadline?

Nothing about this has ever looked good to you, the boat is crap to you, the venue is too far away from Europe to be viable, the TV coverage will never be as good as Stan Honeys live line, all skippers are liars, Bertelli is Daltons poodle, Dalton is Bertellis poodle, and you wish everything bad for AC36.

Share this post


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

and a fantastic re-purpose of stinky/ugly tank farms and few Challengers show up.  The irony is delicious.  

Well, the best outcome is as you say, removal ( not really repurpose), of a legacy polluted storage facility.  That's great for the future in Auckland.

And what is possibly ironic is that the defender is based only 2 blocks from the concrete pad that they challenged from last cycle, and they didn't take the cup to a submissive tax dodge country and extort them for whatever the market would bear. . And don't even think of comparing nz,s and Aucklands support for their national team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose that we make another poll. TE is telling us that 2 of the late 3 entries are dead while those who told us that the F50 would not sail tell us that LR might agree to change the protocol another time to make them alive. Who do you believe ?

Share this post


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

I propose that we make another poll. TE is telling us that 2 of the late 3 entries are dead while those who told us that the F50 would not sail tell us that LR might agree to change the protocol another time to make them alive. Who do you believe ?

Well don't believe the guys who said ETNZ won't win the Cup by staying in Auckland instead of going to Bermuda where they are missing out on valuable training time against the other teams.

Don't believe the guys who said bikes won't make a difference. 

Don't believe the guys who said Spithill would eat Burling for breakfast in the pre-starts.

Don't believe the guys who said a foiling monohull would never work.

Don't believe the guys who said AM felt ripped off when the foiling arms broke and had to be redesigned.

Besides, F50 hasn't lived up to its billing and isn't even the subject of this thread. Lord knows how the cry babies in the Larrys circus thread throw their toys when you talk about anything except the disappointment that is the F50. (You know who you are, and come on, you deserved that one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Cheer up, Four, maybe as the SailGP series goes on, rumors will start that a team is managing to "customize" their boat despite RC's watchful eye in order to beat Australia. ;)

Share this post


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

Besides, F50 hasn't lived up to its billing and isn't even the subject of this thread.

Bitter F, the sailors say the F50 first version is already better than the AC50, I trust them more than you. If NAC is right one team already customized a better V1.1, and w'll probably have a V2 next season. The F50 is the best ever foiler up to now, let's wait what the AC75 will fare.

And for the rest you are wrong because you were not existing at the time, perhaps under the clarkey sockpuppet or another one though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 11:12 PM, Forourselves said:

If only you'd quit moaning about anything and everything AC36.

Good to see you're off the rails again. What have I been moaning about AC36? I am just glad it's not a one-design like the last cup. If you want to see moaning go look at your posts in the SailGP thread. 

Share this post


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

Good to see you're off the rails again. What have I been moaning about AC36? I am just glad it's not a one-design like the last cup. If you want to see moaning go look at your posts in the SailGP thread. 

I don't care to go back and look, but suffice to say you havent exactly been accepting of much to do with this cup.

SailGP is crap, which is why I haven't been there in a couple of weeks. Funny that most of the discussion in the sailGP thread has been about the AC, even though SailGP fans insist that it has nothing to do with the AC, but refuse to move it because they know without the AC, SailGP would be irrelevant.

 

Share this post


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

Well, the best outcome is as you say, removal ( not really repurpose), of a legacy polluted storage facility.  That's great for the future in Auckland.

And what is possibly ironic is that the defender is based only 2 blocks from the concrete pad that they challenged from last cycle, and they didn't take the cup to a submissive tax dodge country and extort them for whatever the market would bear. . And don't even think of comparing nz,s and Aucklands support for their national team.

My irony comment dealt with OR's first cycle as Defender where they radically changed the boat, proclaimed many teams would challenge, had grand plans for re-purposing old infrastructure and as a result of few Challengers participating had to change their plans.  And how Kiwi fans at that time relentlessly bitched/complained/bagged throughout that Cup cycle.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, AC36 is playing out a lot like AC34 did based on what I described above and Kiwi fans find themselves in OR fans shoes.  Thats it and thats all.  Nothing about who supports what and certainly nothing to do with AC35.

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Don't believe the guys who said a foiling monohull would never work.

Foiling 75 foot monohulls work in an AC format race?  This was established and I missed it?  Can I get a link to this proof?

Not saying that they won't work just that I haven't seen it demonstrated on actual water in a blow.  And I have been paying attention.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

My irony comment dealt with OR's first cycle as Defender where they radically changed the boat, proclaimed many teams would challenge, had grand plans for re-purposing old infrastructure and as a result of few Challengers participating had to change their plans.  And how Kiwi fans at that time relentlessly bitched/complained/bagged throughout that Cup cycle.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, AC36 is playing out a lot like AC34 did based on what I described above and Kiwi fans find themselves in OR fans shoes.  Thats it and thats all.  Nothing about who supports what and certainly nothing to do with AC35.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Ok. Ac34 then. So everything that pissed off SF was to do with fewer challs? And I don't pretend to know the politics of the debrief in SF, just that they were not likely to play a second time.

As I remember most of the bagging was around the confusion of the response to the tragic and publicly catastrophic accident. Oh, maybe being caught cheating as well. But I was too awed by the flying boat to be very pissed off.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Ok. Ac34 then. So everything that pissed off SF was to do with fewer challs? And I don't pretend to know the politics of the debrief in SF, just that they were not likely to play a second time.

As I remember most of the bagging was around the confusion of the response to the tragic and publicly catastrophic accident. Oh, maybe being caught cheating as well. But I was too awed by the flying boat to be very pissed off.

There was a lot of bagging from Kiwi fans about a lot of things.  The same is true about this cycle isn't it?  Again, I am talking about what I described above.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 1:01 AM, WetHog said:

Foiling 75 foot monohulls work in an AC format race?  This was established and I missed it?  Can I get a link to this proof?

Not saying that they won't work just that I haven't seen it demonstrated on actual water in a blow.  And I have been paying attention.

WetHog  :ph34r:

No one thought the AC72's were able to match race, and they did. The AC75's will be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 12:58 AM, WetHog said:

My irony comment dealt with OR's first cycle as Defender where they radically changed the boat, proclaimed many teams would challenge, had grand plans for re-purposing old infrastructure and as a result of few Challengers participating had to change their plans.  And how Kiwi fans at that time relentlessly bitched/complained/bagged throughout that Cup cycle.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, AC36 is playing out a lot like AC34 did based on what I described above and Kiwi fans find themselves in OR fans shoes.  Thats it and thats all.  Nothing about who supports what and certainly nothing to do with AC35.

WetHog  :ph34r:

The shoe isn't on he other foot though. You're comparing 2 different scenario's and trying to say they're the same. In 2007, the AC had just been through a resurgence in teams, interest and spectators. Since 1987 the cup had flourished and had moved from the realm of the billionaire pissing contest to a sporting contest between nations. It had seen many challengers, and fans were supporting it as a top tier sailing competition. 

Fast forward to 2013, and Larry and Ernesto, through their court battles, and after all the great work many people had done to turn the event around decided to drag the event once more through the courts, eliminating existing and potential challengers and damaging the reputation and image of the event, as well as switching many fans off the event.

The rhetoric from Larry during the court battle, was that he was fighting the good fight on behalf of all challengers. When he won the Cup he made promises, and had the responsibility of returning the cup to its glory days after dragging it through court. He came up with a plan to bring the interest back by introducing 72 ft Multihulls, which turned even more competitors away due to the expense and also the fact that Monohulls were still the preferred option at that stage.

 Unfortunately for him, the post court battle Americas Cup image was so damaged that no one wanted to compete, and fans had lost interest in the event. This was before his team had been caught cheating and spying on its opposition.

It was only due to ETNZ in large part, with their introduction of foiling, their almost weekly video releases and their ability to maintain relationships with teams like Luna Rossa, that the event was somewhat saved.

in 2017, Larry was up to his old tricks once again, and the event had seen 2 Challengers of Record withdraw, a Commissioner fired from his role before the event started due to breach of contract issues regarding a Qualifier event, ETNZ financially compensated for that breach, and a gag issue ordered which prevented teams from disclosing the outcome of that arbitration decision, not to mention, an embarrassing defeat by a team of rookies.

Fast forward to 2017, and ETNZ is still trying to undo and fix the damage the Ellison era has inflicted on the AC. They are 2 different, and incomparable scenarios. One ruined the reputation of the event, the other is tasked with trying to fix it. They aren't the same, and therefor, the shoe is not on the other foot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're trying to fix it (as Larry proposed to do as well back then), but they chose the wrong vehicle for it - a very expensive boat that probably kept potential challengers away too. So, instead of making it easy to enter, they set the technical barriers as high as LE et al. with the AC72 - with a similar result in challenger numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 8:19 AM, Rennmaus said:

They're trying to fix it (as Larry proposed to do as well back then), but they chose the wrong vehicle for it - a very expensive boat that probably kept potential challengers away too. So, instead of making it easy to enter, they set the technical barriers as high as LE et al. with the AC72 - with a similar result in challenger numbers.

Larry wrecked it, then couldn't repair the damage they inflicted. In terms of the AC72, that remains to be seen. There's no denying they are expensive, but they are also revolutionary and exciting. Nothing like this has been seen before. 

Myself, I would rather see big boats, and strong teams with full crews. The 50's were too small, and 5 crew just doesn't cut the mustard in an Americas Cup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History question: so if EB had an undisputably legit CoR for AC33, and the DoG match never ensued, were they keeping the IACC  class or if not  what were they intending to use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 8:37 AM, NeedAClew said:

History question: so if EB had an undisputably legit CoR for AC33, and the DoG match never ensued, were they keeping the IACC  class or if not  what were they intending to use?

The AC90 and it would've been expensive and awesome too! Another reason Larry wanted to get away from Monohulls, because Ernesto had the greatest Monohull sailing team in the world at that time, New Zealand had the next best team, and Patrizio Bertelli had the next best after that. Larry wasn't going to get a look in with the AC90, so multihulls it was.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Larry wrecked it, then couldn't repair the damage they inflicted. In terms of the AC72, that remains to be seen. There's no denying they are expensive, but they are also revolutionary and exciting. Nothing like this has been seen before. 

Myself, I would rather see big boats, and strong teams with full crews. The 50's were too small, and 5 crew just doesn't cut the mustard in an Americas Cup. 

Not quite, I really meant that LE set the technical barrier high with the AC72, similar to today's AC75 by ETNZ. You confused the boats (and I should have phrased it differently, as I just see my post was easy to be misunderstood), so my post should not have made much sense to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly true that LE had had trouble getting through Challenger selection series. Can see how the AC90 would have looked vexing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 8:41 AM, Rennmaus said:

Not quite, I really meant that LE set the technical barrier high with the AC72, similar to today's AC75 by ETNZ. You confused the boats (and I should have phrased it differently, as I just see my post was easy to be misunderstood), so my post should not have made much sense to you.

Agreed. The introduction of the AC72 definitely raised the technical barrier. Probably further than it should've been at that time.

The AC90 probably would've raised the technical barrier to an acceptable level at that time, especially given the success the event was enjoying at that time. But we'll never know. 

The AC75 came about through compromise. ETNZ/ LR always stated they had a preference for Monohulls as opposed to Multihulls, so it was never going to be a multihull, but since the introduction of foiling, there was no way they could go back to the slow, heavy IACC class, or go with a small but light monohull like an RC44. To stay at the bleeding edge of technology a fully crewed foiling Monohull was the answer they came up with.

Share this post


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

There was a lot of bagging from Kiwi fans about a lot of things.  The same is true about this cycle isn't it?  Again, I am talking about what I described above.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

 

49 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Defender where they radically changed the boat, proclaimed many teams would challenge, had grand plans for re-purposing old infrastructure and as a result of few Challengers participating had to change their plans.  And how Kiwi fans at that time relentles

Ok, so what you are describing"above" is plan changes on infrastructure? Really not sure that matters to anyone. Like some spots on the wharf won't be full, but not much has changed.

The bagging was the defender being charged with cheating. Twice. Then some other changes to race conditions that didn't go down well.

This cycle we have collaborative engineering efforts, ( to fix a problem maybe of the cor's making ), no bleating about it by any team so far. Late entries being adjudicated and no one publicly sad with the outcome.

I get that there is always the other foot, but so far this defense has been prettymuch " up the middle" as dalt would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 9:01 AM, dg_sailingfan said:

You better proof to us all that the AC 75 are not as expensive as AC 72. Once again you make a claim and can't back it up.

Ben Ainslie & Terry Hutchinson said repeatedly that the AC 75 by ETNZ will be as expensive as the AC 72 proposed by LE/RC.

The AC 75 are the reason we have the same Number of Challengers as in AC34.

Once again, learn to read. I never said the AC75 was not as expensive as the AC72. Besides, no one knows how much the teams spend on their boats. How about you prove it to me!? Do you know how much an AC72 costs? Do you know how much an AC75 costs to produce? 

Just as a note, none of the components on the AC72 were supplied. Teams produced ALL of their components themselves. Teams also built their own wings, where the spa is supplied this time around.

Remember, the only reason we had the number of challengers we did in AC34, was thanks to ETNZ, the only reason that cup was as successful as it was, was because of ETNZ, they introduced foiling, they got Luna Rossa to the start line, which means they provided a "Challenger series", if not for them, it would've been Oracle v Artemis Racing in the AC. Artemis struggled to even get to the starting line, it would've been a mismatch that would've ruined the AC even more than it was.

 

Share this post


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

The only reason we had the number of challengers we did in AC34, was thanks to ETNZ, the only reason that cup was as successful as it was, was because of ETNZ, they introduced foiling...blah blah blah

Ah ah, a godspell to Saint Grant from the TNZ parish

TNZ made up the numbers like the other teams, the foiling possibility was introduced by Melvin Morelli, same for the wing.

Reasons of the success were many: big boats, foiling, amazing place, lots of people, ambiance, anarchists, wind, TNZ winning at the beginning, OR come back.

For those who forgot the origin of foiling at the AC:
When Pete Melvin co-wrote the design rule for the AC72 catamaran, he knew there were two distinct areas of development that could determine the winner of the 34th America’s Cup; the hard wing, an aspect of Oracle Team USA’s Cup-winning monster cat brought forward to this new era of Cup technology; and the foils. As it turns out, the 130’ wingsail, initially regarded as the radical innovation of this America’s Cup cycle, was overshadowed by the realization that these giant catamarans could not only foil downwind but upwind.

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/09/17/shaping-foils-re-shaped-americas-cup/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 1:04 PM, Tornado-Cat said:

Ah ah, a godspell to Saint Grant from the TNZ parish

TNZ made up the numbers like the other teams, the foiling possibility was introduced by Melvin Morelli, same for the wing.

Reasons of the success were many: big boats, foiling, amazing place, lots of people, ambiance, anarchists, wind, TNZ winning at the beginning, OR come back.

For those who forgot the origin of foiling at the AC:
When Pete Melvin co-wrote the design rule for the AC72 catamaran, he knew there were two distinct areas of development that could determine the winner of the 34th America’s Cup; the hard wing, an aspect of Oracle Team USA’s Cup-winning monster cat brought forward to this new era of Cup technology; and the foils. As it turns out, the 130’ wingsail, initially regarded as the radical innovation of this America’s Cup cycle, was overshadowed by the realization that these giant catamarans could not only foil downwind but upwind.

https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2013/09/17/shaping-foils-re-shaped-americas-cup/

Ah ah

 

Unless you're now calling Glenn Ashby a liar too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of hulls is the only difference between the AC72 and the AC75.  And considering the foiling system of the AC75 it is far from a certainty they will prove to be comparable match racing wise to the AC72.  And the AC72 wasn’t that great at match racing.  

Some good examples is prestart action or a dial up at any point in the race.  AC72s could function off their foils at low speed.  Can an AC75?  AM has had issues with their trial boat haven’t they? I think I remember the Brits having issues.  If the AC75 can’t perform in displacement mode that’s a problem.

Early days to be sure but...

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think the soft wing is the major difference!

Share this post


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

When Pete Melvin co-wrote the design rule for the AC72 catamaran, he knew there were two distinct areas of development that could determine the winner of the 34th America’s Cup; the hard wing, an aspect of Oracle Team USA’s Cup-winning monster cat brought forward to this new era of Cup technology; and the foils.

Sigh... that would be news to the other two teams Oracle and Artemis who actually complained to the International Jury that foiling wasn’t allowed under the Protocol or Class Rule for the AC72, but the case was dismissed.

Further odd given that Melvin was an employee of OTUSA before being contracted by them to draft the class rule for Oracle! So one would assume if foiling was his and Oracle's intention at the time, it would have been apparent to Oracle, who then wouldn't have either been a) behind ETNZ in foil dev, or b) complained it's against the rules they themselves had Melvin write.

Perhaps Melvin's subsequent statements that the class rule didn't exclude foiling was more to do with the fact that Oracle let him go and he wound up at ETNZ right about the time they started foiling. Do you see how this works now? ;-) It's called plausible deniability...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another history question: I can find  the AC72 class rule, can someone point me to the prohibit (or not) foiling part? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^There is none.

Which is why, when Oracle and Artemis complained to the Panel, they lost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

^There is none.

Which is why, when Oracle and Artemis complained to the Panel, they lost.

Correct, there is none.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh2600 said:

Further odd given that Melvin was an employee of OTUSA before being contracted by them to draft the class rule for Oracle!

It would be a proof that Melvin was an employee of OTUSA before and not when he wrote the rule.

Share this post


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

It would be a proof that Melvin was an employee of OTUSA before and not when he wrote the rule.

I was merely stating the close relationship between Melvin and OTUSA had endured for long before AC72 class and continued into drafting the rule. He was not some distant, independant consultant working behind a chinese wall. He was, naturally as it always the case, working deeply with the defender and "CoR" on the rule. Are you genuinely suggesting that OTUSA did not hire Morrelli & Melvin to write the AC72 class rule?

739239383_ScreenShot2019-05-23at3_23_29PM.png.5d772839a6659617ea98f2b3c81849a4.png

To suggest that Melvin (and thus Oracle) intended all along for the AC72 to foil is hard to square with the cold hard facts that despite writing the rule themselves a) Oracle hadn't designed or built a foiling cat and b) that they complained the class rule they wrote themselves prohibited it.

Of course Melvin suggested it much later on that the rule never prohibited it, post ETNZ foiling of course, for the reasons I've already explained.

That's twice with the facts, here's hoping you won't need thrice... ;-)

 

Share this post


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

Correct, there is none.

There typically is never a rule prohibiting any number of innovations that have made their way to AC since the dawn of time, that doesn't change the fact that the original innovators were the original innovators.

Based on your logic the NYYC invented composite material boats over a century ago when their 12 Metre class rule didn't rule them out... They must have also invented the winged keel!

Share this post


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

It would be a proof that Melvin was an employee of OTUSA before and not when he wrote the rule.

He was not an employee of Oracle or ETNZ when he wrote the rule, only after the rule was written did ETNZ contract them to design their AC72.

Share this post


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

He was not an employee of Oracle or ETNZ when he wrote the rule, only after the rule was written did ETNZ contract them to design their AC72.

Correct, which helped him later.

Share this post


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

^ I think the soft wing is the major difference!

Forgot about that.  It will be a big difference at low speeds but I still look at those foil/foil arms and wonder how they are going to impact the event as a whole.  Screw up raising/lowering foils on an AC72 and, for the most part, the boats just fell down to their hulls, to a stable platform.  AC75's will fall down to a mono-hull without a keel with a huge sail under load.  It will be interesting to see how that gets sorted out.

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

boats just fell down to their hulls, to a stable platform.  AC75's will fall down to a mono-hull without a keel with a huge sail under load.  It will be interesting to

Maybe somewhat akin to an accidental gybe with a canting keel? They'll work it out on their side.

Share this post


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

Maybe somewhat akin to an accidental gybe with a canting keel? They'll work it out on their side.

Ok but what if it happens at 30+ knts?  This is probably the wrong thread for this discussion but questions like this have probably been asked internally by the small teams that can only build one boat.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

but what if it happens at 30+ knts?

Reports we have heard speak of low speed instability. I reckon once there is water flow, as long as the control doesn't pitch nose down, and even then the mono seems to show good resistance to a pitch pole.

Which reminds me of a discussion of actuator driven flaps which are now explicitly permitted...would anyone be able to engineer such a thing in the environment down there, or will hydraulic be the go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21 May 2019 at 9:50 AM, dg_sailingfan said:

Various Articles. Even Richard Gladwell mentioned during his ones.

ETNZ is offering the 3 Late Entries a "Basic Design Package" worth 5M NZ$. The Kiwis seem desperate to get that money even if it means offending the other 3 "Superteams" and that's why the 3 Late Challengers are still alive and running.

I'm confused, you constantly bag journalists if they say things you don't agree with, but then use their articles to support your statements. 

Let's face facts, there doesn't appear to be any official source stateing that the design package has  5 million NZD price tag so any claims for that to be the case have to be treated as dubious.

Additionally S & S are already in build (on hold apparently), now last time I was involved in a boat build we were supplied with the design before we started building. So unless S & S are somehow able to read plans they don't have they have already been supplied with the design package which one would assume has been paid for? So at best ETNZ are looking at potential income from another two teams making it to the start line.....something which GD himself stated very on was unlikely.

Share this post


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

It's much different for starters when OTUSA and SBTJ shared the same Design during AC 35. I don't think SBTJ had to pay for it. They got it for freebie.

LR payed for their design package from ETNZ I believe.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

Ok but what if it happens at 30+ knts?  This is probably the wrong thread for this discussion but questions like this have probably been asked internally by the small teams that can only build one boat.

WetHog  :ph34r:

These boats might benefit from some type of ESC-like logic - I wonder if there could be a trip switch of sorts if the boat loses 'traction' a bunch of things are triggered such as de-powering the soft rig as quickly as possible, correcting with rudder and adjusting foil arms... this might not be compatible with class rule...

time will tell

Share this post


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

bunch of things are triggered 

The bow smashes into the water, a 40kt fire hose assaults the crew forcing them deep into the cockpit to kiss the bilges, which is pressure sensitive cause their spittle has dried and there is half foot of the chuck down there, thereby triggering the ESC response.

Share this post


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

Actually it doesn't really matter how big the Prize Tag is. The fact is that ETNZ is offering a "Design Package" and gets paid for it and Teams like NYYC/AM as well as Ineos doesn't like it at all.

It's much different for starters when OTUSA and SBTJ shared the same Design during AC 35. I don't think SBTJ had to pay for it. They got it for freebie.

Really? SBTJ got their design package for free?? Where has this been said? No one gets anything in this world for free! Why would a Defender give a challenger a design package for free??

Share this post


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

Well, we knew that the AC 75's will be far less stable compared to the AC 72's we saw in 2013. The Question now is: How less stable and will safety be impacted by it. I said all along these new Boats can be very dangerous if something goes wrong.

Jesus. Any boat is dangerous if something goes wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Really? SBTJ got their design package for free?? Where has this been said? No one gets anything in this world for free! Why would a Defender give a challenger a design package for free??

It's a minor thing, but thanks for that, I am sick to death of peeps bagging on SBTJ, I pulled for them every time during the last cycle, & it sort of breaks my heart that Nihon is playing no part in this cycle, as an aside, to my knowledge there has not been a Manga or Anime produced with sailing as a central plot device, not sure why, it would be glorious! 

Share this post


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

Jesus. Any boat is dangerous if something goes wrong.

Yes any boat, at those speeds, is extremely dangerous from a safety perspective.  My reason for bringing it up wasn't so much a safety issue and more of a cost issue.  Looking back to AC34 when OR capsized their first boat, and it drifted out of SF bay and disintegrated, only OR had the money and personnel to rebuild that boat.  Fast forward to now.  Which out of the announced teams have the money and resources to do what OR did?  LR, probably.  ETNZ, AM and ITUK maybe? S&S and the others absolutely not.  Learning how to sail a AC75 without fucking it up is a huge factor heading into this cycle of the AC.

Also, just watched the "Foil Arm Story" video on the AC homepage.  That was an eye opening experience.  Good thing its OD.  ;)

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

Also, just watched the "Foil Arm Story" video on the AC homepage.  That was an eye opening experience.  Good thing its OD.  ;)

WetHog  :ph34r:

No, probably the most important and the only one which should not have been OD. We would have seen different concepts, different boats, it would have been very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were LR,INEOS or AM would you drop the few million for the ETNZ design package just to see the direction they are heading without necessarily using it?

Share this post


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

If you were LR,INEOS or AM would you drop the few million for the ETNZ design package just to see the direction they are heading without necessarily using it?

How would you know that you've received the best design package and not the first iteration? 

Share this post


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

Learning how to sail a AC75 without fucking it up is a huge factor heading into this cycle of the AC.

And, is a huge reason we are looking at only three challengers. 

We keep talking about the rich teams and the others, but the fact is that even the 'others' would need to pour tens of millions of dollars into a campaign just to make the starting line, much less being competitive. That's a shit load of money. To anyone. Add in high risk and it's really hard to see the reward to the spend. Imagine Tyler Canfield having a conversation with a potential sponsor: "Well, you see, if you give us $10,000,000 then we'll put your name on the side of the boat. Just be aware that if we crash in training we will not have enough money to rebuild and will not make the starting line and apart from a few poor saps on SA Anarchy no one will see your logo on our boat."

Take away some of that risk, however, and it's much easier to envision spending the money even for a starter campaign. So let the wealthy teams work out the problems in the first cycle (AC34, AC36) and then come in to challenge in the next cycle. 

It just makes sense. 

And it doesn't mean that either the AC72s or the AC75s are stupid, or that Larry is evil, or that ENTZ is greedy, or any of that shit. It just simply means there are few challengers because the platform is radical, untried, and expensive. Which just makes sense. Larry and Russell should have foreseen that seven years ago, and Dalton should have foreseen that  this time. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

How would you know that you've received the best design package and not the first iteration? 

I would presume ETNZ are not selling multiple design packages. You would think any team that purchases a design package is purchasing the same as any other team which purchased it.

Share this post


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

I would presume ETNZ are not selling multiple design packages. You would think any team that purchases a design package is purchasing the same as any other team which purchased it.

You should meet my friend from Nigeria, he's got a great proposition for you.:P

Share this post


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

Looking back to AC34 when OR capsized their first boat, and it drifted out of SF bay and disintegrated,

Light weight cats tensioned with wires and struts are not comparable to a mono when flipped. Both the Mule and Mini frack have been over multiple times and not suffered the damage you're referring to with OR's big cat. Yes they are down scale, but I think your comparison is flawed.

 

2 hours ago, 2Newts said:

if we crash in training we will not have enough money to rebuild and will not make the starting line

See above.

 

2 hours ago, 2Newts said:

It just simply means there are few challengers because the platform is radical, untried, and expensive.

Simulation tools have come a long way since AC34. In AC35, ETNZ wanted to build two boats, but didn't have the cash. So they invested in simulation tech, refined their design there, and built a single AC50 that won the cup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Light weight cats tensioned with wires and struts are not comparable to a mono when flipped. Both the Mule and Mini frack have been over multiple times and not suffered the damage you're referring to with OR's big cat. Yes they are down scale, but I think your comparison is flawed.

There is more to the AC75 then just the hull.  A lot can happen to a rig, with huge sails attached to it, when its in the water.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

in other words nothing new

Apart from the fact the old coot said they'd be out in by April...

Share this post


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

Apart from the fact the old coot said they'd be out in by April...

The only folk that wait breathlessly on a TE press release are stingRay and a4e.

Share this post


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

There is more to the AC75 then just the hull.  A lot can happen to a rig, with huge sails attached to it, when its in the water.

WetHog  :ph34r:

As we saw in San Francisco, a cat tensioned with cables and cross beams is susceptible to a much more catastrophically destructive disintegration than the AC75. The rig may break, but its easy enough to repair/ replace a rig, however if the rig breaks, and sets a destructive sequence in progress like we saw with Oracle and Artemis, and the boat itself disintegrates, there is no easy comeback from that. One hull is always safer than two hulls joined by cables. The AM 38 as well as the T5 have capsized multiple times and haven't missed a sailing day. Oracle was out for weeks following the capsize, and Artemis never came back from theirs.

Share this post


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

WetHog,

I think amongst the Challengers Ineos & AM would be able to rebuit Boat 1 should something happen with that Boat. They have the money but more importantly they have the Design People to get it done. LR is really an open Question when it comes to the Design.

And the notion by @Horn Rockwhere he sort of claims that an AC 75 wouldn't be as distructable as an AC 72 we saw in San Francisco is just pure nonsense. It's quite to the contrary: Because the AC 75s are less stable the likelyhood them breaking apart is much higher IMO compared to the AC 72.

Because?

Share this post


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

There is more to the AC75 then just the hull.  A lot can happen to a rig, with huge sails attached to it, when its in the water.

Again, the rig in a mono is much stiffer than a cat. You can't get the stay tension in cat when the mast is essentially stepped over nothing. The platform (hull) is not nearly so easily compromised than with a cat, which when it does, it all goes pear shaped. This is also why they went with ridged wings with the cats in AC34/35. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@rh2600you little clown:

Ask yourself this Question: Why haven't the Altus Challenge & DutchSail withdrawn yet? I think you already know the answer to that! ETNZ is using those two Challengers as a leverage to Auckland City Council to complete more than the three Bases required and get the funding for their New Zealand Clown Cup which was used to be called America's Cup.

They have 2 advantages, get the fundings from the city, then use the bases for extra revenues from mega yachts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 4:37 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

in other words nothing new

Some weeks ago I suggested that a semi-final might not be necessary. That still might be the case. It is not just the money, it is the technical ability within each team.

At least if teams buy ETNZ's design package they will be as good - or as bad - as ETNZ. They sometimes get it very right, for example the cyclors but they equally sometimes get it very wrong, for example the blue bucket or the hula.

I think the Dutch and the Malteze were dead in the water before they started. (I would love to be wrong) Other late challengers had the sense to duck out before their difficulties became quite so public whether those were financial or otherwise.

I haven't followed it too closely which, as a long time America's Cup fan, is a indicator (solely to myself) that The Cup has lost a bit of it's 'spark' in my eyes.

I would say though that is just my feeling, others may be intrigued by who will be there or not be there and will the boat actually stay upright and in one piece or not.

I think the defenders have struggled for interest this time round (and continue to do so) indicated by their pushing back of entry deadlines, then payment deadlines.

For example does anyone who has followed the saga more closely than I clearly haven't know if the Dutch, the Malteze or Stars & Stripes have actually paid anything yet to secure their lace at the table?

Just asking

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, M26 said:

That's gonna hurt! 


While it was being transported aboard a cargo, from the Caribbean to the Balearics it seems that Pierluigi Loro Piana's My Song, Baltic 130 (40 meters), fell into the sea: it happened Saturday night, in the Mediterranean. For now we have no other details to accompany the impressive photo that came to us from one of our sources.

https://www.giornaledellavela.com/2019/05/27/esclusivo-la-superbarca-di-40-metri-my-song-e-caduta-dal-cargo-che-la-trasportava/?fbclid=IwAR2O74tKksc9L0DKteTNhAKw2XihWb-yE9qdYK5difzXy4dB_dw4Hv8NKRY

That’ll teach the guy: should have funded an AC entry instead!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ETNZ end up with no customers for their design package- does that leave a big fat hole in their budget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strike3 said:

If ETNZ end up with no customers for their design package- does that leave a big fat hole in their budget?

Seeing as all figures quoted for the design package by posters on this forum seem to be suppositions I suppose it might, but then again I suppose it might not.

Bottom line is historically ETNZ have been pretty good at surviving with whatever amount of cash they can lay their hands on so any hole will be circumvented.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'f rather be on one of these AC75s that in the southern ocean All, All Alone after a failure on one of those flying machines!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 9:56 PM, Horn Rock said:

Again, the rig in a mono is much stiffer than a cat. You can't get the stay tension in cat when the mast is essentially stepped over nothing. The platform (hull) is not nearly so easily compromised than with a cat, which when it does, it all goes pear shaped. This is also why they went with ridged wings with the cats in AC34/35. 

Mono rigs have come crashing down in just a bad chop in AC’s past. Ask ETNZ fans.  Stands to reason one wouldn’t like hitting the water in a broach never mind during righting operations.  We will see how it goes soon enough.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites