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

"If its going to be hard, to achieve the goal, be it the prize or whatever, its not worth going into.

If its going to be really hard, almost put into the impossible bracket...then its worth going for"

- Peter Blake, Americas Cup 95 The Ultimate Prize.

Share this post


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

A country of less than 5 million people has won it 3 times. Other so called maritime nations need to step the fuck up. The whining and excuses we're getting - oh it's too hard, the technology is too difficult, we don't have enough sailors, the boats aren't safe, we don't have enough money......blah, blah, blah......Do you fuckin hear yourself? Stop the whinging, stop the excuses, and step the fuck up, and win the damn thing. So tired of the bullshit.....

Yes I hear myself. Do you hear yourself??? So are you going to put up the money in Australia? If I remember correctly you ducked out as CoR last time because "we don't have enough money" (Byron Bay is in Oz isn't it?)

There wouldn't be a 160+ year tradition without my home country GBR or actual nation Scotland (A country of less than 5 million people at the time).

Not whinging (no I am NOT a Pom) And why should anyone "step the fuck up" if the competition doesn't appeal? It is party offering entry doesn't make it attractive enough why should anyone buy into something they don't want to. A restrictive Protocol including effectively a re-written DoG and out there design certainly doesn't help.

Having said that it wouldn't be the first time attempts have been made to 'load the dice'. Competitors having to get to the race course on their own bottom, Keelgate in '83, CNEV CoR by Alinghi, are all elements in the past that have attempted to tip the balance in the defender's favour before racing even got started.

It always makes me smile when people with absolutely NO skin in the game spout off that SOMEONE ELSE should spend a ton of money when they don't want to.

I've been there - I've had to contact ACM and withdraw a challenge at the 11th hour because promises of financial input have not materialised. It's a big boys game and not easy to get people to spend millions they are not comfortable with spending whether private individuals or corporate bodies.

It is easy however to spout on a forum that "maritime nations need to step the fuck up".  Yeah I too am tired of bullshit!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

VERY difficult to win and VERY difficult to get sponsor ROI.

Okay Newts, you're first cab off the rank, so here we go. If you win it the ROI is all there and then some. It is difficult, but if you do manage to pull it off, the reward is stratospheric. You're immediately elevated to the pinnacle of the sailing world - the sailing toast of the globe - except for the Swiss whose win  was weirdly contrived - them not traditionally being sailors. Being so difficult makes winning it all the sweeter.

4 hours ago, Curious said:

These days, Kiwi sailors are still brilliant, but perhaps the concentration on the AC has dimmed the light in other areas of the sport.

I don't disagree with this statement. A small nation like NZ has had to focus its effort. The spin offs from winning the AC have been huge though. The NZ marine industry probably wouldn't be the force it is, without the success in the Whitbread and AC. Some tangible benefits there.

1 hour ago, shanghaisailor said:

(Byron Bay is in Oz isn't it?)

It is, but I'm a Kiwi. I think it's a pity corporate Aus has not backed a challenge, as clearly there is sailing talent in Oz.

1 hour ago, shanghaisailor said:

It is party offering entry doesn't make it attractive enough why should anyone buy into something they don't want to.

I'll tell yah, with that kind of attitude you're never going to win the cup. You're missing the essence of what it is to be a winner, which is to out think the other bastards in whatever rule they come up with. If all you can think of is why you don't want to compete, then you're gone before its started. Fear has never been a winning formula.

Share this post


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

 

A small nation like NZ has had to focus its effort.

 

The main talent of TNZ to win the cup was Guillaume Verdier and he is not from NZ.

Share this post


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

The main talent of TNZ to win the cup was Guillaume Verdier and he is not from NZ.

Your point being? Are you suggesting there hasn't been any input from NZers in their cup wins? Do you think one bloke is all it takes to win the AC?

Share this post


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

 

It is, but I'm a Kiwi. I think it's a pity corporate Aus has not backed a challenge, as clearly there is sailing talent in Oz.

I'll tell yah, with that kind of attitude you're never going to win the cup. You're missing the essence of what it is to be a winner, which is to out think the other bastards in whatever rule they come up with. If all you can think of is why you don't want to compete, then you're gone before its started. Fear has never been a winning formula.

On the first part I agree with you Horn Rock. As a sport we are singularly bad - very bad - at selling the benefits of high profile sport. 

Having been involved with AC & VOR it always amazes me how we cannot sell a 100' high billboard along 9 unique B2B opportunities to more than a handful of corporates. Dongfeng certainly benefitted from their VOR exposure and we were fully funded. So it is not corporates blame but I wonder sometimes if any of these sponsorship hunters ever attended selling 101. 

On the second comment it is not an attitude, it is called realism. It is not a matter of having the "essence of what it is to be a winner", it is not fear either, a closer description would be 'bang for the buck'. Whether that "bang" on a personal level is a suitable fun/stress ratio or in corporate terms ROI. In AC terms USD100m is a lot to fork out for what might be just half a dozen 30 minute races played on Star Sports. 

What is the signed media coverage of AC36 by the way? REALISM - corporates expect a profit on their exposure.

Not being negative, just wondering how one might expect a corporate body with responsibilities to shareholders to switch hats to being a benefactor of a sporting team or event with little hope of a positive ROI.

Think logic, not emotion.

Reasoned arguments, not personal brick-bats is what opens corporate cheque books.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The main talent of TNZ to win the cup was Guillaume Verdier and he is not from NZ.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SS, Horn Rock is a true, Kool Ade drinking, blinkered Kiwi, living in Aus and sucking the teat of his adopted country.  None of the likely sailing friendly corporates in Aus want a bar of AC.  Aus has been there and done that, doing what no other nation could do by winning the cup off the seppos in '83.  Aus sailing is more interested in the Sydney Hobart race with far more opportunities for exposure than AC as they see it.  I guess Aus should say to NZ why dont you put a maxi in the Hobart race. 

Share this post


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

If the argument is that it's harder for a challenger to beat a defender in AC than it is for any team to beat the previous winner in VOR then of course history proves this to be true... it's the simple reality of COR/D structure, and it's what makes the AC the AC.

If you think Fuji is a better ascent than Everest because it's 'easier', then good for you. But the people who enter the AC and VOR don't do it because they are easy - but because, as JFK perfectly said "they are hard; because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept..."

To rate either event by their 'easiness to win' dismisses the effort of either endeavour (both of which are fucking hard!), and frankly is the attitude that originates from weakness and arrives at mediocrity and failure - something like likes of A4E is all too familiar with.

I'm not sure anything can be put better than the late great Sir Peter Blake's letter to Prada following their defeat to Team New Zealand in the 2000 America's Cup:

 

"The America's Cup is an elusive trophy, and has rarely changed hands in the last 150 years. This is not a sport for the faint hearted. It is not a quest to take lightly or on a whim. It is a fight between sailors from yacht clubs all over the world that desperately want the same thing: get their hands on the Cup.

The prestige for the winner has more value than any other sporting achievement. It's winning the invincible and doing the impossible that attract sailors, dreamers and millionaires, but the victory is not easy, and most of the time it doesn't happen. The only way to win is to continuously participate, continuously return time and time again with the conviction that you can do it. Hesitating after the first attempt is not part of the rules of the game. You need extraordinary people with ferocious motivation, lots of experience and attention to details and unconditional dedication.

The game is uncertain; for all you can dedicate, for all that you can motivate, and for all that you are willing to spend the victory is never guaranteed. For some it becomes a kind of drug. It is a game that you can come to deeply hate, to then discover that you can't live without it at least not until you win.

Then there's the metamorphosis (at least that is what happened to me). I was part of a crew that succeeded in winning the America's Cup at least once and successfully defending it.

I was finally free of the tightness in my mouth and in my stomach. I am paid. I am cured. I go to sleep at night and dream other dreams. New passions are being born inside of me. Just so that it is clear, competing for the America's Cup is a game of passion, of dreams when in every waking moment (and while you are asleep) you have only one unique thought and that is winning but the victory is uncertain until you have it in your hands.

The delusion and the disappointment hurts even when the others are suffering, imagine trying it out on your own hide.

You keep asking yourself "how?" and "why?" for weeks until you find the determination to try again, to not repeat the same mistakes, to do it better than before, to be better that the rest of the world, to be the best and then the anxiety becomes dreams and passions all over again. The thought of winning never ever abandons you but it is better to leave it on the side and concentrate on a new objective: to be the best in every phase of the new challenge. Nothing is left alone, not even the smallest detail.

But this doesn't happen just because you want it to. You need a team of exceptional people who share the same dream and the same passion and are not scared even when odds are against them. It's the difficulty of the challenge that puts the adrenalin in your veins that may have been weakened by the previous defeat.

The America's Cup is what it is because it is so difficult to win. It is not a game for armchairs admirals. It is not a game for a person who is not prepared to come back. It is not a game for the faint hearted. It is a game for those who are not scared of pitting themselves against the best that the world has to offer. It's a game where winning is almost impossible, almost, but not impossible. And this is why it is worth fighting for. It is the difficulty that gives any challenge some sense. This is the essence of life itself.

To all the people in Team Prada who are telling their story in this book, I would like to say, I admire your sportsmanship, your tenacity and your enthusiasm for life. You have given all of us a really positive image of your country and your countrymen will be proud of you. This time you didn't win but certainly didn't lose. You only lose when you don't have the courage to return. Not winning is part of the learning process which leads you to success. Because it is also a question of luck. It won't be easy.

The best things never are."

What a pile of self serving crap. Putting up a competitive team in the VOT is always going to be easier than the AC. Both are hard, one is just harder. No need to compare it to Everest and Fuji. That is just being a complete asshole. But then again it seems to suit you. 

As for quoting Blake, just seems to prove my point that it is really hard. Maybe this just passed you by in your head rush to feel important and erudite. 

Share this post


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

Your point being? Are you suggesting there hasn't been any input from NZers in their cup wins? Do you think one bloke is all it takes to win the AC?

I think his point is that it has never been purely a kiwi victory. We have been happy to use anyone that can help. Unfortunately many supporters seem to think it is a purely kiwi thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Okay Newts, you're first cab off the rank, so here we go. If you win it the ROI is all there and then some. It is difficult, but if you do manage to pull it off, the reward is stratospheric. 

This is the fairytale used to justify the whole event. The market is small and the ROI is small. As sailors we like to pretend that the AC is some huuuuuge event that the world would love to watch and be involved in, if only we could work out how to package and monetise it. TNZ needed it most at first as they were dependent on sponsors. Now most teams are in the same boat. So they all run with the scheme that it is really valuable if only the dumb ass public would understand what they are missing. 

Except it isn’t. No matter how much lipstick you put on it, it isn’t and never will be, a major league sport. In the meantime it is throwing the limited number of supporters under the bus trying to prove ROI is achievable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think his point is that it has never been purely a kiwi victory.

I understand that. We had Peterson in 95, and significant others from outside NZ ever since.

13 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Except it isn’t. No matter how much lipstick you put on it, it isn’t and never will be, a major league sport.

I agree, yet it has an esoteric quality that's hard to define. It still attracts wealthy men willing to stump up ridiculous amount of readies to win the damn thing. The TNZ model is somewhat unique, as is its support base, and it has enjoyed considerable success. Stars and Stripes are even trying to emulate it. The AC defies logic on plenty of levels, but here we are gearing up for another round of it, complete with all its absurdities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trt131 said:

Kiwi, living in Aus and sucking the teat of his adopted country.

Yeah nah. As a primary producer I contribute significantly to the tax base in Aus.

2 hours ago, trt131 said:

Aus sailing is more interested in the Sydney Hobart race with far more opportunities for exposure than AC as they see it. 

You wouldn't be happy if Aus had a well funded challenge featuring Aussies considerable sailing talent having a crack at the Auld mug?

2 hours ago, trt131 said:

I guess Aus should say to NZ why dont you put a maxi in the Hobart race. 

We have on more than one occasion, even winning it once or twice.

Share this post


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

What a pile of self serving crap. Putting up a competitive team in the VOT is always going to be easier than the AC. Both are hard, one is just harder. No need to compare it to Everest and Fuji. That is just being a complete asshole. But then again it seems to suit you. 

As for quoting Blake, just seems to prove my point that it is really hard. Maybe this just passed you by in your head rush to feel important and erudite. 

Gissie, you may have walked into the crossfire of a typically contaminated troll attempt by A4E/dg_sailingfanny. This wasn't a debate about putting up a team, it was about one being easier to win, as if making it easier to win makes it more a worthy competition. 

Nothing wrong with Fuji, maybe just a poor example on my part...

As for Blake? Yeah, he won the Whitbread too - after five attempts and 17 years of trying. The AC? Oh he won that on his second attempt, so surely by that measure the AC is easier to win? Except it's much more complex than that eh... like trying to say winning FIFA world cup is harder than winning EUFA or vice-versa... totally subjective and frankly pointless discussion, unless you have an axe to grind with one of them (see A4E)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last successful, as a whole, AC cycle was AC32.  Why was it successful?  IMO, location was a part of it, then the number/diversity of the teams participating, introduction of "Acts" had a role and finally (and the most important factor IMO) the boats which produced arguably the most competitive Cup final in a long time ('83?).  The Version 5 boats couldn't hold a candle speed wise to the drag racer type boats of the last 12 years but the V5 boats could match race and thats what the AC is above all else.  A match race.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Your point being? Are you suggesting there hasn't been any input from NZers in their cup wins? Do you think one bloke is all it takes to win the AC?

Your point is that NZ has to focus on limited resources, it is nice to say it but simply not true. Without denying the contribution of the others in the team, money is coming from outside and is not limited to NZ, designers are coming from the outside and not limited either. 

Share this post


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

Your point is that NZ has to focus on limited resources, it is nice to say it but simply not true. Without denying the contribution of the others in the team, money is coming from outside and is not limited to NZ, designers are coming from the outside and not limited either.

Are you telling me Emirates is not a NZ company? Matteo DeNora is not a Kiwi? What about Omega?  Seriously though, you like to labour some extremely insignificant points in your quest to land body blows on NZ.

Share this post


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

The main talent of TNZ to win the cup was Guillaume Verdier and he is not from NZ.

It is nonsense to attribute the winning of the cup to one person but as you have made such a claim you would be wrong.  I would point out that Grant Dalton recruited and lead the necessary talent to success and he raised the necessary finance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 5:02 PM, Curious said:

I'm not an aerodynamics expert but as noted earlier, some of the real experts have said that there's no inherent advantage in thick foil in sails and that seems to chime with a lot of real-world experience. So it's hard to see why this AC will create any significant breakthrough in the adoption of double-skin sails.

Any links to the quotes from those real experts? I would think the thickness matters. I am not sure exactly how much. But in a sail, a little improvement in power to drag ratio is pretty  advantageous. My impression is that a hard wing is 2x the power to drag ratio of a soft sail on a round, non-rotating mast. An aero section rotating mast is better, and and a wide chord one is even better. I don't know what the numbers are for the twin skin, but if it gives you 10% or 25% improvement that seems like it might be worth the hassle. 1% to 5% maybe not so much. I gather that boats like WOXI don't even have rotating masts, so... And RTW boats probably don't want the extra hassle. I guess we shall see!

Share this post


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

Grant Dalton recruited and lead the necessary talent to success and he raised the necessary finance.

Dalts ability to raise funding is an underrated aspect of ETNZ's success. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are you telling me Emirates is not a NZ company? Matteo DeNora is not a Kiwi? What about Omega?  Seriously though, you like to labour some extremely insignificant points in your quest to land body blows on NZ.

NZ has great sailors, Peter Blake is my favourite, RC is a great one too, like it or not. However it is tiresome to hear the fans repeatedly brag that NZ is the only reason of success and that the entire world conspire against them.

Emirates is a subsidiary of The Emirates Group, which is wholly owned by the government of Dubai's Investment Corporation of Dubai.

I will call the bullshit, however the fans interpret it.

Share this post


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

Any links to the quotes from those real experts? I would think the thickness matters. I am not sure exactly how much. But in a sail, a little improvement in power to drag ratio is pretty  advantageous. My impression is that a hard wing is 2x the power to drag ratio of a soft sail on a round, non-rotating mast. An aero section rotating mast is better, and and a wide chord one is even better. I don't know what the numbers are for the twin skin, but if it gives you 10% or 25% improvement that seems like it might be worth the hassle. 1% to 5% maybe not so much. I gather that boats like WOXI don't even have rotating masts, so... And RTW boats probably don't want the extra hassle. I guess we shall see!

Well, I think one of them is still on SA do I don't want to mis-quote him. Over at Boat Design Forum or here, he has said that there is no fundamental reason why a soft sail is less efficient if designed to avoid weather side separation (which can be problematic) and that is has the ability to adopt to different conditions which can give it the edge over a wing. 

One of the other real experts is Professor Mark Drela of MIT, who has also worked on AC rigs, and is a renowned expert in aerodynamics. On Boat Design Forum he wrote ""Thin airfoils are capable of the highest CL and CL/CD values, but only within a narrow CL range (or alpha range)......such a thin airfoil is pretty much out of the question on an airplane, even before structural consideration are brought in. But a soft sail allows the possibility of changing the camber of a thin airfoil, which can greatly extend the low-drag range if done appropriately. So a thin airfoil which always has the appropriate camber shape dialed in at any given operating point will in general be superior to a thick airfoil. " (Note - my emphasis)

Prof Drela notes that within a narrow range the thin airfoils L/D ratio is "phenomenal" but that outside that range the drag "skyrockets" which (as I understand it) is the reason they are no longer used on aircraft where the consequences of rapid changes can make you crash instead of just slowing down as in boats. On an old post on a RC aircraft forum he referred to the outstanding amount of shape control that an IACC style rig provided to trimmers; something that he said, if I recall correctly, that a wing can never match.

Prof Drela also points out that the common belief that aircraft wing technology must be better than soft sails is incorrect; "What type of wing or sail is best for any type of vehicle depends a great deal on what dominates the drag of the vehicle...On a sailplane, the D_wingsail (wing profile + induced drags) is nearly everything. D_parasite (fuselage + tail) is tiny by comparison. So L/D ~ L / D_wingsail which is maximized with a slender cantilever wing like you see on any sailplane. But on a sailboat, D_parasite (hull hydro + aero drags) is huge by comparison. So to maximize L/D you want a large lift L to "dilute" this large D_parasite, even if D_wingsail is also made large as a result. Large lift naturally favors multi-element sails, for all the reasons listed by AMO Smith. This is especially the case if the sail area is constrained by rules or whatever."

One of the things that people involved in the USA17 wing have said is that part of the wing's success was that they are structurally a good way of making a tall rig stand under the vast loads of such craft; the leach loads on a soft sail like that are extreme. The leach loads on a soft wing at foiling speeds may well be something rather fantastic; the Moths and Formula boards may be the best miniature examples of that sort of thing in some ways and they carry vast loads in their running rigging.

The other thing is that there have been lots and lots of attempts at doing double-surface soft sails, and lots and lots of failures to create anything that is superior to single skin sails.  Many of these attempts seem to have involved much more time, money and effort than was involved in things like introducing assy kites, racks for skiffs, the original Windsurfer, the early cats, Bruce Farr's first yacht, carbon skiff masts, and a whole lot of other real breakthroughs. Obviously the list I gave includes some very different technologies but the point is that the claim "soft wings are much better but haven't had enough work put in" may not stand up since so many design breakthroughs took much less work.  I'm NOT saying that soft wings can't work, of course, merely saying that some explanations for their lack of success do not seem to stand up, which may indicate the concept doesn't work as claimed. 

Part of my questioning is because I sail a few types of craft with rotating masts or similar devices, and we just don't seem to see the sort of performance difference that the theory claims for them. It's hard to quantify but I'd guess that de-rotating the mast, which theoretically should have a dramatic effect on efficiency, actually has about as much effect as the jib lead being 4" out of position, or forgetting to pull the outhaul on after the run.  Some gurus have de-rotated the wingmasts, which according to some theories should do horrible things to their efficiency, and gone faster because the gain in depowering or twist is greater than the loss in profile drag. If these masts were working as the theory says it would seem that such de-rotation should slow them right down, but it doesn't. And that's on craft that are unusually well suited to such devices.

In a normal boat, parasitic drag is inherently higher and as Prof Drela says that changes the whole equation; what may work on an AC72 or AC75 may be completely unsuited to the higher drag of a popular boat.

I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means, but it seems reasonable to ask the question of how well the double skin will work and whether it will ever trickle down very far. It's actually could have been better if they had made them an option rather than a requirement as that could really have settled some issues.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

NZ has great sailors, Peter Blake is my favourite, RC is a great one too, like it or not. However it is tiresome to hear the fans repeatedly brag that NZ is the only reason of success and that the entire world conspire against them.

Emirates is a subsidiary of The Emirates Group, which is wholly owned by the government of Dubai's Investment Corporation of Dubai.

I will call the bullshit, however the fans interpret it.

Nobody has ever said "The entire world is conspiring against them" thats just the rhetoric you've dreamed in your head.

The problem is you choose to ignore the facts. If we go back to the start, BMW Oracle Racing dragged the Americas Cup, as an event through the courts, effectively halting the momentum the Americas Cup, as an event had gained from successful events in 1995, 2000, 2003, and 2007. The main tagline for the court battle was representing all challengers, for the good of all challengers, as well as the event.

The problem was, the majority of the issues they took Alinghi to task over, they turned around and did themselves.

We all know the cheating scandal involving Oracle Team USA during the 2013 cycle, as well as the spying infringement which cost them valuable training time on the water as well as a financial penalty. Was it a coincidence that the only ACWS regatta Oracle won that year, was the one they got caught cheating in? It did force them to hand the trophy back, which as a result saw ETNZ crowned season champions.

This was on top of a Challenger series which saw the lowest number of challengers in recent history (at that time). Infact the only reason there was a Challenger series at all, was thanks to ETNZ and LR, as Artemis Racing wasn't going to be ready until the semi finals of that year.

Next we saw the Jury decision regarding the Rudder elevator scandal, where Oracle would attempt to amend the class rule off the back of the Coast Guard Safety Recommendations, which would see Luna Rossa refuse to race the beginning of the Challenger series and ETNZ racing the course by themselves. ETNZ would go on to win the jury decision.

The Americas Cup would see yet another scandal involving Oracle Team USA's AC72 control system which enabled them to leapfrog ETNZ and ultimately win the cup - to this day, in some circles still a controversial decision - worth noting it was Daltons decision to take the jury's decision and the defeat.

Fast forward to AC35 and the controversies involving an inability to come to terms on an agreement to hold the event in their home waters of San Francisco, a qualifying event to be held in Auckland, signed and agreed to by the AC Commissioner harvey Schiller which was broken and ultimately led to Schiller losing his job, and almost forced ETNZ to close its doors, which again went to the arbitration panel which ruled in favor of ETNZ and forced a financial compensation payment and a gag order to be imposed preventing the outcome being made public.

These aren't conspiracies - well, okay, maybe the "Herbie" claim is, but the "Herbie" conspiracy came off he back of Oracle Team USA's inability to follow the rules and their seemingly willingness to infringe those rules.

The rest of it is Facts. So whether through sloppy management, or malicious intent, Oracle Team USA showed a repeated compulsion to infringe their own rules. Given ETNZ has been the strongest challenger for a long time, these infringements whether directly, or indirectly impacted/ disadvantaged ETNZ more than any other challenger.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guess what, Harvey Schiller is now a strategic advisor to SailGP. Laissez led bon temps rouler!

Share this post


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

Hey guess what, Harvey Schiller is now a strategic advisor to SailGP. Laissez led bon temps rouler!

Well they had to give him something after Firing him! Just don't let him make any deals lol

Share this post


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

Well, I think one of them is still on SA do I don't want to mis-quote him. Over at Boat Design Forum or here, he has said that there is no fundamental reason why a soft sail is less efficient if designed to avoid weather side separation (which can be problematic) and that is has the ability to adopt to different conditions which can give it the edge over a wing. 

One of the other real experts is Professor Mark Drela of MIT, who has also worked on AC rigs, and is a renowned expert in aerodynamics. On Boat Design Forum he wrote ""Thin airfoils are capable of the highest CL and CL/CD values, but only within a narrow CL range (or alpha range)......such a thin airfoil is pretty much out of the question on an airplane, even before structural consideration are brought in. But a soft sail allows the possibility of changing the camber of a thin airfoil, which can greatly extend the low-drag range if done appropriately. So a thin airfoil which always has the appropriate camber shape dialed in at any given operating point will in general be superior to a thick airfoil. " (Note - my emphasis)

Prof Drela notes that within a narrow range the thin airfoils L/D ratio is "phenomenal" but that outside that range the drag "skyrockets" which (as I understand it) is the reason they are no longer used on aircraft where the consequences of rapid changes can make you crash instead of just slowing down as in boats. On an old post on a RC aircraft forum he referred to the outstanding amount of shape control that an IACC style rig provided to trimmers; something that he said, if I recall correctly, that a wing can never match.

Prof Drela also points out that the common belief that aircraft wing technology must be better than soft sails is incorrect; "What type of wing or sail is best for any type of vehicle depends a great deal on what dominates the drag of the vehicle...On a sailplane, the D_wingsail (wing profile + induced drags) is nearly everything. D_parasite (fuselage + tail) is tiny by comparison. So L/D ~ L / D_wingsail which is maximized with a slender cantilever wing like you see on any sailplane. But on a sailboat, D_parasite (hull hydro + aero drags) is huge by comparison. So to maximize L/D you want a large lift L to "dilute" this large D_parasite, even if D_wingsail is also made large as a result. Large lift naturally favors multi-element sails, for all the reasons listed by AMO Smith. This is especially the case if the sail area is constrained by rules or whatever."

One of the things that people involved in the USA17 wing have said is that part of the wing's success was that they are structurally a good way of making a tall rig stand under the vast loads of such craft; the leach loads on a soft sail like that are extreme. The leach loads on a soft wing at foiling speeds may well be something rather fantastic; the Moths and Formula boards may be the best miniature examples of that sort of thing in some ways and they carry vast loads in their running rigging.

The other thing is that there have been lots and lots of attempts at doing double-surface soft sails, and lots and lots of failures to create anything that is superior to single skin sails.  Many of these attempts seem to have involved much more time, money and effort than was involved in things like introducing assy kites, racks for skiffs, the original Windsurfer, the early cats, Bruce Farr's first yacht, carbon skiff masts, and a whole lot of other real breakthroughs. Obviously the list I gave includes some very different technologies but the point is that the claim "soft wings are much better but haven't had enough work put in" may not stand up since so many design breakthroughs took much less work.  I'm NOT saying that soft wings can't work, of course, merely saying that some explanations for their lack of success do not seem to stand up, which may indicate the concept doesn't work as claimed. 

Part of my questioning is because I sail a few types of craft with rotating masts or similar devices, and we just don't seem to see the sort of performance difference that the theory claims for them. It's hard to quantify but I'd guess that de-rotating the mast, which theoretically should have a dramatic effect on efficiency, actually has about as much effect as the jib lead being 4" out of position, or forgetting to pull the outhaul on after the run.  Some gurus have de-rotated the wingmasts, which according to some theories should do horrible things to their efficiency, and gone faster because the gain in depowering or twist is greater than the loss in profile drag. If these masts were working as the theory says it would seem that such de-rotation should slow them right down, but it doesn't. And that's on craft that are unusually well suited to such devices.

In a normal boat, parasitic drag is inherently higher and as Prof Drela says that changes the whole equation; what may work on an AC72 or AC75 may be completely unsuited to the higher drag of a popular boat.

I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means, but it seems reasonable to ask the question of how well the double skin will work and whether it will ever trickle down very far. It's actually could have been better if they had made them an option rather than a requirement as that could really have settled some issues.

 

When thinking about the double skinned sail, I don't think any of the comments about camber are relevant, since you can have the same camber as a single sail. I do get the part about that it may not trickle down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point is that ""Thin airfoils are capable of the highest CL and CL/CD values....".  There are other pieces around on BDF and other sources by an expert who has designed AC wingsails stating that for a given design point a thinner airfoil will perform better than a thick one, but since that person is sometimes here I don't want to speak for him. 

The point about camber is that thin foils are less forgiving of getting the wrong camber for the conditions than a thick foil is, so with a thin foil you need to be able to adjust camber. The fact that a double skin can have the same camber as a single sail is irrelevant.

So to get back to the point; aerodynamics experts who have designed AC wingsails say that thick airfoils are not better per se than thin ones and that a thin foil can be more efficient in terms of CL and CL/CD, therefore there is little reason to think that a double skin sail will be quicker.  One thing I find really interesting about this information is that it goes with what happens in real life, which shows that the theoretical advantages often claimed for thick foils or thick leading edges don't work out in reality.

 

Share this post


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

The main point is that ""Thin airfoils are capable of the highest CL and CL/CD values....".  There are other pieces around on BDF and other sources by an expert who has designed AC wingsails stating that for a given design point a thinner airfoil will perform better than a thick one, but since that person is sometimes here I don't want to speak for him. 

The point about camber is that thin foils are less forgiving of getting the wrong camber for the conditions than a thick foil is, so with a thin foil you need to be able to adjust camber. The fact that a double skin can have the same camber as a single sail is irrelevant.

So to get back to the point; aerodynamics experts who have designed AC wingsails say that thick airfoils are not better per se than thin ones and that a thin foil can be more efficient in terms of CL and CL/CD, therefore there is little reason to think that a double skin sail will be quicker.  One thing I find really interesting about this information is that it goes with what happens in real life, which shows that the theoretical advantages often claimed for thick foils or thick leading edges don't work out in reality.

 

When you have a large righting moment and 50 knot speeds a fat mast is an automatic ingredient.  Thin foils are not so good when you are trying to do 50 knots and have a fat mast blocking the flow.  Twin skins with fat masts seem to be mandatory.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It is nonsense to attribute the winning of the cup to one person but as you have made such a claim you would be wrong.

 Obviously a Cup is won by a team but without Guillaume Verdier you would not have the AC75.

Share this post


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

Nobody has ever said "The entire world is conspiring against them" thats just the rhetoric you've dreamed in your head.

 

For me the beginning of the end for TNZ was when they claimed that all teams were conspiring against them because they were willing to choose the AC50.

Share this post


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

they claimed that all teams were conspiring against them because they were willing to choose the AC50.

ETNZ didn't sign the framework agreement. The other teams that did were against them. This is common knowledge.

3 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

For me the beginning of the end for TNZ

Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to insanity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 Obviously a Cup is won by a team but without Guillaume Verdier you would not have the AC75.

Nice little video on Guillaume Verdier

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in the last Cup cycle, all the teams except ETNZ were indeed colluding to continue in the 50 ft class regardless of which won (clearly OTAUS expected to but perhaps wanted a tame CoR). 

So I am not a rabid NZ fan but my tin hat does twitch a bit and I would not disagree it was an "us all vs them" thing.  So it was fucking hilarious ETNZ won so handily.

But this is now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

For me the beginning of the end for TNZ was when they claimed that all teams were conspiring against them because they were willing to choose the AC50.

The problem ETNZ had (if we're referring to the replacement of the AC62 class rule) was not that it happened at all, but that it happened late into the cycle when both ETNZ and LR were well into the design stage of their AC62. Coupled with this was the fact that the decision to replace the AC62 came with the stipulation that the Auckland qualifier would also be pulled, even though it was already signed and agreed to. At the time, ETNZ was very much dependent on government funding, which would also not eventuate if the Auckland qualifier was pulled.

Given that this decision directly impacted ETNZ's financial situation late into the cycle, as well as forcing them to file a protest to the Arbitration panel which would also be time critical, it is hardly surprising they would feel "conspired against" as it was widely reported that at least one challenging team (apparently) voiced their disapproval of the Auckland qualifier. The problem was, once the Auckland qualifier was signed, what the teams "wanted" became irrelevant. They would have to either come to Auckland and participate, or kiss their Americas Cup aspirations goodbye. The rest is history. Again, these are facts you choose to ignore.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I am willing to stipulate the other teams chose a path that was going to fuck over ETNZ.  Was it a conspiracy or did it "just work out that way"? 

Well, rather that explore that distinction for the rest of my days, I reflect that in my own experience things like racial profiling, redlining neighborhoods, and school admissions have all been variously described as "just working out that way, not based on discrimination."  So the effect is what I look at, not the mental state of the doers.

The fact that the path those doers chose ended up with ETNZ winning the way it did is a great testament to ETNZ.  Man plans, God laughs. 

 

Share this post


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

@NeedAClew,

The Bottom Line is: It's now New Zealands AC. The Ball is now in their Court!

As yourself these Questions:

Has ETNZ done better than OTUSA since winning AC35 in Bermuda 2017? Are we better off or ain't we? The only thing they managed to do was release the Protocol sort of on time. All the other significant Issues got delayed.

# 1 The AC75 Class Rule should have been released with the Protocol or at least a couple of weeks after that. It took ETNZ/LR a Full two months to release the Concepts to the so called "Stakeholders" and half a year later to publish the Full AC75 Class Rule.

# 2 The First Event, the so called "America's Cup Overture Promotional Event" took place a Full 14 Months after their victory in Bermuda

# 3 The Foil Arm Issues

# 4 Constantly changing the Protocol to give the "3 Late Challengers" multiple lifelines and not respecting the other 3 Teams who complied to everything the Protocol stipulated.

# 5 No America's Cup World Series Events in 2019 as originally planned in the Protocol.

and lastly

# 6 Either as many Challengers as in Bermuda or even fewer Challengers depending on DutchSail and Stars & Stripes Team USA.

All this talk having 7-8 Challengers by Mr. Grant Dalton was just pure nonsense.

Are we better off? Yes.

Why? Because we now have teams who are not beholden to the Defender, and who's intentions are to win, as opposed to help the defender retain.

The "Stakeholders" were kept informed of the concept well before it was released. On INEOS Team UK's Facebook page they were hyping the release of the new boat concept well before it was released.

The Foil Arm issues were a setback which has since been resolved through a collaborative effort by all teams. When was the last time that happened? Certainly not during Oracles tenure as defender.

"Constantly changing the protocol" - You're kidding right? First Oracle used the Protocol to replace the class rule last time, late into the cycle, at the behest of the two strongest challengers.

It has been explained and accepted by all teams that the first ACWS event be delayed due to the foil arm setback. 

Oracle talked 10-13 challengers, so that was also pure nonsense.

Russell and Larry couldn't bring the teams together the way ETNZ has. There is now a collaborative effort by all teams to ensure the event is the best it can be. There are no Jury decisions pending, and any disputes there has been have been quickly resolved and the outcome made public, again the exact opposite we saw during the Oracle tenure. We never saw a collaborative approach from all teams during the Oracle tenure, infact we saw the exact opposite. #LetsGetDalton

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are you really serious on that? Everyone wants to win so there is no collaboration between the Teams, certainly not between Ineos, American Magic and ETNZ. Maybe it is between ETNZ/LR cuz they actually responsible for running the Event. Don't post such crap.

 

Both videos state a collaborative effort. So how about you stop posting crap dickhead!

Share this post


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

For me the beginning of the end for TNZ was when they claimed that all teams were conspiring against them because they were willing to choose the AC50.

You're saying there was no collusion?  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With OTAUS as Defender we had a narcissistic billionaire and his multimillionaire lackeys plotting and scheming in the name of sport.

With ETNZ as Defender we have a passionate group of team advocates and some meddling squabblers like me yammering away online and some actual teams sincerely trying to compete albeit with some possibly questionable sponsors.  

I think the Cup is better off now. Asked, answered.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

The problem ETNZ had (if we're referring to the replacement of the AC62 class rule) was not that it happened at all, but that it happened late into the cycle when both ETNZ and LR were well into the design stage of their AC62. Coupled with this was the fact that the decision to replace the AC62 came with the stipulation that the Auckland qualifier would also be pulled, even though it was already signed and agreed to. At the time, ETNZ was very much dependent on government funding, which would also not eventuate if the Auckland qualifier was pulled.

Given that this decision directly impacted ETNZ's financial situation late into the cycle, as well as forcing them to file a protest to the Arbitration panel which would also be time critical, it is hardly surprising they would feel "conspired against" as it was widely reported that at least one challenging team (apparently) voiced their disapproval of the Auckland qualifier. The problem was, once the Auckland qualifier was signed, what the teams "wanted" became irrelevant. They would have to either come to Auckland and participate, or kiss their Americas Cup aspirations goodbye. The rest is history. Again, these are facts you choose to ignore.

Did we ever know the outcome of the arbitration panel? I understand it ruled in ETNZ's favour but I don't remember hearing what the compensation was.

Share this post


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

With OTAUS as Defender we had a narcissistic billionaire and his multimillionaire lackeys plotting and scheming in the name of sport.

With ETNZ as Defender we have a passionate group of team advocates and some meddling squabblers like me yammering away online and some actual teams sincerely trying to compete albeit with some possibly questionable sponsors.  

I think the Cup is better off now. Asked, answered.

I agree. AC36 is being run within the spirit of the cup. AC35 was a fucking disgrace with the late overturn of the AC62, defender and challengers agreeing to the format of the next cup, a second boat campaign run under the guise of another flag, the all out attempts to sideline a specific challenger (cancellation of the Auckland WS event was a calculated, professional foul) etc etc

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^And OTAUS defended in Bermuda. 

Sorry, but either it was a crass financial move by one of the 10 richest people on the planet and his cronies, or OTAUS was such a pita no US city wanted to host. Or both.  In any case, the Cup is now being defended in the home country of the Defender. Better.

Share this post


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

The problem ETNZ had (if we're referring to the replacement of the AC62 class rule) was not that it happened at all, but that it happened late into the cycle when both ETNZ and LR were well into the design stage of their AC62. Coupled with this was the fact that the decision to replace the AC62 came with the stipulation that the Auckland qualifier would also be pulled, even though it was already signed and agreed to. At the time, ETNZ was very much dependent on government funding, which would also not eventuate if the Auckland qualifier was pulled.

Given that this decision directly impacted ETNZ's financial situation late into the cycle, as well as forcing them to file a protest to the Arbitration panel which would also be time critical, it is hardly surprising they would feel "conspired against" as it was widely reported that at least one challenging team (apparently) voiced their disapproval of the Auckland qualifier. The problem was, once the Auckland qualifier was signed, what the teams "wanted" became irrelevant. They would have to either come to Auckland and participate, or kiss their Americas Cup aspirations goodbye. The rest is history. Again, these are facts you choose to ignore.

The choice of the AC50 had nothing to do against TNZ and everything with making it cheaper to attract more challengers. It did not impact TNZ, they won. LR had just wrongly interpreted the protocol and the rule.

The "collusion" to keep the AC50 was not a conspiracy against TNZ but to keep the present challengers. TNZ refused to join all the other challengers on that way, most probably because they had secret agreement with LR who helped them win.  The consequence of the decision is that instead of having a big AC with lots of challengers they have a small one. Square and simple.

As far as impacting the teams, the present multiple changes of the protocol and delays are much more damaging for the "super challengers".

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

LR had just wrongly interpreted the protocol and the rule.

No doubt LR fucked up. Not for wrongly interpreting the design rule (pretty obviously 62ft not 50ft!) but for surrendering their COR status and allowing a majority vote ... which lead to the overturn of the rule.

Share this post


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

No doubt LR fucked up. Not for wrongly interpreting the design rule (pretty obviously 62ft not 50ft!) but for surrendering their COR status and allowing a majority vote ... which lead to the overturn of the rule.

IIRC, they also missed the fact that the new prot allowed to change of the boat by majority and not unanimity.

Share this post


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

You're saying there was no collusion?  ;)

^^ Take the tin foil hat off, majority is not collusion. ;)

Share this post


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

^^ Take the tin foil hat off, majority is not collusion. ;)

The number or proportion of parties has zero bearing on the definition of collusion... it just needs two or more parties... but in this case it was also the majority.

685157098_ScreenShot2019-06-06at12_46_01PM.png.b3b5f071c24184e620cac447f778123a.png

Was there an agreement between two or more parties? Yes

Was the terms of the agreement keep a secret from the other parties? Yes 

Was the agreement to the detriment of the other parties? Yes

1501598701_ScreenShot2019-06-06at12_58_39PM.png.f273f5ad121f39ba590743b390fda4a1.png

 

Share this post


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

The choice of the AC50 had nothing to do against TNZ and everything with making it cheaper to attract more challengers. It did not impact TNZ, they won. LR had just wrongly interpreted the protocol and the rule.

The "collusion" to keep the AC50 was not a conspiracy against TNZ but to keep the present challengers. TNZ refused to join all the other challengers on that way, most probably because they had secret agreement with LR who helped them win.  The consequence of the decision is that instead of having a big AC with lots of challengers they have a small one. Square and simple.

As far as impacting the teams, the present multiple changes of the protocol and delays are much more damaging for the "super challengers".

L.O.L do you even read what you write before you post it? That whole comment is insanity. You sir, have officially lost your mind.

Just because they won, does not mean it did not impact them. It forced ETNZ to go in a different direction (simulation) due in large part to the breach of agreement between Schiller and ACEA and ETNZ. No government funding meant no boat building until funds were secured from somewhere else.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea Breeze 74 said:

Did we ever know the outcome of the arbitration panel? I understand it ruled in ETNZ's favour but I don't remember hearing what the compensation was.

No. Because after having an independent jury (comprised of an independent international jurors appointed by World Sailing) find them guilty of cheating in AC34, OTUSA removed the jury and installed their own arbitration panel for AC35, the composition of which was (and still is) a secret. Furthermore, they made it so that any findings of this panel would be kept secret too.

They also appear to have made this part of the framework agreement.

Lone Wolf again... makes interesting, compelling and frankly depressing reading...

727639418_ScreenShot2019-06-06at1_03_33PM.png.f460174522cbff9993dd22dfe65569b0.png

1566607747_ScreenShot2019-06-06at1_04_36PM.png.45b2a5b478fa5cb361e8c9809b94842d.png

490061976_ScreenShot2019-06-06at1_04_56PM.png.8bad773e0074de38c2f7c4e18c720ddb.png

1809631168_ScreenShot2019-06-06at1_05_07PM.png.8359befa0165041c7e9fe119f678a2cd.png

The news of Schiller's arrival to SGP makes this whole situation and SGP even more sleazy....

Yeah, nothing to see here... ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess Larry isn't likely to get into the AC Hall of Fame unless he buys it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

IIRC, they also missed the fact that the new prot allowed to change of the boat by majority and not unanimity.

Unbelievably naive of them. The cluster fuck that followed is a direct result of that decision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No. Because after having an independent jury (comprised of an independent international jurors appointed by World Sailing) find them guilty of cheating in AC34, OTUSA removed the jury and installed their own arbitration panel for AC35, the composition of which was (and still is) a secret. Furthermore, they made it so that any findings of this panel would be kept secret too.

I haven't re-posted that Lone Wolf transcript to keep the page size down but wow, what an outrage! 

Share this post


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

 

Unbelievably naive of them. The cluster fuck that followed is a direct result of that decision.

I think they were willing to get rid of an inconvenience in order to focus on the race, but they did not realize the impact. What is stranger is why their ally, TNZ, let them do.

Share this post


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

I think they were willing to get rid of an inconvenience in order to focus on the race, but they did not realize the impact. What is stranger is why their ally, TNZ, let them do.

It's almost as if the two teams aren't as intimate or allied as you seem to think eh ;-)

Share this post


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

The number or proportion of parties has zero bearing on the definition of collusion... it just needs two or more parties... but in this case it was also the majority.

685157098_ScreenShot2019-06-06at12_46_01PM.png.b3b5f071c24184e620cac447f778123a.png

Was there an agreement between two or more parties? Yes

Was the terms of the agreement keep a secret from the other parties? Yes 

Was the agreement to the detriment of the other parties? Yes

1501598701_ScreenShot2019-06-06at12_58_39PM.png.f273f5ad121f39ba590743b390fda4a1.png

 

No,

Choice of the AC50: there was a vote, as per the protocol that they signed, they lost.

Keeping the AC50 : they refused, all  the other challengers then agreed to keep it.

But it fits the discourse of victimization that there was a collusion, bullshit.

Share this post


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

 

Unbelievably naive of them. The cluster fuck that followed is a direct result of that decision.

Slightly more complex... class rule changes did require unanimity, instead OTUSA engineered a protocol change (to effect a change in the class) which only required majority.

1379206393_ScreenShot2019-06-06at3_04_15PM.png.145a31a17f7b8cbb631010db836caf33.png

LR did not expect OTUSA to do something so shite... something that flies so clearly in the face of the spirit of the Protocol and Class rule instruments.

And those that wish to call LR naive for assuming OTUSA wouldn't act like this, can't then criticise ETNZ's cynicism and paranoia of OTUSA in the same breath... unless not without being a hypocrite...

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

OTUSA removed the jury and installed their own arbitration panel for AC35,

 

I never supported OTUSA at this time but what hypocrisy. TNZ and LR can now make what they want and chose who they want.

Share this post


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

Slightly more complex... class rule changes did require unanimity, instead OTUSA engineered a protocol change (to effect a change in the class) which only required majority.

 

Ah ah,  any kid knows the prot supercedes the rule :). By giving up their right LR was opening the door to it.

Share this post


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

Ah ah,  any kid knows the prot supercedes the rule :). By giving up their right LR was opening the door to it.

Opening the door to what? Other parties agreeing to using the prot to subvert the intent of the class rule?

Sure! Sounds awfully like a collusion eh! :-)

Share this post


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

LR did not expect OTUSA to do something so shite... something that flies so clearly in the face of the spirit of the Protocol and Class rule instruments.

This sums it up. OTUSA acted appallingly. 

Share this post


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

I never supported OTUSA at this time but what hypocrisy. TNZ and LR can now make what they want and chose who they want.

This is not true. Either for panel or jury.

Panel first - COR/D have appointed a public arbitration panel. Not the just defender exclusively, and they haven't kept the individuals secret, nor any submissions or findings. The individuals on the panel have been nominated from World Sailing for AC arbitration panels.

https://www.americascup.com/en/news/22_36th-AMERICA-S-CUP-ARBITRATION-PANEL-NAMED

On paper it's hard to get more neutral than individuals who have already been appointed by World Sailing on previous independent AC arbitration panels or juries, or other independent yachting panels. They are essentially already vetted, and now public, open to any criticism or robust critique from other parties if they are not neutral - fair enough.

Further more the AC36 protocol goes very far to ensure they don't get entangled in teams during the event if they recuse themselves from official roles (don't get us started on this dodgy shit in the past)

1185526874_ScreenShot2019-06-06at3_58_08PM.png.0187fe3d9b80f01d655a77235ff1a770.png

As for the jury?

Back to the old days of a) not being in the pocket of the defender or COR, and b) being appointed in consultation with World Sailing. Just like it should be.

619046155_ScreenShot2019-06-06at3_58_29PM.png.a9a53f7de9021d5d33bd7b045bedaae0.png

The hypocrisy is not the COR/D can do what they want - of course they can, it's their fucking AC! It's what they choose to do, and in this case they appear to have acted fairly and reasonably, not an assessment anyone can make in regards to OTUSA's previous shenanigans in their punitive response to being caught cheating more than once.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I never supported OTUSA at this time but what hypocrisy. TNZ and LR can now make what they want and chose who they want.

And they’re completely within their right as defender and CoR to do just that. Now we understand why LR have chosen to keep their veto rights. As even @Tornado-Cat has stated, it was LR’s waiving of veto rights which opened the door for OTUSA to “amend” the protocol to replace the class rule without requiring a unanimous vote. By retaining veto rights, that “clusterfuck” does not happen again. Another reason this AC is better off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And they’re completely within their right as defender and CoR to do just that. Now we understand why LR have chosen to keep their veto rights. As even @Tornado-Cat has stated, it was LR’s waiving of veto rights which opened the door for OTUSA to “amend” the protocol to replace the class rule without requiring a unanimous vote. By retaining veto rights, that “clusterfuck” does not happen again. Another reason this AC is better off.

Works for me!  LR's waiver last time upset the applecart.  They're not making that mistake again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sea Breeze 74 said:

This sums it up. OTUSA acted appallingly. 

At this point I don't care if it is collusion, conspiracy, sharp dealing, or what.  What OTAUS did was appalling.  

Only thing I wonder...it might not be out of character for LE given Oracle's famously unpleasant business dealings with competitors, potential aquirees, etc. over the decades. Organizational rot comes from the top.  But the rest of his merry band went along with it.  Was it just the money?  Was it blind lust for glory?  Self-delusion?  Fear of getting blacklisted? I hope some of them at least still know what they went along with and that their ethics had a price tag.

Share this post


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

At this point I don't care if it is collusion, conspiracy, sharp dealing, or what.  What OTAUS did was appalling.  

Only thing I wonder...it might not be out of character for LE given Oracle's famously unpleasant business dealings with competitors, potential aquirees, etc. over the decades. Organizational rot comes from the top.  But the rest of his merry band went along with it.  Was it just the money?  Was it blind lust for glory?  Self-delusion?  Fear of getting blacklisted? I hope some of them at least still know what they went along with and that their ethics had a price tag.

 

It was a large operation with multiple years of commitment and diff teams settled in Bermuda. There's something to be said re being a professional in the trades and sailor vs being LE's personal retinue. 

LE isn't the type of billionaire to care about his reputation or sporting qualities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again.  What is conveniently left out by Kiwi fans ragging on OR is that the main person at OR that gave us all the BS mentioned is a Kiwi. 

How ironical.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

Here we go again.  What is conveniently left out by Kiwi fans ragging on OR is that the main person at OR that gave us all the BS mentioned is a Kiwi. 

How ironical.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Thats Funny, last I checked, the man paying the bills was an American. Are you telling Me Ellison had nothing what so ever to do with anything Oracle has ever done? 

Share this post


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

Here we go again.  What is conveniently left out by Kiwi fans ragging on OR is that the main person at OR that gave us all the BS mentioned is a Kiwi. 

How ironical.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

I am not a Kiwi or an ETNZ fan. I am a US person who is ashamed of the actions of a team that purportedly was "Team USA." 

 

Justice delayed is justice denied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Here we go again.  What is conveniently left out by Kiwi fans ragging on OR is that the main person at OR that gave us all the BS mentioned is a Kiwi. 

How ironical.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Well I was just going to bring that up. I'm not sure that Larry had the time or interest to work out knife twists like ripping up the Auckland venue. I reckon wussel is a snake, made bold by Larry's ethical stance ( none). And yes he is a kiwi, but a mercenary has no nation in the end.

Share this post


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

Here we go again.  What is conveniently left out by Kiwi fans ragging on OR is that the main person at OR that gave us all the BS mentioned is a Kiwi. 

How ironical.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Of course RC is entangled in this...

That you think this is about race/nationality says much... this is not about race or nationality, this is about teams, not the nationality of who is on those teams. This is about what OTUSA did, irrespective of the nationalities involved, vs what ETNZ does, irrespective of the nationalities involved...

Share this post


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

Here we go again.  What is conveniently left out by Kiwi fans ragging on OR is that the main person at OR that gave us all the BS mentioned is a Kiwi. 

How ironical.  

Yes, Russell is a Kiwi, a tool and donkey deep in the shameful running of AC35. But don't you worry, us Kiwis hold a special vitriol for our own. Coutts and Butterworth had their citizenship morally revoked ex 2003.

Share this post


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

This is not true. Either for panel or jury.

Panel first - COR/D have appointed a public arbitration panel. Not the just defender exclusively, and they haven't kept the individuals secret, nor any submissions or findings. The individuals on the panel have been nominated from World Sailing for AC arbitration panels.

https://www.americascup.com/en/news/22_36th-AMERICA-S-CUP-ARBITRATION-PANEL-NAMED

On paper it's hard to get more neutral than individuals who have already been appointed by World Sailing on previous independent AC arbitration panels or juries, or other independent yachting panels. They are essentially already vetted, and now public, open to any criticism or robust critique from other parties if they are not neutral - fair enough.

Further more the AC36 protocol goes very far to ensure they don't get entangled in teams during the event if they recuse themselves from official roles (don't get us started on this dodgy shit in the past)

1185526874_ScreenShot2019-06-06at3_58_08PM.png.0187fe3d9b80f01d655a77235ff1a770.png

As for the jury?

Back to the old days of a) not being in the pocket of the defender or COR, and b) being appointed in consultation with World Sailing. Just like it should be.

619046155_ScreenShot2019-06-06at3_58_29PM.png.a9a53f7de9021d5d33bd7b045bedaae0.png

The hypocrisy is not the COR/D can do what they want - of course they can, it's their fucking AC! It's what they choose to do, and in this case they appear to have acted fairly and reasonably, not an assessment anyone can make in regards to OTUSA's previous shenanigans in their punitive response to being caught cheating more than once.

Yes the CoR/Defender can do what they want, they select 2 out of th3 of the arbitration panel, the 3rd being selected by the first 2 and then they have to accept them.Same for the Jury: "in consultation" with the WS. But you agree on that, as you say it's their fucking AC.

So you say that the difference is what they choose to do right ? Well, like OTUSA they change the protocol as often as needed to get more challengers at the expend of the first teams.

Not that I defend OTUSA but let's stop the hypocrisy.

 

 

Share this post


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

Yes the CoR/Defender can do what they want, they select 2 out of th3 of the arbitration panel, the 3rd being selected by the first 2 and then they have to accept them.Same for the Jury: "in consultation" with the WS. But you agree on that, as you say it's their fucking AC.

So you say that the difference is what they choose to do right ? Well, like OTUSA they change the protocol as often as needed to get more challengers at the expend of the first teams.

Not that I defend OTUSA but let's stop the hypocrisy.

 

 

Uhh so you're saying they could have chosen whatever arbitration/jury system they wanted?

giphy.gif

 

Share this post


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

Yes the CoR/Defender can do what they want, they select 2 out of th3 of the arbitration panel, the 3rd being selected by the first 2 and then they have to accept them.Same for the Jury: "in consultation" with the WS. But you agree on that, as you say it's their fucking AC.

So you say that the difference is what they choose to do right ? Well, like OTUSA they change the protocol as often as needed to get more challengers at the expend of the first teams.

Not that I defend OTUSA but let's stop the hypocrisy.

 

 

But they didn't get "More challengers" thats the point. Oracle, ETNZ, Artemis, LR and Land Rover BAR were all going to be a part of AC35, even with the AC62 Class. They created a poodle challenger with the intent of helping them retain, and used the French as a scapegoat as to why they had to change the class rule! If you look at it, those teams were beholden to the Defender at that time, otherwise they would still be a part of the AC. 

Japan wound up as soon as Larry pulled the pin, and the French were the scapegoat for changing the Class Rule, and aren't even part of the Cup anymore. These are the teams Oracle favored over those who were strongest (LR and ETNZ) but go ahead...just use the go to line "It wasn't a conspiracy, it was a coincidence and just ended up that way" lol

There is no hypocrisy here.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oracle business practices began with LE as their first "salesman" and have been honed to perfection over 42 years. See for example the description of their how their license audits/cloud sales work and how the software is configured to facilitate that:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/06/oracle_cloud_pansion_lawsuit/

If any lawyers, consultants, advisers to OTAUS ever worked with or talked to counterparts from  Oracle Corp. it wouldn't have taken LE's time, just his tacit approval, to add value to OTAUS knife twisty snake maneuvers. Delaying redress via mandatory arbitration is a standard practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't SoftBank and Groupama basically serve as Oracle voting/training team? With design package basically sold and who knows what level of boat building?

How much of the funding was from the title sponsors and how much from LE/sponsored by Oracle's design package?

Share this post


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

But they didn't get "More challengers" thats the point. Oracle, ETNZ, Artemis, LR and Land Rover BAR were all going to be a part of AC35, even with the AC62 Class. They created a poodle challenger with the intent of helping them retain, and used the French as a scapegoat as to why they had to change the class rule! If you look at it, those teams were beholden to the Defender at that time, otherwise they would still be a part of the AC.  

TF and TJ were there to prepare for the next AC. They were surely more serious than your fake Malta.

It's time for you to understand that OR diminished the size of the boat to get more challengers, that TNZ is modifying the protocol for the same reason and that future defenders will probably do the same.

But I can't prevent thin skinned kiwi fans to think that all the teams were plotting against TNZ. Nonsense.

Share this post


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

Japan wound up as soon as Larry pulled the pin, and the French were the scapegoat for changing the Class Rule, and aren't even part of the Cup anymore. These are the teams Oracle favored over those who were strongest (LR and ETNZ) but go ahead...just use the go to line "It wasn't a conspiracy, it was a coincidence and just ended up that way" lol

There is no hypocrisy here.

  

What paranoïac and stupid thinking, OR was not obliged to organize a forum, they could have handpicked a challenger, ask him the be the CoR and organize a protocol where they could do everything like now with TNZ and LR. They just wanted to have challengers.

I hate poodles, I was not an OR fan, but their challenger forum was much more democratic than what TNZ organized with LR.

Share this post


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

Uhh so you're saying they could have chosen whatever arbitration/jury system they wanted?

 

They can even change what you quoted from their protocol, if it suits them. :)

Share this post


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

They can even change what you quoted from their protocol, if it suits them. :)

Again

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites