Kiwing

How many challengers will there be?

How many challengers?  

121 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

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
3 hours ago, WetHog said:

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:

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.

Share this post


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

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. 

I couldn't agree more what you just wrote here. Well done! I am seeing it the same as you do.

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

Tom Ehman just said on his FB Show that all 3 Late Challengers could be withdrawing with Malta Altus & DutchSail being out indefinitly. He says very small chance Stars & Stripes will make it.

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
47 minutes ago, rh2600 said:

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

LOL,

What's this? Pick on me or what?

Even your own Media in New Zealand said at the beginning of April that all 3 Late Challengers would withdraw prompting even an Rebuttal Statement by Defender ETNZ.

Everyone is kind of hard to the NZ Media since. Now it looks like that these guys are 95% right with Altus & the Dutch being out as well as the chances of Stars & Stripes being diminished to 10-15% at most probably even less.

So if you want to pick on someone, pick your own Media.

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

@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.

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
10 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

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

Shanghaisailor,

It's to be believed that only Stars & Stripes Team USA has paid all the payments required to compete in the ACWS next year as well as the PRADA CUP in 2021.

Regarding ETNZ's Design Package:

You can purchase that but you'll need Designers & Boatbuilders to put the Design you obtained into action and this is where the Dutch Team is struggling with. They have no Designers & Boatbuilders at this moment. It takes about 9 months to built an AC 75 so time is running out if it hasn't run out already.

Regarding the Altus Challenge Tom Ehman on his FB Show on Friday said that they had a good Team in place incl. Iain Murray, the Regatta Director of AC 34 & AC 35 but they were mislead financially by Pasquale Cataldi. Cataldi apparently told Team Directors of Altus the Budget to compete for AC36 would be far less then what's actually need similar to the Australian Challenge last time who were then forced to withdrew.

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
13 minutes ago, WetHog said:

Mono rigs have come crashing down in just a bad chop in AC’s past. Ask ETNZ fans.

The failure you're referring to has been well documented, but yeah, dis-mastings do happen. The point I'm making, is that these monos are unlikely to disintegrate like Oracle's cat did if they flip. Whether the AC75's can turn turtle like an ocean racer relatively intact, is unknown. The mandated buoyancy in the mast head make it unlikely that they'll go completely over. 

Share this post


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

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:

Fair cop wh. One thing we might see in a mono is better protected cockpits, ( from air, water, and heel in that order), and not having to change sides has to be a game changer. Exposing yourself on the tramp with no holds in a dead run to drop into a hole, well, we saw that go wrong a few times, thankfully everyone pulled it off. Oh, except cammas.not in the pursuit of the cup, but foil cats. Really, the more I think about the tramp cross through a risk assessment lens the more amazed I am no one was killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 9:03 PM, Horn Rock said:

The failure you're referring to has been well documented, but yeah, dis-mastings do happen. The point I'm making, is that these monos are unlikely to disintegrate like Oracle's cat did if they flip. Whether the AC75's can turn turtle like an ocean racer relatively intact, is unknown. The mandated buoyancy in the mast head make it unlikely that they'll go completely over. 

I am not a sailor but I understand the difference between multi's and mono's.  Sure an AC75 won't disintegrate like OR's cat did but there will be a lot of things hanging off that mono-hull and it seems reasonable to suggest the well funded teams will be able to absorb an incident similar to what OR had happen, the boat ultimately ending up on its side, and the smaller teams won't.  That was the point I was trying to make.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 9:18 PM, barfy said:

Fair cop wh. One thing we might see in a mono is better protected cockpits, ( from air, water, and heel in that order), and not having to change sides has to be a game changer. Exposing yourself on the tramp with no holds in a dead run to drop into a hole, well, we saw that go wrong a few times, thankfully everyone pulled it off. Oh, except cammas.not in the pursuit of the cup, but foil cats. Really, the more I think about the tramp cross through a risk assessment lens the more amazed I am no one was killed.

I'll take being a fair cop over being a bad cop.  ;)

Not running back and forth over a tramp is a big difference from a safety standpoint but there are still risks.   The foil/foil arm resembling a double sided scythe when the apparatus is out of the water would be risk #1 for me.  This concern of mine has been dismissed by others in the past but when I picture in my mind two AC75's in close proximity coming to a mark rounding at 30+ knots I shudder at what could happen if the boats get to close.  Then there are wheel and grinding pedestals in the cockpit cockpit.  Hitting one when a AC75 rapidly decelerates after dropping off its foils unexpectedly won't feel good.  But crew safety isn't the focus of my recent comments.  Just commenting on cost of equipment repair after mishaps in either training or actual racing in regards to the small teams and how that is a factor in them ultimately participating in the event. 

 WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

and it seems reasonable to suggest the well funded teams will be able to absorb an incident similar to what OR had happen, the boat ultimately ending up on its side, and the smaller teams won't.

Also the point I was trying to make. It just seems reasonable and logical. 

Share this post


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

 The foil/foil arm resembling a double sided scythe when the apparatus is out of the water would be risk #1 for me.

The nicebit is that the foil arm is only a danger to the other boat. Hopefully no-one will buy up the bits after this cycle and decide to fleet race them!!

Share this post


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

and it seems reasonable to suggest the well funded teams will be able to absorb an incident similar to what OR had happen, the boat ultimately ending up on its side, and the smaller teams won't.

When has that not been the case? Etnz on one of the smallest purses in bda breaking their kit must have blown the budget. Certainly led to some long days from the shore crew. Separates the wheat from the chaff.

Share this post


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

When has that not been the case? Etnz on one of the smallest purses in bda breaking their kit must have blown the budget. Certainly led to some long days from the shore crew. Separates the wheat from the chaff.

Sure but GD said he was bringing the AC back to its roots.  Monohulls and 5-8 Challengers.  Then he drops the AC75.  As a result he gets 3 Challengers.  

It would appear GD was referring to the roots established by Larry and Russell and a number of us eager for a return to an AC32 like event are disappointed.  Or maybe I am the only one who thought he was referring to an AC32 like event.  Regardless, I am disappointed.

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Not running back and forth over a tramp is a big difference from a safety standpoint but there are still risks.

 

Barfy does not know what he is talking about, they wear safety harnesses on the F50s now, which does not mean it it is 100% safe and that they all wear it. But barfy exemples are dating from the previous ages. You can see it here.image.png.a94f0a0a14868ac5c44fbe6339ee1ff8.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sure but GD said he was bringing the AC back to its roots.  Monohulls and 5-8 Challengers.  Then he drops the AC75.  As a result he gets 3 Challengers.  

It would appear GD was referring to the roots established by Larry and Russell and a number of us eager for a return to an AC32 like event are disappointed.  Or maybe I am the only one who thought he was referring to an AC32 like event.  Regardless, I am disappointed.

WetHog  :ph34r:

You totally ignored the question/point...

Share this post


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

Barfy does not know what he is talking about, they wear safety harnesses on the F50s now, which does not mean it it is 100% safe and that they all wear it. But barfy exemples are dating from the previous ages. You can see it here.image.png.a94f0a0a14868ac5c44fbe6339ee1ff8.png

Even with harnesses you can get injured as you scramble across the trampoline. In SF a  French Team guy Timothe L ended up with bad leg injury, hamstring.  Others were tripping on the tethers in practice.

Besides, physically optimizing a crew for tramp scrambles skews things compared to a monohull. Those hamsters on tramps boats are sporty but a lot of the physicality is different, narrower if the tramp dash is a constraint.

Monohulls imho allow for more physical diversity.

Share this post


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

Even with harnesses you can get injured as you scramble across the trampoline. In SF a  French Team guy Timothe L ended up with bad leg injury, hamstring.  Others were tripping on the tethers in practice.

Besides, physically optimizing a crew for tramp scrambles skews things compared to a monohull. Those hamsters on tramps boats are sporty but a lot of the physicality is different, narrower if the tramp dash is a constraint.

Monohulls imho allow for more physical diversity.

Agreed, however if the AC75 has the kind of crash that we saw with mini frack it will be more dangerous for the crew imo, water is like cement at these speeds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agreed, however if the AC75 has the kind of crash that we saw with mini frack it will be more dangerous for the crew imo, water is like cement at these speeds.

These guys are paid well and do it on their own volition. If one of them gets scythed then so be it. I just want to see how far they can take this shit from the safety of my living room.

Share this post


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

Barfy does not know what he is talking about, they wear safety harnesses on the F50s now, which does not mean it it is 100% safe and that they all wear it. But barfy exemples are dating from the previous ages. You can see it here.image.png.a94f0a0a14868ac5c44fbe6339ee1ff8.png

T-C,

Does barfy ever know what he is talking about? He is a similar Troll & Clown like Forourselves & rh2600 are in my view.

As you might remember T-C I've already expressed & Voiced my Safety concerns with these new AC 75 Yachts.

Safety Measures should be in place before a single AC 75 touches the water. We shouldn't wait until someone gets hurt cuz that's what happened with Andrew Simpson and the Artemis Team in May 2013. I still can see Andrew's Wife Leigh crying and saying "Why were these lower wind limits & safety recommodations not be put in place earlier."

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You totally ignored the question/point...

I don't understand how @WetHog ignored the question/point. 

From the beginning, and the point of this whole thread, people have been debating how many challengers there will be. GD and lots of people here have been saying it would be in the 5-8 range; others have been saying 3-4. The next layer of discussion has been what will have caused the high or low number of eventual challengers. And the third level of debate has been whether a high or low number of challengers is necessarily good or bad. WH clearly stated that AC75 itself is the proximate cause of a low number of challengers:

1 hour ago, WetHog said:

Then he drops the AC75.  As a result he gets 3 Challengers.

To my mind, WH was exactly addressing the issue at hand. 

And, FWIW, my perspective is that the low number of challengers is due to the expense/risk of the AC75 plus the inherent difficulty in getting sponsorship dollars out of Europe for a winter regatta with races taking place at 4am thereby limiting the challenger pool to those backed by deep pocketed individuals; my further perspective is that the low number of challengers is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is and comes naturally after the introduction of an expensive new racing platform. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@2Newts,

I really appreciate your writings. You have good Points, so has @WetHog. I've voiced similar opinions a long time ago as well.

The Problem is you're almost talking to walls here from some of these Kiwi Posters. They basically rule the Board here and say YES and AMEN to everything GD/ETNZ does no matter if it's the right opinion or not. And if you call them out on it they change the subject.

Ironically these are now the same people who bashed LE/RC non-stop during AC 34 & 35.

Larry & Russell did some of the things right during the AC 35 Cycle by bringing down the costs therefore getting more Teams involved.

I'm curious what Hamish Ross will say on Friday at Sailing Illustrated. He'll give an update on the other two Late Challengers as well not just on the Altus Challenge. The likelyhood is pretty high that the other two Teams will withdraw as well for the things you have just written.

When GD claimed that there would be 5-8 Teams he was completely out of his tree there IMO.

Share this post


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

They basically rule the Board here

Kiwis make up like 12% of SA posters, shitbrick. They don't rule the board, they just know how to argue and debate while you barely know how to read.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

@2Newts,

I really appreciate your writings. You have good Points, so has @WetHog. I've voiced similar opinions a long time ago as well.

The Problem is you're almost talking to walls here from some of these Kiwi Posters. They basically rule the Board here and say YES and AMEN to everything GD/ETNZ does no matter if it's the right opinion or not. And if you call them out on it they change the subject.

Ironically these are now the same people who bashed LE/RC non-stop during AC 34 & 35.

Larry & Russell did some of the things right during the AC 35 Cycle by bringing down the costs therefore getting more Teams involved.

I'm curious what Hamish Ross will say on Friday at Sailing Illustrated. He'll give an update on the other two Late Challengers as well not just on the Altus Challenge. The likelyhood is pretty high that the other two Teams will withdraw as well for the things you have just written.

When GD claimed that there would be 5-8 Teams he was completely out of his tree there IMO.

"Ironically these are now the same people who bashed LE/RC non-stop during AC 34 & 35." - One word - Cheating. Anyone who owns a team, or runs a team that has to cheat to win, deserves to get bashed.

"Larry & Russell did some of the things right during the AC 35 Cycle by bringing down the costs therefore getting more Teams involved" Soft bank wasn't a real team, which is why they folded as soon as Larry quit, and France couldn't survive past Larry helping them out. 

Unfortunately, for all the so called good they did, they undid that by doing too many things wrong.

Including Stars n Stripes and ETNZ, and not including the Dutch and Malta, we have 5 teams. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Newts said:

I don't understand how @WetHog ignored the question/point. 

From the beginning, and the point of this whole thread, people have been debating how many challengers there will be. GD and lots of people here have been saying it would be in the 5-8 range; others have been saying 3-4. The next layer of discussion has been what will have caused the high or low number of eventual challengers. And the third level of debate has been whether a high or low number of challengers is necessarily good or bad. WH clearly stated that AC75 itself is the proximate cause of a low number of challengers:

To my mind, WH was exactly addressing the issue at hand. 

And, FWIW, my perspective is that the low number of challengers is due to the expense/risk of the AC75 plus the inherent difficulty in getting sponsorship dollars out of Europe for a winter regatta with races taking place at 4am thereby limiting the challenger pool to those backed by deep pocketed individuals; my further perspective is that the low number of challengers is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is and comes naturally after the introduction of an expensive new racing platform. 

To be fair I misread what WH had said somewhat... but I do think there is a fundamental flaw with that argument...see below

So what would have had more challengers? Even if we'd stuck with AC50s there was only likely only 3 challengers, at best 4, and that was keeping the same boats and gear. What decisions could have been made for AC36 that could have resulted in more than that?

Share this post


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

it seems reasonable to suggest the well funded teams will be able to absorb an incident similar to what OR had happen, the boat ultimately ending up on its side, and the smaller teams won't.  That was the point I was trying to make.  

I think it's more reasonable to suggest the one thing that no team can absorb, no matter how rich, is the time needed to rebuild in the event of a catastrophic failure in the lead-up to or during racing. I don't think money comes into to it much really.

Share this post


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

To be fair I misread what WH had said somewhat... but I do think there is a fundamental flaw with that argument...

So what would have had more challengers? Even if we'd stuck with AC50s there was only likely only 3 challengers, at best 4, and that was keeping the same boats and gear. What decisions could have been made for AC36 that could have resulted in more than that?

If we had stuck with the AC 50's the 5 Teams of the London Framework Agreement would have been all IN:

Oracle Team USA (Defender)

Artemis Racing

Land Rover BAR

Groupama Team France

SoftBank Team Japan

and then I'm sure

Emirates Team New Zealand would have tried again

Alinghi had expressed interest as well

an Aussie Team perhaps

and Germany might have thrown their hat into the ring as well with experienced Multihull Sailor Roland Gaebler.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Barfy does not know what he is talking about, they wear safety harnesses on the F50s now, which does not mean it it is 100% safe and that they all wear it. But barfy exemples are dating from the previous ages. You can see it here.image.png.a94f0a0a14868ac5c44fbe6339ee1ff8.png

I didn't see a lot of harnesses in the bits of SF that I watched. But we are not discussing the bastard child of AC. We were discussing the new boats, and reasons why they may be more or less safe that the AC50. Btw, as mentioned by others, getting dragged at 30 -40 kts is just fucking stupid, as the slack in the system posted seems to indicate. If yur off the stern better to be left clean behind ffs. Could be why not many use them.

 

1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Agreed, however if the AC75 has the kind of crash that we saw with mini frack it will be more dangerous for the crew imo, water is like cement at these speeds.

And again off topic, but well defined cockpits will be much safer. TH said he felt much safer. You are like a broken record.

Share this post


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

Sure but GD said he was bringing the AC back to its roots.  Monohulls and 5-8 Challengers.  Then he drops the AC75.  As a result he gets 3 Challengers.  

It would appear GD was referring to the roots established by Larry and Russell and a number of us eager for a return to an AC32 like event are disappointed.  Or maybe I am the only one who thought he was referring to an AC32 like event.  Regardless, I am disappointed.

WetHog  :ph34r:

I think that some of the esthetics that the defender and cor wanted to bring back were size and for the average sailor to be able to relate to the boat.

You have seen the pics of the spar...check. And folks will relate to the boats at the dock out anyhow, not so much as huge flying spiders tho;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the AC 50 to the new AC 75 when it comes to Safety is totally FAULTY for the upteeth time. If you want to compare them then compare to the AC 72 we saw in AC 34.

@barfy & apparently TH claims the AC 75's will be safer. I disagree purely on the Point that the AC 75's will be less stable therefore chances having an OTUSA Type Accident are considerably higher because they have only one hull.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If we had stuck with the AC 50's the 5 Teams of the London Framework Agreement would have been all IN:

Oracle Team USA (Defender)

Artemis Racing

Land Rover BAR

Groupama Team France

SoftBank Team Japan

and then I'm sure

Emirates Team New Zealand would have tried again

Alinghi had expressed interest as well

an Aussie Team perhaps

and Germany might have thrown their hat into the ring as well with experienced Multihull Sailor Roland Gaebler.

Or, change the assumptions dramatically and assume ENTZ still wins but decides to defend in AC50s. Who challenges?

  • BAR (with Ineos or Land Rover I have no idea - Land Rover may have been out no matter what)
  • Team France since the dollars probably would have been ok for a sponsor
  • Oracle, I am sure, if only in part because LE was so invested in seeing this platform become long lasted
  • Artemis on the belief that they were the fastest boat in Bermuda
  • Softbank maybe
  • An Aussie team I'm fairly sure since the dollars would be lower 
  • Alinghi? Would they come back now that LE is not the organizer?
  • Stars & Stripes? Does Canfield successfully raise the smaller total funding? Maybe from RedBull who clearly liked the platform.
  • A team or two using older equipment, the way fringe teams used to challenge in the 12's and the IACC's?
  • A team or two with deep pocketed backers, perhaps out of China or Italy

Almost certainly Luna Rosa does not participate having shown such a dislike of the platform, and American Magic is less likely to participate, but who knows. 

Entonces, I am quite sure that the number of challengers would have been quite a lot higher than 3-4. Lower cost plus known platform overcomes a lot of the time/hemisphere issues. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sure but GD said he was bringing the AC back to its roots.  Monohulls and 5-8 Challengers.  Then he drops the AC75.  As a result he gets 3 Challengers.  

It would appear GD was referring to the roots established by Larry and Russell and a number of us eager for a return to an AC32 like event are disappointed.  Or maybe I am the only one who thought he was referring to an AC32 like event.  Regardless, I am disappointed.

WetHog  :ph34r:

^ You're not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And again off topic, but well defined cockpits will be much safer. TH said he felt much safer. You are like a broken record.

The topic is safety, did you miss it ? And TH said he felt safer once foiling only.

As far as the cockpits, they are not closed and may help or not depending on how the boat crashes.  Keep on trolling.

 

Share this post


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

You have seen the pics of the spar...check. And folks will relate to the boats at the dock out anyhow, not so much as huge flying spiders tho;)

Another fan bullshit. If the average sailor can't relate to cats he won't relate more to the AC75.

Share this post


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

T-C,

Does barfy ever know what he is talking about? He is a similar Troll & Clown like Forourselves & rh2600 are in my view.

As you might remember T-C I've already expressed & Voiced my Safety concerns with these new AC 75 Yachts.

Safety Measures should be in place before a single AC 75 touches the water. We shouldn't wait until someone gets hurt cuz that's what happened with Andrew Simpson and the Artemis Team in May 2013. I still can see Andrew's Wife Leigh crying and saying "Why were these lower wind limits & safety recommodations not be put in place earlier."

Correct, you said it from the beginning. I hope this boat will be a success and that sailors with smaller boat will benefit from it, foiling with a soft sail would make it accessible to a lot.  But safety is a major concern with this boat, and I hope no human injuries or worse will happen.

Share this post


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

Or, change the assumptions dramatically and assume ENTZ still wins but decides to defend in AC50s. Who challenges?

  • BAR (with Ineos or Land Rover I have no idea - Land Rover may have been out no matter what)
  • Team France since the dollars probably would have been ok for a sponsor
  • Oracle, I am sure, if only in part because LE was so invested in seeing this platform become long lasted
  • Artemis on the belief that they were the fastest boat in Bermuda
  • Softbank maybe
  • An Aussie team I'm fairly sure since the dollars would be lower 
  • Alinghi? Would they come back now that LE is not the organizer?
  • Stars & Stripes? Does Canfield successfully raise the smaller total funding? Maybe from RedBull who clearly liked the platform.
  • A team or two using older equipment, the way fringe teams used to challenge in the 12's and the IACC's?
  • A team or two with deep pocketed backers, perhaps out of China or Italy

Almost certainly Luna Rosa does not participate having shown such a dislike of the platform, and American Magic is less likely to participate, but who knows. 

Entonces, I am quite sure that the number of challengers would have been quite a lot higher than 3-4. Lower cost plus known platform overcomes a lot of the time/hemisphere issues. 

You nailed it right here. I said numerous times that the new Boats (AC 75) are too expensive.

Everyone was throwing shit at Ellison & Coutts particularly Bertelli because they downsized the AC 72's for the second go around first to the AC 62 and then the AC 50. I would say: That was the right call to do to get more Teams involved.

I watched some Pressers from AC 34 and Sir Ben Ainslie said numerous times whoever wins AC 34 needs to bring the costs down. Had LE & RC stayed with the AC 72 there would have been only 3 Teams again in AC 35 I think.

Now for AC36 crumpy old Grant has reversed this completely. Instead of costs going down costs going up again hence only 3 Teams again. I am also told that ETNZ LIED to the 3 Late Entries & mislead them when it came to the costs.

Share this post


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

Or, change the assumptions dramatically and assume ENTZ still wins but decides to defend in AC50s. Who challenges?

  • BAR (with Ineos or Land Rover I have no idea - Land Rover may have been out no matter what)
  • Team France since the dollars probably would have been ok for a sponsor
  • Oracle, I am sure, if only in part because LE was so invested in seeing this platform become long lasted
  • Artemis on the belief that they were the fastest boat in Bermuda
  • Softbank maybe
  • An Aussie team I'm fairly sure since the dollars would be lower 
  • Alinghi? Would they come back now that LE is not the organizer?
  • Stars & Stripes? Does Canfield successfully raise the smaller total funding? Maybe from RedBull who clearly liked the platform.
  • A team or two using older equipment, the way fringe teams used to challenge in the 12's and the IACC's?
  • A team or two with deep pocketed backers, perhaps out of China or Italy

Almost certainly Luna Rosa does not participate having shown such a dislike of the platform, and American Magic is less likely to participate, but who knows. 

Entonces, I am quite sure that the number of challengers would have been quite a lot higher than 3-4. Lower cost plus known platform overcomes a lot of the time/hemisphere issues. 

I see no clear evidence above to confirm there would have been more than 3-4 challengers in the event of AC50s 

The few we can agree on are already in AC36, (excepting OTUSA)... the rest... well... those that want to believe are welcome to do so...

For me Artemis and possibly OTUSA are the only remaining teams that could still be here if this was being sailed in AC50s. I think it's more likely that Artemis would have entered than OTUSA, who may have elected to bail no matter what outcome. We traded them for NYYC in any event so it balances out.

Share this post


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

The topic is safety, did you miss it ? And TH said he felt safer once foiling only.

As far as the cockpits, they are not closed and may help or not depending on how the boat crashes.  Keep on trolling.

 

The topic is how many challengers btw. Wh and I were talking about safety in AC boats before you came in with the wussel circus.

And you have no fucking idea the "they are not closed" cockpits. The crew will be in the cockpit,not running to and fro, and not ending up 10m in the air. Wait until you see the boat until you make one of your famous suppositories and then base your conclusion on your own gaping hole in knowledge.

Share this post


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

Correct, you said it from the beginning. I hope this boat will be a success and that sailors with smaller boat will benefit from it, foiling with a soft sail would make it accessible to a lot.  But safety is a major concern with this boat, and I hope no human injuries or worse will happen.

But you will bring up safety at every turn.

How about them foil arms?

Share this post


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

Comparing the AC 50 to the new AC 75 when it comes to Safety is totally FAULTY for the upteeth time. If you want to compare them then compare to the AC 72 we saw in AC 34.

@barfy & apparently TH claims the AC 75's will be safer. I disagree purely on the Point that the AC 75's will be less stable therefore chances having an OTUSA Type Accident are considerably higher because they have only one hull.

Why do you keep persisting with that line? The AM 38 (which by their own admission is as close to an AC75 as anyone will get right now) has capsized multiple times, and has still continued sailing regularly.

The INEOS Test boat is the same multiple capsizes, some quite violent, yet they never missed a day of training in Spain.

The capsizes/ nosedives we saw with the AC72's were almost always catastrophic. So right now, until we see a full size version, the only measure we have to compare is the AM38, and that has come out of capsizes relatively unscathed, so logic dictates that the 75 should behave the same way.

Share this post


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

Or, change the assumptions dramatically and assume ENTZ still wins but decides to defend in AC50s. Who challenges?

Why assume they would keep using the same boat? It's a design contest first and foremost, why use the same boat again like bda, which was a scaled down version of the first version before they changed it; which was a smaller version of AC 34.

Edit: we live in an era of amazing computer modeling, enabling hundreds of design iterations without laying up one bit of carbon. That's what separates this era from 10 years ago.

Share this post


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

. I am also told that ETNZ LIED to the 3 Late Entries & mislead them when it came to the costs.

Who at ETNZ lied, what did they say, and to whom?

Share this post


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

You nailed it right here. I said numerous times that the new Boats (AC 75) are too expensive.

Everyone was throwing shit at Ellison & Coutts particularly Bertelli because they downsized the AC 72's for the second go around first to the AC 62 and then the AC 50. I would say: That was the right call to do to get more Teams involved.

I watched some Pressers from AC 34 and Sir Ben Ainslie said numerous times whoever wins AC 34 needs to bring the costs down. Had LE & RC stayed with the AC 72 there would have been only 3 Teams again in AC 35 I think.

Now for AC36 crumpy old Grant has reversed this completely. Instead of costs going down costs going up again hence only 3 Teams again. I am also told that ETNZ LIED to the 3 Late Entries & mislead them when it came to the costs.

They downsized, but they waited until the teams were well into the design phase before doing so, which means, and since there are a few here who like to go on about this, which means any advantage teams may have felt they had by having started their design phase with the AC62 was effectively null and void.

Secondly, to amend the protocol (as the class rule could not be amended or replaced without unanimous consent, and as LR had waived their veto rights so were effectively powerless to stop a majority vote), teams were offered a choice to either downsize to the AC50 and lose Auckland as the qualifier, or stay with the 62 and come to Auckland as agreed and signed by the ACEA Commissioner. The contract was breached between ACEA and ETNZ to hold the qualifier in Auckland, which resulted in the Commissioner being fired from his position, ETNZ filing a complaint against ACEA and the gag rule introduced to prevent the outcome of the complaint being made public. Whether the teams wanted to got to Auckland or not was irrelevant. The inmates did not, and never have run the asylum. No show the qualifier in Auckland, say goodbye to your AC aspirations. 

You are correct in what Ben said regarding costs, but given the size of his budget in Bermuda, its a little hypocritical of Ainslie to complain about costs being high only to have one of the largest team budgets of all the teams, but one of the most disappointing campaigns, and being demolished by a team with a significantly smaller budget.

Costs are relative. What one team spends is not necessarily what another will spend. What success one team has is also not necessarily the success another team will have. This is due to how the teams allocate those costs. Are the costs high? Are the boats expensive? Yes, but its the Americas Cup after all. 

It doesn't matter what class is chosen. Whether it be the AC50, the F50, the AC75, the AC72, or the IACC class, teams will always, ALWAYS spend whatever they feel is necessary to win.

The only way costs can truly be kept down is to have a cap on Team budgets and those budgets constantly monitored by the AC event management.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, tell me: Why will Auckland only have 3 Challengers in 2021? What in your enlightened Opinion is the Reason for it?

And YES, like it or not I do think there should be Team Caps or Team Budgets controlled by the AC Event Management because then the whole AC would be much more even for Cycles to come.

Share this post


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

Who at ETNZ lied, what did they say, and to whom?

They apparently told the 3 Late Entries that you can make the Start Line in Auckland with less than 50M $ which obviously isn't the case. They mislead them.

Share this post


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

They apparently told the 3 Late Entries that you can make the Start Line in Auckland with less than 50M $ which obviously isn't the case. They mislead them.

Who is they, and who did they tell?  You backed off from THEY LIED to They mislead pretty quickly.  Did ETNZ give "the 3 Late Entries"  entire 50$M spec budget spreadsheet?  Where was it wrong?

Worst rumormongering ever.

Share this post


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

Who is they, and who did they tell?  Did they give them the entire spec budget for $50M?  Where was it wrong?

Worst rumormongering ever.

They = Luna Rossa and particularly Max Sirena.

This isn't new. Maybe you should have searched better Clean.

Sirena told these sort of figures shortly after the Design Concepts came out in November 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did nobody on the late teams read SA?  Those threads I read to catch up last year led me to believe I'd need to clear $100-$200m in Powerball to have a shot at the LVC, er PC.

Share this post


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

They = Luna Rossa and particularly Max Sirena.

STOP PRESS! UNRELIABLE ITALIAN WHEELER DEELER IS UNRELIABLE!

 

Hold on a sec.  Didn't you write "ETNZ LIED" above? Now it's Luna Rossa?  You need to get it together kid.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

STOP PRESS! UNRELIABLE ITALIAN WHEELER DEELER IS UNRELIABLE!

 

Hold on a sec.  Didn't you write "ETNZ LIED" above? Now it's Luna Rossa?  You need to get it together kid.

 

 

Doesn't matter who it is Clean, ETNZ or LR. The fact of the matter is "These Figures existed". They were discussed here in Nov. 2017 either in the Team UK Thread or in the older "Teams" Thread. 

At that time Terry Hutchinson even called it a ridiculous stunt by Sirena.

Share this post


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

Doesn't matter who it is Clean, ETNZ or LR. The fact of the matter is "These Figures existed". They were discussed here in Nov. 2017 either in the Team UK Thread or in the older "Teams" Thread. 

 

Except you wrote above that "ETNZ LIED", so it kind of does matter. 

This ain't fucking tiddlywinks, it's big business. If a team director is going to make big business decisions based on statements of an authorized representative of the Organizer, he'd better have their representations in writing or he's a clown.  Anyone relying on some shit Max Sirena said and then complaining about it later?  That's pretty clownish. 

Share this post


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

This ain't fucking tiddlywinks, it's big business. If a team director is going to make big business decisions based on statements of an authorized representative of the Organizer, he'd better have their representations in writing or he's a clown.  Anyone relying on some shit Max Sirena said and then complaining about it later?  That's pretty clownish. 

Really? How about giving potential Teams a reasonable figure to work with particularly Upstart Teams like Malta Altus, DutchSail or Stars & Stripes?

Here is what Ainslie said recently in an article published by the NZ Herald particularly about S & S:

“We don’t expect those teams to get to the start line. Stars and Stripes, our understanding is it’s really shaky. We’d love to see them all there but the reality is the costs of this Cup are dawning on them just how expensive it is.

“They made the initial jump but are now pulling back because it’s way more expensive than what they’ve been told. Hopefully those other teams make it but I’d be surprised to see all three of them there for sure.”

So, quite obviously either ETNZ or LR told the Stars & Stripes Team USA Management a money figure before they challenged and now that figure doesn't match up with what they really needed to get to Auckland. And I am guessing this happened to the other two Teams as well. That is misleading the Teams by ETNZ/LR.

Share this post


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

Really? How about giving potential Teams a reasonable figure to work with particularly Upstart Teams like Malta Altus, DutchSail or Stars & Stripes?

Who? Max Sirena?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Who? Max Sirena?  :lol:

Of Course Max Sirena! He and his clown boss Patrizio Bertelli are in charge of the PRADA CUP or the Challenger Selection Series. They should have the understanding how much money you'll need as an Upstart Team to participate and then provide that to the Late Entry Teams.

Share this post


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

Of Course Max Sirena! He and his clown boss Patrizio Bertelli are in charge of the PRADA CUP or the Challenger Selection Series. They should have the understanding how much money you'll need as an Upstart Team to participate and then provide that to the Late Entry Teams.

Neither Max nor Patrizio gives a flying fuck if anyone shows up.  Inclusivity ain't really their brand.  Isn't that obvious?

As for 'an understanding of how much money you'll need', since when is it an organizers job to build a budget for the competitors?  This ain't no spec series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Neither Max nor Patrizio gives a flying fuck if anyone shows up.  Inclusivity ain't really their brand.  Isn't that obvious?

As for 'an understanding of how much money you'll need', since when is it an organizers job to build a budget for the competitors?  This ain't no spec series.

Look, they don't have to build a budget for the competitors BUT they should give an estimate or cost forecast or how much it probably costs to get to the Start Line for an Upstart Team.

Clearly, they probably have given the 3 Late Teams a Number that was waaay to low hence why the 3 Teams (Altus, S & S and DutchSail) struggling with money. They mislead them.

I am anxiously waiting for Friday when Hamish Ross will be on the Sailing Illustrated FB Show shedding some light of what happened with Malta and the other two late Challengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck.  Re #768 Look back at old news stories and see how much teams paid years and years ago with a single class of boat. Lunatic LE reportedly spent $100-200m in 2003 ffs, on an IACC. Even if half of what he forked over was bs overkill, nobody could possibly think $50m would do it now on a brand new class unlike prior ones even if the crew were Sea Scouts working for free to win a merit badge.

Share this post


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

 

you have no fucking idea the "they are not closed" cockpits.

You don't shit either and you bragg these boats will be safe because they have cockpits. barfys logic....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tornado-Cat said:

And you don't shit about it and bragg these boats will be safer because they have cockpits. barfys logic....

They will no doubt be way different than a cat crew position that you need to jump into from above deck level. It's not bragging, please use dictionary app more often. 

It is using logic based on ergonomics. As I said before, wind resistance will dictate a more enclosed cockpit now that there are no tramp crossings . Protection from water geysers and gravity ,(knock downs), will follow.

I don't understand what "shit about it" means.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, she says, throwing gasoline on the fire...

TH said today their scuba divers have them practice regularly being dragged under a chase boat, being sure they can use their oxygen, etc.    

Share this post


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

I don't understand what " you don't know shit about it" means.

 

fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites