Stingray~

INEOS Team GB

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, trig42 said:

Surely that is the major advantage in winning the cup - making the rules?

Has been that way all the way through the history of the cup has it not?

Choosing a new Class Rule is good but doing it all in secret is not. Listen to Grant S and to the SR Designers interviews before that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I don’t think it was right that Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa were writing the rule in isolation really,” Simmer told the Shirley Robertson podcast.

“They had a head start on everyone and I think you can see that when you compare the boats.”

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/122708053/americas-cup-british-challenger-promises-radical-different-new-boat-for-auckland-2021

Share this post


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

“I don’t think it was right that Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa were writing the rule in isolation really,” Simmer told the Shirley Robertson podcast.

“They had a head start on everyone and I think you can see that when you compare the boats.”

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/122708053/americas-cup-british-challenger-promises-radical-different-new-boat-for-auckland-2021

Tough. Get over it. Better yet, try and win the bloody Cup and then design your own AC boat rule.

But stop the bitching already.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Tough. Get over it. Better yet, try and win the bloody Cup and then design your own AC boat rule.

But stop the bitching already.

There’s a legitimate argument being made by Grant S and others, that if you do ‘win the bloody Cup’ you don’t also get nasty about it. Creating a new Class in secret is unprecedented, the (apparent) money and design-lead motivations are for sure questionable and likely won’t go down well in AC History. Where is the promised transparency and ‘honor’? 

Share this post


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

There’s a legitimate argument being made by Grant S and others, that if you do ‘win the bloody Cup’ you don’t also get nasty about it. Creating a new Class in secret is unprecedented, the (apparent) money and design-lead motivations are for sure questionable and likely won’t go down well in AC History. 

And bitching about it will achieve exactly what, Stinger? It's not like ETNZ will, "see the error of their questionable ways" and invite a rethink on the AC75 Rule is it?

Just get on with it, for fucks sake. I'm done.

Share this post


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

And bitching about it will achieve exactly what, Stinger? It's not like ETNZ will, "see the error of their questionable ways" and invite a rethink on the AC75 Rule is it?

Just get on with it, for fucks sake. I'm done.

Okay :) 

Share this post


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

There’s a legitimate argument being made by Grant S and others, that if you do ‘win the bloody Cup’ you don’t also get nasty about it. Creating a new Class in secret is unprecedented, the (apparent) money and design-lead motivations are for sure questionable and likely won’t go down well in AC History. Where is the promised transparency and ‘honor’? 

secret? unprecedented? surely you mean except for all the other times.

Alinghi proposed a larger new IACC design with a dodgy challenger before they took to long and ended up in a DOG match

oracle had access to the design criteria for the AC72 before the challengers, LR chose to buy a design of ETNZ, Artemis was so far behind it wasn't funny

oracle again with help from a failed ausy challenge changed the design to an AC62 and THEN mid cycle changed to the AC50 without all challengers accepting leading to LR pulling out

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stingray does know this is the America’s Cup right?? The Laser forum is down the hall on the right...:mellow:

Share this post


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

secret? unprecedented? surely you mean except for all the other times.

Alinghi proposed a larger new IACC design with a dodgy challenger before they took to long and ended up in a DOG match

oracle had access to the design criteria for the AC72 before the challengers, LR chose to buy a design of ETNZ, Artemis was so far behind it wasn't funny

oracle again with help from a failed ausy challenge changed the design to an AC62 and THEN mid cycle changed to the AC50 without all challengers accepting leading to LR pulling out

 

You are dead wrong on all of that history. 

Share this post


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

You are dead wrong on all of that history. 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Oracle hire M&M to design the 72 rule? So they wouldn’t have gotten specs until it was done? Don’t recall specifics for 62 but thought it was similar. 

Share this post


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

Choosing a new Class Rule is good but doing it all in secret is not. Listen to Grant S and to the SR Designers interviews before that. 

Can you point me in the right direction to find where Oracle involved all the teams in changing to the new AC72 & AC50 Multi Hull Classes. I've been looking for ages and can't seem to find it. But I'm sure it's there someone otherwise you wouldn't have such a beef with what ETNZ have done. 

 

No hurry at all if you've got other stuff on. Just whenever you're ready, shoot it through. I'll be here waiting.

Share this post


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

“I don’t think it was right that Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa were writing the rule in isolation really,” Simmer told the Shirley Robertson podcast.

“They had a head start on everyone and I think you can see that when you compare the boats.”

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/122708053/americas-cup-british-challenger-promises-radical-different-new-boat-for-auckland-2021

Interesting comments from Simmer given what he and Oracle had done in the previous 2 editions of the Cup. Short memory perhaps?

Share this post


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

There’s a legitimate argument being made by Grant S and others, that if you do ‘win the bloody Cup’ you don’t also get nasty about it. Creating a new Class in secret is unprecedented, the (apparent) money and design-lead motivations are for sure questionable and likely won’t go down well in AC History. Where is the promised transparency and ‘honor’? 

There may be a legitimate argument as Grant Simmer points out, but that argument is with Luna Rossa as as Challenger of Record about consulting with the other challengers, not ETNZ.

The Americas's Cup has almost always been about the challenger or challenger of record choosing the type of boat and the defender choosing the venue, date and time of the match usually well after the type of boat has been decided. Does anyone remember the stunt of Ras-Al-Khaimah that Alinghi tried to pull?

Grant Simmer of all people was up to his neck in the shenanigans of the defender of the previous five America's Cups, so for him to be bitching about this is just rolled gold hypocrisy...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mudz said:

Interesting comments from Simmer given what he and Oracle had done in the previous 2 editions of the Cup. Short memory perhaps?

and the 3 cups previous to that with Alinghi...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Interesting comments from Simmer given what he and Oracle had done in the previous 2 editions of the Cup. Short memory perhaps?

Oracle didn’t write the 72 rule? Hired an outside firm. Short memory perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, NZL3481 said:

There may be a legitimate argument as Grant Simmer points out, but that argument is with Luna Rossa as as Challenger of Record about consulting with the other challengers, not ETNZ.

The Americas's Cup has almost always been about the challenger or challenger of record choosing the type of boat and the defender choosing the venue, date and time of the match usually well after the type of boat has been decided. Does anyone remember the stunt of Ras-Al-Khaimah that Alinghi tried to pull?

Grant Simmer of all people was up to his neck in the shenanigans of the defender of the previous five America's Cups, so for him to be bitching about this is just rolled gold hypocrisy...

And there you have it!

"The Americas's Cup has almost always been about the challenger or challenger of record choosing the type of boat and the defender choosing the venue, date and time of the match"

Share this post


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

It is nuts, the way GD schemed the Rule Writing, in excluding the wider design community from not only contributory comments but even from informative progression updates too. Grant says that over time that advantage has dimished but, damn, the advantage taken is unprecedented. Not to mention how he then took the design also as a multimillion $ money making opportunity from ACE..
 

The DR should have been done in a far better way, exactly as Grant pointed out. 

He should complain to the CoR as LR is his representative. ETNZ is not the right contact. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the concept and design came from the Italians?  I dont think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Simmer interview is total #fakenews, just like COVID.

You can tell because:

  • He didn't state ETNZ's win in Bermuda being down to a fluke weather pattern, but something wierd like better foils, flight, rudder, and overall concept.
  • He said SBTJ was basically a linked team of OTUSAs
  • He said OTUSA had no idea it was possible to foil in the AC72s until they saw the lake video

See! All total fake news BS.

MAKE GRANT SIMMER GREAT AGAIN!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

until they saw the lake video

:blink:

That came out much later than clear proof that TNZ were foiling their AC72...

Orifice had access to the video earlier via NSA/other TLA spy agency?!

Share this post


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

It is nuts, the way GD schemed the Rule Writing, in excluding the wider design community from not only contributory comments but even from informative progression updates too. Grant says that over time that advantage has dimished but, damn, the advantage taken is unprecedented. Not to mention how he then took the design also as a multimillion $ money making opportunity from ACE..
 

The DR should have been done in a far better way, exactly as Grant pointed out. 

Hey nuts bar answer the question

11 hours ago, JJD said:

How many teams did Grant Simmer have in to help write the rule with Oracle? 

?????? Spin spin spin ??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rh3000 said:

That Simmer interview is total #fakenews, just like COVID.

 

Maybe GS interview... for the rest, tell that to the people who has seen Italian army trucks full of coffins from the Bergamo hospital.

Fortunately, this forum is about sailing...

Over and out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You are dead wrong on all of that history. 

Not so fast... Alinghi DID propose a larger class, the AC90. They, via proxy, even built a boat. It was pretty widely known at the time within the sailing circles that the JV66 Numbers was an R&D effort for the AC90, even though they denied it. https://www.sailingworld.com/sailboats/numbers-judel-vrolijk-66/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ITA602 said:

Maybe GS interview... for the rest, tell that to the people who has seen Italian army trucks full of coffins from the Bergamo hospital.

Fortunately, this forum is about sailing...

Over and out.

I think you've missed my sarcasm

Share this post


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

And bitching about it will achieve exactly what, Stinger? It's not like ETNZ will, "see the error of their questionable ways" and invite a rethink on the AC75 Rule is it?

Just get on with it, for fucks sake. I'm done.

I think one of the points he is making that several kiwi posters refused to acknowledge the fact that NZ/LR had a substantial head start on the design process of their boats.  Several of us stated how obvious it was but many kept refused to understand it.  Now that it is commonly accepted as a fact, many of those same posters (not you) are not acknowledging they even refuted it.  It just adds to the frustration of the discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NZL3481 said:

There may be a legitimate argument as Grant Simmer points out, but that argument is with Luna Rossa as as Challenger of Record about consulting with the other challengers, not ETNZ.

The Americas's Cup has almost always been about the challenger or challenger of record choosing the type of boat and the defender choosing the venue, date and time of the match usually well after the type of boat has been decided. Does anyone remember the stunt of Ras-Al-Khaimah that Alinghi tried to pull?

Grant Simmer of all people was up to his neck in the shenanigans of the defender of the previous five America's Cups, so for him to be bitching about this is just rolled gold hypocrisy...

Did you listen to the podcasts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think one of the points he is making that several kiwi posters refused to acknowledge the fact that NZ/LR had a substantial head start on the design process of their boats.  Several of us stated how obvious it was but many kept refused to understand it.  Now that it is commonly accepted as a fact, many of those same posters (not you) are not acknowledging they even refuted it.  It just adds to the frustration of the discussion.

I'm kiwi and I accept and acknowledge it. I'm not sure how you define substantial but ill agree it was enough time to gain an advantage

This is the AC ... it's not supposed to be fair ... that's what makes winning it so much better

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Are you saying that the concept and design came from the Italians?  I dont think so.

Are you talking to me?
If so, whether the Italians were involved in concept or design work or not is not relevant to my statement, as all things challengers should be handled via the CoR LR, as the CoR is the representative of all other challengers. ETNZ is the wrong addressee for non-CoR challengers' complaints.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You are dead wrong on all of that history. 

Alinghi proposed a larger new IACC design with a dodgy challenger before they took to long and ended up in a DOG match

The end of the IACC

Immediately after the conclusion of the 2007 America's Cup, Brad Butterworth officially announced on behalf of Alinghi and America's Cup Management that a new design of boat would be sailed in the next edition of the America's Cup. The feeling was that the existing IACC rule had evolved as far as was practical and that in the spirit of the America's Cup, a new design challenge was needed. Alinghi eventually promulgated a new design, called the AC 90. Plans to introduce this class were superseded by Alinghi's loss to BMW Oracle in the 2010 America's Cup and the subsequent creation of the AC72 class of catamarans

oracle had access to the design criteria for the AC72 before the challengers, LR chose to buy a design of ETNZ, Artemis was so far behind it wasn't funny

BMW ORACLE Racing presented a two page concept paper to US SAILING and Morrelli & Melvin and asked them to turn it into a fully formed multihull design rule.

i.e they knew jist of what was going to be turned out before the rule was even written

oracle again with help from a failed ausy challenge changed the design to an AC62 and THEN mid cycle changed to the AC50 without all challengers accepting leading to LR pulling out

'We finished our job about four weeks ago,' Morrelli told the audience. 'In our last iteration, the boat was 62 feet, but now we’ve handed it over to Oracle and Russell and the boys to fuss it out with the Challenger of Record and Iain Murray. That is, the Aussies from Hamilton Island Yacht Club. Between them, a lot can happen. We’re now out of the loop, but something’s cooking

The exiting challenger of record was replaced by a challenger committee, where decisions are made by popular vote. When an even smaller 50ft wingsail foiling catamaran class rule amendment was voted in April 2015, Luna Rossa Challenge also withdrew, citing significant costs wasted on the development of the larger vessel.[63] Yachts from France, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK remained in the competition to challenge for the cup

its common knowledge that all teams except LR and ETNZ were backed by oracle with the shared design tech as well as them all signing the unprecedented contract to continue with the AC50 class if they won so they were effectively group voting LR/ETNZ into a corner in hope of getting rid of them

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stingray~ said:
17 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

And bitching about it will achieve exactly what, Stinger? It's not like ETNZ will, "see the error of their questionable ways" and invite a rethink on the AC75 Rule is it?

Just get on with it, for fucks sake. I'm done.

Okay :) 

Maybe I'm not done, Stinger. Just imagine for a minute, if ETNZ had called a meeting of possible Challengers and interested parties, to discuss design inputs for the AC36 Rule.

Two thirds of that group would've been firmly attached to retaining multi-hulls and the CoR wanted an IMOCA60 on steroids. What a fucking shit show that would have been.

Better to have a Cup winner with a vision and the balls and wherewithal to make it happen. The AC75 would not have been conceived otherwise. Now, some might say that would have been a good thing, but I call bullshit on that too.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Maybe I'm not done, Stinger. Just imagine for a minute, if ETNZ had called a meeting of possible Challengers and interested parties, to discuss design inputs for the AC36 Rule.

Two thirds of that group would've been firmly attached to retaining multi-hulls and the CoR wanted an IMOCA60 on steroids. What a fucking shit show that would have been.

Better to have a Cup winner with a vision and the balls and wherewithal to make it happen. The AC75 would not have been conceived otherwise. Now, some might say that would have been a good thing, but I call bullshit on that too.

 

I have no issue with D and CoR choosing the new boat. And they chose an extremely cool concept, that part is good too.

But Simmer, like Holroyd and Hutch before him too, have made a big point about the fact that ETNZ and LR took no input from anyone else, and didn’t even keep them updated on the thinking, for 6 whole months! 
 

When Alinghi was contemplating the AC90 after AC32 ‘07 they invited a bunch of designers into their sessions with Schackenberg, Vrojlik and Simmer and others running the discussions. And despite the DoG legal proceedings having already started, Oracle was included too!

Same for the AC72, AC62 and AC50 designs. M&M welcomed the input of all interested parties, even from those not yet officially entered. And yes, including ETNZ too. 
 

It was much the same story for the IACC Rule, lots of parties were included. 

This is not the way it should have been done but hopefully, as Simmer suggests, the taken advantage has diminished over time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

'We finished our job about four weeks ago,' Morrelli told the audience. 'In our last iteration, the boat was 62 feet, but now we’ve handed it over to Oracle and Russell and the boys to fuss it out with the Challenger of Record and Iain Murray. That is, the Aussies from Hamilton Island Yacht Club. Between them, a lot can happen. We’re now out of the loop, but something’s cooking

 

37 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Same for the AC72, AC62 and AC50 designs. M&M welcomed the input of all interested parties, even from those not yet officially entered. And yes, including ETNZ too

Spin spin spin.

 

38 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

This is not the way it should have been done but hopefully, as Simmer suggests, the taken advantage has diminished over time. 

oh, and nice side and lob as always. Simmer just drafting up the " dear husband" letter.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

What’s known about the dropped AC62 design?

All teams, ETNZ included, were in favor of charging to the AC50 instead. Only LR spit the dummy. 

Share this post


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

All teams, ETNZ included, were in favor of charging to the AC50 instead. Only LR spit the dummy. 

Not according to Dalton

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

All teams, ETNZ included, were in favor of charging to the AC50 instead. Only LR spit the dummy. 

Spin spin spin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GD liked that it was going to have so much OD (cheap) and said as much later. 
 

He was cow-towing a bit to Patricio’s decision, knowing the potential help coming his way from that direction. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

GD liked that it was going to have so much OD (cheap) and said as much later. 
 

He was cow-towing a bit to Patricio’s decision, knowing the potential help coming his way from that direction. 

Wow, so you are also a mind-reader now and can tell us what GD is really thinking even when it diverges from what he says and does.

I'm impressed :-)

Share this post


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

Spin spin spin

Wtf is wrong with you? Running around arguing against obvious facts, downvoting my posts, posting like a lunatic? Keerist! Dumbass

There are a few lowest-common-denominator Kiwi posters here who make SAAC almost unreadable. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Facts, facts, facts. 

Back em up with some facts..like how m&m solicited input from all teams for ac34, and the two classes for ac35. And then a fact that m&m shared their design brief with the cor and this was then shared with all teams, at the time they presented it to OR.

A fact that the aforementioned classes were designed by committee would help your hypotheses, our spin, as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Back em up with some facts..like how m&m solicited input from all teams for ac34, and the two classes for ac35. And then a fact that m&m shared their design brief with the cor and this was then shared with all teams, at the time they presented it to OR.

A fact that the aforementioned classes were designed by committee would help your hypotheses, our spin, as well.

Look it up yourself. It is exactly what happened.

Simmer and the others are right, the way this was done was unfair.
 

It (coincidentally?) is also at the heart of the S Fight that GD now has on his hands, with MBIE, him trying to charge ACE for the exclusive design work done. This is in mainstream news, it’s not like I am the messenger! 

Share this post


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

GD liked that it was going to have so much OD (cheap) and said as much later. 
 

He was cow-towing a bit to Patricio’s decision, knowing the potential help coming his way from that direction. 

If Dalts thought the AC50 was such a great idea, as you claim, why didn't ETNZ sign the Framework agreement - and adopt the AC50 for Auckland?

Share this post


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

If he thought the AC50 was such a great idea why didn't ETNZ sign the Framework agreement - and adopt the AC50 for Auckland?

Because he didn’t think the AC50 would suit the H Gulf. 
 
A beefier AC50 V2 Rule may have done it (and folks including RG were shocked they didn’t do that) but.. Whatever! 
 

The decision almost certainly cut out several well-financed teams, OTUSA and Artemis included, so perhaps that was a part of the decision too? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally some spirited “debate” about the AC on this site. 

WetHog :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Because he didn’t think the AC50 would suit the H Gulf. 
 
A beefier AC50 V2 Rule may have done it (and folks including RG were shocked they didn’t do that) but.. Whatever! 
 

The decision almost certainly cut out several well-financed teams, OTUSA and Artemis included, so perhaps that was a part of the decision too? 

"Emirates Team NZ believe the future America's Cup format is to be decided by the Defender and Challenger of Record as it has historically been," they said in a statement to Reuters.

 edit :Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the AC75 concept was GD's choice to make. 

I do not think anyone has contested his right to choose.  

Spending 6 months becoming the most expert team in the world in designing  / simulating the concept before before releasing sufficient information for accepted challengers to start designing is obviously a legal but unfair thing to do. 

There is also the "unfair" way the rules were written with specific details aimed at making it difficult or impossible for some teams (including Oracle & Artemis) to enter without drastic restructuring.  I am sure part of this was spite but it also smelled of trying to eliminate strong competition instead of beating them on the water.

This competition gives the winner more leeway to be "legal but unfair" than most.  When a winner chooses to exercise the unfairness to the maximum, this does not really help raise the image of the AC.  And yes, it it easy to see that the NYYC did a lot of this in the past. 

GD is who he is.  I know some ETNZ fans love and support him.  However, like it or not the methods he is willing to use will forever color this specific iteration of the event.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is also the "unfair" way the rules were written with specific details aimed at making it difficult or impossible for some teams (including Oracle & Artemis) to enter without drastic restructuring. 

Care to explain?

 

 

Share this post


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

Of course, the AC75 concept was GD's choice to make. 

I do not think anyone has contested his right to choose.  

Spending 6 months becoming the most expert team in the world in designing  / simulating the concept before before releasing sufficient information for accepted challengers to start designing is obviously a legal but unfair thing to do. 

There is also the "unfair" way the rules were written with specific details aimed at making it difficult or impossible for some teams (including Oracle & Artemis) to enter without drastic restructuring.  I am sure part of this was spite but it also smelled of trying to eliminate strong competition instead of beating them on the water.

This competition gives the winner more leeway to be "legal but unfair" than most.  When a winner chooses to exercise the unfairness to the maximum, this does not really help raise the image of the AC.  And yes, it it easy to see that the NYYC did a lot of this in the past. 

GD is who he is.  I know some ETNZ fans love and support him.  However, like it or not the methods he is willing to use will forever color this specific iteration of the event.  

What bollocks. 'Unfair?' The America's Cup has never been 'fair'.

The object of the exercise, once won, is to Defend.  By fair means or foul, as governed by the Deed. Get over it. Better yet get after it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, there was a provision about club funding to get rid of Oracle, and the nationality stuff looked to be a no go for Artemis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SBD,

I was very careful to separate fair from legal. I understand your point entirely and I see that you "get it".  There are some here that are more reluctant to admit how much GD seems willing to use "unfairness to the max".   

Share this post


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

As I recall, there was a provision about club funding to get rid of Oracle, and the nationality stuff looked to be a no go for Artemis.

didn't oracle do that to etnz ... they had a SKYY vodka sponsor with the AC72 which oracle made a rule to not have alc sponsors on the following AC50 cycle

 

What comes around goes around I guess :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Declaring a minor sponsor as not welcome is a tad bit different than declaring a host club as not welcome. 

Share this post


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

Declaring a minor sponsor as not welcome is a tad bit different than declaring a host club as not welcome. 

again ... explain

Share this post


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

Maybe I'm not done, Stinger. Just imagine for a minute, if ETNZ had called a meeting of possible Challengers and interested parties, to discuss design inputs for the AC36 Rule.

Two thirds of that group would've been firmly attached to retaining multi-hulls and the CoR wanted an IMOCA60 on steroids. What a fucking shit show that would have been.

Better to have a Cup winner with a vision and the balls and wherewithal to make it happen. The AC75 would not have been conceived otherwise. Now, some might say that would have been a good thing, but I call bullshit on that too.

 

Fine, no problem with that, just don't bitch about it when is done by another team when they had/have the opportunity.

Share this post


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

What bollocks. 'Unfair?' The America's Cup has never been 'fair'.

The object of the exercise, once won, is to Defend.  By fair means or foul, as governed by the Deed. Get over it. Better yet get after it!

Much like the under arm bowl, not illegal but grossly unfair, and you have been squealing about it ever since.

Share this post


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

I have no issue with D and CoR choosing the new boat. And they chose an extremely cool concept, that part is good too.

But Simmer, like Holroyd and Hutch before him too, have made a big point about the fact that ETNZ and LR took no input from anyone else, and didn’t even keep them updated on the thinking, for 6 whole months! 
 

When Alinghi was contemplating the AC90 after AC32 ‘07 they invited a bunch of designers into their sessions with Schackenberg, Vrojlik and Simmer and others running the discussions. And despite the DoG legal proceedings having already started, Oracle was included too!

Same for the AC72, AC62 and AC50 designs. M&M welcomed the input of all interested parties, even from those not yet officially entered. And yes, including ETNZ too. 
 

It was much the same story for the IACC Rule, lots of parties were included. 

This is not the way it should have been done but hopefully, as Simmer suggests, the taken advantage has diminished over time. 

Well that is an issue between Luna Rossa as Challenger of Record and the other challengers.

It has nothing to do with ETNZ.

As Challenger of Record, LR is supposed to be the representative of the challengers. Given Bertelli in the last AC cycle thought he was fucked over by OR and some of the other challengers with the agreement signed in London by OR and all the challengers except ETNZ, it goes some way to explaining his teams poor consultation skills/efforts this time around.

Bertelli is famous for his long memory...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Much like the under arm bowl, not illegal but grossly unfair, and you have been squealing about it ever since.

Ha, ha. Fair enough. What can I say? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2020 at 1:59 PM, Stingray~ said:

 if you do ‘win the bloody Cup’ you don’t also get nasty about it. 

Ummmm, really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think peeps need to remember that ETNZ is the cup holder, LR is the COR any other teams are, in terms of the DOG nothing.

This event ultimately is between the defender and the COR and according to the DOG they decide the boat design.

Simper et al can whine all they want the DOG (after VMG) is king.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because people did things in the past doesn’t always make it a great idea to do them in the future, 

 

if you are gonna complain that previous holders behaved like cunts, where the rule is concerned. Probs best not to be a cunt when it’s your turn to write the rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Look it up yourself. It is exactly what happened.

Simmer and the others are right, the way this was done was unfair.
 

It (coincidentally?) is also at the heart of the S Fight that GD now has on his hands, with MBIE, him trying to charge ACE for the exclusive design work done. This is in mainstream news, it’s not like I am the messenger! 

No...I provided a quote from m&m that they handed over the Ac62 to the def and cor and were then out of the loop.

YOU need to provide proof that m&m also took input from all teams, and kept them abreast of the changes in design of the next boat, and they all worked happily together on the downsize, including etnz.

Otherwise it's just more of your revisionist spew,  working as ministry of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, robberzdog said:

Not according to Dalton

He can't have it both ways.  He says that they support LR, but then he says they absolutely support the cost cutting measures of going to the smaller boat.  That is what GS said in the interview, that NZ was onboard with support of the cost cutting idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He can't have it both ways.  He says that they support LR, but then he says they absolutely support the cost cutting measures of going to the smaller boat.  That is what GS said in the interview, that NZ was onboard with support of the cost cutting idea.

You honestly don't see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

You honestly don't see the difference?

Of course, but he is kinda talking out of both sides of his mouth.  He understands that changing so late in the game it not a good idea and agrees with LR on that unless all of the teams agree to it.  Well LR left and all of the remaining teams agreed to it.  GS said that there was a very negative response from possible contenders about the cost of the larger boats and that is why they discussed it with the other teams and decided to go with the smaller boats.  I fully understand that it is not real fair to change the rules after everyone has started on the original plans, but it does happen (look at how the delay on the lower wind limit in this AC really affected the boat design).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally someone is drawing funny lines on barges again,

the previous lot was utterly dull, and as someone that has had that directed at them recently I am well aware of the irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lickindip said:

Care to explain?

 

 

Nationality rule in the case of Artemis, apologies for derailing the thread...

Share this post


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

Nationality rule in the case of Artemis.

Sweden has twice the population of NZ ... I would say that is an advantage

Share this post


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

Sweden has twice the population of NZ ... I would say that is an advantage

Well, USA has 12,5x the pop of Australia, what’s your point?

Share this post


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

He can't have it both ways.  He says that they support LR, but then he says they absolutely support the cost cutting measures of going to the smaller boat.  That is what GS said in the interview, that NZ was onboard with support of the cost cutting idea.

Did you miss the bit about the carrot being no Auckland regatta, which every team clearly knew would backfoot etnz, which it did, causing them to come within a whiff of closing shop, which would have been great for the Four, as they knew who the most dangerous team was.

Oh, and gd agreed with cost cutting.

Share this post


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

Well, USA has 12,5x the pop of Australia, what’s your point?

that the nationality rule actually disadvantages NZ the most ... there is a smaller pool to choose from. the fact the NZ sailers seem to be a better quality is another debate

Share this post


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

Well, USA has 12,5x the pop of Australia, what’s your point?

The AC is a Challenge Cup between Nations.

Having your boat crewed by a bunch of hired foreigners isn't really representing your Nation, is it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The AC is a Challenge Cup between Nations.

Having your boat crewed by a bunch of hired foreigners isn't really representing your Nation, is it.

It's not a challenge between nations.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's not a challenge between nations.  

From the DOG

"This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

Sorry, countries, not nations.

A billionaire, buying sailing talent from around the world to represent his Country isn't really what they were wanting, so some nationality clause seems fair, IMHO.

You could argue the "friendly" bit too :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

that the nationality rule actually disadvantages NZ the most ... there is a smaller pool to choose from. the fact the NZ sailers seem to be a better quality is another debate

By this metric, Indonesia should fare better than Norway at winter Olympics! But they are just too lazy to really put an effort...
The pool shouldn't be considered as the population or even the sailors in the country (targeting high perf sailing isn't the same as the Sunday outing), it's more about culture and traditions.

Too bad Ineos isn't showing up as TNZ and AM, would be much better than thread drift and contribution from the barge spotting community (was funny for a while, but ENI:2330036 going around at 7,4 kts will be interesting the day it foils).

Share this post


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

It's not a challenge between nations.  

Yes it is.  The Intent of the DoG is exactly that.

Share this post


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

From the DOG

"This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

Sorry, countries, not nations.

A billionaire, buying sailing talent from around the world to represent his Country isn't really what they were wanting, so some nationality clause seems fair, IMHO.

You could argue the "friendly" bit too :P

Since the beginning the AC boats were sailed by hired hands from any country. The syndicates and YCs were national tho. 

It's a design competition; initially it was a typical US design vs. an English design.

"Friendly" just meant that it shouldn't be hostile at a time that regarded war as a usual political means. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Since the beginning the AC boats were sailed by hired hands from any country. The syndicates and YCs were national tho. 

It's a design competition; initially it was a typical US design vs. an English design.

"Friendly" just meant that it shouldn't be hostile at a time that regarded war as a usual political means. 

Should bring back the sailed on it’s own bottom requirement that would liven up the event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Woolfy said:

I think peeps need to remember that ETNZ is the cup holder, LR is the COR any other teams are, in terms of the DOG nothing.

RNZYS is the cup holder.

CdVS is the CoR.

Share this post


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

Boring. 

Nice contribution. If you don't have something to say, stfu.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh fuck off.

 

its dull, repetitive and if you want to circle jerk over cup semantics and who fucked over who then there are other places to do it
 

if you aren’t here to draw yellow lines on container ships and slag off Ben and ineos what kind of AC fan are you? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh fuck off.

 

its dull, repetitive and if you want to circle jerk over cup semantics and who fucked over who then there are other places to do it
 

if you aren’t here to draw yellow lines on container ships and slag off Ben and ineos what kind of AC fan are you? 

isn't there another ineos thread for slagging? or am i getting confused with S&S. 

anyway, i can slag Ben and help you with your boredom.

bad boy ben

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites