Salty Seacock

Emirates Team New Zealand.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Priscilla said:

...a future for the class.

What? We are talking the America's Cup right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you test a foil that is not legal, then the boat is not legal. If the boat is of size and not legal, then it is a surrogate, which is not allowed. So all the foils seen must be legal and either modified or count to the limit.

Note the modifications are limited by mass, so there's probably some density trickery going on to maximise the number of useful modifications. Note also that the allowance for flaps is 20 and 20% modification on mass, so there's a lot of development and trickery available there. Is there a definition of a flap?

Is the bulb considered a fairing or a main wing? Is the 20% change allowance at each change or from original? Does the modification need to be made to the actual built and measured wing, or can it be made to the design and a whole new wing built within the 20% mass limit? If I read the rule the answers are probably there.

As a guess, they've maybe got primary metal structure that makes up a signficant portion of the mass which doesn't change (much), for a forward and aft position wing. Flap definition may allow the tips and span to be modified significantly.

With 6 wings and 20 flaps and careful rule trickery, you could conceivably have 40 or more wings for testing. But that is a lot of iterations to manage and test. The 3 main wings and 10 flaps (each side) is probably more than enough to keep the on-water testing busy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

If you test a foil that is not legal, then the boat is not legal. If the boat is of size and not legal, then it is a surrogate, which is not allowed. So all the foils seen must be legal and either modified or count to the limit.

by your definition, the boats must be in measurement at all times. this is simply not true

There are team communications between boat and shore/chase boats. LR had motors installed instead of people grinding for their social distancing rules. ETNZ has had items sticking off one side of their foils and there for non-symmetrical.

if you wet a set of foils then it is part of your 6. if they don't measure you wont get a cert for them so you have to make them legal within the modification rules if you wish to use them else you have thrown away 1 or more of your 6 options when it comes time to race time

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+ 6 foil arm fairings

im betting the bulbs etnz have been using are part of the arm fairing allowance and not the foil allowance

the bulbs don't have to weigh anything .. they can be from hollow carbon to solid lead .. so long as they stick within their own 20% allowance and the total weight of the boat

 

apart from the bulb shapes the foils look the same as some of the non bulb foils

 

Share this post


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

Care to address Farmer’s points? 

I back Bruno over Farmer by a wide distance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking is that the external bulb shape is probably easy to modify without declaring it to be "new" within rules. The vast majority of the mass would be a heavy (steel I seem to recall) core of the bulb combined with possibly heavy wings.  As long as these heavy items are not modified much you do not violate the total mass change of 20%.  Applying a lighter material (such as glass cloth and/or glass filled epoxy) on top of the core could be used to get your external shape.  For areas getting pounded by cavitation, a more durable material like kevlar might be worth considering.  

Share this post


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

by your definition, the boats must be in measurement at all times. this is simply not true

There are team communications between boat and shore/chase boats. LR had motors installed instead of people grinding for their social distancing rules. ETNZ has had items sticking off one side of their foils and there for non-symmetrical.

if you wet a set of foils then it is part of your 6. if they don't measure you wont get a cert for them so you have to make them legal within the modification rules if you wish to use them else you have thrown away 1 or more of your 6 options when it comes time to race time

If they're not in measurement, then they're not AC75s, hence surrogates.

There are probably some mutually agreed rules regarding your second paragraph, or the other teams are just not interested in pursuing the infringements, for various reasons, for their own perceived benefit. If LR wanted to use motors instead of people and I was head of ETNZ (or any other team) I would not pursue an enforcement because one-day I might want to also use a motor for testing (two boats, COVID, etc). There's also the consideration that using motors is not the same as people power nor person weight and dynamic movements, so the value of testing in that config is debatable and might lead LR down the wrong path. Same with communication and the bits hanging off the foils. The teams will definitely pick their battles.

Share this post


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

Hah Clarkey will be along shortly to bang on about  Saint GD saving the Cup from the deathly grip of Larry & Wussell thereby making the AC more affordable and thus accessible.

Nothing to see here  move along and just spend another few hundred millions of the publics loot enriching the sailing elite.

Farmers article is pretty succinct and to the point.

Simpler cheaper far less complex boats would mean a future for the class.

 

Who gives a fuck about the future of the class? An AC "Class" is designed for one cycle, and one cycle only. They are custom built for one reason and one reason only. To win the Cup. The AC72 had no future. Then they went smaller with an AC50. That had no future either. If ETNZ defends, look for the class to continue. If they don't, all bets are off, and we may get another class that lasts just one cycle. This is how the AC works. No one cares about the future until the current cycle is decided.

Share this post


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

If they're not in measurement, then they're not AC75s, hence surrogates.

There are probably some mutually agreed rules regarding your second paragraph, or the other teams are just not interested in pursuing the infringements, for various reasons, for their own perceived benefit. If LR wanted to use motors instead of people and I was head of ETNZ (or any other team) I would not pursue an enforcement because one-day I might want to also use a motor for testing (two boats, COVID, etc). There's also the consideration that using motors is not the same as people power nor person weight and dynamic movements, so the value of testing in that config is debatable and might lead LR down the wrong path. Same with communication and the bits hanging off the foils. The teams will definitely pick their battles.

teams aren't allowed surrogates so guess they are all disqualified then

the only rules they have to abide by are the AC75 class rule, the protocol and the DOG.

if someone is breaking them then expect it to go to the arbritration pannel as it will end up with points awared in the match ... think oracle kingpin debarkle

Share this post


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

And here his private team site, that goes 10 years back to the future. (click on Menu-Future :unsure:).

http://www.georgia-racing.co.nz/news

That much respected QC chooses his words very carefully, but seems a bit behind the times and over the hill.

 

Ploughing through the legal speak in Jim Farmer's plaint re AC-36 it's pretty obvious the Auckland Queens Counsel, successful ocean racer and former Emirates Team New Zealand Board member is disenchanted with Dalts' management of the team and his conduct of the Cup defence. There is more than a wistful If-only-I'd-been-there note to his self-published handwringing.

Dalton has achieved mightily to bring the RNZYS's Cup defender to its present solid position. OK,  his full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes attitude may raise the hackles of the persnickety but overall he's a big jewel in the team's crown. The rightful responsibility for the three million bucks charge that Farmer looks on so disparagingly will be settled by arbitration. Time enough to kvetch if Dalton is stuck with the bill.  Meantime the work got done.

Farmer, more than most, should understand the history of past challenges and lighten up on his concerns that we'll never host another defence here in NZ should we be successful this time. Contrast his dour view with Cup maestro Bruno Trouble who has forecast a memorable event plus flexibility next time.

“While we can certainly make some changes such as with a nationality rule, budget caps, format, possibility to sail an existing boat in the following Cup, etc … but we want to keep the Cup where it belongs: on the absolute edge of technology.” Trouble was reported as saying today in stuff.co.nz

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

teams aren't allowed surrogates so guess they are all disqualified then

I wonder what Jim Farmer thinks?

Share this post


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

What? We are talking the America's Cup right? 

Four completely different class yachts from Valencia 2007 disregarding 2010 is this a sustainable strategy to attract entrants to future cycles.

 

Share this post


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

Four completely different class yachts from Valencia 2007 disregarding 2010 is this a sustainable strategy to attract entrants to future cycles.

 

It's not broken. Leave the fucking thing alone, I say.

Share this post


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

It's not broken. Leave the fucking thing alone, I say.

Gone completely bonkers IMHO re greenfield designs.

Where to next ...

1A295FF9-8634-45F7-A197-FDDC055E43CB.thumb.png.11172b08d84d87f73729cc67462bae41.png

 

 

Share this post


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

An AC "Class" is designed for one cycle, and one cycle only.

Crikey Clarkey you’ve got a solid dose of convenient memory syndrome.

From 1958 to 1987 one class of yacht 12m with Courageous winning two cycles.

From 1992 to 2007 one class of yacht IAAC75.

Both classes relied heavily on future development using past contenders as trial horses it’s called progression.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

119632997_4714324455259236_9114030203266733603_o.thumb.jpg.f822f01c9f20cc540a41e32ab11bb449.jpg

Could be B2?

Foil arm dipples?

Don't forget the spray chine in the background...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This selling off defense venues for cash has got to stop. It makes the AC a vulgar moneygrubbing event run by smalltown NYYC wannabes, smelling of desperation and grift. Also sheep. 

THANKFULLY, Ineos will spare New Zealand the shame of being further associated with such things. 

You might want to get your facts straight! The only Defenders in modern times who have whored out the venues have been the two billionaires who tried to turn the AC into a money-making gig: Bertarelli and Ellison.

Share this post


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

If they're not in measurement, then they're not AC75s, hence surrogates.

..

"Surrogate Yacht means any yacht exceeding 12m LOA which is capable of producing meaningful design or performance information for use either directly or indirectly in the design, construction or sailing of an AC75 yacht and as further provided in the AC75 Class Rule.."

They're sailing AC75s already - they just don't have to be MC-certified yet except perhaps as part of their developmental evolution to know where they're at in terms of Class Rule compliance.

Share this post


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

Crikey Clarkey you’ve got a solid dose of convenient memory syndrome.

From 1958 to 1987 one class of yacht 12m with Courageous winning two cycles.

From 1992 to 2007 one class of yacht IAAC75.

Both classes relied heavily on future development using past contenders as trial horses it’s called progression.

 

Before the 12 meter there was the J class

Share this post


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

Sure, you can make points supporting those arguments but Farmer’s take on things is pretty devastating. 
 

I happen to love this AC75 Class but damn, the financial effect has been a touch devastating, as only one of his points. 

What "devastating" financial effect? The Council and Auckland Ratepayers have got an eyesore and heavily contaminated Wynyard Point rejuvenated for $100million and have got the NZ Government to put in another $100million, when the Council were up for $150million (and no Government assistance) to fix the area. Part of the $200million rejuvenation is a repaired wharf dating back to 1935, installation of a new stormwater system, rectification of a hazardous substances and fuel oil storage area where the leasees were allowed by the Harbour Board now Council to flush tanks and just let the contaminated water flow into the ground and leach into the harbour. Yep, it is "devastating" that all this has been fixed up. Even more "devastating" is the fact that as part of the Government funding agreement the Council are not allowed to sell off the rejuvenated land for apartments, office blocks, and other uses like they did with the Viaduct Harbour and surrounding area. And the Council and Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming by ETNZ into sorting out their messes, just as TNZ did before them after the 1995 Cup. Even more "devastating" is the fact that thanks to astute project management the project has been largely completed under budget and ahead of time - and will achieve these targets.

  • Like 10

Share this post


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

+ 6 foil arm fairings

im betting the bulbs etnz have been using are part of the arm fairing allowance and not the foil allowance

Read the rule. Bulbs are part of the wing per 13.2 c. Call them wing fairings if you like.

13.1 Each foil must comprise:
(a) a foil arm and a foil wing, which must form a single linear component;
(b) two foil flaps, each of which must be a linear component; and
(c) one or more foil systems.

13.2 For the purposes of Rules 5 and 10:

(c) except for the foil arm stock, foil flaps and foil systems, any material within the region described in Rule 13.4 must be part of the foil wing.

In definitions:

35.32 Foil arm fairing
Those parts of a foil arm that are not part of the foil arm stock, the foil arm leading edge or the assembly of the foil arm leading edge bonded to the foil arm stock. Although a foil arm fairing may be referred to in the singular, it can comprise several unconnected parts, each attached to a different region of the foil arm.

35.34 Foil arm stock
A supplied component forming the structural spar of a foil arm. The items included in the foil arm stock are defined in the AC75 One Design Foil Arm Assembly drawing.

They key being that foil arm fairings are bonded to the stock (a supplied component) and are not part of the leading edge.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You might want to get your facts straight! The only Defenders in modern times who have whored out the venues have been the two billionaires who tried to turn the AC into a money-making gig: Bertarelli and Ellison.

1. Has got to stop implies done before. 

2. Sorry I did not close caption "this is sarcasm " for some readers.

3. Glad you didn't object to the sheep.

 

Share this post


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

If you test a foil that is not legal, then the boat is not legal. If the boat is of size and not legal, then it is a surrogate, which is not allowed. So all the foils seen must be legal and either modified or count to the limit.

It's up to the rules committee to determine what is or isn't a surrogate. I think the intention is to stop development of more than two boats in total. Teams must be allowed some leeway during development, but anything that is clearly not allowed by the rules might cause a stir. The fitting on ETNZ's foil is a clear breech of the symmetry rule, but no one seems interested in protesting and the RC doesn't seem interested in acting unilaterally.

31.8 Leading up to events, the Measurement Committee will publish dates of measurement periods, during which Competitors may present their yachts for measurement.

So the RC will only really be interested in measurement leading up to events. Note also:

5.6 A component must be declared and counted in the limits described in Rule 5.7 regardless of whether that component satisfies the specific Rules controlling its parameters in this AC75 Class Rule. Any component that serves or partly serves the purpose of a listed component shall be counted.

So even if a component doesn't measure, it still counts if it does the job of a limited component.

12 hours ago, Ncik said:

Note the modifications are limited by mass, so there's probably some density trickery going on to maximise the number of useful modifications. Note also that the allowance for flaps is 20 and 20% modification on mass, so there's a lot of development and trickery available there. Is there a definition of a flap?

Yes, in §35 Definitions. :-)

35.36 Foil flap
A component attached to a foil wing that rotates and twists to control the foil’s lift.

12 hours ago, Ncik said:

Is the bulb considered a fairing or a main wing?

It's part of the wing, see #6928.

12 hours ago, Ncik said:

Is the 20% change allowance at each change or from original?

From the original, per the IGES file:

5.10 For components listed in Rule 5.1 that have a “Change allowance” mass percentage:

(b) At all times when that component is installed on an AC75 Class Yacht with that yacht afloat:
  (i) at least 80% of the mass of the component must match the original component; and
  (ii) a common portion of at least 80% of the mass of the original component must remain un- modified and must match all declared versions of the component.

 

12 hours ago, Ncik said:

Does the modification need to be made to the actual built and measured wing, or can it be made to the design and a whole new wing built within the 20% mass limit? If I read the rule the answers are probably there.

It must be the original wing, see above.

12 hours ago, Ncik said:

As a guess, they've maybe got primary metal structure that makes up a signficant portion of the mass which doesn't change (much), for a forward and aft position wing. Flap definition may allow the tips and span to be modified significantly.

With 6 wings and 20 flaps and careful rule trickery, you could conceivably have 40 or more wings for testing. But that is a lot of iterations to manage and test. The 3 main wings and 10 flaps (each side) is probably more than enough to keep the on-water testing busy.

Yep. If ETNZ has most of the mass in the wing with the bulb being less than 20%, they can have an unlimited number of bulbs. They just need to keep 80% original. Also conceivable is a heavy core with lighter external membrane that can be reshaped. No idea how practical these approaches are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

"Surrogate Yacht means any yacht exceeding 12m LOA which is capable of producing meaningful design or performance information for use either directly or indirectly in the design, construction or sailing of an AC75 yacht and as further provided in the AC75 Class Rule.."

They're sailing AC75s already - they just don't have to be MC-certified yet except perhaps as part of their developmental evolution to know where they're at in terms of Class Rule compliance.

Dunno what "MC-certified" means, but 5.5 says:

5.5 When a component listed in Rule 5.1 is:
     (a) first installed on an AC75 Class Yacht; or
     (b) modified and re-installed on an AC Class Yacht,
and that yacht is afloat, the Competitor shall declare that component to the Measurement Committee within 24 hours by emailing an updated version of the spreadsheet described in Rule 5.4.

So any and every component listed in 5.1 that is on the boat (including the hull) when it's afloat must be declared to the MC in its current configuration.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

1. Has got to stop implies done before. 

2. Sorry I did not close caption "this is sarcasm " for some readers.

3. Glad you didn't object to the sheep.

 

Hard to spot "sarcasm" from anyone from a state who has DeSantis as their state governor, and a pathological liar serial adulterer as president. 

Share this post


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

Hard to spot "sarcasm" from anyone from a state who has DeSantis as their state governor, and a pathological liar serial adulterer as president. 

I am not in Florida. But sorry you didn't like it. I thought the allusion to suntan lotion and French fries was pretty funny. That wanker is praising NZ for its classy AC that doesn't allow riff raff to watch or participate. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/122781129/americas-cup-veteran-bruno-trouble-predicts-a-show-you-have-never-dreamt-of-at-auckland-2021-

But then if we didn't laugh we'd all go insane here. And Jimmy was from Mississippi originally. 

Share this post


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

Dunno what "MC-certified" means, but 5.5 says:

5.5 When a component listed in Rule 5.1 is:
     (a) first installed on an AC75 Class Yacht; or
     (b) modified and re-installed on an AC Class Yacht,
and that yacht is afloat, the Competitor shall declare that component to the Measurement Committee within 24 hours by emailing an updated version of the spreadsheet described in Rule 5.4.

So any and every component listed in 5.1 that is on the boat (including the hull) when it's afloat must be declared to the MC in its current configuration.

Tomaytos - tomartos. Ncik stated the launched AC75s are surrogates (prohibited) if they're not Class-Rules-compliant. 

Share this post


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

Crikey Clarkey you’ve got a solid dose of convenient memory syndrome.

From 1958 to 1987 one class of yacht 12m with Courageous winning two cycles.

From 1992 to 2007 one class of yacht IAAC75.

Both classes relied heavily on future development using past contenders as trial horses it’s called progression.

 

Agreed. So do we go back to the 12's then? 

The IACC campaigns were among the most expensive campaigns in recent history!

Dalton has stated on multiple occasions that ËTNZ are spending less money in this campaign than they did in Valencia. So you want the expenses to increase then? 

So you want 2 boat testing? That also means employing 2 sailing crews, as opposed to one. You'll still have a large design team, so more expenses. Not cheaper by any means.

Its not the 80's or the 90's anymore. Technology has advanced since then. Its also got more expensive.

No one wants to go back to non foiling boats. Not now. You get what you pay for these days. 

The AC must stay at the cutting edge of technology to remain the pinnacle of professional sailing. It should NEVER be a regatta of small, cheap and affordable boats.

There are plenty of regattas that use cheap and affordable boats.

Go and watch the 12m Worlds if you want them back, the RC44's are cheap and affordable. They have their own competition. The 52 Super Series, The Fast 40's, all small, cheap and affordable (somewhat). They're not the AC.

It doesn't matter what class the AC uses. Teams will always find ways to spend hundreds of millions of dollars if they think it will help them win. Whether it be Opti's, IACC, AC50's or AC75's. If they think they can win, they'll spend what ever they need to to get there.

If thats the case, you might as well develop a class that employs cutting edge technology.

Share this post


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

Dalton has stated on multiple occasions that ËTNZ are spending less money in this campaign than they did in Valencia.

GD has said a lot of things that are not necessarily true the list is quite long actually.

If he is to be believed re the $180 mil Valencia cost being similar to this cycle does that factor in the significant savings made by having a home regatta including a syndicate base at no cost savings made on accommodation no transport spend for both boat and crew etc etc.

Apart from the upper echelon of TNZ nobody knows exactly what the total spend is and where the loot goes apart from the tax department monitoring the GST content.
 

 

Share this post


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

From 1958 to 1987 one class of yacht 12m with Courageous winning two cycles.

From 1992 to 2007 one class of yacht IAAC75.

As an aside (and not to challenge your original post):

1958, 1992 and 2020 Motor Trend Cars of the Year.

The world is moving at a faster rate now than ever.  Is it any surprise that AC classes have had to turn over more quickly in order to stay relevant?  I'd suggest that with the most recent design, ETNZ have thrown the ball into the future far enough to give this class some real longevity. 

I think too, the number of active teams makes a difference. IACC was used in Valencia because there was already momentum with that class.  Ellison's DOG challenge, like Fay's in 1988, was incredibly disruptive and we're still feeling the effects.  In 1988 the result was in a context of relatively slow technological development.  Predicting and choosing a relevant and resilient class in 2010 was a much more difficult exercise. 

1024px-1959_Ford_Thunderbird_(16283045745)_(cropped).jpg

1024px-5th_Cadillac_Seville.jpg

1024px-Chevrolet_Corvette_C8_Stingray_blue.jpg

Share this post


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

You might want to get your facts straight! The only Defenders in modern times who have whored out the venues have been the two billionaires who tried to turn the AC into a money-making gig: Bertarelli and Ellison.

In Ernie's defence, he was between the mountains and the DoG, as far as venues were concerned. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha. Thought that might have been the new Tesla Cybercar, for a second.

Pic: A Motorhead.

1024px-1959_Ford_Thunderbird_(16283045745)_(cropped).thumb.jpg.e403c5702a970eeb55caceed97c66a13.jpg

Share this post


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

119632997_4714324455259236_9114030203266733603_o.thumb.jpg.f822f01c9f20cc540a41e32ab11bb449.jpg

Could be B2?

Foil arm dipples?

Where’d you get this and who’s campaign is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mako23 said:

Before the 12 meter there was the J class

True but FanboyFour has a very selective memory so any AC minus Saint GD does not make his list.

Share this post


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

Something about that pic ain’t quite right.

308E4221-475A-4595-A2D8-B296D6499C81.jpeg.8ac732d0e17d31afe84b0d1809b44c69.jpeg

Looks like an ETNZ B2 ... wonder how old the picture/video is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, I14RACER said:

Where’d you get this and who’s campaign is it?

This was from an ETNZ social media post. Interestingly they’ve taken the post down on Twitter and this image above has been removed from their Facebook post. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thyroid check, whoever that is.

That's Adam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo comes from ETNZ FB page, and there is (was!) another build pic on there as well.

The other pic showed the sides near the stern.

Both removed now I see.

Must be B2 as it would make no sense to be posting pics of B1 part-constructed at this point in the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either that's a new style of dimple/socket for the foil arm, or they are debuting portholes in B2??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, weta27 said:

Either that's a new style of dimple/socket for the foil arm, or they are debuting portholes in B2??

Gun ports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A close perspective.

Pic: ETNZ

119599851_4714321955259486_9059458215966998961_o.jpg

Edited by Sailbydate
Origin
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

GD has said a lot of things that are not necessarily true the list is quite long actually.

If he is to be believed re the $180 mil Valencia cost being similar to this cycle does that factor in the significant savings made by having a home regatta including a syndicate base at no cost savings made on accommodation no transport spend for both boat and crew etc etc.

Apart from the upper echelon of TNZ nobody knows exactly what the total spend is and where the loot goes apart from the tax department monitoring the GST content.
 

 

The point is, costs are all relative. Even with the AC50’s the costs were exponential. It’s just part and parcel of the AC. It’s expensive. Always has been and always will be. The DoG does not make provision for sustainability. Each protocol only deals with each current cycle. It’s up to each defender and their CoR to decide what type of boat to race. That’s how the AC works. If you don’t like it, maybe go and watch an event with a class that isn’t going to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Priscilla said:

Something about that pic ain’t quite right.

308E4221-475A-4595-A2D8-B296D6499C81.jpeg.8ac732d0e17d31afe84b0d1809b44c69.jpeg

Hard chine?

Inked308E4221-475A-4595-A2D8-B296D6499C81.jpeg.8ac732d0e17d31afe84b0d1809b44c69_LI.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do care about having more Challengers (and I actually don’t so long as there are 2 or 3 quality ones) as many interests obviously do then here’s from that piece by Farmer. Agreed with robberdognz’s post above that the event moved forward a lot of nice Auckland waterfront improvement but did that require as radical (yes, extremely cool) a new Class? Bold mine:

...

The problem for New Zealand, then and ever since, was one of money.  Lacking an Ernesto Bertarelli or a Larry Ellison or a Patricio Bertelli, Team New Zealand continued to be reliant on commercial sponsors.  The cost of an AC team was enough to make even a billionaire’s eyes water and Ellison’s Oracle took BMW into its fold.   Alinghi and Luna Rossa/Prada also had support from commercial sponsors.  Team NZ acquired Emirates (and gave them naming rights) and Omega and continued to have support from Toyota New Zealand.  The continuation of the basic monohull design that had been used for a number of AC editions assisted in keeping costs down and the number of challengers up, as compared with the switch to catamarans by Oracle after it won the Cup and, more recently and radically, the foiling monohull that the current Cup will be sailed in, chosen by Team NZ [TNZ].  

It is a matter of comment that TNZ had since 2003 been a vocal critic of the excessive costs that boat design and development placed on the poorer teams i.e. TNZ.  In July 2013, when the AC Match was being held in San Francisco, Grant Dalton said that to attract a good number of challengers the Event needs to have budgetary constraints. That makes inexplicable the decision, when Team NZ won the Cup back again in Bermuda in 2017, to switch from the 48 foot catamarans which by then were fully established to a 75 foot foiling monohull, a boat previously unknown to yachting.  The effect of that decision was in all probability to exclude new teams from entering the current Cup – the result 11 challengers in 2000 continuing with the existing boat down to 3 in 2020.  The reality was that no start-up team could hope to be competitive against existing teams with extensive AC experience and especially against TNZ who had a significant head-start as the originators of the concept.

http://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/legal-commentary/whatever-the-result-is-this-the-last-time-the-americas-cup-event-is-held-in-new-zealand

Share this post


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

True but FanboyFour has a very selective memory so any AC minus Saint GD does not make his list.

Alias this forum is skewered on both sides with Individuals who have  altered altered memories that fit their world view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, weta27 said:

Thanks Stingray, that was the other pic I was talking about

119475191_699635213970330_2605467704625052478_n.jpg

That one’s still there. I wonder if there’s a communications staff member applying for work with Mayo and Calder this morning?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ hair marks. See the darkened stiff curl.

Edit, looks like a five fingered claw in his hair, or multi horns. Creepy. Did he sell his soul to the devil?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s amazing how CF looks in visible-light range photos, even minor weave pattern differentiations can lead to deceptive conclusions. 
 

Cool enough photo to have fun with, though.. Is it big enough to be the D mast? 

Share this post


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

^ hair marks. See the darkened stiff curl.

Edit, looks like a five fingered claw in his hair, or multi horns. Creepy. Did he sell his soul to the devil?

 

Love that movie! 
 

Thanks, will dial in later tonight

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That makes inexplicable the decision, when Team NZ won the Cup back again in Bermuda in 2017, to switch from the 48 foot catamarans which by then were fully established to a 75 foot foiling monohull, a boat previously unknown to yachting.  The effect of that decision was in all probability to exclude new teams from entering the current Cup – the result 11 challengers in 2000 continuing with the existing boat down to 3 in 2020.  The reality was that no start-up team could hope to be competitive against existing teams with extensive AC experience and especially against TNZ who had a significant head-start as the originators of the concept.

 

The reason for the switch from the AC50 was explained by Dalton at the final media conference in Bermuda.

No first time Challenger has ever won the America's Cup aside from 2003 when Alinghi had the NZA crew sailing against the NZB crew sailing for TNZ. It took TNZ three Challenges to win on their fourth.As Blake so often said of the AC "if it is not hard to win it is not worth trying".

Share this post


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

Teams must be allowed some leeway during development, but anything that is clearly not allowed by the rules might cause a stir. The fitting on ETNZ's foil is a clear breech of the symmetry rule, but no one seems interested in protesting and the RC doesn't seem interested in acting unilaterally.

Exactly my point and the example I was thinking of.

Share this post


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

What's going on with his nose? Photochoppery

It's pressed against the window whilst he drools at the cornucopia of delights in the hold of b2.

Share this post


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

What's going on with his nose? Photochoppery

He's simply looking through the foil arm hinge hole - can see the light and shadow on his cheek...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RobG said:

Yep. If ETNZ has most of the mass in the wing with the bulb being less than 20%, they can have an unlimited number of bulbs. They just need to keep 80% original. Also conceivable is a heavy core with lighter external membrane that can be reshaped. No idea how practical these approaches are.

Even if the bulb is less than 20% of the mass, the foil wings have changed considerably from the original two foils.  So NZ has used up at least 4 of their foils.  

Share this post


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

Even if the bulb is less than 20% of the mass, the foil wings have changed considerably from the original two foils.  So NZ has used up at least 4 of their foils.  

Just as well we have you doing the audit, Alchy. Otherwise ETNZ might forget how many they've created...and we couldn't have that. ;-)

Share this post


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

is that wear or de-moulding marks?

 

9 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Ya reckon?

OK hmm, yes I was assuming that was old filler/fairing stuff -> B1 but it may be new de-moulding -> B2.

Share this post


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

That Jim Farmer blogpost is spot on. Will be interesting to see what the future holds for TNZ after this current cycle. 

You're new here, aren't you1

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Boom or Hawk Mast?

One guy in the background is up a ladder to work at the same height as the guy in the foreground, and the third guy is kneeling on what could be deck??

Could the nearest guy be standing in a very early stage build of a crew tunnel?

119475191_699635213970330_2605467704625052478_n.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You're new here, aren't you?

Not new, but still a newbie and maybe a bit naive?

 

Share this post


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

Yep thats a gunwale.

Yep, they're gone shoot accros!

 

Share this post


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

Not new, but still a newbie and maybe a bit naive?

 

Just like the rest of us, buddy. But who gives a shit? Keep it coming.

Share this post


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

Just like the rest of us, buddy. But who gives a shit? Keep it coming.

As for me, more nasty than naive, I hope.

And plan to keep it up too!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Even if the bulb is less than 20% of the mass, the foil wings have changed considerably from the original two foils.  So NZ has used up at least 4 of their foils.  

Mate, the mods are based on iges files with mass declarations. Wtf are you thinking that you have any idea what goes on? I mean, you thought you could tow a dingy for a hundred miles passage. Duh.

Share this post


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

True but FanboyFour has a very selective memory so any AC minus Saint GD does not make his list.

And how many affordable J’s do you know of? It’s not like J’s are cheap to buy/ build or race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they were even more expensive when all the fairing was done by long board / hand sanding

Share this post


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

If you do care about having more Challengers (and I actually don’t so long as there are 2 or 3 quality ones) as many interests obviously do then here’s from that piece by Farmer. Agreed with robberdognz’s post above that the event moved forward a lot of nice Auckland waterfront improvement but did that require as radical (yes, extremely cool) a new Class? Bold mine:

...

The problem for New Zealand, then and ever since, was one of money.  Lacking an Ernesto Bertarelli or a Larry Ellison or a Patricio Bertelli, Team New Zealand continued to be reliant on commercial sponsors.  The cost of an AC team was enough to make even a billionaire’s eyes water and Ellison’s Oracle took BMW into its fold.   Alinghi and Luna Rossa/Prada also had support from commercial sponsors.  Team NZ acquired Emirates (and gave them naming rights) and Omega and continued to have support from Toyota New Zealand.  The continuation of the basic monohull design that had been used for a number of AC editions assisted in keeping costs down and the number of challengers up, as compared with the switch to catamarans by Oracle after it won the Cup and, more recently and radically, the foiling monohull that the current Cup will be sailed in, chosen by Team NZ [TNZ].  

It is a matter of comment that TNZ had since 2003 been a vocal critic of the excessive costs that boat design and development placed on the poorer teams i.e. TNZ.  In July 2013, when the AC Match was being held in San Francisco, Grant Dalton said that to attract a good number of challengers the Event needs to have budgetary constraints. That makes inexplicable the decision, when Team NZ won the Cup back again in Bermuda in 2017, to switch from the 48 foot catamarans which by then were fully established to a 75 foot foiling monohull, a boat previously unknown to yachting.  The effect of that decision was in all probability to exclude new teams from entering the current Cup – the result 11 challengers in 2000 continuing with the existing boat down to 3 in 2020.  The reality was that no start-up team could hope to be competitive against existing teams with extensive AC experience and especially against TNZ who had a significant head-start as the originators of the concept.

http://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/legal-commentary/whatever-the-result-is-this-the-last-time-the-americas-cup-event-is-held-in-new-zealand

Purple above: Not true. I can very well recall the complaints about the huge cost to get even a tiny bit of additional speed out of the IACCs, especially the V4s and V5s. Budgets of 100+m were spent by the top teams. The difference to today: That was during an economically great period, while during AC33 the economy tanked and never went back to its previous state - at least not for the 99 80%.
Society has changed dramatically since 2007, but the foundations of the AC haven't.

14 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Love that movie! 
 

Thanks, will dial in later tonight

+1. Splendid music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites