bigrpowr

Prada Cup

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jaysper said:

This is the most disappointing AC since the 1988 Cat-Dog fiasco.

An already very light racing schedule has been decimated by poor AM turning turtle.

If ETNZ defend successfully, they need to lift their game bigly.

It's not even close to SF which had one legitimate challenger and a highly compromised LVC due to the Artemis rebuild

Share this post


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

Ok you millennial fuck, this version of sailing is god awful boring to watch. A couple boats ping pong their way from side to side. The development was ten times more interesting than the racing. Really cool boats, but I miss real sailing. 

Well I'm 42, so Gen X, but boring? With 9 passes? WTF?

Not real sailing? Listening to all the discussions coming from the boats would be totally familiar to anyone who's raced a boat before. 

Why are the boundaries such a problem for you? They force the boats to prove they've got the skill to execute their manoeuvres over and over again. In these boats you get a level of jeopardy every manoeuvre. There are still opportunities to work the shifts, still opportunities to tack on your opponent, if you've got the balls to get it done, still tactical calls to make. Would you rather they didn't have boundaries and just watch them sail squares? Or is that your fundamental problem - "it's different to me sailing my 4 knot shitbox" so I don't like it.

These things are raced like high performance dinghies, so out of interest have you ever foiled anything or even done proper apparent wind sailing? Just want you to disprove my hunch that you're not really understanding what the guys are doing when they go race these things so can't relate to what you're seeing.

Convert me! Why should the AC go back to 'real sailing', because the racing I'm seeing is totally engaging, easy to understand, very relatable, very competitive even when gaps open they can close very quickly, and doesn't need me to plan my day around and have a few coffees to watch, and this is coming from someone who doesn't drink coffee and would quite happily watch a live stage of the Tour de France...

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, whats not to like about this event? its in the homewaters of NZ, spectators can watch live on the water and at the Cup village, something no other country can do right now, the boats are fantastic! Big, powerful, fast, revolutionary new class of boat able to match race like the old lead mines, the 3 challengers are all strong, independent teams intent on winning the cup, the TV coverage is fantastic, and free, the weather here in NZ is great right now, and the Defender is still an unknown. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Well I'm 42, so Gen X, but boring? With 9 passes? WTF?

Not real sailing? Listening to all the discussions coming from the boats would be totally familiar to anyone who's raced a boat before. 

Why are the boundaries such a problem for you? They force the boats to prove they've got the skill to execute their manoeuvres over and over again. In these boats you get a level of jeopardy every manoeuvre. There are still opportunities to work the shifts, still opportunities to tack on your opponent, if you've got the balls to get it done, still tactical calls to make. Would you rather they didn't have boundaries and just watch them sail squares? Or is that you're fundamental problem - "it's different to me sailing my 4 knot shitbox" so I don't like it.

These things are raced like high performance dinghies, so out of interest have you ever foiled anything or even done proper apparent wind sailing? Just want you to disprove my hunch that you're not really understanding what the guys are doing when they go race these things so can't relate to what you're seeing.

Convert me! Why should the AC go back to 'real sailing', because the racing I'm seeing is totally engaging, easy to understand, very relatable, very competitive even when gaps open they can close very quickly, and doesn't need me to plan my day around and have a few coffees to watch, and this is coming from someone who doesn't drink coffee and would quite happily watch a live stage of the Tour de France...

Even a lot of yachts with tons of lead were and are more exciting than the bloody 12s

Share this post


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

Ok you 2 calm down. nothing is perfect. Except maybe Land Sailing at Ivanpah. 

  1. High Speed Sailing that makes these expensive water toys look slow.
  2. You don't get wet or have to wash off the salt water.
  3. It's a W/L course or you can set up a Rally distance type course. A "poker run" race is really fun.
  4. Hotels and Casinos and Vegas Escorts just down the highway.
  5. And it all costs a lot less than traditionally sailing which means you have more for #3.#4!

 

fify...

Share this post


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

I'd prefer to see more teams. I'd really prefer to see more races. 

The only reason we're not, is because of AM.

Share this post


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

The only reason we're not, is because of AM.

The reason is too high cost at entry level.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go back to Luna Rossa's B1 launch, and all the interviews they did afterward, all the talk was of how similar the ETNZ and LR designs were, and how we had LR and ETNZ in one camp, and the other teams in the other camp. 

With LR continuing down the same design path for Boat 2 that they started out with B1 and ETNZ seemingly starting with a blank sheet of paper following Te Aihe, and with LR's design obviously looking even at best right now, it begs the question whether LR were duped by the Kiwi's into thinking one way.

Perhaps the Italians were under the impression or were led to believe that the original ETNZ B1 design, a design LR was very similar too, was strong enough to take forward, and that the Kiwi's were also going to continue along that design path. Were the Italians duped by the Kiwi's? It seems the more extreme designs like Britannia and Te Rehutai are standing out while the more conservative designs like LR B2 may be off the pace.

 

Share this post


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

The reason is too high cost at entry level.

The reason is interest. There are plenty of billionaires in the sport still pouring hundreds of millions into racing yachts. Just not the AC, because they know they're not going to win.

Share this post


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

The reason is too high cost at entry level.

Te Aihe might be for sale at a knockdown price, in a month or two, Rennie. Little used and I suspect, a bit of potential.

Could be two or three others, too.

With a bit of momentum, this AC class could become quite popular, I'm thinking.

Share this post


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

The reason is interest. There are plenty of billionaires in the sport still pouring hundreds of millions into racing yachts. Just not the AC, because they know they're not going to win.

Of course it's the root to everything expensive. That's why if it was cheaper there wouldn't need to be billionaires. The problem is that these things are way more expensive. I like them and as long as there is a defender and a challenger I'm good, but to try and say it's interest is bullshit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Te Aihe might be for sale

According to TE, EB (Alinghi) dude is buying Te Aihe.

Just a point on the race length. I'd love to see longer races, as watching the boats race is great - but I think they're 25 minutes, because of the almost constant effort required of the grinders, and much over 25 is getting tough for them. Those drift races were supposedly really hard on grinders, because of the extended length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get lots of competitors when teams can be funded primarily through corporate sponsorship and it doesn't require a billionaire to part with > $150m just to get to the start line. Cutting edge new boats racing around in the middle of the night where most of the potential sponsors do business with very little viewership is not how you accomplish that.

For better or worse, there is little chance of having a large field of competitors for the next cup cycle if the Kiwis retain the cup.

The game changer would be if you could get Asian money involved, but that's been a fantasy of defenders since 95, with little success.

Share this post


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

It's not even close to SF which had one legitimate challenger and a highly compromised LVC due to the Artemis rebuild

Sure but at least the cup match itself was a genuine surprise boat speed wise. Sadly more surprising at the very end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say, reviewing Race 5, Jimmy got pretty damn loose at times.

One or two losses to AM next weekend and the question may be asked. The pressure on LRPP must now be immense.

Screen Shot 2021-01-24 at 2.19.37 PM.png

Screen Shot 2021-01-24 at 2.19.49 PM.png

Screen Shot 2021-01-24 at 2.20.00 PM.png

Share this post


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

Have to say, reviewing Race 5, Jimmy got pretty damn loose at times.

One or two losses to AM next weekend and the question may be asked. The pressure on LRPP must now be immense.

Screen Shot 2021-01-24 at 2.19.37 PM.png

Screen Shot 2021-01-24 at 2.19.49 PM.png

Screen Shot 2021-01-24 at 2.20.00 PM.png

I think there was overlap before the circle and once inside he had to give way to Ineos. He needed some extra speed to prevent it which he did not have, he about 10 kts slower at that time. I don't see how better he could have done, unless some here see something I did not.

Share this post


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

They have owned it. Multiple times. On the positive side, the teams we do have are clearly, independent, and they're strong.

To me, while I absolutely like to see more teams, the stronger the teams, the better the event.

For instance, in Valencia we had teams like K-Challenge, +39, United Internet Team Germany and Shosholoza. While it was great to see these teams, we all knew, and it was obvious that they were never making the LV Cup Final let alone the Match itself. They were minnows racing each other for nothing much more than bragging rights. Same in 95 with Sydney 95 and the Spanish and French. Same in 2000 with Fast 2000, the French and the Aloha Challenge, 2003 with Areva, Mascalzone and the GBR Challenge.

None of those teams ever had a chance. 

This time we have 3 teams, who are all capable of going through to the match and being competitive against the Defender.

Even in Bermuda, we had France who were never a real challenger, as well as Japan who were nothing more than an Oracle trial horse to help them retain.

I'd love to see more teams, but then again, I prefer to see strong teams, rather than teams that were only there to make up numbers.

 

 

 

You are either very short sighted and clueless or you have spent too long drinking the ETNZ Koolaid!

For the long term future of the AC, you need those teams that might not be in with a chance of winning. They give young sailors and designers the opportunity to step up to the AC and cut their teeth. Where would Jimmy S be without getting the opportunity to sail on Young Australia in 2000, a team that stood no chance in an old boat? Or what about Shannon Falcone, who sailed for Mascalzone Latino when they finished last in the LV. Obviously these are just 2 examples, but many of sailors and designers have come through to good teams from these "no hope" teams. Without them, the pool of experienced talent just keeps getting smaller and it is harder to put forward a case to start a new team due to the lack of experienced people.

The AC is unsustainable on a long term (maybe even medium term) basis with only 3 challengers.

And to be clear, the reason for so few challengers is firmly due to decisions made by Dalton and his group who decided on what the boat was to be. From the moment it was announced, everybody could see that this was going to be the most expensive AC class ever, plus it was a totally new, unproven concept. It went against everything that Dalton had said during the whole "cat" era about the need to dramatically cut costs to stop the AC from dying.

While I very much dislike Dalton, I had hoped that he would do what he had spent years saying needed to be done with the AC. He had talked about affordability and about the defender not using their position to gain advantage over the challengers. He had attacked Alinghi for developing a class rule in house and without consultation and attacked Oracle for ridiculously expensive boats, yet ETNZ became the first team for years to develop an AC class rule solely in house (which gives a huge advantage) and he chose the most expensive boat ever.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

They give young sailors and designers the opportunity to step up to the AC and cut their teeth. Where would Jimmy S be without getting the opportunity to sail on Young Australia in 2000, a team that stood no chance in an old boat? Or what about Shannon Falcone, who sailed for Mascalzone Latino when they finished last in the LV. Obviously these are just 2 examples, but many of sailors and designers have come through to good teams from these "no hope" teams. Without them, the pool of experienced talent just keeps getting smaller and it is harder to put forward a case to start a new team due to the lack of experienced people.

Burling and Tuke came from the 49er class, with no big boat background. If they stay with high performance boats, plenty of moth sailors and other apparent wind guys will be in contention. So there goes that theory of yours.

7 minutes ago, SimonN said:

The AC is unsustainable on a long term

The AC has never been about sustainability. It's very hard to win it - for a multitude of reasons - money being one of them. It's good that it's hard to win.

10 minutes ago, SimonN said:

While I very much dislike Dalton,

He's achieved more in sailing than almost anybody, including you. Your opinion of Dalts is very easy to dismiss - as in he, me, and most everyone doesn't give a shit. Now fuck off!

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

You are either very short sighted and clueless or you have spent too long drinking the ETNZ Koolaid!

Blah blah blah

For the long term future of the AC, you need those teams that might not be in with a chance of winning. They give young sailors and designers the opportunity to step up to the AC and cut their teeth. Where would Jimmy S be without getting the opportunity to sail on Young Australia in 2000, a team that stood no chance in an old boat? Or what about Shannon Falcone, who sailed for Mascalzone Latino when they finished last in the LV. Obviously these are just 2 examples, but many of sailors and designers have come through to good teams from these "no hope" teams. Without them, the pool of experienced talent just keeps getting smaller and it is harder to put forward a case to start a new team due to the lack of experienced people.

This WAS the case in the IACC class. Its no longer the case as times have changed. The majority of new high performance sailors come from the Olympics, because thats where high performance classes thrive now. Its not about match racers anymore, its about speed. This discussion was had during the commentary of the last RR race. AC sailors no longer need to go through the World Match Racing Championship like they used to. The Olympics provides the perfect opportunity for AC athletes to cut their teeth now, so there is NO NEED for teams that only make up numbers. 

The AC is unsustainable on a long term (maybe even medium term) basis with only 3 challengers.

BS. The AC can sustain itself with one challenger if it needs to, thats why it has done so in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. ANyone who thinks the AC is unsustainable is kidding themselves. The AC sustains itself by being the AC, nothing more, nothing less.

And to be clear, the reason for so few challengers is firmly due to decisions made by Dalton and his group who decided on what the boat was to be. From the moment it was announced, everybody could see that this was going to be the most expensive AC class ever, plus it was a totally new, unproven concept. It went against everything that Dalton had said during the whole "cat" era about the need to dramatically cut costs to stop the AC from dying.

If you can provide the proof of that, I'll listen, but you have no idea how much teams have spent on campaigns, be it, this campaign, or past campaigns. You're guessing. Making shit up.

While I very much dislike Dalton, I had hoped that he would do what he had spent years saying needed to be done with the AC. He had talked about affordability and about the defender not using their position to gain advantage over the challengers. He had attacked Alinghi for developing a class rule in house and without consultation and attacked Oracle for ridiculously expensive boats, yet ETNZ became the first team for years to develop an AC class rule solely in house (which gives a huge advantage) and he chose the most expensive boat ever.

BS again. They attacked Alinghi for developing a class rule in house with an invalid CoR Protocol. The Protocol was invalid because the CoR was invalid, which made the class rule invalid, as well as everything else.

As for the most expensive boat ever, like I said, when you can come up with some solid costs (proven costs, not made up costs) this argument has merit. Until then, its more speculation and made up bollocks.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Of 1.5 billion people. We had 100k viewers for a completely unknown motor racing grass root series in Germany (83m inhabitants). And that was deemed an incredibly low number. Still a loooooong way to go for sailing in China. 

Ah - the glass half empty attitude. :lol: I think I know that we have a long way to go.  But just think of the potential :P

THE glass half full attitude is that with 1.4 Bn people and the largest population of smart phones & internet users on the planet and SO MUCH local content available (Tik Tok, Wechat etc etc etc) to compete with that we got 200k watching a race (LIVE)  in a relatively unknown sport in far off Kiwiland. That is a result!!!

Having been involved in our sport from ground zero I find the figures very encouraging.

How long have you had motor racing in Germany by the way building up to that level of interest? Considerably longer than the less than 20 year history of Corinthian sailing in China I would wager. For example wasn't Audi founded on motor sport around 100 years ago?

With over 140 'yacht clubs' around the country already I think water leisure here has already come a loooooong way but the challenge is far from done.

See ya on the water

SS

Share this post


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

None of those teams ever had a chance. 

This time we have 3 teams, who are all capable of going through to the match and being competitive against the Defender.

Yeah, you’re right! Come to think of it, let’s just have an NFL season with the 4 most competitive teams. What’s the point of having those other ones if they can’t hack it? /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sisu3360 said:

Yeah, you’re right! Come to think of it, let’s just have an NFL season with the 4 most competitive teams. What’s the point of having those other ones if they can’t hack it? /s

smh

The NFL is a NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. They have a governing body who organises the season. The Champions don't have to organise the next season. The Champions don't organise teams for the next season, Hell, the Champions don't even get to pick where the next Superbowl will be held!

Comparing the NFL to the AC is stupid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 Challengers is fine so long as there are 3 billionaires to foot the bill.  In that case some of you Kiwi fan boys better start whispering sweet nothings in LEs ear to get him involved again because the odds of losing a billionaire (Bertelli) after this cycle is pretty high. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


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

3 Challengers is fine so long as there are 3 billionaires to foot the bill.  In that case some of you Kiwi fan boys better start whispering sweet nothings in LEs ear to get him involved again because the odds of losing a billionaire (Bertelli) after this cycle is pretty high. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Already have one in Gabe Newell. Ratcliffe will be back if INEOS wins, rumour is EB may be back. Perhaps DeVos may be back too?

Share this post


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

Already have one in Gabe Newell. Ratcliffe will be back if INEOS wins, rumour is EB may be back. Perhaps DeVos may be back too?

I see one sure thing in Ratcliffe and some maybes.  I’d image the Amway folks return will be dictated by how AM performs in the semi’s after breaking their boat and having to rebuild it in 10 days.   The Young Australia, +39, Stars + Stripes type teams are not viable options with the current boat rule, IMO. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Already have one in Gabe Newell. Ratcliffe will be back if INEOS wins, rumour is EB may be back. Perhaps DeVos may be back too?

Don't want EB back. Of he wins it again, he will surely fuck it like last time. Cunt.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I see one sure thing in Ratcliffe and some maybes.  I’d image the Amway folks return will be dictated by how AM performs in the semi’s after breaking their boat and having to rebuild it in 10 days.   The Young Australia, +39, Stars + Stripes type teams are not viable options with the current boat rule, IMO. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Correct. With the IACCS you could run a campaign relatively cheaply, albeit with little chance of victory.

I doubt that is the case with these boats.

Share this post


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

Almost no challenger series plus we have already seen the defender and challengers together.

I realise this is purely an opinion and you might just be loving this. But for me, it kinda sucks.

We have had some great racing, but fuck all of it.

Surely they've made the best of the situation. They only have 3 Challengers. 

We've seen the Defender and Challengers only in the ACWS. The ACWS isn't the CSS. 

The boats are fantastic! Better by FAR than the Cats. Fully crewed, big, powerful boats are definitely better than the 5 crew, fragile, little toy cats that we saw in Bermuda.

We've had great racing, so I don't get what's not to like about it? 

That covers it for me. Yesterday ranks with some of the best Cup racing I've seen over the past five decades.  Does that make me a Boomer? Yair!  Some of the IACC spinnaker gybing duals of old were heart-stoppers. Before that,12-Metres close tacking in the big cresting waves off Freo were something to behold, and the catamaran era brought its own thrills and excitement.

But that was then. This is now. The Deed of Gift embraces continuity along with change, whether Court-ordered, or by competitor consent. Embrace it. Enjoy it.

The only thing certain is that progress will continue to surprise, spurious wishful thinking will play no part, and The Cup will prevail.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all have missed Simon's point. It is not that you need smaller teams to learn how to sail the boat. You need smaller teams to develop a pool of people who know how an AC campaign operates. It is a completely different animal than anything else in sailing from an organizational, preparation and development point of view.

There's an ever shrinking pool of people who have the experience or credibility to be part of a new effort beyond the existing teams. 

Share this post


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

Well I'm 42, so Gen X, but boring? With 9 passes? WTF?

Not real sailing? Listening to all the discussions coming from the boats would be totally familiar to anyone who's raced a boat before. 

Why are the boundaries such a problem for you? They force the boats to prove they've got the skill to execute their manoeuvres over and over again. In these boats you get a level of jeopardy every manoeuvre. There are still opportunities to work the shifts, still opportunities to tack on your opponent, if you've got the balls to get it done, still tactical calls to make. Would you rather they didn't have boundaries and just watch them sail squares? Or is that your fundamental problem - "it's different to me sailing my 4 knot shitbox" so I don't like it.

These things are raced like high performance dinghies, so out of interest have you ever foiled anything or even done proper apparent wind sailing? Just want you to disprove my hunch that you're not really understanding what the guys are doing when they go race these things so can't relate to what you're seeing.

Convert me! Why should the AC go back to 'real sailing', because the racing I'm seeing is totally engaging, easy to understand, very relatable, very competitive even when gaps open they can close very quickly, and doesn't need me to plan my day around and have a few coffees to watch, and this is coming from someone who doesn't drink coffee and would quite happily watch a live stage of the Tour de I France...

I could argue that we need boundaries to contain the field of view for TV coverage. Seems pretty obvious to me.

However a more important rationale for boundaries is the need to corral over-zealous spectator craft and protect them and the race boats from potentially disastrous high speed collisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, idontwan2know said:

You all have missed Simon's point. It is not that you need smaller teams to learn how to sail the boat. You need smaller teams to develop a pool of people who know how an AC campaign operates. It is a completely different animal than anything else in sailing from an organizational, preparation and development point of view.

There's an ever shrinking pool of people who have the experience or credibility to be part of a new effort beyond the existing teams. 

Well that all depends. Dalton came from Off shore Sailing and stepped into the AC. Ainslie came from Olympic sailing and stepped into the AC. You don't necessarily need those smaller teams to develop a pool of talent, you just have to hire the right people. Elise Beavis was straight out of University when she became critical to the direction of the ETNZ Bermuda campaign. 

ETNZ has also partnered with the NZ Sailing Team to develop young talent like Josh Junior and Andy Maloney

INEOS has also hired a group of young guys and has the INEOS rebels

AM has a youth program.

You don't necessarily NEED the smaller teams. You just need to hire the right people in the right positions. Dean Barker is a great example of a guy who is one of the most experienced guys in the AC, and keeps getting hired simply because of that. Has it worked? Not yet.

The point is, gone are the days of having to compete in the AC before to being successful. Simon Van Velthoven and Joe Sullivan are examples of that. Never stepped foot on an AC yacht before Bermuda, yet won the AC first time out. If they stick around, they may become CEO of ETNZ or another AC campaign in the future. 

Share this post


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

smh

The NFL is a NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. They have a governing body who organises the season. The Champions don't have to organise the next season. The Champions don't organise teams for the next season, Hell, the Champions don't even get to pick where the next Superbowl will be held!

Comparing the NFL to the AC is stupid.

Ok, pick a more comparable sporting event then. My point wasn’t regarding the organizational structure, it was to challenge the assertion that noncompetitive teams shouldn’t bother showing up and we shouldn’t care that they don’t. Minor teams have their role to play.

Just because we can make the cost of a campaign as expensive as we want doesn’t mean we should. The 12 Metre class was picked as a way to make the event more affordable in the postwar economy, and it worked. If we were still in J Class-esque boats, I doubt ‘87 would have been as fun with its deep challenger field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sisu3360 said:

Ok, pick a more comparable sporting event then. My point wasn’t regarding the organizational structure, it was to challenge the assertion that noncompetitive teams shouldn’t bother showing up and we shouldn’t care that they don’t. Minor teams have their role to play.

Just because we can make the cost of a campaign as expensive as we want doesn’t mean we should. The 12 Metre class was picked as a way to make the event more affordable in the postwar economy, and it worked. If we were still in J Class-esque boats, I doubt ‘87 would have been as fun with its deep challenger field.

I'm not saying minor teams shouldn't show up. I'm saying the event doesn't necessarily NEED those minor teams anymoe as others think it does.

The point is, there is no comparable event to the AC. Thats what makes it the AC, and the very reason it sustains itself.

The AC is what it is. The premier event in sailing. The Pinnacle. You can't call it the pinnacle, if its not the pinnacle. To be the pinnacle, it has to maintain its position as the top event. To do that, it has to be exciting, to attract young sailors, to do that it has to be a fast, exciting boat, and to do that requires the most advanced technology, which requires money.

No one wants to see rich men sailing at 8 knots on slow, outdated yet still lavish and expensive yachts.

They want to see speed, they want to see athletes being pushed to their limits, they want to see excitement.

Thats what the event is about now. You can take it or leave it, but thats reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, idontwan2know said:

Ainslie spent AC34 with Oracle specifically to learn how an AC campaign works. 

Then learned again in Bermuda that he didn't really learn how it worked. For this campaign, they've asked MercF1 how to build a winning team, which seems to be going better. The AC isn't some mystery where there is only one way to build a winning campaign. The AC is a sporting design competition, and regardless of whether INEOS wins or not, I expect the next AC to have multiple teams that use consultants from motorsports and other industries in order to succeed. 

Share this post


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

Why are the boundaries such a problem for you?

Speaking for myself, I don’t like the boundaries because they force the teams to break the first rule of sailing strategy: pick a side and work it. They’re crossing the course on every tack. I’d rather let the tacticians loose to work the whole course between the marks. They got the course length right - I think many of the “watching paint dry” reactions to the old keelboat cups were that the races were so damn long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, idontwan2know said:

Ainslie spent AC34 with Oracle specifically to learn how an AC campaign works. 

Oracle certainly wasn't a minor team in AC34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Forourselves said:
  20 minutes ago, SimonN said:

You are either very short sighted and clueless or you have spent too long drinking the ETNZ Koolaid!

Blah blah blah

For the long term future of the AC, you need those teams that might not be in with a chance of winning. They give young sailors and designers the opportunity to step up to the AC and cut their teeth. Where would Jimmy S be without getting the opportunity to sail on Young Australia in 2000, a team that stood no chance in an old boat? Or what about Shannon Falcone, who sailed for Mascalzone Latino when they finished last in the LV. Obviously these are just 2 examples, but many of sailors and designers have come through to good teams from these "no hope" teams. Without them, the pool of experienced talent just keeps getting smaller and it is harder to put forward a case to start a new team due to the lack of experienced people.

This WAS the case in the IACC class. Its no longer the case as times have changed. The majority of new high performance sailors come from the Olympics, because thats where high performance classes thrive now. Its not about match racers anymore, its about speed. This discussion was had during the commentary of the last RR race. AC sailors no longer need to go through the World Match Racing Championship like they used to. The Olympics provides the perfect opportunity for AC athletes to cut their teeth now, so there is NO NEED for teams that only make up numbers. 

The Youth America's Cup developed by ETNZ, RNZYS & CSI was intended to give exactly what SimonN is moaning about - the opportunity for youngsters to compete in scaled down versions of the AC75 concept.

The AC is unsustainable on a long term (maybe even medium term) basis with only 3 challengers.

BS. The AC can sustain itself with one challenger if it needs to, thats why it has done so in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. ANyone who thinks the AC is unsustainable is kidding themselves. The AC sustains itself by being the AC, nothing more, nothing less.

The America's Cup "sustained itself" for over 100 years through a series of challenges from just ONE challenger at a time and has done also in more recent times - the Kiwi Big Boat challenge which was met by a less than suitable defender in a catamaran or the DOGzilla. What so many people fail to realise is that the way the DoG is written the AC is a challenger's event and not a defender's event. An AC cycle is called by whoever issues the challenge. It is not an invitation to challenge by the defender. I find this comment from SimonN particularly humerous considering the AC has sustained itself for 170 years, longer, by far, than any other international sporting event.

And to be clear, the reason for so few challengers is firmly due to decisions made by Dalton and his group who decided on what the boat was to be. From the moment it was announced, everybody could see that this was going to be the most expensive AC class ever, plus it was a totally new, unproven concept. It went against everything that Dalton had said during the whole "cat" era about the need to dramatically cut costs to stop the AC from dying.

If you can provide the proof of that, I'll listen, but you have no idea how much teams have spent on campaigns, be it, this campaign, or past campaigns. You're guessing. Making shit up.

For example it has often been said that Larry E. spent more than US1Bn to win, defend and lose the America's Cup and goodness knows how much the likes of Sir Thomas Lipton spent (inflation adjusted) to NOT win the Auld Mug. If you want a cheaper form of sailing buy a Laser

While I very much dislike Dalton, I had hoped that he would do what he had spent years saying needed to be done with the AC. He had talked about affordability and about the defender not using their position to gain advantage over the challengers. He had attacked Alinghi for developing a class rule in house and without consultation and attacked Oracle for ridiculously expensive boats, yet ETNZ became the first team for years to develop an AC class rule solely in house (which gives a huge advantage) and he chose the most expensive boat ever.

The defender has always 'loaded the dice' all the way back to when competing boats had to get t the race course 'on their own bottom' meaning the defender could defend with a lightly built coastal racer while the challenger (apart from a couple of Canadian Challenges) had to compete in an yacht capable of crossing oceans, albeit with a reduced rig. Besides the challenger, ever since the year dot, has complained about the defender's self imposed bias. Think of Dunraven's angst or the way the NYYC tried to rubbish Australia 2 as a non-12 metre and when that failed tried to claim Ben Lexcen didn't design her.

BS again. They attacked Alinghi for developing a class rule in house with an invalid CoR Protocol. The Protocol was invalid because the CoR was invalid, which made the class rule invalid, as well as everything else.

100% correct Fourourselves. Alinghi and their ACM broke the rules, not once but twice (at least) CNEV was not a valid challenger for a number of reasons and was just a puppet. But even before that, in AC32, they had accepted the challenge of Qingdao International Yacht Club which was 'founded' 5 days before their challenge, had no members. no boats and NEVER run a regatta, let alone an annual regatta on an arm of the sea. So to try and blame ETNZ for calling them out shows a lack of understanding of what really happened.

As for the most expensive boat ever, like I said, when you can come up with some solid costs (proven costs, not made up costs) this argument has merit. Until then, its more speculation and made up bollocks.

This one is just so funny. How much did the 'average' Big Boat Class yacht cost? I would bet it was no cheaper than an AC75. The 'Protocol' which includes the class of boat for the AC Match to be sailed in is a joint document between the Challenger (the CoR term is a recent development) and the defender. SO ETNZ did not develop the AC75 Class in isolation.

And when one looks at the wider field of high end sporting events. A leading motor racing F1 team has an ANNUAL budget approaching twice what  INEOS if funded to over the whole AC cycle. And soccer? ha! you would be lucky to fund a 2nd division team for the cost of an AC campaign and American Football - well? Just forget it. No, the problem lies in two areas. The perception of the 'sailing fan' and the inability of our sport to attract the sort of viewing figures that makes sponsors want to play because the ROI simply isn't there for them.

It may not be popular with many sailors to have a commentary team of a razmataz guy alongside an 'expert' pundit or two but IT WORKS in other sports and attracts people. Just look at F1 and the partnership of, for example, Murray Walker and Damon Hill. It was so popular they even used it to sell Pizzas. Or the likes of Alan Hansen (sorry Brit reference) as a soccer pundit - so dry and yet so popular alongside a 'typical' sports commentator.

So we have to make it understanding for the non-sailor, there are not enough of we enthusiasts to make the money equation work for sponsors. I think the combination of Kenny, Steve, Nathan and Shirley worked well in explaining the whole event. If sailors found it a little condescending we need to wake up and realise explaining basics, for example, is not for our benefit.

Then back to the boats themselves. A (racing) sailor might get excited about 2 x 12 metres doing 43 tacks up the final beat of the final race that changed yachting history in 1983 but the average landsman would be reaching for the remote control. On the other hand, the final race of the AC36 round robin where the boats touched 50 knots and the lead changes 9 times - now that might just make the non-sailing couch potato send his wife to the fridge for the next beer instead of going himself.

I could go on but i have said enough i think. I too was a doubter in the early days but from what i have seen so far the AC36 is a great advert for our sport and if these boats and crews continue to get faster and sharper then come March we may just see an incredible display.

 

Just like to reinforce some of Fourourselves comments to SimonN, Put them in red to differentiate - sorry it got so long winded

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, idontwan2know said:

You all have missed Simon's point. It is not that you need smaller teams to learn how to sail the boat. You need smaller teams to develop a pool of people who know how an AC campaign operates. It is a completely different animal than anything else in sailing from an organizational, preparation and development point of view.

There's an ever shrinking pool of people who have the experience or credibility to be part of a new effort beyond the existing teams. 

I have a lot of problems with your point and Simons. Consider just three categories in Cup campaigning - skills in high speed foilers, management experience and technical expertise.

Sailing and boat handling skills are evident in Olympic sailors like Burling and Tuke, skippers and crews from Coutts' SailGP,  plus match racers like Phil Robertson.

In sailing team management there is already continuity spanning decades. Witness Grant Dalton and others.

For technical expertise we're already looking successfully to aerospace and similar fields for new blood.

The hardest part is drilling down for finances as many Cup hopefuls will attest.

Share this post


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

Just like to reinforce some of Fourourselves comments to SimonN, Put them in red to differentiate - sorry it got so long winded

Don't apologise mate. You and Fourourselves are spot on with this.  I'm sure there are others here with similar beliefs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Convert me! Why should the AC go back to 'real sailing'

So I've been reflecting on this debate and I have a theory: those who see sailboat racing as a race are enjoying this event. Those who see sailboat racing as a game are probably still enjoying it but feel that something's been lost from the 2007 and before events. I'm in the latter camp.

I'm not blind - it's pretty awesome watching these beasts zip around the course and appreciating the insane technology and skill that makes it happen. But sailing's always felt more like a chess match than a race to me, and I've always been more interested in strategy than boatspeed (probably why I'm mediocre at the sport, but that's besides the point). I especially love team racing and match racing for this reason - it feels more like a game than a race, more akin to football (either type) than F1. So that's what I'm missing in this Cup - the tight coverages, the tacking duels, the intense prestarts and the drama of the lead boat carrying a penalty on the last leg. Stuff that probably turns off casual fans but stuff I like because I want to see all of the aspects of the game I love reflected in the highest level of the sport (I agree with you on short courses, though; they're a godsend when one boat runs away with it).

That said, it's hard for me to admit but here's the truth: the America's Cup as a premier match race is more of an exception than the rule. The best match racing in the Cup started in the 12 Metre era, steadily matured as match racing grew as a specialized discipline, and climaxed in the 1-second delta of the very last IACC race. For most of the event's history, it was much more weighted toward design, boatspeed, and "big picture" strategy, and was sailed in boats that didn't allow much aggressive boat-on-boat interaction. So perhaps, paradoxically, we're actually back to a more traditional form of the America's Cup.

But man, I'd love to see another cycle or two in match race-optimized monohulls. My first Cup to watch was 2000 (I'm 32, so call me a premature boomer if you want), and I'll always remember that epic battle between Prada and AmericaOne. I remember not always being able to follow what was happening (what's this "proper course" Cayard is screaming about??), but it got me curious enough as a 12 year old to learn.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum is literally the only place on the planet where people will argue with you that more teams isn't a good thing for the Cup.

Can't be bothered to spend another second debating with people who claim the sky is yellow with pink polka dots. Enjoy your day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, idontwan2know said:

There's an ever shrinking pool of people who have the experience or credibility to be part of a new effort beyond the existing teams. 

The AC is such a niche event, there's never going to be a huge number of AC guys at any one time. It's always been like that. That said, there are guys not involved this time around who have experience and may come back. Torben from Artemis, Iain Percy, Slingers, Ernesto B, fuck even Larry or Russell might do it again - you never know?

1 hour ago, idontwan2know said:

You all have missed Simon's point.

It wasn't much of a point, so there was nothing to miss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, idontwan2know said:

This forum is literally the only place on the planet where people will argue with you that more teams isn't a good thing for the Cup.

No one is arguing that. You just can't make that a priority when formulating a rule. Max participation has never been what the cup is about. Perth and Valencia were good, but they were the exception, not the norm. 

Share this post


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

No one is arguing that. You just can't make that a priority when formulating a rule. Max participation has never been what the cup is about. Perth and Valencia were good, but they were the exception, not the norm. 

1992, 1995, 2000, 2003?

All had pretty decent participation rates 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

<Sheesh moad on>

beefor kyndlee bilding them identikel panel  at theer rekwest,

(perhaps for free)

<Sheesh moad off>

Pardon

Share this post


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

Max participation has never been what the cup is about. Perth and Valencia were good, but they were the exception, not the norm. 

I made a chart for another thread last Spring because I'm a hopeless nerd. 2013 and 2021 had the fewest teams in a non-DOG match since 1967. Between 1983 and 2007 (excluding 1988), no event had fewer than 9 teams, and most of the events remembered for competitiveness (either in the AC itself or the LVC), with the notable exception of 2013, had high numbers of challengers and/or defenders.

image.png.186f1394c149205d6a48c3f3b220d44f.png

Also, remember when we had more than one defender? That was dope.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

All had pretty decent participation rates 

Sure, but the 75 in its first go around, and people are whinging about low participation rates. Firstly, I don't care, but I think if whoever wins stays with them, they'll be more entrants next time around.

Share this post


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

Sure, but the 75 in its first go around, and people are whinging about low participation rates. Firstly, I don't care, but I think if whoever wins stays with them, they'll be more entrants next time around.

Why would there be?

They are so incredibly complex and the current teams have a huge head start.

Share this post


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

Why would there be?

Because people have seen how freaking cool the boats are.

3 minutes ago, jaysper said:

They are so incredibly complex and the current teams have a huge head start.

The AC has never been a level playing field - one of the reasons it's so hard to win it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why would there be?

They are so incredibly complex and the current teams have a huge head start.

A sell off of Gen1/2 boats to emerging teams as a platform to evolve from? Unlikely for a new team to win first time up, but getting a boat, team and processes sorted would be a good initial step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, idontwan2know said:

You all have missed Simon's point. It is not that you need smaller teams to learn how to sail the boat. You need smaller teams to develop a pool of people who know how an AC campaign operates. It is a completely different animal than anything else in sailing from an organizational, preparation and development point of view.

There's an ever shrinking pool of people who have the experience or credibility to be part of a new effort beyond the existing teams. 

I think it is you and Simon who have missed the point, the point i am talking about being the Youth America's Cup event. It satisfied what you and SImon are alluding to - AND SOME!

It was to run in boats of similar design concept to the AC75, less powerful to take the risk 'edge' off while still giving the young sailors the opportunity to experience foiling a monohull in competition.

Perhaps more importantly it was due to be run in Auckland at the same time as the Americas Cup itself giving the young sailors (over a dozen teams had entered and most were willing to undergo at their own expense the required 14 day quarantine) the opportunity to 'rub shoulders' with their more experienced senior counterparts and the event would dovetail in with the America's Cup itself thus creating a 'pool' of youngsters that had at least had a taste of the atmosphere.

For example visits with the teams were part of the planned experience.

A great initiative between Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron, Emirates Team New Zealand and China Sports Industry Group but sadly it couldn't defeat the COVID crisis.  All three parties are, i understand, keen to continue to develop the concept if the ETNZ defence is successful.

Lets see what the future brings.

SS

 

Share this post


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

A sell off of Gen1/2 boats to emerging teams as a platform to evolve from? Unlikely for a new team to win first time up, but getting a boat, team and processes sorted would be a good initial step.

That's never happened before? You are on the money Nutta. In past campaigns new teams have bought established teams previous boats and not just in the AC. It has happened a number of times in the Volvo as well. or the Vendee or the - etc. I think Peter de Savary started with an old Alan Bond boat for example.

I know that some of the discussions here have been about AC being a 3 cycle campaign so not new, it is a steep learning curve.

 

Share this post


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

Why would there be?

They are so incredibly complex and the current teams have a huge head start.

Why do people enter Formula One Motor Racing when there are the likes of Mercedes, Ferarri and Red Bull at the front of the grid?  The human animal clearly likes a challenge. Thank goodness too or we would all still be living in caves :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, idontwan2know said:

You all have missed Simon's point. It is not that you need smaller teams to learn how to sail the boat. You need smaller teams to develop a pool of people who know how an AC campaign operates. It is a completely different animal than anything else in sailing from an organizational, preparation and development point of view.

There's an ever shrinking pool of people who have the experience or credibility to be part of a new effort beyond the existing teams. 

Thankfully, somebody gets it. What is happening at the moment is that there are fewer and fewer people capable of starting a campaign and then managing it. Stop focusing just on the sailors, although I cannot see any "B" being willing to start a team based on the key sailors not having any AC experience. Pete and Blair were brought into an experienced team, which had experienced sailors and a skipper who had significant AC experience, as well as experience of foiling AC boats. That's very different from starting a team from scratch. Look at Ainslie. He didn't just go to Oracle. He did 3 campaigns before starting his own team (one of which was with ETNZ). 

 

2 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

I think it is you and Simon who have missed the point, the point i am talking about being the Youth America's Cup event. It satisfied what you and SImon are alluding to - AND SOME!

It must be that we are not making the point properly, because the Youth America's Cup doesn't help at all with the things I am alluding to. Maybe that's my fault for using the example of Jimmy, but if you sail in the youth team, how does that set you up for running a fully fledged AC team? How does that set you up as a designer? How does that set you up as a CEO? 

To use Dalton as an example that you don't need AC experience to start a team is misleading. He took over an existing team, even though it was in disarray. Yes, he had experience of significant offshore campaigns, but without some team infrastructure and staff in key roles, I believe it would have been impossible. Even then, it took him 3 attempts to win, something only a few "B's"  would put up with.

1 hour ago, Horn Rock said:

Torben from Artemis, Iain Percy, Slingers, Ernesto B, fuck even Larry or Russell might do it again - you never know?

So 3 of those listed are owners, so what you are saying is that Slingers, Perc and Coutts might go again. Coutts won't because he has got SailGP. Perc won't because of commitments to the UK, both personal and business. that leaves Slingers, and I would add Nathan Outeridge to the list. However, neither of them have the experience to do it without an experienced AC CEO, a mistake that Ainslie made. Who's available for that role? With so few teams over the last 3 cycles, there is a real shortage of available people.

Maybe the days of 6+ challengers in the AC are gone. Maybe 3 challengers is all we will see for the foreseeable future. I think it lessens the spectacle and gives the defender an even bigger advantage. But these days I am only interested in the technology, so maybe it doesn't matter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Pardon

granted

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Thankfully, somebody gets it. What is happening at the moment is that there are fewer and fewer people capable of starting a campaign and then managing it. Stop focusing just on the sailors, although I cannot see any "B" being willing to start a team based on the key sailors not having any AC experience. Pete and Blair were brought into an experienced team, which had experienced sailors and a skipper who had significant AC experience, as well as experience of foiling AC boats. That's very different from starting a team from scratch. Look at Ainslie. He didn't just go to Oracle. He did 3 campaigns before starting his own team (one of which was with ETNZ). 

So tell me again why the event needs SMALL TEAMS? Because the guys you've mentioned have so far only done campaigns with BIG teams.

Ainslie did campaigns with One World, ETNZ, Origin and Oracle. All large teams.

It must be that we are not making the point properly, because the Youth America's Cup doesn't help at all with the things I am alluding to. Maybe that's my fault for using the example of Jimmy, but if you sail in the youth team, how does that set you up for running a fully fledged AC team? How does that set you up as a designer? How does that set you up as a CEO? 

It doesn't. It gets you in the door of the Americas Cup. Start at the bottom and work your way up. Grant Simmer started as Navigator on Australia II and now he's CEO of Ineos. 

Qualifications set you up as a designer, which is why the Teams are looking outside AC teams for design assistance.

F1, the Aerospace industry, software design and manufacture.

All you need is one guy who has the responsibility of managing the design team.

To use Dalton as an example that you don't need AC experience to start a team is misleading. He took over an existing team, even though it was in disarray. Yes, he had experience of significant offshore campaigns, but without some team infrastructure and staff in key roles, I believe it would have been impossible. Even then, it took him 3 attempts to win, something only a few "B's"  would put up with.

Took Blake 3 attempts at the Whitbread to win it, and twice in the AC to win too.

So 3 of those listed are owners, so what you are saying is that Slingers, Perc and Coutts might go again. Coutts won't because he has got SailGP. Perc won't because of commitments to the UK, both personal and business. that leaves Slingers, and I would add Nathan Outeridge to the list. However, neither of them have the experience to do it without an experienced AC CEO, a mistake that Ainslie made. Who's available for that role? With so few teams over the last 3 cycles, there is a real shortage of available people.

Maybe the days of 6+ challengers in the AC are gone. Maybe 3 challengers is all we will see for the foreseeable future. I think it lessens the spectacle and gives the defender an even bigger advantage. But these days I am only interested in the technology, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Sure you are

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the helicopter this did look like a hollywood, but on deck, it looked pretty hairy for LR...

@Mozzy Sails interesting to note even more examples of confusion, talking over each other on LR too..

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Unlike Formula 1, the AC 75s can overtake without going into the pits for a tire change.

 

Im a traditional boomer sailor and I just love this stuff. It is so exciting and fast.  Furthermore it emphasizes tactics and skills in a way that no other AC has ever done before.  Nine lead changes in one race! A couple down to boat handling and the other 7 due to shifts or getting into more pressure.  The boat speeds are sufficiently close that at the moment the better tactics will win the race.

In the old AC races in displacement boats, boat speed and winning the start were dominant. 

In these boats, getting into a little more pressure can change everything.   It is so much more tactical . 

Which is why Hutchinson needs to get his head out of the grinder stance.

Share this post


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

From the helicopter this did look like a hollywood, but on deck, it looked pretty hairy for LR...

@Mozzy Sails interesting to note even more examples of confusion, talking over each other on LR too..

I found it interesting that that Richards comment was LR kept turning, they didn't hold a steady course? I don't know enough about match racing, but I thought "hunting" was fair game.?

 

Share this post


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

From the helicopter this did look like a hollywood, but on deck, it looked pretty hairy for LR...

@Mozzy Sails interesting to note even more examples of confusion, talking over each other on LR too..

That's almost as scary as crosses in iceboat racing.

Share this post


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

According to TE, EB (Alinghi) dude is buying Te Aihe.

Just a point on the race length. I'd love to see longer races, as watching the boats race is great - but I think they're 25 minutes, because of the almost constant effort required of the grinders, and much over 25 is getting tough for them. Those drift races were supposedly really hard on grinders, because of the extended length.

Iz he bidding for the kroo, too?

 

Lyk last tym?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Iz he bidding for the kroo, too?

Better not be........ ETNZ's sailors are better paid these days, so I think a mass poach like what happened before is less likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sisu3360 said:

Speaking for myself, I don’t like the boundaries because they force the teams to break the first rule of sailing strategy: pick a side and work it. They’re crossing the course on every tack. I’d rather let the tacticians loose to work the whole course between the marks. They got the course length right - I think many of the “watching paint dry” reactions to the old keelboat cups were that the races were so damn long.

Ok, so you're happy watching the boats sail squares, restricting the tactical decisions and making it more a lottery... Each to their own I guess, but sounds dull to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh3000 said:

From the helicopter this did look like a hollywood, but on deck, it looked pretty hairy for LR...

@Mozzy Sails interesting to note even more examples of confusion, talking over each other on LR too..

+1

I don't think the officials should be encouraging or tacitly approving getting this close, It seems a close cross turned into what should have been a duck as it developed due to a shift. There was no pulling out at the last second for Ineos without disaster but they should have been penalised IMO.

Saying that I haven't heard anything from the officials that Flags mentions above

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Ok, so you're happy watching the boats sail squares, restricting the tactical decisions and making it more a lottery... Each to their own I guess, but sounds dull to me...

Are you suggesting that before 2013, it was typical to just have the boats bang opposite corners? Not sure what races you watched. Sure, the boats split tacks but they came together frequently as they worked to the favored side. Boundaries restrict tactical decisions, not the other way around.

Also, you’re disparaging the courses that almost every sailor races on. I assume that if the racing was dull we would have quit awhile ago.

Share this post


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

I found it interesting that that Richards comment was LR kept turning, they didn't hold a steady course? I don't know enough about match racing, but I thought "hunting" was fair game.?

 

Yes I heard that too also he said that every time LR altered course they had to give room. So I took from that LR should have made a big turn at GB then held course rather than a constant turn. 
Some help from a rules person....!

Share this post


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

3 Challengers is fine so long as there are 3 billionaires to foot the bill.  In that case some of you Kiwi fan boys better start whispering sweet nothings in LEs ear to get him involved again because the odds of losing a billionaire (Bertelli) after this cycle is pretty high. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

LE will never challenge again because he knows he can't win if he has to go through a CSS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh3000 said:

From the helicopter this did look like a hollywood, but on deck, it looked pretty hairy for LR...

@Mozzy Sails interesting to note even more examples of confusion, talking over each other on LR too..

That shot says it all. These aren't lasers you can give a nudge. UK needed to take avoiding action. The "diamond" is too small a space to be overlapping when converging at highway speeds. Who hits who first when it's all to play for? LR not happy on comms but very vanilla in the presser wrt umpiring. 

To my mind BA has been most willing to shave a bowsprit, JS aggressive but clear and controlled signalling his intent but no penalties have come his way. PB standoffish pre. Xmas and DB similar to Jimmy in aggression. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

From the helicopter this did look like a hollywood, but on deck, it looked pretty hairy for LR...

@Mozzy Sails interesting to note even more examples of confusion, talking over each other on LR too..

In my opinion either LR or Ineos should have got a penalty for that last close crossing. Allowing this, could create more dangerous situations in the future.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I reckon LR was robbed. Yea it was right before the finish and would have cost Benn the race, but ffs there has to be intent and safe room. And Wtf, not the end all to get Benn out for another race, basher cost carbon last cycle, lucky no limbs.

Share this post


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

3 Challengers is fine so long as there are 3 billionaires to foot the bill.  In that case some of you Kiwi fan boys better start whispering sweet nothings in LEs ear to get him involved again because the odds of losing a billionaire (Bertelli) after this cycle is pretty high. 

WetHog  :ph34r:

Hey if nobody wants to come get it ,it can stay in our cabinet forever.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Fuck your face with a biro, wanker. 

Listen up little man, (or wo) . Abuse is something that must be structured and have some argument built in to be respected around here. Your abuse, as above could be taken as a physical threat and therefore a breach of the terms of this site. Speaking for my own opinion, I read your words as that of a coward with not enough fibre in his/her diet and an underlying and untreated case of depression buried beneath and very thin skin of the very minimum of resistance to any criticism or suggestions.

Ergo, go and sniff your mums panties one more time before your future is really fucked.

P.S.

Darts is too complex for you, try something easier like, hopscotch.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

^^I reckon LR was robbed. Yea it was right before the finish and would have cost Benn the race, but ffs there has to be intent and safe room. And Wtf, not the end all to get Benn out for another race, basher cost carbon last cycle, lucky no limbs.

Agree.

If that wasn't a port/starboard foul then, I look forward to seeing just how close one needs to be before Ian does something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

granted

I wasn't using "pardon" in that sense. More South Chelsea London English

Share this post


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

I wasn't using "pardon" in that sense. More South Chelsea London English

Oh, so you farted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sisu3360 said:

Are you suggesting that before 2013, it was typical to just have the boats bang opposite corners? Not sure what races you watched. Sure, the boats split tacks but they came together frequently as they worked to the favored side. Boundaries restrict tactical decisions, not the other way around.

Also, you’re disparaging the courses that almost every sailor races on. I assume that if the racing was dull we would have quit awhile ago.

No, merely that you'd be happy watching that as an outcome of these races, in these boats which are totally different. And your argument falls down because we have already seen in this AC how working one side can pay off. Boundaries force three decisions each cross -

1) are we crossing

2) do we engage / how do we defend

3) are we in phase

How is that reducing the tactical workload? Boundaries can be used as a tactical tool as well. All the removal of boundaries would achieve is the gaining of leverage over your opponent which can lead tactical cul de sacs if a big shift comes through reducing tactical options. Sailing is about getting more decisions right than you get wrong and boundaries force a constant reassessment of your tactical position and more importantly to me means that one boat doesn't get out of touch based on one missed opportunity which might not have been foreseeable. I want to see close fair racing and boundaries do nothing to make the racing less fair.

And don't lecture me about disparaging the course that regular sailors use. How many of us race against one other competitor, in flying boats that go 50 knots? This is the AC, why should it be similar to what the rest of us do? Fleet racing is what 99% of us do week to week and many people do race with restricted boundaries, called the shore. You'd be amazed at the tiny lakes people race every week here in the UK.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ah - the glass half empty attitude. :lol: I think I know that we have a long way to go.  But just think of the potential :P

THE glass half full attitude is that with 1.4 Bn people and the largest population of smart phones & internet users on the planet and SO MUCH local content available (Tik Tok, Wechat etc etc etc) to compete with that we got 200k watching a race (LIVE)  in a relatively unknown sport in far off Kiwiland. That is a result!!!

Having been involved in our sport from ground zero I find the figures very encouraging.

How long have you had motor racing in Germany by the way building up to that level of interest? Considerably longer than the less than 20 year history of Corinthian sailing in China I would wager. For example wasn't Audi founded on motor sport around 100 years ago?

With over 140 'yacht clubs' around the country already I think water leisure here has already come a loooooong way but the challenge is far from done.

See ya on the water

SS

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm glad that you are excited about 200k of 2.5b. But without showing the progression, the numbers are the numbers, and they don't look too impressive, especially taking into account the potential digital access to the action for the 1.5b. No reason to get defensive tho, your explanation came a bit late, that's all.

Just for info: There is almost no interest in motorsports in Germany, except for F1 and as a far second for the DTM. All other series simply do not exist in the public mind.

Share this post


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

Running backstays dont go to the mast top

So, they are at 24m not 26.5m. How does that relate to my question?

image.png.4b8cdb0b89decd16f6f8c9029a19935c.png

Share this post


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

Sure, but the 75 in its first go around, and people are whinging about low participation rates. Firstly, I don't care, but I think if whoever wins stays with them, they'll be more entrants next time around.

I hope so much that you are right.

In the end, all it takes is two boats, some buoys, a committe boat and an MCed patch of water (if not free of headlands). TV, YouTube, on-site spectators, regatta village, Virtual Eye, sponsors enterntainment, multiple challengers in a CSS etc. are all not required.
But what fun would that be for us?

Share this post


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

A sell off of Gen1/2 boats to emerging teams as a platform to evolve from? Unlikely for a new team to win first time up, but getting a boat, team and processes sorted would be a good initial step.

To get multiple teams in you need to do 2 somewhat mutually exclusive things.  You have to convince the 3 losing teams they have a leg up for next time while also convincing future hopefuls that there is a way to short circuit the learning curve and be competitive.  The only way to do this is to keep the rule close enough to the current one that second hand boats can be modified to be valuable trial horses if not competitive in their own right and come up with a rule restricting the number of boats teams can own during the campaign and give some form of credit for people who sell/ give away a boat rather than cut it up and take it to the tip (like being able to test / trial against it until 12 months before the cup).

Love or hate the boats, if you change them again there is no good reason for the existing teams to keep coming back except for the fact its the AC.  If they loose I think TNZ might struggle in the current global economy to compete again in anything other than optis and once they miss a cup they'll quickly follow 'stralia into AC history.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

From the helicopter this did look like a hollywood, but on deck, it looked pretty hairy for LR...

@Mozzy Sails interesting to note even more examples of confusion, talking over each other on LR too..

 

...and if you are going to release something like this ^ how about including all the views - including VR, helicopter, the umpire's screens with the 'diamonds' and any relevant comments they have made -  for our edumacation :D

? for Jimmy - what would the 2nd penalty have been for? Pissing you off? Being arrogant Poms? Anyway you guys will need the work-out of 4-7 extra races!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

think if whoever wins stays with them, they'll be more entrants next time around.

Yes. It may be that we’ve got lucky with LR and Rita being very evenly matched but you’d have to say that there have been two or three races where the choice of boat - not the cost of it - has been vindicated. The design element has been really interesting for sailors, and presumably the high performance aspect will be as interesting for non-sailors as it ever is, if that is the case. The course seems bigger as they are losing less in manoeuvres than the past couple of cycles. 
 

A second generation might be able to cap some costs and certainly provide the possibility of second hand boats and one-boat campaigns for the sort of entry-level challenges that Simon was discussing. But LE was spending close on what Jim Ratcliffe is supposed to have done during the IACC era and at the top end they’ll always spend loads of money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites