So, are you saying OTUSA are leaning toward OD components in the new rule, because of GD's bitching and whining?
And yet ALL the bits matter in the AC surely.
Think of the one design components as "here are a bunch of bits that make little to no difference to the performance of the boat, but will cost you a mint if you tool up to make them". The design and tooling for the large structural components - like beams and the main wing spar will run to millions. If each team has to design and create tooling for an item that they will make one or two of, and yet is essentially a generic component, you are imposing a silly cost overhead. Items that make a real difference - of course they make their own. So in a sense these one design components are the reverse of OD in normal classes - where design restriction are imposed on critical components to even up performance. Here it is the boring bits where it just makes sense to share the cost, whilst it is still a design free for all on the bits that matter.
If for example an OD component was to be the platform and it happened to be built like the NZL 5 tractor, where would the aero advantages of OTUSA's platform have come from?
Also, just say a team had the potential to develop a new hull or beam lay-up material that was lighter and stronger than carbon fibre? Remember the Kiwis 'cheating' when they threw out aluminium in favour of fibre glass?
Why would you hold development back, through some arbitrary decision about where future advances might be found?
Why, look no further than a whining, bitching Dalton who never let up complaining about the costs.
together with Italian girly moaning about expense and number of teams.
And so this new rule is going to fix the money thing?
I seriously doubt that.