^^As the reporter uses the very outdated term "AC48", which was replaced by the AC 50 and then AC Class last year, his research and intelligence (not intellect) may be slightly suspect with his "B" development rating.
I will give in to the "who knows who is where" as far as leading the development race, but a B may be slightly generous at this late date.
A year is plenty of time considering all of the one design components of this cycle. I think a B is very fair at this "Early" stage
If it was simply "Naval Architecture" and all that mattered was delivering a fast boat and foils, I would agree. But I have still got to beleive there is a reason why OR, BAR and AR have invested so much time, energy and money in the develoment of hydrolic control and pumping systems.
OR and AR already have nearly 18 months practical development time in this area and are still working on refinements.
That is difficult to duplicate with ETNZ's limited time and resources.
They are arguably better or on par with those three in most areas, but in that one seemingly important area, they are not.
In this article Richie seems to be agreeing with you .
He is pretty much explaining how NZ lost AC 35.
I think hes just a bit negative but who really knows .