Jump to content


Member Since 25 Jun 2006
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:46 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: AC35 Protocol expected this week

Yesterday, 07:54 PM

The Question is now: Does OTUSA want the Kiwis in the next Cup? They surely must know by now that ETNZ will run out of money at the end of the month. That could be the Reason they're delaying the Protocol. Just a Theory.


If the delay was for that reason I would think that the COR would be the one with the most to gain. OR has less to worry about with regards to ET than does the COR. I'm not saying that this is the reason for the delay, just who would benefit most if it were the case . 

In Topic: Why was OTUSA faster ?

Yesterday, 07:30 PM

At M1 of the final race OR totally buried those skinny bows, blasted thru, and popped right out of the mine with almost no speed loss.

Seeing how ETNZ performed in hairy situations I'm glad they didn't have to sail in conditions above the Match limits.

^ +1

There can not be a more glaring bit of proof looking at  that footage that OR had it right.


The buried the bows , powered thruough , popped up and barely slowed down , not to mention not losing anyone over board .


Well that footage as well  as this little bauble  of course makes this argument rather moot :)  I guess after herbie was put to bed there has to be something to pontificate about :)



In Topic: ***AC 35 Boats***

Yesterday, 04:22 PM

In the final race during the start there is evidence enough that the fine surface piercing style was the correct call . The front end went down , powered thru , popped up and comtinued on for the win .

In Topic: Why was OTUSA faster ?

Yesterday, 04:15 PM

Sorry Simon but you can claim anything you want as far as he said she said, but the fact is none of us were privy to the discussions that went on privately or before the Safety commitee.
We all heard LR's B calling for lower limits, we also heard him reverse himself a few days later. Did you not see the recent article that claimed that OTUSA called for a 20 knot max? It went on to say ETNZ wanted 25, if a change was required, and IM 'compromised' on 23 - before altering the measurement criteria and changing true to apparent, rendering the earlier agreed numbers meaningless - we go over and over the same ground, but who voted for what at that time (if they even got a vote on the critical details) is largely undisclosed.
OTUSA certainly had no reason to debate things publicly or even make their position know, they had ACRM acting as their proxy both on and off the water, or that's how it looked to me at the time - and as I stated then.
The simple fact remains that the teams agreed to race in 5-33knots, a 28kt true range and designed accordingly, but in the end raced under the equivalent of about a 10 knot true range.
That you wish for apparent wind limits in your racing but don't get them, maybe tells you something about how impractical, unnecessary and unusual this is.
Why was it done in the way it was done? Why was a perfectly satisfactory wind measurement protocol that they had been using for a year or more suddenly amended to more conservative one, effectively lowering the wind limits again, from an already lowered number?

Why was it done you ask ?

As ET was the boat that came closest to capsizing during the actual races perhaps it was done to insure that OR had someone to race . The last thing the organizers wanted was the event won because they only had one boat left afloat.

In Topic: Ridiculous Mistake, Ridiculous Punishment

17 April 2014 - 04:36 PM

I think this is just a way to get back at the Dutch for winning just about every speed skating medal at the last winter olympics .

It makes more sence then five pounds = five years .