Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bortolo said:

Is Pietro Sibello more "dynamic" in this practice session? Sometimes crossing before a tack, sometimes remaining to leeward, sometimes going to stern while on a straight to look around. Maybe giving him more tactical responsibility is the idea? Or maybe it's just my impression/hope.

or maybe confused?, if its windy come race time they may well be packing up for the journey home, 

one thing AM wasn't was slow up range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

RING RING RING RING JS "um...cia... errr... pronto!" RC "Jimmy, it's me" JS "Who?" RC "Me mate, your old boss" JS "Fuck you Kiwis all sound the same to me mate, and I've

New Max Sirena interview by Bacci del Buono and Mario Giuffrè for Giornale della Vela. It's a really long interview, almost 2 hours, Max as always is very straight and open to talk about nearly everyt

https://farevela.net/2020/06/03/americas-cup-che-coppa-sara-diretta-4-giugno-2130-ospiti-bruni-e-vascotto-commento-tecnico-dalbertas-pinucci/ Since there are not so much news in these days, here'

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

or maybe confused?, if its windy come race time they may well be packing up for the journey home, 

one thing AM wasn't was slow up range.

Confused? I don't think so.

I can't wait to see the next race.

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

while Ii was joking  that team haven't been the last word in clear thinking and tactical excellence have they?

This is absolutely true. I suppose it's not really clear who is in charge of the LR afterguard. My opinion is that the setup Team UK has chosen, with Giles free to think and elaborate tactics, is quite smarter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pressure builds.

Luna Rossa skipper: “Continue with Bruni and Spithill until the end”. Also because changing would seem like a desperate move. The British: "They have a budget of 200 million pounds". The regattas. “Psychologists to take the pressure? If they enter the base they run away after 15 minutes ”. Private life. “The Cup takes everything away from you. I don't know if I will continue ”. 

https://www.lastampa.it/mare/2021/01/26/news/max-sirena-i-due-timonieri-e-il-logorio-dell-america-s-cup-1.39822866?fbclid=IwAR01bY4PpWPNlnAhIF6viMJ8govpiflM_0uanfySWxNqKvArrcR-qFi_XYA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if the Italians feel duped by the Kiwi’s? Maybe LR were under the impression, given Te Aihe and LR B1 were fairly similar in design, that the Kiwi’s would continue down the same direction, and both teams would end up with fairly similar performance come cup time? 
ETNZ then (by all accounts) went in a different direction, leaving LR with a more conservative design, and struggling to keep pace with the more extreme designs of Britannia and Te Rehutai. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mako23 said:

I wonder if the Italians have brought out any new toys in their boat, considering it’s now life and death racing. 

They'd have to be very sure of beating AM not to. I'm certain AM won't have left anything in the toy cupboard, as it's do or go home for them following their attempt to turn an AC75 into a submarine...

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

Wonder if the Italians feel duped by the Kiwi’s? Maybe LR were under the impression, given Te Aihe and LR B1 were fairly similar in design, that the Kiwi’s would continue down the same direction, and both teams would end up with fairly similar performance come cup time? 
ETNZ then (by all accounts) went in a different direction, leaving LR with a more conservative design, and struggling to keep pace with the more extreme designs of Britannia and Te Rehutai. 

I find this in fact quite likely. They did something very similar in 2013 when they bought design info for ETNZ's boat 1 and turned up with something very similar to it while the rest of the teams had all lapped them.

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

I find this in fact quite likely. They did something very similar in 2013 when they bought design info for ETNZ's boat 1 and turned up with something very similar to it while the rest of the teams had all lapped them.

So, you're saying LR are slow learners?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nutta said:

So, you're saying LR are slow learners?

The one thing about LR is they don’t always spend big. In the 2013 campaign he bought the design and built one boat. For the amount of worth he has you could say it was a minimal effort. Maybe LR is also a marketing concept to Patrizio Bertelli. 

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

ETNZ then (by all accounts) went in a different direction, leaving LR with a more conservative design, and struggling to keep pace with the more extreme designs of Britannia and Te Rehutai. 

Yep we may have Te Xerox against the original, Rita :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The backstays war ain't over.

Question:

"Noting that Rule 35.17 defines control systems as systems used for the adjustment of control surfaces;
and that Rule 35.16 does not include the mainsail (on its own) within the defined categories of control
surfaces: what is the meaning of the phrase “control systems of the mainsail” as used in Rule 20.26?
Specifically, are running backstays within the categories of “control system of the mainsail” subject to
the constraints set out in Rule 20.26?"

Answer:

"Running backstays are not within the category of “control systems of the mainsail”. As permitted
by the last sentence in rule 20.26 (referring to rule 20.6), running backstays are considered control
systems of the mast tube." 

Is this a victory for LR (less limitation on backstays) or is it another slammed door ? 

Link to the full arbitration: https://docs.google.com/a/acofficials.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNvZmZpY2lhbHMub3JnfGFjMzYtb2ZmaWNpYWwtbm90aWNlYm9hcmR8Z3g6NDhlZGEwYzdmYzg4MzNhZQ

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

The one thing about LR is they don’t always spend big. In the 2013 campaign he bought the design and built one boat. For the amount of worth he has you could say it was a minimal effort. Maybe LR is also a marketing concept to Patrizio Bertelli. 

Bertelli said in an interview that 2013 campaign was done mainly to support NZ against Oracle and not with the serious intention (and the budget) to win the cup  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure @Zaal. but I think it may be a victory for LR

The constraint I think they are referring to in 20.26 is that things can only "attach or bear on" the mainsail in the upper and lower zones.

So someone is asking if the runners can be attached or bear upon the mainsail outside the upper and lower zones. 

Well I can't see that you would want to apply pressure directly on the main from the runners, but perhaps LR want to attach the runners to the leech to reduce drag?

Means you couldn't use them but you could but give loads of slack so they never impede the main, but with no drag. As long as they comply with another interpretation that if they are pulled they come tight (and thus detach from main).

Still seems weird on a fractional rig not to want the runners but to be controlling mast bend with cunningham instead

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kenergy said:

Going to be ironic if their data systems shit themselves prestart again.

Desperate times...plenty of wind tomorrow 

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

Going to be ironic if their data systems shit themselves prestart again.

The best outcome ever.

or a technical giving AM the win, evens things up after the last encounter, when they won without merit. 

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

The best outcome ever.

or a technical giving AM the win, evens things up after the last encounter, when they won without merit. 

Meh, I hope LR wins 4 in a row.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

America's Cup: Tension rises as Italians can a 15-minute start delay rule

Big title, just to add some sensationalist spice, but in the last line you can read " “No request (for an extension) from American Magic was submitted to the COR.”

Everybody knew this was an experimental rule and was not automatically extended. I wonder why none of the teams officially asked for it to be extended.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

Well I can't see that you would want to apply pressure directly on the main from the runners, but perhaps LR want to attach the runners to the leech to reduce drag?

 

Yeah, American Magic had their backstay bearing heavily on the mainsail... and it didn't work out to well for them!

AC210117lb_12924_rdax_1200x629_90.jpg

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

Perhaps, thought answer 5 will give them pause for thought. If they use anything to hold the backstays out of the way, then that is OK providing 

1) The runners can still be pulled tight

2) If they are pulled tight and the shock cords or ropes break then there must be nothing left on the runners. So there would have to be some sort of attachment on the backs-stays that completely detaches if loaded. This must detach at less strain than the shock cord (or they could be protested), but if too lose could come free from slamming etc and cause even more drag

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that sets up any other team to wind up the legal teams as by Prada  asking the questions in the way they have is indication an alternate purpose to the intended use of shock chord etc, holding a piece of supplied rigging (the back stays) in a position that they are normally not near  the length of the mast tube) is not the intent of the rule that allows shock chord usage 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

I think that sets up any other team to wind up the legal teams as by Prada  asking the questions in the way they have is indication an alternate purpose to the intended use of shock chord etc, holding a piece of supplied rigging (the back stays) in a position that they are normally not near  the length of the mast tube) is not the intent of the rule that allows shock chord usage 

I disagree, they have gained permission to introduce large amounts of slack in other interpretations, and they could thus use the shock chords to manage that slack anywhere. Managing slack is a permissible intent on its own, even if you have additional intentions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, buckdouger said:

I disagree, they have gained permission to introduce large amounts of slack in other interpretations, and they could thus use the shock chords to manage that slack anywhere. Managing slack is a permissible intent on its own, even if you have additional intentions.

itnerpretation A  puts the ball firmly with the MC, to check if it is still in compliance with rule 20.9 shock chord or rope used beyond the purpose in 20.9.

 

20.9 wasn't written with the intent that the back stays would be disconnected and laid along the mast during racing. the back stays have no need to ever be in contact with anything let alone shock chord or rope to keep them out of the way, by their own design and function they do that on their own.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JALhazmat said:

itnerpretation A  puts the ball firmly with the MC, to check if it is still in compliance with rule 20.9 shock chord or rope used beyond the purpose in 20.9.

 

20.9 wasn't written with the intent that the back stays would be disconnected and laid along the mast during racing. the back stays have no need to ever be in contact with anything let alone shock chord or rope to keep them out of the way, by their own design and function they do that on their own.

 

For what it counts, they had no (visible) runners during today's practice, it seems.

Edit: maybe they are along the shrouds, actually.
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

itnerpretation A  puts the ball firmly with the MC, to check if it is still in compliance with rule 20.9 shock chord or rope used beyond the purpose in 20.9.

 

20.9 wasn't written with the intent that the back stays would be disconnected and laid along the mast during racing. the back stays have no need to ever be in contact with anything let alone shock chord or rope to keep them out of the way, by their own design and function they do that on their own.

 

Agreed that the MC has that power, and that the runners do that on their own. 

I don't think it's relevant that the runner slack can be managed in a more conventional way, the issue is whether shock cord manages slack, not whether there are other ways to manage slack. If that was the intent the rule should say you can only use shock cord when other options have been exhausted, for example. 

However, I think the RC may have gone too far here in considering what happens if a component is used beyond the intent of the rule, as long as it is compliant in the first instance with the rule itself. I suspect many things on all boats push the limits of intent, and this may be opening a can of worms. 

From the ruling, it seems quite possible for LR to attach the runners to the shrouds or mast, taut. I think they are at risk of a MC issue if they for example tried to weave an aero fairing out of shock cord for the runners which simultaneously keeps them taut, but I do not see them having to go that far. 

The mast's sail attachment zone has a small amount of space where a rebate could be built in to partially or fully route the runners, although I doubt there is a need or time to take that approach. Would be interesting if that fell foul of the ruling against a fairing along the mast from earlier. I don't recall the specifics. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that with arbitration N.81 they're just fine. Is it possible that they hid the backstays along the shrouds ? I looked at previous pics, that area was a lot more clear before 

shrouds.png.bf0a776f9a07e205ad52e473877a040d.png

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JALhazmat said:

Yup that looks like it’s under tension to prevent chafing.. 

I am wondering if you read "Shock  cords or ropes may be attached to supplied rigging to manage slack and prevent sails  being  fouled." as you may only use shock cord when you are managing slack and also preventing fouling sails. 

I personally think the sentence allows for two permissible use cases, either managing slack, or preventing fouling. 

In my interpretation what they may be doing in the picture seems fine. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it and there is a bloody great loop of back stay flapping  in the breeze 

I was taking the piss given how they have fucked about trying to be super aero yet that’s what they go with 

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

I am wondering if you read "Shock  cords or ropes may be attached to supplied rigging to manage slack and prevent sails  being  fouled." as you may only use shock cord when you are managing slack and also preventing fouling sails. 

I personally think the sentence allows for two permissible use cases, either managing slack, or preventing fouling. 

In my interpretation what they may be doing in the picture seems fine. 

Did LR use conventional runners because it was forced to, or as a precaution with the fresh wind range?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I talked with Vittorio and Pietro (the Italian Guys) on the Youtube live chat of their channel. I asked them about the new arbitration (N. 81) and they told me that it's game over for LR, they have to keep the backstays on. Actually, I think they're wrong. I mean, LR tried to over rule the Arbitration Panel that outlawed sailing without backstays, and they lost. Ok, they lost that battle. But Arbitration 81 gave them the right to hid the backstays. They lost a battle, but maybe they won the war. Why sailing without backstays in the last training session otherwise? Today forecast is light / medium breeze. I assume we'll have an answer. But from my point of view (but I'm not an expert, I know) they'll sail with the backstays hidden today. We'll see. I'm a LR supporter of course, since I'm from Italy, so I hope they won the backstays war. Seems to be a real game changer for them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Xlot said:

Did LR use conventional runners because it was forced to, or as a precaution with the fresh wind range?

From what I understand, they want to keep the backstays with strong winds and hide/remove them in light / medium breeze. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zaal said:

Yesterday I talked with Vittorio and Pietro (the Italian Guys) on the Youtube live chat of their channel. I asked them about the new arbitration (N. 81) and they told me that it's game over for LR, they have to keep the backstays on. Actually, I think they're wrong. I mean, LR tried to over rule the Arbitration Panel that outlawed sailing without backstays, and they lost. Ok, they lost that battle. But Arbitration 81 gave them the right to hid the backstays. They lost a battle, but maybe they won the war. Why sailing without backstays in the last training session otherwise? Today forecast is light / medium breeze. I assume we'll have an answer. But from my point of view (but I'm not an expert, I know) they'll sail with the backstays hidden today. We'll see. I'm a LR supporter of course, since I'm from Italy, so I hope they won the backstays war. Seems to be a real game changer for them.

Or because of the current measurement certificate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, buckdouger said:

Or because of the current measurement certificate?

I don't think so, because they can only hide (assuming they can do it rule compliant) the backstays somewhere, they can't sail without them (and that's for sure). So the backstays are always there, they have to declare them all the time, and have them onboard. Moreover, Vittorio and Pietro were clearly talking about the failed over rule attempt to the arbitration panel. My point is that maybe they found the way to hide backstays anyway via Arbitration 76 and 81, and that could explain why they sailed the last day of training without them.  We'll see it shortly !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luna Rossa's performance yesterday has deservedly been talked up, but they did make some un-forced errors.

This early in Race 2, coming off the foils for some unknown reason - fortunately for them, Patriot wasn't close enough to capitalize.

DSC_5763.JPG

DSC_5766.JPG

DSC_5768.JPG

DSC_5769.JPG

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

LR now have to face Ineos a boat that beat them when damaged. The. Italians say there 10% faster and they will need to be,  because Ineos will also be faster. 

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

LR now have to face Ineos a boat that beat them when damaged. The. Italians say there 10% faster and they will need to be,  because Ineos will also be faster. 

I doubt they could improve their performances by 10% in 5 days. If that is true ETNZ should begin to be nervous. :-D  I would be happy if the race with INEOS will be close

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, strider470 said:

I doubt they could improve their performances by 10% in 5 days. If that is true ETNZ should begin to be nervous. :-D  I would be happy if the race with INEOS will be close

I’d be surprised if the racing isn’t close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, so now 2 boat testing is permitted ? TH said they won’t be the sparring partner for any team. Interesting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can someone point me to any description of what the crew exact duties are, apart from the 3 in the afterguard? Grinding of course. What else? I hear them talking in background (in Italian) when i watch the onboard videos but I can't grasp much of what they say.

Also who trims the jib?

Thanks 

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

 

Can someone point me to any description of what the crew exact duties are, apart from the 3 in the afterguard? Grinding of course. What else? I hear them talking in background (in Italian) when i watch the onboard videos but I can't grasp much of what they say.

Also who trims the jib?

Thanks 

Hi Ruggero Tita explaimed it pretty well a couple of weeks ago on rai2 but honestly I forgot it.

Only thing I am sure is that jib is done by the second from the front on each side. Pigi De Felice on one side and I do not remember who on the other (molineris maybe?).

The other interesting thing I remember is that they run dedicated people for rudder trim in manouvres.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bortolo said:

 

Can someone point me to any description of what the crew exact duties are, apart from the 3 in the afterguard? Grinding of course. What else? I hear them talking in background (in Italian) when i watch the onboard videos but I can't grasp much of what they say.

Also who trims the jib?

Thanks 

I could understand nothing of the background chatting!

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

If Luna Rossa can improve 10 percent in five days the kiwis will be over the horizon with the time they had 

I come on here to feast on the insight that you have just offered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2021 at 5:28 AM, strider470 said:

Luna Rossa boat 1 should be in Auckland. Any recent picture?

Back in November she was stored away in the shed (background, lower right)

DSC_1246.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ups JM. First impression is obviously new jib with vertical tapes back 2/3. Tacks pretty smooth. 

Foils don't look very different 

Maybe deeper skeg? 

Backstays tacked out of the way but doing nothing much,. much to their disgust spoiling the vibe of the whole thing. 

A fabulous flying sign for P+P. 

La fotografia era stupenda

Link to post
Share on other sites