Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Zaal said:

New video by Justin Mitchell. Black rudder and the new foils. Still I can't see the aero mods Max talked about 

I think he promised them for the AC match.

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

Just now, marlowe said:

I think he promised them for the AC match.

Yeah he talked about huge aero mods that will be clearly visible for the Cup Match should they win Ineos, but he talked also about smaller modifications in the aero package that can give you a little gain in performance ready for the upcoming regattas 

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

Yeah he talked about huge aero mods that will be clearly visible for the Cup Match should they win Ineos, but he talked also about smaller modifications in the aero package that can give you a little gain in performance ready for the upcoming regattas 

Maybe it's something they intend to attach to INEOS nighttime before the race :)

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

 

New video by Justin Mitchell. Black rudder and the new foils. Still I can't see the aero mods Max talked about 

the aero fairings have been extended on the inboard sides, between the crew and the main, they previously stopped near the 1st/2nd grinding position and now extend to the back of the cockpit area

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2021 at 10:48 PM, barfy said:

Really? Care to elaborate?

Sorry just seen this now, 

It caught my eye when I was taken through the shed, it was pre-painted so we could see both the seperate parts and inside the vertical as the side cover was off. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, WakaNZ said:

Sorry just seen this now, 

It caught my eye when I was taken through the shed, it was pre-painted so we could see both the seperate parts and inside the vertical as the side cover was off. 

How does the rule allow more than two flaps? One on each side of the vertical? 
unless you mean they are joined together like the Ineos W foil 

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

How does the rule allow more than two flaps? One on each side of the vertical? 
unless you mean they are joined together like the Ineos W foil 

I got to see the vertical section of the foil attachment but I was referring to the Foil flaps. Starting to get out of context as my reply was dated. I was agreeing to the comment questioning a single flap and said “at least two”, not more than. I wasn’t allowed to hang around the foils for long, it was just something that caught my eye along with being told what foil number it was. 
 

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

I got to see the vertical section of the foil attachment but I was referring to the Foil flaps. Starting to get out of context as my reply was dated. I was agreeing to the comment questioning a single flap and said “at least two”, not more than. I wasn’t allowed to hang around the foils for long, it was just something that caught my eye along with being told what foil number it was. 
 

Ah fair enough 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 2:22 AM, MaxHugen said:

Took a few goes to get it right... that last minute seems to be crucial.

Yep. You gotta keep nibbling. And remember, that shit keeps cooking, even after it's out of the bath.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean Barker on RNZ this morning... “The CoR never represented us, they never had the best interests of the challengers at heart, I can’t speak for INEOS but they never represented American Magic” 

The knives are coming out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Forourselves said:

Dean Barker on RNZ this morning... “The CoR never represented us, they never had the best interests of the challengers at heart, I can’t speak for INEOS but they never represented American Magic” 

The knives are coming out.

What was he expecting the CoR to do for them? Just curious

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, strider470 said:

What was he expecting the CoR to do for them? Just curious

Apparently the protocol stated the CoR was to represent the challenger group collectively. They were to seek input from the challengers and represent that input to the Defender. This was discussed when the wind limits were an issue earlier in the cycle. LR seems to have ignored the other challengers and done what was best for them. This is the AC, so it’s pretty naive to think your competition is going to do anything but think about themselves, but the protocol is fairly clear in its wording of the duties of the CoR.

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Forourselves said:

Apparently the protocol stated the CoR was to represent the challenger group collectively. They were to seek input from the challengers and represent that input to the Defender. This was discussed when the wind limits were an issue earlier in the cycle. LR seems to have ignored the other challengers and done what was best for them. This is the AC, so it’s pretty naive to think your competition is going to do anything but think about themselves, but the protocol is fairly clear in its wording of the duties of the CoR.

You mean the lower wind limits? I admit I didn't read the protocol.

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

Dean Barker on RNZ this morning... “The CoR never represented us, they never had the best interests of the challengers at heart, I can’t speak for INEOS but they never represented American Magic” 

Remembering what happened the previuos time LR was CoR, my heart bleeds

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Dean Barker on RNZ this morning... “The CoR never represented us, they never had the best interests of the challengers at heart, I can’t speak for INEOS but they never represented American Magic” 

The knives are coming out.

BA in the press conference yesterday said they were consulted one the discussions about wind range and time out card. 

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

... the protocol is fairly clear in its wording of the duties of the CoR.

I forget, does LR remain CoR until the conclusion of AC36 even if they do lose the CSS? If so, that Protocol is quite bizarre, since who would they favor between Ineos and ETNZ in any possible disagreements, and also when considering the probable secret deal already made between Ineos and ETNZ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I repost this here, but I think it's due. Should LR win the Cup, Alinghi will be the COR. The venue will be Cagliari. Ipse dixit, PB in his own words. And, I may add, in any case the return of Alinghi in the next Cup is quite assured 

https://www.oasport.it/2021/02/luna-rossa-ha-un-accordo-con-alinghi-per-la-prossima-americas-cup-finali-a-cagliari-tutti-gli-scenari-in-caso-di-vittoria/

 

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

Sorry if I repost this here, but I think it's due. Should LR win the Cup, Alinghi will be the COR. The venue will be Cagliari. Ipse dixit, PB in his own words. And, I may add, in any case the return of Alinghi in the next Cup is quite assured 

https://www.oasport.it/2021/02/luna-rossa-ha-un-accordo-con-alinghi-per-la-prossima-americas-cup-finali-a-cagliari-tutti-gli-scenari-in-caso-di-vittoria/

 

Corning soon. Ernesto Bertarelli starring in "The Umpire strikes back". :-O  May the foils be with you!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I once went into the Serono offices in Rome - a friend of mine worked for Serono, so I heard about the Bertarellis back then.

Ernesto's grandfather and father built up the business, pharmaceuticals and later biotechnology.

Ernesto and his sister inherited the business in 1996.

Since then, they sold the company to Merck, for billions of course ....

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

Sorry if I repost this here, but I think it's due. Should LR win the Cup, Alinghi will be the COR. The venue will be Cagliari. Ipse dixit, PB in his own words. And, I may add, in any case the return of Alinghi in the next Cup is quite assured 

https://www.oasport.it/2021/02/luna-rossa-ha-un-accordo-con-alinghi-per-la-prossima-americas-cup-finali-a-cagliari-tutti-gli-scenari-in-caso-di-vittoria/

 

FWIW,  I found a Firefox add-on that will translate webpages at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/traduzir-paginas-web/ if anyone is interested.  Seems to work quite well.

Other browsers probably have similar add-ons.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the AC FB post saying that yesterday's extended workout was their last training before tomorrow's races, LRPP were back out briefly today - just caught them coming back in.

DSC_5945.JPG

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MaxHugen said:

FWIW,  I found a Firefox add-on that will translate webpages at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/traduzir-paginas-web/ if anyone is interested.  Seems to work quite well.

Other browsers probably have similar add-ons.

Why don't you simply paste the complete website url into Google translator? You get the link to the translated website as a result.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Why don't you simply paste the complete website url into Google translator? You get the link to the translated website as a result.

I tried that previously, for whatever reason it didn't work...

Anyway, now I just have a tiny icon next to the address bar to click, so even simpler. The add-on still uses Google translate, with the option to use Yandex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here, last training before the Final. There's also Ineos. Was it an official practice day ? Or just a rehearsal for umpire, broadcast tv etc etc ? I think ETNZ was there too. 

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

And here, last training before the Final. There's also Ineos. Was it an official practice day ? Or just a rehearsal for umpire, broadcast tv etc etc ? I think ETNZ was there too. 

At the start the angles upwind as each boat tacked /were running towards the camera... ?

downwind it looked like neither really wanted to engage with the gybe away from Prada 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, Forourselves said:

Apparently the protocol stated the CoR was to represent the challenger group collectively. They were to seek input from the challengers and represent that input to the Defender. This was discussed when the wind limits were an issue earlier in the cycle. LR seems to have ignored the other challengers and done what was best for them. This is the AC, so it’s pretty naive to think your competition is going to do anything but think about themselves, but the protocol is fairly clear in its wording of the duties of the CoR.

17 hours ago, Indio said:

It shows

 

Now I can finally admit I've read the protocol. I honestly did skip some not relevant sections so maybe I could have lost something, therefore I ask (without polemic intent) if you can help me find where exactly it is stated that the COR has any sort of obligation to follow in regard to other Challengers' requests.

All that I could find is:

1.JPG.3accd4e96eab0ccf3c04fabe294f3967.JPG

2.JPG.fa4c7d8ce667d05f8f793f2685aeca6d.JPG

And here:

3.JPG.97fb6491eaf81338927a2a9316db18bd.JPG

The word "represent" is quite generic and in my opinion, does not imply that everything another Challenger asks will be done. That said, I think that LR fulfilled her role as a COR in a good and honest way, and if not I would like to see some specific  evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, strider470 said:

 

 

Now I can finally admit I've read the protocol. I honestly did skip some not relevant sections so maybe I could have lost something, therefore I ask (without polemic intent) if you can help me find where exactly it is stated that the COR has any sort of obligation to follow in regard to other Challengers' requests.

All that I could find is:

1.JPG.3accd4e96eab0ccf3c04fabe294f3967.JPG

2.JPG.fa4c7d8ce667d05f8f793f2685aeca6d.JPG

And here:

3.JPG.97fb6491eaf81338927a2a9316db18bd.JPG

The word "represent" is quite generic and in my opinion, does not imply that everything another Challenger asks will be done. That said, I think that LR fulfilled her role as a COR in a good and honest way, and if not I would like to see some specific  evidence.

1. INITIAL CHALLENGER OF RECORD AND MUTUAL CONSENT.


1.1. CVS, having submitted the first valid notice of Challenge to RNZYS, is appointed by RNZYS as
the Initial Challenger of Record (“Initial Challenger of Record” or “COR”). CVS shall be
represented by the sailing team ‘’Luna Rossa Challenge’’.

1.2. The Initial Challenger of Record shall represent all challengers whose notices of challenge
are accepted
, (“Challenger” or “Challengers”) unless the Initial Challenger of Record
relinquishes its position and a new Challenger of Record is appointed “COR”.

1.3. The RNZYS and COR are jointly referred in this Protocol as “COR/D”.

1.4. The RNZYS, the COR and the Challengers are indistinctively called competitors in this
Protocol (“Competitors”).

1.5. The challenge received by RNZYS from CVS, together The challenge received by RNZYS from
CVS, together with the other items required by the Deed of Gift, specified the class of yacht

Oxford dictionary defines "represent" as

"represent somebody/something to be a member of a group of people and act or speak for them at an event, a meeting, etc"

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

1. INITIAL CHALLENGER OF RECORD AND MUTUAL CONSENT.


1.1. CVS, having submitted the first valid notice of Challenge to RNZYS, is appointed by RNZYS as
the Initial Challenger of Record (“Initial Challenger of Record” or “COR”). CVS shall be
represented by the sailing team ‘’Luna Rossa Challenge’’.

1.2. The Initial Challenger of Record shall represent all challengers whose notices of challenge
are accepted
, (“Challenger” or “Challengers”) unless the Initial Challenger of Record
relinquishes its position and a new Challenger of Record is appointed “COR”.

1.3. The RNZYS and COR are jointly referred in this Protocol as “COR/D”.

1.4. The RNZYS, the COR and the Challengers are indistinctively called competitors in this
Protocol (“Competitors”).

1.5. The challenge received by RNZYS from CVS, together The challenge received by RNZYS from
CVS, together with the other items required by the Deed of Gift, specified the class of yacht

Oxford dictionary defines "represent" as

"represent somebody/something to be a member of a group of people and act or speak for them at an event, a meeting, etc"

I am sure earlier AC series protocols required the COR to have a vote amongst the challengers before agreeing anything with the Defender?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, strider470 said:

 

 

Now I can finally admit I've read the protocol. I honestly did skip some not relevant sections so maybe I could have lost something, therefore I ask (without polemic intent) if you can help me find where exactly it is stated that the COR has any sort of obligation to follow in regard to other Challengers' requests.

All that I could find is:

1.JPG.3accd4e96eab0ccf3c04fabe294f3967.JPG

2.JPG.fa4c7d8ce667d05f8f793f2685aeca6d.JPG

And here:

3.JPG.97fb6491eaf81338927a2a9316db18bd.JPG

The word "represent" is quite generic and in my opinion, does not imply that everything another Challenger asks will be done. That said, I think that LR fulfilled her role as a COR in a good and honest way, and if not I would like to see some specific  evidence.

For sure they have to listen to all the other challengers' requests and report them to the defender for discussion, but any decision is to be taken solely between the Defender and the Cor ( and in the protocol it is written clearly) not between the defender and a consensus of the challengers. That said AM cannot blame anyone but themselves (and the fate) for their sound and square defeat.

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

I am sure earlier AC series protocols required the COR to have a vote amongst the challengers before agreeing anything with the Defender?

Nope. When was the case last time LR was COR, they decided to do so renouncing to the rights provided by the protocol, and this ended very badly for LR.

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

For sure they have to listen to all the other challengers' requests and report them to the defender for discussion, but any decision is to be taken solely between the Defender and the Cor ( and in the protocol it is written clearly) not between the defender and a consensus of the challengers. That said AM cannot blame anyone but themselves (and the fate) for their sound and square defeat.

Agreed. However, in doing so, they must "Represent" all challengers, not "listen to" challengers. Any decision is made by mutual consent. 

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

Agreed. However, in doing so, they must "Represent" all challengers, not "listen to" challengers. Any decision is made by mutual consent. 

I'm not a lawyer and English is not my primary language , but I honestly can't find any reference to a mandatory mutual consent between challengers. Up until now I'm not convinced at all on that matter.

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

Agreed. However, in doing so, they must "Represent" all challengers, not "listen to" challengers. Any decision is made by mutual consent. 

But how does it work to protect all the challengers interests. The COR deal is just between the Defender and which ever "hip-pocket" club they do a deal with after the last race. I presume in the deal the only term is that on a certain date they turn up with a mutually agreed yacht and the conditions of the match.

Surely the COR then can sort out how challenges are accepted and how a selection series is organised to present a yacht to race the Defender. 

Surely anything else beyond this would have to be by mutual consent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only one who could complain for something relared to amendments to the protocol is Ben for the max wind limit reduction to 21 knots. And that was a decision taken by defender and COR, for safety reason as Ian well explained in the press conference

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

But how does it work to protect all the challengers interests. The COR deal is just between the Defender and which ever "hip-pocket" club they do a deal with after the last race. I presume in the deal the only term is that on a certain date they turn up with a mutually agreed yacht and the conditions of the match.

Surely the COR then can sort out how challenges are accepted and how a selection series is organised to present a yacht to race the Defender. 

Surely anything else beyond this would have to be by mutual consent. 

"Surely" is not a demonstration. I agree with you on the principles,  but I can't find evidence in the protocol. As a further demonstration Ben told that he was informed about the discussion on the wind limits, Ineos declared to be contrary, and COR and defender decided eventually to  change them.

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

But how does it work to protect all the challengers interests. The COR deal is just between the Defender and which ever "hip-pocket" club they do a deal with after the last race. I presume in the deal the only term is that on a certain date they turn up with a mutually agreed yacht and the conditions of the match.

Surely the COR then can sort out how challenges are accepted and how a selection series is organised to present a yacht to race the Defender. 

Surely anything else beyond this would have to be by mutual consent. 

The CoR were/ are responsible for protecting the Challengers interests. The Defender is ONLY responsible for the organisation of the Match itself, according to the DoG. The CoR are responsible for the organisation of the Challenger selection series.  

As long as a challenge meets all criteria in the DoG, the Defender has no choice but to accept that challenge.

 

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

I'm not a lawyer and English is not my primary language , but I honestly can't find any reference to a mandatory mutual consent between challengers. Up until now I'm not convinced at all on that matter.

There is no mutual consent between challengers. There is only the wording in the protocol.

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

The CoR were/ are responsible for protecting the Challengers interests. The Defender is ONLY responsible for the organisation of the Match itself, according to the DoG. The CoR are responsible for the organisation of the Challenger selection series.  

As long as a challenge meets all criteria in the DoG, the Defender has no choice but to accept that challenge.

 

Protecting the interests of the challengers doesn't mean to amend the protocol because one challenger doesn't perform well in certain conditions. The rules were in place before they started even to design their boats.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Protecting the interests of the challengers doesn't mean to amend the protocol because one challenger doesn't perform well in certain conditions. The rules were where in place before they started even to design their boats.

The rules have been amended many times, in many protocols over the years. If you believe Iain Murray (which many people do) the rules have been amended due to safety concerns.

The last time LR were CoR, they waived their veto rights (in good faith) afforded them by the protocol of that cycle, in favour of a challenger committee working together, and were subsequently outvoted by a challenger group who were beholden to the defender (Oracle Team USA), the AC62 class was replaced (mid cycle) by the AC50 rule, the previously agreed to Auckland qualifier was scrapped, which put ETNZ's future in jeopardy, and LR withdrew from that cycle.

ETNZ were (allegedly) financially compensated by ACEA for breach of contract in regards to the scrapping of the Auckland qualifier, which (ironically) may or may not have been key to ETNZ's success in Bermuda.

Oracle may have been forced to pay the critical amount needed for ETNZ to take the Cup away from them, which would be hilarious if it was the case.

 

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

The rules have been amended many times, in many protocols over the years. If you believe Iain Murray (which many people do) the rules have been amended due to safety concerns.

The last time LR were CoR, they waived their veto rights (in good faith) afforded them by the protocol of that cycle, in favour of a challenger committee working together, and were subsequently outvoted by a challenger group who were beholden to the defender (Oracle Team USA), the AC62 class was replaced (mid cycle) by the AC50 rule, the previously agreed to Auckland qualifier was scrapped, which put ETNZ's future in jeopardy, and LR withdrew from that cycle.

 

Yes, it is as you wrote. Bad memories.

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

Yes, it is as you wrote. Bad memories.

So I guess we can all understand why LR, instead of adhering to the clause in the current protocol stating they were to "Represent all challengers" have decided to adopt a more "Lone wolf" approach to the situation and represent and protect only themselves. 

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

So I guess we can all understand why LR, instead of adhering to the clause in the current protocol stating they were to "Represent all challengers" have decided to adopt a more "Lone wolf" approach to the situation and represent and protect only themselves. 

Did they directly or indirectly caused any damage to American Magic? I still don't get what we are talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Class Rule does require that changes be made only by mutual consent among all teams. The Prot this time has no such provision. 
 

What is still curious to me is why in this edition’s Prot, LR retains the CoR power even if the get knocked out early. 

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

The Class Rule does require that changes be made only by mutual consent among all teams. The Prot this time has no such provision. 
 

What is still curious to me is why in this edition’s Prot, LR retains the CoR power even if the get knocked out early. 

Bertelli asked for the Auld Mug too but the Kiwis didn't agree.

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

Did they directly or indirectly caused any damage to American Magic? I still don't get what we are talking about.

I guess if AM feel they weren’t represented as the protocol says they should have been, AM may feel they have a grievance. AM’s issue was that LR are living a double standard. They feel the boats are out of control in anything over 21 knots, but when AM suggested the lower wind limit was too low and should have been increased following the two light air races in RR1, they weren’t listened to. Personally, I feel those races, as slow as they were, were two of the most exciting races this event has shown so far. 

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

The Class Rule does require that changes be made only by mutual consent among all teams. The Prot this time has no such provision. 
 

What is still curious to me is why in this edition’s Prot, LR retains the CoR power even if the get knocked out early. 

Maybe it’s because this America’s Cup is defined in the protocol as the entire event. The different stages aren’t categorised separately so LR’s challenge is valid until the event is decided. 

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

I guess if AM feel they weren’t represented as the protocol says they should have been, AM may feel they have a grievance. AM’s issue was that LR are living a double standard. They feel the boats are out of control in anything about 21 knots, but when AM suggested the lower wind limit was too low and should have been increased following the two light air races in RR1, they weren’t listened to. Personally, I feel those races, as slow as they were, were two of the most exciting races this event has shown so far. 

I can't agree with AM feelings. I definitely agree with you on the slow races.

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

Maybe it’s because this America’s Cup is defined in the protocol as the entire event. The different stages aren’t categorised separately so LR’s challenge is valid until the event is decided. 

Agreed, but that makes it different from some (all?) previous multi-Chall Prot’s I can think of, where the CoR role could be taken over by the next best-standing Chall if the original CoR got knocked out. Hopefully it won’t be any problem, the way this edition’s Prot has it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get real. In the past you had the likes of Larry Ellison and Ernesto Bertarelli and now you try to convince me that we Italians,  spaghetti pizza e mandolino, are the bad guys? :) :) no way.! It's  like accusing the Smurfs of stalking Gargamel

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Let's get real. In the past you had the likes of Larry Ellison and Ernesto Bertarelli and now you try to convince me that we Italians,  spaghetti pizza e mandolino, are the bad guys? :) :) no way.! It's  like accusing the Smurfs of stalking Gargamel

In case you are responding to me, no I see nothing too wrong with LR’s behavior as CoR so far. But in the case of a loss to Ineos, well then will they help the Ineos cause in any issues that might arise in the Match? 

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

In case you are responding to me, no I see nothing too wrong with LR’s behavior as CoR so far. But in the case of a loss to Ineos, well then will they help the Ineos cause in any issues that might arise in the Match? 

No, sorry Stingray,  it was referring to the infinite list of previous messages. And to answer you I think yes, they would help the Ineos cause. But it's only my opinion. I'm not so sure they would help us, given the recent developments

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I can't recall any COR fighting for "all" the challengers, with one single exception, LR at Bermuda. In every other occasion, COR was a "primus inter pares" the first challenger, often an honorable position without any weight in the key decision making: the Class Rule was quite always well defined, the venue too. Often the COR was a team that couldn't cause too much trouble to the Defender. It's not a pure coincidence that any COR ever won the Cup (but there's always a first time, they say :) ) .An exception is LR again, that wasn't a powerless COR in this edition. On the contrary, after the big help they gave to the Kiwis in the Bermuda edition, LR shared a lot of advantages with the Defender: they designed the new Class Rule together, they obtained the monohulls, the upwind start, etc etc.  All the frictions between ETNZ and LR are caused by this fact I think. From 2000, LR and ETNZ had always been allied, but it never was a collaboration between two teams at the same level. In SF LR strongly supported ETNZ. LR started late, they bought a design package from ETNZ (that needed money) they supported them when OTUSA tried to change the Rule about the rudders, they trained with them before the Match. Now that they are a lot more even, that LR is stronger, the relationship (of course) is worse. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Max Sirena in the press conference seems to be less confident than when he appeared in other recent interviews. 

Both teams have been spying each other, who knows, they (LR) may have discovered UK is faster?

I hope not, if nothing else, to watch spectacular races....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, strider470 said:

"Surely" is not a demonstration. I agree with you on the principles,  but I can't find evidence in the protocol. As a further demonstration Ben told that he was informed about the discussion on the wind limits, Ineos declared to be contrary, and COR and defender decided eventually to  change them.

Change in the wind limits for the Match should be between defender and cor. As a one on one vote, if no agreement to change, then would have to stay as agreed the protocol unless the Race Director made a sufficient case on grounds of safety. 

Cor however would have to get agreement from the challengers before negotiation with the Defender. In the way of a vote this would be three way this time (the only question being if one of the boats had been knocked out, e.g. AM. Should AM still have a vote?) 

As for changing the wind in the challenger series. The Defender should have no say. Only the Race Director on safety. 

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

Change in the wind limits for the Match should be between defender and cor. As a one on one vote, if no agreement to change, then would have to stay as agreed the protocol unless the Race Director made a sufficient case on grounds of safety. 

Cor however would have to get agreement from the challengers before negotiation with the Defender. In the way of a vote this would be three way this time (the only question being if one of the boats had been knocked out, e.g. AM. Should AM still have a vote?) 

As for changing the wind in the challenger series. The Defender should have no say. Only the Race Director on safety. 

I downloaded the protocol with the amendments but I can't find evidence of what you said. Only modifications in the class rules seem to require a global consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, strider470 said:

Let's get real. In the past you had the likes of Larry Ellison and Ernesto Bertarelli and now you try to convince me that we Italians,  spaghetti pizza e mandolino, are the bad guys? :) :) no way.! It's  like accusing the Smurfs of stalking Gargamel

I’m not sure if the Italians are bad guys but they have hired some professional trouble makers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The change in wind limits were decided by ETNZ. LR agreed 'cause it's now settled for what they wanted from the start (if you remember, it was the first disagreement between the two). Originally ETNZ wanted 25, LR 21, the Arbitration settled it to 23. Now it's 21 again, and it's not surprising. MS told in a recent interview that Te Rehutai my have problems in the upper wind range, despite being targeted for medium / strong winds, he talked about the last 2/3 knots. And here we are, new wind limit settled. I'm not criticizing this in any way. This is the America's Cup. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, strider470 said:

Let's get real. In the past you had the likes of Larry Ellison and Ernesto Bertarelli and now you try to convince me that we Italians,  spaghetti pizza e mandolino, are the bad guys? :) :) no way.! It's  like accusing the Smurfs of stalking Gargamel

:lol::lol: excellent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mako23 said:

I’m not sure if the Italians are bad guys but they have hired some professional trouble makers. 

To make Bruno from scratch?

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

The rules have been amended many times, in many protocols over the years. If you believe Iain Murray (which many people do) the rules have been amended due to safety concerns.

The last time LR were CoR, they waived their veto rights (in good faith) afforded them by the protocol of that cycle, in favour of a challenger committee working together, and were subsequently outvoted by a challenger group who were beholden to the defender (Oracle Team USA), the AC62 class was replaced (mid cycle) by the AC50 rule, the previously agreed to Auckland qualifier was scrapped, which put ETNZ's future in jeopardy, and LR withdrew from that cycle.

ETNZ were (allegedly) financially compensated by ACEA for breach of contract in regards to the scrapping of the Auckland qualifier, which (ironically) may or may not have been key to ETNZ's success in Bermuda.

Oracle may have been forced to pay the critical amount needed for ETNZ to take the Cup away from them, which would be hilarious if it was the case.

 

Trouble makers? Where's bad boy Brad? Keeping a low profile?

As for COR, in the good old bad old days in 12m Newport the NYYC had little to do with the challengers as they had their own defence trials to take care of. The challengers organised the trials themselves. There was minimal collusion with the Defender. 

The new COR deal working closely with the Defender does not seem to be fair on all the challengers unless they are able to vote (though as pointed out LE/RC shafted LR over the AC62 and then ETNZ in Bermuda by encouraging a cabal). 

Cost effective to have Defender and challengers running one regatta/press/TV system as current. However that should not compromise the challengers ability to work together to offer the best team for the Match. The COR is typically a bit of a pasty with the hip-pocket system. But the COR should still be responsible for setting up a system that leads to the best challenger. Hopefully that should still be possible even if the COR gets eliminated early (rather than the COR responsibility being progressively passed onto the remaining players.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if our Italian friends are feeling optimistic today. It’s a nice light breeze ie Prada weather. You have a nice new set of foils and the dual helm team seems to be working.  I’m half a Pom so I have to support Ineos  but I can’t help feeling a little nervous when I look out the window and see a light breeze here in Auckland. Anyway good luck to you guys and may the best team win 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites