Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bat said:

Free reign is fine if the design team have a certain level of experience in the concept on the table.
As the new class was essentially a blank sheet of paper with foil systems and type massively different to the previous AC50s, were efforts made to source design minds more experienced in the foil types to be used? There are some very successful designers experienced in flapped foil design on their UK doorstep that could of enhanced an objective design team. You would hope they were consulted?

 In the reality of a lack of real world data and only relying on simulation, it was a big gamble to go with the designer chosen from the last AC. Couple with a CEO that headed losing teams off the pace in 2 of the last 3 cups (Alinghi Cat/Dog and Oracle 2013, 2017), and a team built on exceptional talent that may not have the high performance ‘feel’ or objectivity through feel over a one design mindset to challenge a poor design path.  

A great effort by the team to sail a boat that was always sadly on the back foot. Exceptional sailing against opponents making mistakes on a gusty shifty, duck pond course made it look far better than it was in the round robins.

I accept all of that. I'm not sure how the transfer market goes with this sort of thing, to what extent that any particular guy or guys will assure you of the right result. But I understand that in proposing the rule, TNZ and to some extent Prada had a headstart in both design and also appropriate personnel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

shes legit ... foil arm looks to be in the front end of the box ... opposite of all other teams ... what are we going to read into that?

ETNZ are probably favorites .....but win or lose....Team New Zealand have firmly established themselves as the all time great AC nation in the modern era.   From the time they first emerged, they have

Posted Images

3 hours ago, strider470 said:

Sailing a slower boat doesn't make anybody appear very smart. Not even Ben and Giles. Give them equal terms and everything changes. But it's true that maybe he weared too many hats and couldn't be 100% focused.

To my mind, he has just looked out of sorts and not at the top of his game. Lots of problems to sort out and that brings pressure. 

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

During the press conference Ben pretty much ruled out helping the Italians.  If ETNZ win they have the boat and the base already in NZ. So makes financial sense to help the Kiwis 

Also Team GB must hate LR in they way they acted in the Prada Cup

Not so sure, now that the match is settled and with it any gamesmanship, all options available. 

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

Whenever a high value decision is based upon computer simulation - whether that be AC75 manoeuvre simulation, financial modelling or epidemiology studies - it is essential that the decision maker (Ben in this case) understands the scope, limitations, simplifications and assumptions behind that model so that he can understand the validity of the answers the simulation produces. Ideally there is documentation describing the phenomena included and the maths used to represent that, so that it can be agreed before modelling commences that the model will be fit for purpose. This is even more important in cases like this where it is not possible to validate the model with real world data until it is too late. 
Either Ineos’ simulations were not valid or the design team did not have the imagination to improve on what they came up with. The Prada mainsail system is neat but for £150m you hope the idea of a boomless setup at least occurred to Ineos.

All great points as ever. 2 things - firstly as an example do you think Ben was the final signatory over say the boom vs no boom situation? I think I saw no boom on B1 pic today and it looked gash, so if it performed badly,  one could see that a sailor's bias based on those early forays would understandably be to park that option. Absolutely they would maintain a "decision register" with this sort of thing in it, but assumptions and limitations are always going to be present in simulation, but its a tough gig for engineers, let alone to sailors to understand and pass judgement on how sound the assumptions are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dullers said:

Well us Brits had a little bit of a set back this morning. Well the only way out of this pickle is to have a cup of tea and the full Monty. Done in official yellow.

 

170 years of solving problems with a cup of tea.

DSCF6621.JPG

No more likes to hand out Dullers but this gets two. I had exactly the same having stayed up and it’s just the job. Commiserations on losing, brave fight and good on you for your good grace to the winners LRPP. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Daniel Holman said:

I accept all of that. I'm not sure how the transfer market goes with this sort of thing, to what extent that any particular guy or guys will assure you of the right result. But I understand that in proposing the rule, TNZ and to some extent Prada had a headstart in both design and also appropriate personnel.

I don’t think there are any guarantees as you say on transfer, but possibly a better idea to involve and evaluate the level of knowledge crossover than dismiss it when starting a fresh project? Given what we see on ETNZs foils they believe there is a crossover. Time will tell if that’s true.

Lets hope they get the chance to put it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

Didn't they already do that in Sydney last year?

Not AC75 verse F50?  I guess it is no contest? The AC75 would wipe the floor around the cans?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Whenever a high value decision is based upon computer simulation - whether that be AC75 manoeuvre simulation, financial modelling or epidemiology studies - it is essential that the decision maker (Ben in this case) understands the scope, limitations, simplifications and assumptions behind that model so that he can understand the validity of the answers the simulation produces. Ideally there is documentation describing the phenomena included and the maths used to represent that, so that it can be agreed before modelling commences that the model will be fit for purpose. This is even more important in cases like this where it is not possible to validate the model with real world data until it is too late. 
Either Ineos’ simulations were not valid or the design team did not have the imagination to improve on what they came up with. The Prada mainsail system is neat but for £150m you hope the idea of a boomless setup at least occurred to Ineos.

That is the plan, but this cup cycle was in a totally untested concept with no real world data.  The rules were set up to restrict the ability to get really world data to validate the models.  LR and NZ had a head start with the design and a model that was fairly accurate in predicting the performance of the boat.  AM and UK had to start from scratch on their models and I think UK in particular, had problems gaining confidence in the design results.  UK B1 was designed in a short period of time, but it was not design to be as slow as it turned out to be on the water.  As we now find out, the tuning of the boat, subtle changes in the techniques and trim can give a substantial change in performance.  Most likely UK B1 was not as slow as they thought it was, because they lacked the experience to tune it properly.  But the disappointment in the B1 design caused them to make such radical changes to B2.  B2 looked more like a collections of ideas instead of a progression of design.  Like Max had said in a recent interview that early on they were sailing fast and then observed AM going much faster.  LR asked "how do they do that?"  LR said, they had the tools, but weren't using them properly and then tuned the boat to go faster... Most of the speed gains were from improvements in technique.

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

No more likes to hand out Dullers but this gets two. I had exactly the same having stayed up and it’s just the job. Commiserations on losing, brave fight and good on you for your good grace to the winners LRPP. 

I have had some good fry ups over there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If ETNZ successfully defend the cup and the rumors of Ineos stepping up as CoR then it sounds like the AC75 stays in place as Ben did say in his post race interview that the boat was fantastic and ideal for the AC.

Once again......Thank you to Ineos and the Brits for putting up such a great fight and the incredible comeback from the ACWS.  Better luck next time.  I hope the US can field a worthy entry.

The problem with AC is that it is so expensive and I dont know how many teams can continue to be funded when there is only one winner amd so many losers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

 

The problem with AC is that it is so expensive and I dont know how many teams can continue to be funded when there is only one winner amd so many losers.

And that, of course, is a big part of the appeal of the AC in a nutshell. "There is no second."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JJD said:

Any idea what went on here?

Unguarded moment.

His boss made a very classy statement.

Lets judge Ben by his comments congratulating the Prada sailors for their win.

 

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

Unguarded moment.

His boss made a very classy statement.

Lets judge Ben by his comments congratulating the Prada sailors for their win.

 

I wasn’t judging Ben. Asking if anyone know what went on with invite to the final press conference. Ben and Giles were in attendance. 

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

SBTJ did run a couple practice starts against OR one morning in Bermuda, right after they lost the series to AR. They packed up later that day, for good. 

Firstly, @Rennmaus point still stands.

Secondly - Really!?!? The last time you tried that angle you said '"The few days of 'starting practice' SBTJ helped with? Gimme a break...""

Which was already not the full story, now you've cracked it down to just one day of some starting games?

Do you hope that if you keep chipping away at the truth that it will eventually dissappear?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JJD said:

Any idea what went on here?

He looks a few jars in...

It appears they had to gatecrash the final presser.

There's definately an undertone here, and to be honest I feel like there was more to the ACE/CoR debacle than what is being aired in public.

I never commented on the hypocracy of CoR in that presser, where they appeared to be disgusted at the thought that ETNZ may have already agreed on hip pocket challenge with Ineos, is if that wasn't exactly what happened with LR in Bermuda and the only reason Francesco was sitting in his CoR seat in the first place.

Do we know if ACE was even invited to the Covid debacle presser? Maybe thats why they droppped a press release? Somethings afoot...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

I never commented on the hypocracy of CoR in that presser, where they appeared to be disgusted at the thought that ETNZ may have already agreed on hip pocket challenge with Ineos, is if that wasn't exactly what happened with LR in Bermuda and the only reason Francesco was sitting in his CoR seat in the first place.

Speaking of your hypocrisy, ETNZ was also disgusted by Oracle chosing a hip pocket challenger and now does the same. You lost another occasion to stfu :)

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Speaking of your hypocrisy, ETNZ was also disgusted by Oracle chosing a hip pocket challenger and now does the same. You lost another occasion to stfu :)

Oh do tell!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Ah ah ah, you were claiming you had me on ignore a couple of times, speak of an hypocrit :D

Put that fool on ignore, FHimself too, your SAAC life will improve! :) 

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

Put that fool on ignore, FHimself too, your SAAC life will improve! :) 

I know, but aside from sailing one pleasure here is to make fun of the idiots, and I know 3, rh 3000 times wrong, Fu himself,  and barfidiot.

Well, ...... not forgetting nav who cut & paste the rule tens of times here. :)

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

Ah ah ah, you were claiming you had me on ignore a couple of times, speak of an hypocrit :D

I peeked ;) but I'm now starting to worry you don't know what a hypocrite is...

Still... what is the story about ETNZ being pissed off about Oracle's challenge being hip pocket?

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

Not AC75 verse F50?  I guess it is no contest? The AC75 would wipe the floor around the cans?

Give the SailGP boats a head start :-)

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

And that, of course, is a big part of the appeal of the AC in a nutshell. "There is no second."

And it's not for the mere filthy rich. Sir Jim is sporty, seemed to enjoy the event, is a multibillionare, hope he keeps kn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From there, 

Longanesi Cattani did not want to talk about it other than to say it was an error of judgement, which he changed when he realised it, and a message had also been sent to Team UK explaining no insult was meant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was classy when LR came across the water to deliver beer and to deliver congratulations to AM at the end of the Semi series. 
 

In Bermuda, Larry sent a tender from his SY full of champagne to ETNZ. They sprayed it all over, before even the dock back in. Classy too. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

It was classy when LR came across the water to deliver beer and to deliver congratulations to AM at the end of the Semi series. 
 

In Bermuda, Larry sent a tender from his SY full of champagne to ETNZ. They sprayed it all over, before even the dock back in. Classy too. 

Yes, and it was a less classy moment when the TNZ team threw the Louis Vuitton bags they were offered. That was one of the first call for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Yes, and it was a less classy moment when the TNZ team threw the Louis Vuitton bags they were offered. That was one of the first call for me.

Troll

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fish7yu said:

I guess no dinner invitation to Ben's house for the CoR team.

 

Ben - "Francesco! You don't want us to be here?!"

Francesco - 'Yes! Yes! [inaudible]'

CUT

Ben - "[inaudible]"

Any ideas? "something something some people feel about that" ?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rh3000 said:

He looks a few jars in...

It appears they had to gatecrash the final presser.

There's definately an undertone here, and to be honest I feel like there was more to the ACE/CoR debacle than what is being aired in public.

I never commented on the hypocracy of CoR in that presser, where they appeared to be disgusted at the thought that ETNZ may have already agreed on hip pocket challenge with Ineos, is if that wasn't exactly what happened with LR in Bermuda and the only reason Francesco was sitting in his CoR seat in the first place.

Do we know if ACE was even invited to the Covid debacle presser? Maybe thats why they droppped a press release? Somethings afoot...

It's fun seeing the stinky BO leaking out past the expensive aftershave. Adds to the spectacle. Must be taking a special effort to piss of the other challengers as well as the event organisers. It's very discordant hearing Max speak candidly and yet bad blood is obviously running freely. Some have already alluded to the waft from one Signor Butterworth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Ben - "Francesco! Do you want us to be here?!"

Francesco - 'Yes! Yes! [inaudible]'

CUT

Ben - "That was the most insulting thing I've ever..." CUT

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by jczsierra
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

It was classy when LR came across the water to deliver beer and to deliver congratulations to AM at the end of the Semi series. 
 

In Bermuda, Larry sent a tender from his SY full of champagne to ETNZ. They sprayed it all over, before even the dock back in. Classy too. 

Sending the champagne was good, as a man who hates losing and especially ETNZ he did the right thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to a bit of a nasty undertone going at present. In the middle of it always seems to be LR. Something seems to be stirred up inside LR. I have to wonder if it’s outside actors causing this problem. I’m really surprised by their attitude. I’m not trying to be nasty towards LR, I don’t bear a grudge against them at all. It’s just my opinion with no intended malice 

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

Yes, and it was a less classy moment when the TNZ team threw the Louis Vuitton bags they were offered. That was one of the first call for me.

Never letting a petty grudge go......keep that hatred burning 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

That is the plan, but this cup cycle was in a totally untested concept with no real world data.  The rules were set up to restrict the ability to get really world data to validate the models.  LR and NZ had a head start with the design and a model that was fairly accurate in predicting the performance of the boat.  AM and UK had to start from scratch on their models and I think UK in particular, had problems gaining confidence in the design results.  UK B1 was designed in a short period of time, but it was not design to be as slow as it turned out to be on the water.  As we now find out, the tuning of the boat, subtle changes in the techniques and trim can give a substantial change in performance.  Most likely UK B1 was not as slow as they thought it was, because they lacked the experience to tune it properly.  But the disappointment in the B1 design caused them to make such radical changes to B2.  B2 looked more like a collections of ideas instead of a progression of design.  Like Max had said in a recent interview that early on they were sailing fast and then observed AM going much faster.  LR asked "how do they do that?"  LR said, they had the tools, but weren't using them properly and then tuned the boat to go faster... Most of the speed gains were from improvements in technique.

It seems unlikely that they have a model that is able to accurately predict performance and changes of performance with tuning but somehow they failed to discover this optimal tuning or manoeuvring technique via simulation. 
 

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

Yes, and it was a less classy moment when the TNZ team threw the Louis Vuitton bags they were offered. That was one of the first call for me.

And did not some of the loosing team(oracle) take their medals off before they had even left the stage.   I’m guessing the winning team did not need man bags!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Yes, and it was a less classy moment when the TNZ team threw the Louis Vuitton bags they were offered. That was one of the first call for me.

They threw them.out to the crowd in a moment of excitement, not knowing they cost 5 grand a piece. 

The question is, will they throw the offered Prada handbags away when we win this time... 

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

From there, 

Longanesi Cattani did not want to talk about it other than to say it was an error of judgement, which he changed when he realised it, and a message had also been sent to Team UK explaining no insult was meant.

Some error in judgement 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Ben - "Francesco! You don't want us to be here?!"

Francesco - 'Yes! Yes! [inaudible]'

CUT

Ben - "[inaudible]"

Any ideas? "something something some people feel about that" ?

 

 

 

 

the inaudible bit he says'something like. "its the most insulting thing that could ever happen"

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

All great points as ever. 2 things - firstly as an example do you think Ben was the final signatory over say the boom vs no boom situation? I think I saw no boom on B1 pic today and it looked gash, so if it performed badly,  one could see that a sailor's bias based on those early forays would understandably be to park that option. Absolutely they would maintain a "decision register" with this sort of thing in it, but assumptions and limitations are always going to be present in simulation, but its a tough gig for engineers, let alone to sailors to understand and pass judgement on how sound the assumptions are.

I would have thought Ben would final word on things like boom vs. no boom, in a decision panel with his chief aero, weight engineer, C&I lead and mainsail trimmer.  How much evidence would have been available at that decision panel I wonder? Would it have been based on personal experiences and biases, with who ever shouting loudest winning the day, or would it be based on simulation results? If based upon simulation results, does the simulation assume the cambers and twist that are achievable in both configurations or does it calculate that based upon sheet and line tensions? And do the simulations acknowledge that some of the input data is uncertain and should be assessed for sensitivity? Tough gig definitely, but presumably what it takes to win.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mako23 said:

There seems to a bit of a nasty undertone going at present. In the middle of it always seems to be LR. Something seems to be stirred up inside LR. I have to wonder if it’s outside actors causing this problem. I’m really surprised by their attitude. I’m not trying to be nasty towards LR, I don’t bear a grudge against them at all. It’s just my opinion with no intended malice 

Yeah, sure ...

 

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

And did not some of the loosing team(oracle) take their medals off before they had even left the stage.   I’m guessing the winning team did not need man bags!

True, but wait "there is no second" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

True, but wait "there is no second" 

Never say that to an Italian before dinner, they will take a huge appetizer and double pasta

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, strider470 said:

Never say that to an Italian before dinner, they will take a huge appetizer and double pasta

:lol: well when talking about food, that's a totally different story mate 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AnotherSailor said:

So, I missed the whole Prada Cup. Did anything happen?

Ineos lost, as predicted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And let’s not forget, INEOS coined the term ‘there is no second’ and have it emblazoned everywhere. Perhaps Francesco was trying to be humorous but it’s inappropriate and crass in this setting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Paddywackery said:

And let’s not forget, INEOS coined the term ‘there is no second’ and have it emblazoned everywhere. Perhaps Francesco was trying to be humorous but it’s inappropriate and crass in this setting. 

Any point in changing it to there is no bronze medal? Probably not

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

No, probably not :P

Which is why I created the very special Cunt of the Week thread. Ben owns it after thinking it is ok to bitch alongside last weeks winner (Tina the Cunt sponsored by ETNZ and INEOS). saying Mr Bertelli was unsportsmanlike and lacked integrity and then getting pissed and complaining about not being invited to the Prada Cup prize giving? Early stages of the year but first nominee for Cunt of the Year. Sir Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

If conditions in this PC Final series had been more uprange

Ah the old 'if only it had been windier this time of year' bit lol.

 

I would say one of the things that significantly hurt Ineos was the clearly large amount of design & build effort sunk into those cranked wing foils.

As I said at the time I think they got carried away with the idea & spent too much effort on a clearly flawed concept.

 

That effort could have significantly refined a bunch of other areas that were left pretty rough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sosoomii said:

I would have thought Ben would final word on things like boom vs. no boom, in a decision panel with his chief aero, weight engineer, C&I lead and mainsail trimmer.  How much evidence would have been available at that decision panel I wonder? Would it have been based on personal experiences and biases, with who ever shouting loudest winning the day, or would it be based on simulation results? If based upon simulation results, does the simulation assume the cambers and twist that are achievable in both configurations or does it calculate that based upon sheet and line tensions? And do the simulations acknowledge that some of the input data is uncertain and should be assessed for sensitivity? Tough gig definitely, but presumably what it takes to win.  

Obviously, there are a lot of trade offs.  AM decided that they would have more control with a boom and skipped the boom-less.  LR spent about half of their budget on the "hidden boom" set-up.  NZ started out with a boom and switched to a type of hybrid boom-less system.  UK started with boom-less and switch to a boom.  

It was just so early in the design cycle and you have to make some design assumptions.  Both AM and UK B1's had wide flat hulls because they assumed that some of the sailing would be in displacement mode.  AM went more for straight line speed because they thought there would be minimal tacks and jibes.  The foil limits really restricted the boats from optimizing or changing course on the foils.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Obviously, there are a lot of trade offs.  AM decided that they would have more control with a boom and skipped the boom-less.  LR spent about half of their budget on the "hidden boom" set-up.  NZ started out with a boom and switched to a type of hybrid boom-less system.  UK started with boom-less and switch to a boom.  

It was just so early in the design cycle and you have to make some design assumptions.  Both AM and UK B1's had wide flat hulls because they assumed that some of the sailing would be in displacement mode.  AM went more for straight line speed because they thought there would be minimal tacks and jibes.  The foil limits really restricted the boats from optimizing or changing course on the foils.  

I started with a beer and finished with a tequila boom boom!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A concern I would have re INEOS' team, would be keeping them together for the next cycle, especially if it went over a 3 year timescale, specifically Grant Simmer......my understanding from this round is that he was almost doing it as a last spin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Both AM and UK B1's had wide flat hulls because they assumed that some of the sailing would be in displacement mode.  AM went more for straight line speed because they thought there would be minimal tacks and jibes

Evidently those assumptions were wrong, should not have been made and the justification/rationale for the assumptions should have been challenged at the time.  Easier with hindsight obviously, but these guys were being paid to be wise before the event not after. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Evidently those assumptions were wrong, should not have been made and the justification/rationale for the assumptions should have been challenged at the time.  Easier with hindsight obviously, but these guys were being paid to be wise before the event not after. 

 

But it seems to me neither of the crucial assumptions would have been facilitated by an earlier familiarity with the Rule or initial performance forecasts. For instance, boat take-off speed around 18 kts was already shown in TH’s first presser

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Xlot said:

 

 

But it seems to me neither of the crucial assumptions would have been facilitated by an earlier familiarity with the Rule or initial performance forecasts. For instance, boat take-off speed around 18 kts was already shown in TH’s first presser

But remember that no wind speed limits were established.  Only the COR and the Defender had a rough idea Whaley intended to set, but AM and UK had no clue when they designed B1 or even B2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sosoomii said:

Evidently those assumptions were wrong, should not have been made and the justification/rationale for the assumptions should have been challenged at the time.  Easier with hindsight obviously, but these guys were being paid to be wise before the event not after. 

UK and AM literally have a few months to design the B1’s and many people even questioned the stability of the boat.  They did not know the lower wind limits.  Remember how everyone thought the boats would need both foils to lift out of the water, or how most people thought foiling would only be periodic.

Have you ever been involved with a design process?  It is a learning process and not all of teams started at the same point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

UK and AM literally have a few months to design the B1’s and many people even questioned the stability of the boat.  They did not know the lower wind limits.  Remember how everyone thought the boats would need both foils to lift out of the water, or how most people thought foiling would only be periodic.

Have you ever been involved with a design process?  It is a learning process and not all of teams started at the same point.

The short time frame makes it much harder for sure, but ultimately these sound like loser excuses to me. I’m sure they will take it on the chin, learn from their mistakes and come back stronger - but they need either more creativity or better simulation if they are to develop a boat that can challenge seriously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Torygraph

 

When JR jumped on the boat right after the last race he highlighted areas for improvement and his support.

"Will Sir Jim Ratcliffe keep funding the team?

This is the £100million question. Ratcliffe and other senior Ineos executives, including fellow Ineos owner Andy Currie, are also believed to be staying out in New Zealand for a while. As is Chris Cecil-Wright, chairman of the working group set up to manage the communication and interaction between the sailing team, The Royal Yacht Squadron and Ineos. Ratcliffe, who ploughed £110million into this campaign, has already admitted that he is interested in staying on for another campaign. But he has also said that he wants to see certain changes if he is to recommit. Among Ratcliffe's demands: more stability - sticking with these foiling monohulls - more teams, lower entry costs, fewer legal spats, more action between Cups similar to the World Series tours held in the last cycle. In short, a more professional sport and a more sustainable commercial structure. Ratcliffe has even suggested a governing body. “The America’s Cup should be the pinnacle of sailing and I think this new class of boat is the perfect model for the future,” he said recently. “This formula is really exciting so I think if the America’s Cup sticks with this, it’s got a very exciting future. It needs to be, in my view, a level playing field. It isn’t at the moment. There’s too much advantage to the defender and the challenger of record.” The next few weeks should be fascinating politically. 

What about Mercedes F1?

That is likely to depend on Ratcliffe and Ineos staying on, the petrochemicals company now being a 33 per cent shareholder in the F1 team. But Mercedes F1 appear keen. Team principal Toto Wolff was adamant before the Prada Cup started that, whatever the outcome, continuity was important. “It took [Mercedes F1] a while to become the team we are today,” Wolff told Telegraph Sport. “We were four years into the sport before we started to see some of the big trophies in our hands. And I think this project needs  time. In sports, resource can do a lot - financial resource but more importantly the right people. But what you can’t buy, or accelerate in sports, is time. This is why in Formula One you see larger organisations - Toyota, BMW, Honda - dropping out because they don’t have the understanding that you simply can’t accelerate the learning curve. If you’re given the time to learn and the time to improve, eventually good people with good resources are going to stay on top for a long time.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, chesirecat said:

eventually good people with good resources are going to stay on top for a long time

E.g. TNZ. Winner or runner up in every competed AC finals for 25 years. 
 

Amazing really. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, chesirecat said:

Torygraph

 

When JR jumped on the boat right after the last race he highlighted areas for improvement and his support.

"Will Sir Jim Ratcliffe keep funding the team?

This is the £100million question. Ratcliffe and other senior Ineos executives, including fellow Ineos owner Andy Currie, are also believed to be staying out in New Zealand for a while. As is Chris Cecil-Wright, chairman of the working group set up to manage the communication and interaction between the sailing team, The Royal Yacht Squadron and Ineos. Ratcliffe, who ploughed £110million into this campaign, has already admitted that he is interested in staying on for another campaign. But he has also said that he wants to see certain changes if he is to recommit. Among Ratcliffe's demands: more stability - sticking with these foiling monohulls - more teams, lower entry costs, fewer legal spats, more action between Cups similar to the World Series tours held in the last cycle. In short, a more professional sport and a more sustainable commercial structure. Ratcliffe has even suggested a governing body. “The America’s Cup should be the pinnacle of sailing and I think this new class of boat is the perfect model for the future,” he said recently. “This formula is really exciting so I think if the America’s Cup sticks with this, it’s got a very exciting future. It needs to be, in my view, a level playing field. It isn’t at the moment. There’s too much advantage to the defender and the challenger of record.” The next few weeks should be fascinating politically. 

What about Mercedes F1?

That is likely to depend on Ratcliffe and Ineos staying on, the petrochemicals company now being a 33 per cent shareholder in the F1 team. But Mercedes F1 appear keen. Team principal Toto Wolff was adamant before the Prada Cup started that, whatever the outcome, continuity was important. “It took [Mercedes F1] a while to become the team we are today,” Wolff told Telegraph Sport. “We were four years into the sport before we started to see some of the big trophies in our hands. And I think this project needs  time. In sports, resource can do a lot - financial resource but more importantly the right people. But what you can’t buy, or accelerate in sports, is time. This is why in Formula One you see larger organisations - Toyota, BMW, Honda - dropping out because they don’t have the understanding that you simply can’t accelerate the learning curve. If you’re given the time to learn and the time to improve, eventually good people with good resources are going to stay on top for a long time.”

Thats A better article than the local south today news that run last night with the sports anchor demanding an inquest into the teams performance stating in a pandemic answers have to be given as to such huge spending and whether it’s appropriate. 
 

The twat failing to realise it wasn’t public money being spent.

He then moved on to premiership football talking about another team being knocked out/losing And managed to not bring up the amount of spending that makes the Americas cup look like tiddlywinks

twat 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Chris UK said:

A concern I would have re INEOS' team, would be keeping them together for the next cycle, especially if it went over a 3 year timescale, specifically Grant Simmer......my understanding from this round is that he was almost doing it as a last spin.

Is that a good idea keeping the team together after they built the slowest AC challenger in two Cup cycles after spending over $250 million? Maybe time to make some fundamental changes?

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

Thats A better article than the local south today news that run last night with the sports anchor demanding an inquest into the teams performance stating in a pandemic answers have to be given as to such huge spending and whether it’s appropriate. 
 

The twat failing to realise it wasn’t public money being spent.

He then moved on to premiership football talking about another team being knocked out/losing And managed to not bring up the amount of spending that makes the Americas cup look like tiddlywinks

twat 

Bumped into some of the team in the Viaduct yesterday and they didn't look particularly grumpy. ETNZ sailing team coffee huddle before going out. No AM out and their base being dismantled - -a bit sad really. LR still in bed.

 

Got this shot before returning to base. Very low res to stop it being nicked.

auckland_DEC7240.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 11:21 AM, veritas said:

Hindsight you are all now experts well done

Have you thought of entering wanker of the week?  It is like an EMMY. You nominate yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, chesirecat said:

Bumped into some of the team in the Viaduct yesterday 

.... are they still taking Rita out then? I was wondering if the knocked out teams that had plans to continue would do so. I guess they are unrestricted in their sailing and would useful to get some more data in similar conditions to the others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KingMonkey said:

.... are they still taking Rita out then? I was wondering if the knocked out teams that had plans to continue would do so. I guess they are unrestricted in their sailing and would useful to get some more data in similar conditions to the others. 

Didn't look like it. Still in the shed. Considering just how expensive and resource-consuming they are to get out on the water I doubt it will sail again. If Ineos helps ETNZ it might well be in components via Merc and Renishaw. It seems Jim R (along with his partners and team)  have got a pretty astute handle on changes Ineos need to make and the cup overall. Smart cookie that one.

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

.... are they still taking Rita out then? I was wondering if the knocked out teams that had plans to continue would do so. I guess they are unrestricted in their sailing and would useful to get some more data in similar conditions to the others. 

Hello!!!...   A Covid winter in Pomgolia versus cruising the gulf in summer.

No brainer...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chesirecat said:

Torygraph

 

When JR jumped on the boat right after the last race he highlighted areas for improvement and his support.

"Will Sir Jim Ratcliffe keep funding the team?

This is the £100million question. Ratcliffe and other senior Ineos executives, including fellow Ineos owner Andy Currie, are also believed to be staying out in New Zealand for a while. As is Chris Cecil-Wright, chairman of the working group set up to manage the communication and interaction between the sailing team, The Royal Yacht Squadron and Ineos. Ratcliffe, who ploughed £110million into this campaign, has already admitted that he is interested in staying on for another campaign. But he has also said that he wants to see certain changes if he is to recommit. Among Ratcliffe's demands: more stability - sticking with these foiling monohulls - more teams, lower entry costs, fewer legal spats, more action between Cups similar to the World Series tours held in the last cycle. In short, a more professional sport and a more sustainable commercial structure. Ratcliffe has even suggested a governing body. “The America’s Cup should be the pinnacle of sailing and I think this new class of boat is the perfect model for the future,” he said recently. “This formula is really exciting so I think if the America’s Cup sticks with this, it’s got a very exciting future. It needs to be, in my view, a level playing field. It isn’t at the moment. There’s too much advantage to the defender and the challenger of record.” The next few weeks should be fascinating politically. 

What about Mercedes F1?

That is likely to depend on Ratcliffe and Ineos staying on, the petrochemicals company now being a 33 per cent shareholder in the F1 team. But Mercedes F1 appear keen. Team principal Toto Wolff was adamant before the Prada Cup started that, whatever the outcome, continuity was important. “It took [Mercedes F1] a while to become the team we are today,” Wolff told Telegraph Sport. “We were four years into the sport before we started to see some of the big trophies in our hands. And I think this project needs  time. In sports, resource can do a lot - financial resource but more importantly the right people. But what you can’t buy, or accelerate in sports, is time. This is why in Formula One you see larger organisations - Toyota, BMW, Honda - dropping out because they don’t have the understanding that you simply can’t accelerate the learning curve. If you’re given the time to learn and the time to improve, eventually good people with good resources are going to stay on top for a long time.”

Well, it's good that Ratcliffe wants to stay in the game but good fucking luck bringing the costs down or instituting a governing body.

Every single club who has ever competed for the AC could sign a contract agreeing to the governing body and it would mean precisely fuck all.

First club to win it that hasn't signed up to the governing body could and most likely would flush it down the loo.

And let's not get started about the odds of getting the current players to agree to such a body.

If he stays on in the cup it will be on the defenders terms.

There is an old saying that applies to the AC almost more than anywhere else - FIFO.

Fit In or Fuck Off.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's say Ineos are back for AC37, who should drive the boat?

Giles Scott? 

Paul Goodison? 

Chris Draper? 

I'm sure there are others I don't know of

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 45Roller said:

So let's say Ineos are back for AC37, who should drive the boat?

Giles Scott? 

Paul Goodison? 

Chris Draper? 

I'm sure there are others I don't know of

 

Goodison at the helm, Scott main trimmer and Ainslie as tactician

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

Goodison at the helm, Scott main trimmer and Ainslie as tactician

Nathan Outridge driving, Goodison trimming, Scott as tactician and Ben running the show a la Max. And I would find a slot for Iain Percy as part of the operation. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

So let's say Ineos are back for AC37, who should drive the boat?

Giles Scott? 

Paul Goodison? 

Chris Draper? 

I'm sure there are others I don't know of

 

As one of the few people here who hasn't been at the wheel of an AC75, i kind if feel that this should really be a young man's game.

There aren't many good F1 drivers beyond their mid thirties, most top class opening batsmen see their averages dip this time of their career. Experience is a huge requirement, but clearly your reflexes need to be lighting quick. i would see pete burling and nathan outerridge as the best two AC75 drivers out there, but with his recent Moth world champs i would put PG into this potential list. If Dean barker showed us anything this cup, the ability to do some aqua parcour from port to starboard in a flash is a deal breaker.

I find it hard to believe that Ben Ainslie is not a good tactical helmsman, his record at world match racing is stellar. BUT there seems no reason to believe that a split between starting helm and racing helm is not possible. It remains to be seen if the two helmsman policy of LRPP is not the best option anyway (the jury will probably be out on that from march6th).

If we stay with AC75 for the next cup cycle the starts will be crucial and the simulations on that will run into the gigaflops terrain.