Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, JJD said:

Look, I don't approve of cheating or tilting the playing field too much (like the NYYC did in the olden days), but Ben needs to pull his panties up.

They lost. They lost badly in Bermuda and they lost here.

Rather than calling for the AC to be run like a kindergarten competition where everyone gets a medal, he needs to face facts.

For whatever reason, the team created an inferior boat BOTH times and I doubt that team in its current incarnation could have won the cup even with all the advantages of defender.

What concerns me is that if they look for blame outside the team, they will miss the opportunity to be honest about what was wrong inside the team and history will repeat.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.2k
  • 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

Slowly working through yesterday's lot

Posted Images

1 hour ago, jaysper said:

Look, I don't approve of cheating or tilting the playing field too much (like the NYYC did in the olden days), but Ben needs to pull his panties up.

In the very-very olden days, yes maybe. But the NYYC moved progressively over decades to make it more ‘fair’ - especially once they accepted the multi-Chall scenario starting in 1970. 
 

Ben and Ratcliffe’s biggest gripe appears to have been the (yes, unprecedented unfairness) of ETNZ developing the Rule without the input, or even the listening in on, by other teams. I can’t see them signing as CoR come a week from today (Sunday NZ time) without that and maybe other standards getting addressed first. 

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

In the very-very olden days, yes maybe. But the NYYC moved progressively over decades to make it more ‘fair’ - especially once they accepted the multi-Chall scenario starting in 1970. 
 

Ben and Ratcliffe’s biggest gripe appears to have been the (yes, unprecedented unfairness) of ETNZ developing the Rule without the input, or even the listening in on, by other teams. I can’t see them signing as CoR come a week from today (Sunday NZ time) without that and maybe other standards getting addressed first. 

Any perceived unfairness was certainly not unprecedented. There were more unfair defenders in the Cup's history, e.g. the NYYC comes to mind, for approx. a century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In his interview Benjamin Muyl, Ineos designer, remind us that the two finalist were the first to know the AC75 rules while they were trying to guess what kind of mono they would have to design, losing precious months.

 

https://voilesetvoiliers.ouest-france.fr/regate/coupe-de-l-america/video-les-francais-dans-la-coupe-benjamin-muyl-debriefe-l-aventure-d-ineos-team-uk-7ae84cc4-4054-11eb-8608-7f0bbbb8511e

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

In the very-very olden days, yes maybe. But the NYYC moved progressively over decades to make it more ‘fair’ - especially once they accepted the multi-Chall scenario starting in 1970. 
 

Ben and Ratcliffe’s biggest gripe appears to have been the (yes, unprecedented unfairness) of ETNZ developing the Rule without the input, or even the listening in on, by other teams. I can’t see them signing as CoR come a week from today (Sunday NZ time) without that and maybe other standards getting addressed first. 

Be interesting to see of Ben is happy to sign over any potential advantage of being COR once/if he holds the reins. Or, more sensibly, keeps that little edge over any other challengers.

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

Be interesting to see of Ben is happy to sign over any potential advantage of being COR once/if he holds the reins. Or, more sensibly, keeps that little edge over any other challengers.

Most unlikely. What we have, we hold. On the other hand, if commercial considerations rule the day then a level playing field with more entrants might be preferred. Competitive v Commercial?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

In his interview Benjamin Muyl, Ineos designer, remind us that the two finalist were the first to know the AC75 rules while they were trying to guess what kind of mono they would have to design, losing precious months.

 

https://voilesetvoiliers.ouest-france.fr/regate/coupe-de-l-america/video-les-francais-dans-la-coupe-benjamin-muyl-debriefe-l-aventure-d-ineos-team-uk-7ae84cc4-4054-11eb-8608-7f0bbbb8511e

 

Pure gold. - thanks, TC. On a personal note, I spoke with Muyl at the 2011 Cascais ACWS (good times, Rennie :) ) where he was working on one of the minor teams, forgot which one

Just a coupla points:

- he finally explains what the INEOS problem was for the Xmas Cup. It was the foils, they put cameras on the upper side, which was logical since that’s where cavitation or ventilation could be expected. Only as a last resort they looked at the lower side and discovered that, in addition to the normal positive pressure areas, there was an area that actually went negative! This was centered around a “lip”, didn’t quite understand where

- just as meaningful, he (involuntarily) expands on Toby Heppel’s analysis of INEO’s fumbling (lack of) strategy on design decisions. He says design teams are ripe with brilliant designers brimming with intriguing ideas. The trick is deciding which ones time and budget allow pursuing, and then getting the entire team committed unreservedly to those. He specifically mentions ETNZ as the team where this happens due to the long association and culture, synthetizing in just two words: COMMON VISION

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rennmaus said:

Any perceived unfairness was certainly not unprecedented. There were more unfair defenders in the Cup's history, e.g. the NYYC comes to mind, for approx. a century.

It seems that a bunch of one-eyed Kiwis on here are pointing to ancient history, for their excuses about why GD should be now bending the rules of fairness towards the Defender. I’m sorry, but that BS is what Ineos are rightfully pointing out. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One eyes AM don't see their own bias so of course theirs is always a level playing field.

AC will always favour the defender, that is how it should be and why it is so hard to win.

If you want a level playing field go somewhere else FailGP?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's also complete BS.  The early design parameters were released to all parties in late 2017/early 2018 and contained enough detail for design teams to begin preliminary work, especially on their simulator.  That's the real advantage that ETNZ and LR had - they entered with much more sophisticated design tools than the other teams.  Presumably Ineos and AM will have similar head starts to new teams in the next cycle which is just how the AC works.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding another comment by Muyl, he says that (due to the delayed issuing of the Rule, hmm ...) both AM and INEOS thought that a portion of the racing would be in displacement mode for their first designs - which obviously turned out to be the wrong assumption

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kiwing said:

One eyes AM don't see their own bias so of course theirs is always a level playing field.

AC will always favour the defender, that is how it should be and why it is so hard to win.

If you want a level playing field go somewhere else FailGP?

Correct. It's not fair but it IS fair enough considering this is the AC.

And Stinger is correct (I know, I'm shocked too) that the NYYC did make it a lot fairer about 40 or 50 years ago.

Was it fair? No, but it was clearly fair enough for Oz II to win the thing.

Ben whinging for a level playing field is just being stupid. Betcha ten bob to a pinch of shit that it wouldn't have been "fair" if INEOS had won it.

That's the price for sitting at the big boy's table and he better get used to it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Xlot said:

Adding another comment by Muyl, he says that (due to the delayed issuing of the Rule, hmm ...) both AM and INEOS thought that a portion of the racing would be in displacement mode for their first designs - which obviously turned out to be the wrong assumption

Another one, they worked on powerful but draggy foils which required more sail power that... they did not get.

Ah, and he hopes TNZ wins because.... his friend Guillaume works there.

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

It seems that a bunch of one-eyed Kiwis on here are pointing to ancient history, for their excuses about why GD should be now bending the rules of fairness towards the Defender. I’m sorry, but that BS is what Ineos are rightfully pointing out

I had predicted the relations with Ben would go sour if, and when, they get to be CoR, it seems it already begun. Perhaps Dalts already thinks of another CoR if he wins ?

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

Correct. It's not fair but it IS fair enough considering this is the AC.

And Stinger is correct (I know, I'm shocked too) that the NYYC did make it a lot fairer about 40 or 50 years ago.

Was it fair? No, but it was clearly fair enough for Oz II to win the thing.

Ben whinging for a level playing field is just being stupid. Betcha ten bob to a pinch of shit that it wouldn't have been "fair" if INEOS had won it.

That's the price for sitting at the big boy's table and he better get used to it.

No winner ever complains about the rules. Blame is a companion of failure. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MaxHugen said:

I think it can also happen with a whole bunch of clever folks who just don't quite gel and figure out what the priorities are to concentrate on.

"Too many cooks spoil the broth."

Having Ben steer this boat is like putting your hooker on the wing. Its not going to be a winning move. The team should've atleast trialled an apparent wind sailor on the wheel. Ben is a great sailor, put him in charge of any slow boat, but he's not a winger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Xlot said:

 

Pure gold. - thanks, TC. On a personal note, I spoke with Muyl at the 2011 Cascais ACWS (good times, Rennie :) ) where he was working on one of the minor teams, forgot which one

 

Probably the French, since he is French.

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

No winner ever complains about the rules. Blame is a companion of failure. 

I wish i failed like Ben.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Correct. It's not fair but it IS fair enough considering this is the AC.

And Stinger is correct (I know, I'm shocked too) that the NYYC did make it a lot fairer about 40 or 50 years ago.

Was it fair? No, but it was clearly fair enough for Oz II to win the thing.

Ben whinging for a level playing field is just being stupid. Betcha ten bob to a pinch of shit that it wouldn't have been "fair" if INEOS had won it.

That's the price for sitting at the big boy's table and he better get used to it.

How fair is fair enough if you're trying to convince a sponsor to spend $150 million over three years? The guys who drop that kind of money on the AC aren't doing it just for the privilege of showing up.

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

How fair is fair enough if you're trying to convince a sponsor to spend $150 million over three years? The guys who drop that kind of money on the AC aren't doing it just for the privilege of showing up.

And if it was truly fair, they wouldn't spend $1 challenging for it.

The appeal of the cup is that it is incredibly hard to win.

If the NYYC had only held onto the thing for 3 years before the poms won it off them, none of us would likely ever heard of it and it would probably have already been melted down into earrings.

Let's be clear, the AC is a billionaires cock measuring contest and nobody is going to want to present their ls for measurement if the other guys can't give themselves an edge with little blue pills.

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

How fair is fair enough if you're trying to convince a sponsor to spend $150 million over three years? The guys who drop that kind of money on the AC aren't doing it just for the privilege of showing up.

+1

Rattcliffe is gonna make damn sure that GD can’t pull that off again, before signing as CoR. Ben basically laid it down already. 

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

Perhaps Dalts already thinks of another CoR if he wins ?

Qingdao is a possibility, there are ‘ties’ between them and the RNZYS, including the planned-for Youth AC boats and series. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

He was working for ETNZ between 2010 and 2013.

Not in Cascais. I’m now fairly confident he was with China Team. Researching this, I saw an unknown Peter Burling helmed Team Korea then

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

- he finally explains what the INEOS problem was for the Xmas Cup. It was the foils, they put cameras on the upper side, which was logical since that’s where cavitation or ventilation could be expected. Only as a last resort they looked at the lower side and discovered that, in addition to the normal positive pressure areas, there was an area that actually went negative! This was centered around a “lip”, didn’t quite understand where

Coincidence?

25 minutes ago, Basiliscus said:

Cavitation on underside of the leading edge could be happening at high speed, but I'd think they'd design their sections so that wouldn't happen, either.  A little trailing edge up flap deflection, compensated for by a little bow-up change in pitch attitude would cure it.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Innovation in the grinding space, whilst pretty cool, is not where the cup is won or lost. Worrying for Ineos, is that going into the ACWS they knew so little about their foils, and the issues they had. It all points to the haphazard development from the design team. If they don't sort that, they're never going to win the Cup, no matter how much cash Jim throws into it. Their debrief will identify their design issues, so you'd expect some overhaul there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

Innovation in the grinding space, whilst pretty cool, is not where the cup is won or lost. Worrying for Ineos, is that going into the ACWS they knew so little about their foils, and the issues they had. It all points to the haphazard development from the design team. If they don't sort that, they're never going to win the Cup, no matter how much cash Jim throws into it. Their debrief will identify their design issues, so you'd expect some overhaul there.

It's a bit like they got together a bunch of smart people, each with their own ideas, and sort of jumbled it together without first coming to a group consensus on design priorities.

The foils had me wondering what was going on. I have suspicions that the W shape was influenced by the F1 group, as I think it came out when the F1 people got involved, but who knows. I could never see the point of it really, and thought that big old hinge (if that's what it was) sticking out on the underside was pretty horrible.

I do hope they return for AC37, with a good chief designer who can pull a design team together.

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

Having Ben steer this boat is like putting your hooker on the wing. Its not going to be a winning move. The team should've atleast trialled an apparent wind sailor on the wheel. Ben is a great sailor, put him in charge of any slow boat, but he's not a winger.

Probably a bad choice of analogies there... Dane Coles (AB's hooker for all you none rugby fans) has run a few in from the wing.

But I agree Ben may not be the ideal choice for helm on an apparent wind driven rocket.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jaysper said:

Look, I don't approve of cheating or tilting the playing field too much (like the NYYC did in the olden days), but Ben needs to pull his panties up.

They lost. They lost badly in Bermuda and they lost here.

Rather than calling for the AC to be run like a kindergarten competition where everyone gets a medal, he needs to face facts.

For whatever reason, the team created an inferior boat BOTH times and I doubt that team in its current incarnation could have won the cup even with all the advantages of defender.

What concerns me is that if they look for blame outside the team, they will miss the opportunity to be honest about what was wrong inside the team and history will repeat.

Why do all these fucking $quillionaires want to reengineer the America's Cup? 

They can't bloody help themselves. Seems to me that, Sir James has picked the wrong regatta. More OD, lower costs, more entrants, level playing fields, yada yada yada. He might be a lot better off buying a SailGP team. 

Or, he should learn to play the AC game and get on with winning the fucking thing.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MaxHugen said:

The foils had me wondering what was going on. I have suspicions that the W shape was influenced by the F1 group,

The W's were another tangent they went off on, down the rabbit hole and into a blind alley. They weren't related to any of their other foils - not the incremental process we saw from AM and LR. They were a hail Mary from a team looking to fluke onto some sort of game changer. Surprised that such a well funded teams development process, was quite frankly so amateur. Grant Simmer was bought in to get things back on track, but the damage had already been done, and the time lost. They never recovered from their initial missteps.

There was gossip in here way back, that things weren't right within the team - significant signings leaving, low morale blah, blah, blah......I guess you could argue, that despite the obvious hiccups, they still made the PC final, and had a decent purple patch during the RR. In the end I think it was a mixed effort from them - scored a few hits, but loads of misses as well. Did they learn enough to build a solid base to move forward? Or are they still scrambling around erratically, trying to find the formula for the cohesion required to win the Cup? Still a lot of doubt with these guys......  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

He might be a lot better off buying a SailGP team. 

He has...and they did pretty well in the one outing we saw from them.....A one design comp is not the AC though......

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

He has...and they did pretty well in the one outing we saw from them.....A one design comp is not the AC though......

EXACARY.

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

Why do all these fucking $quillionaires want to reengineer the America's Cup? 

They can't bloody help themselves. Seems to me that, Sir James has picked the wrong regatta. More OD, lower costs, more entrants, level playing fields, yada yada yada. He might be a lot better off buying a SailGP team. 

Or, he should learn to play the AC game and get on with winning the fucking thing.

Well, he can re-engineer the fuck out of all he wants......if he wins it.

But even then, as Lazza learnt the hard way, that re-engineering lasts precisely ZERO FUCKING SECONDS after you lose it.

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

Why do all these fucking $quillionaires want to reengineer the America's Cup? 

They can't bloody help themselves. Seems to me that, Sir James has picked the wrong regatta. More OD, lower costs, more entrants, level playing fields, yada yada yada. He might be a lot better off buying a SailGP team. 

Or, he should learn to play the AC game and get on with winning the fucking thing.

He did, and they smashed all the apparent wind sailing gods first time out.. 

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

It's a bit like they got together a bunch of smart people, each with their own ideas, and sort of jumbled it together without first coming to a group consensus on design priorities.

The foils had me wondering what was going on. I have suspicions that the W shape was influenced by the F1 group, as I think it came out when the F1 people got involved, but who knows. I could never see the point of it really, and thought that big old hinge (if that's what it was) sticking out on the underside was pretty horrible.

I do hope they return for AC37, with a good chief designer who can pull a design team together.

Dead right - they have a team of great technicians, but no real designer amongst them that can separate the wood from the trees.  Holroyd certainly isn't the guy, and neither was Claughton for Bermuda.  

So you get design by committee and end up with a camel.

It's no secret that a design team needs to have an Adrian Newey who can see how it all really fits together and cut off time and $$$ wasting excursions.  It's been a failing of pretty much every UK team in the past and others too.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GBH said:

Dead right - they have a team of great technicians, but no real designer amongst them that can separate the wood from the trees.  Holroyd certainly isn't the guy, and neither was Claughton for Bermuda.  

So you get design by committee and end up with a camel.

It's no secret that a design team needs to have an Adrian Newey who can see how it all really fits together and cut off time and $$$ wasting excursions.  It's been a failing of pretty much every UK team in the past and others too.

You mean they need someone that’s literally never designed a boat  before? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they keep Holroyd, he's thrown some balls out of the box, and with this experience will get better as a designer. Starting from scratch is not the go here in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Paddywackery said:

I didn’t mention Ben and he didn’t do the complaining. 

The subject was about Ben whinging. That was the reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point from the Benjamin Muyl interview that I haven't seen mentioned yet:

In the early stages of boat 2, the design team picked up on the need to sail the hull as close to the water as possible - the sailing team however pushed back saying it was not possible to control flight that accurately. So boat 2 was also focused on the transition phase rather than pure flight, instead of pushing the sailors to find a way to optimally fly the boat

Of course we now see that low flying is perfectly possible...

Main takeaway: too much focus on hydrodynamics, not enough on aero

Also indicated that the sailing team was not performing at 100% during the Prada cup final...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Why do all these fucking $quillionaires want to reengineer the America's Cup? 

They can't bloody help themselves. Seems to me that, Sir James has picked the wrong regatta. More OD, lower costs, more entrants, level playing fields, yada yada yada. He might be a lot better off buying a SailGP team. 

Or, he should learn to play the AC game and get on with winning the fucking thing.

 

9 hours ago, jaysper said:

Well, he can re-engineer the fuck out of all he wants......if he wins it.

But even then, as Lazza learnt the hard way, that re-engineering lasts precisely ZERO FUCKING SECONDS after you lose it.

Excellent. The AC does wonders of exposing the arrogance and egotism of many of the billionaires. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Why do all these fucking $quillionaires want to reengineer the America's Cup? 

They can't bloody help themselves. Seems to me that, Sir James has picked the wrong regatta. More OD, lower costs, more entrants, level playing fields, yada yada yada. He might be a lot better off buying a SailGP team. 

Or, he should learn to play the AC game and get on with winning the fucking thing.

 

11 hours ago, jaysper said:

Well, he can re-engineer the fuck out of all he wants......if he wins it.

But even then, as Lazza learnt the hard way, that re-engineering lasts precisely ZERO FUCKING SECONDS after you lose it.

Excellent. The AC does wonders of exposing the arrogance and egotism of billionaires. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when an Italian puts the "whingeing pom" Sir Ben in his place (see below) about AC history. 

He needs to look at his own performance and the decisions he made before complaining about the rules. All the other teams had the same choices. 

From Lucio Pascarelli:
<Sir Ben Ainslie is making the same mistake many others have made before him. For sure he has not understood the Deed of Gift. The cup belongs to nobody, certainly not to a sporting federation or commercial rights holder. It is only "entrusted" to the winning club provided they follows the rules.
Furthermore, the default match is designed to be asymmetric, with the cup holder free to select the place, and the cup challenger free to select the boat up to the last moment. In other words, the challenger is forced to develop sailing technology to the point that it can overcome the defender on his own turf. It is a technological competition, which has allowed sailing technology to go from the less than 10 knots of the schooners, to the over 40 knots upwind of the AC75. This is by no means intended to be the "fair" and level playing field that Sir Ben Ainslie is asking for. 
Now, if the challenger and defender agree to common rules, they can do anything they want. This is the current case, where ETNZ and COR have agreed to the current AC75 class, the Prada Challenger Series, the race format, the schedule(!), organizing the events and who makes a profit, as well as the establishment of dispute resolution mechanisms such as the Arbitration Panel. And Sir Ben Ainslie should respect the fact that he has been allowed to race only because the Challenger of Record (the Italians) agreed to have a challenger cup - they could have challenged directly without risking their place in the final. 
But all it takes is a disagreement between the Challenger and Defender to bring the dispute back to the NY Supreme Court in Manhattan, which will again rule by the Deed of Gift. Many have tried and failed to "reinterpret the deed of gift" (Conner, Bertarelli, Ellison, etc...) 
Sir Ben Ainslie, more than others, should understand and respect this history, and not whine again on the "fairness" of the cup after loosing."

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't take the twin skin sails seriously. He didn't accept responsibility for errors while racing. He has looked for every excuse possible for the teams lack of success but none of it falls on him it seems. 

Why?

Because he is trying to convince his hoped for future AC sponsors that he should get yet another crack. So you can understand the motivation, but those ^ failures make it doubtful that if left to his own devices the next one will bring better results than the last two tries........

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

I love it when an Italian puts the "whingeing pom" Sir Ben in his place (see below) about AC history. 

He needs to look at his own performance and the decisions he made before complaining about the rules. All the other teams had the same choices. 

From Lucio Pascarelli:
<Sir Ben Ainslie is making the same mistake many others have made before him. For sure he has not understood the Deed of Gift. The cup belongs to nobody, certainly not to a sporting federation or commercial rights holder. It is only "entrusted" to the winning club provided they follows the rules.
Furthermore, the default match is designed to be asymmetric, with the cup holder free to select the place, and the cup challenger free to select the boat up to the last moment. In other words, the challenger is forced to develop sailing technology to the point that it can overcome the defender on his own turf. It is a technological competition, which has allowed sailing technology to go from the less than 10 knots of the schooners, to the over 40 knots upwind of the AC75. This is by no means intended to be the "fair" and level playing field that Sir Ben Ainslie is asking for. 
Now, if the challenger and defender agree to common rules, they can do anything they want. This is the current case, where ETNZ and COR have agreed to the current AC75 class, the Prada Challenger Series, the race format, the schedule(!), organizing the events and who makes a profit, as well as the establishment of dispute resolution mechanisms such as the Arbitration Panel. And Sir Ben Ainslie should respect the fact that he has been allowed to race only because the Challenger of Record (the Italians) agreed to have a challenger cup - they could have challenged directly without risking their place in the final. 
But all it takes is a disagreement between the Challenger and Defender to bring the dispute back to the NY Supreme Court in Manhattan, which will again rule by the Deed of Gift. Many have tried and failed to "reinterpret the deed of gift" (Conner, Bertarelli, Ellison, etc...) 
Sir Ben Ainslie, more than others, should understand and respect this history, and not whine again on the "fairness" of the cup after loosing."

Meraviglioso.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, nav said:

He didn't take the twin skin sails seriously. He didn't accept responsibility for errors while racing. He has looked for every excuse possible for the teams lack of success but none of it falls on him it seems. 

Why?

Because he is trying to convince his hoped for future AC sponsors that he should get yet another crack. So you can understand the motivation, but those ^ failures make it doubtful that if left to his own devices the next one will bring better results than the last two tries........

So you make your own assumptions and then you come up with you own explanation for it ? Amusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 4:29 PM, nroose said:

Seems clear to me that they had all the elements of a competitive campaign, but they just made some bad design choices. That's not money, or whether you are a challenger or a defender. That is a combination of bad luck and lack of brilliance.

Lack of Brilliance?  Maybe lack of experience but they will be better next time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nav said:

He didn't take the twin skin sails seriously. He didn't accept responsibility for errors while racing. He has looked for every excuse possible for the teams lack of success but none of it falls on him it seems. 

Why?

Because he is trying to convince his hoped for future AC sponsors that he should get yet another crack. So you can understand the motivation, but those ^ failures make it doubtful that if left to his own devices the next one will bring better results than the last two tries........

The fact is INEOS was not fast enough. I dont care what sailors you put on it. INEOS did some things better than others, grinders etc. Ben fronted up for every press conference so people like you could be fed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's spinning it hard now for the reasons stated, if you cant see the obvious...... well why not offer to contribute to his next over-hyped fiasco plucky hi-tech/F1, best of British (Monaco) effort

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dullers said:

Lack of Brilliance?  Maybe lack of experience but they will be better next time.

You will only be better if Sir Ben takes a step back into management and leaves the sailing team to younger sailors.  Those sailors should be the customers of the design team with Sir Ben taking a back seat.  Managing the whole thing in a chairman of the board type management role?  IMHO

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

You will only be better if Sir Ben takes a step back into management and leaves the sailing team to younger sailors.  Those sailors should be the customers of the design team with Sir Ben taking a back seat.  Managing the whole thing in a chairman of the board type management role?  IMHO

Problem was he probably had too many responsibilities. But if Ben was at the helm of LR now we would be here saying how a genius he is at the helm even at his age.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Kiwing said:

You will only be better if Sir Ben takes a step back into management and leaves the sailing team to younger sailors.  Those sailors should be the customers of the design team with Sir Ben taking a back seat.  Managing the whole thing in a chairman of the board type management role?  IMHO

Did you see him in sail GP and you think he should step off the boat????

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

Problem was he probably had too many responsibilities. But if Ben was at the helm of LR now we would be here saying how a genius he is at the helm even at his age.

Precisely.

everyone is a Fucking rockstar with a fast boat. 
the anti Ben chat from those now slating him and the team was very quiet when they were dominating the RR. 
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dullers said:

Did you see him in sail GP and you think he should step off the boat????

4 more years, Yes it's reflect actions that count, Tactian yes maybe, But now I think he is more value as an overall guide to the whole team.  IMHO

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

Adding another comment by Muyl, he says that (due to the delayed issuing of the Rule, hmm ...) both AM and INEOS thought that a portion of the racing would be in displacement mode for their first designs - which obviously turned out to be the wrong assumption

I'm wondering, so why the flat hulls ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alphafb552 said:

All about minimizing drag in the transition phases from floating to foiling

But the flat hull would be super draggy in displacement, no? I remember that the common first impression when all the B1 were launched was that LR and NZ would be better for displacement, and that UK and AM were designed only to fly (and later, as many other thing in this Cup, it turned out it was quite the opposite)

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

He didn't take the twin skin sails seriously. He didn't accept responsibility for errors while racing. He has looked for every excuse possible for the teams lack of success but none of it falls on him it seems. 

Why?

Because he is trying to convince his hoped for future AC sponsors that he should get yet another crack. So you can understand the motivation, but those ^ failures make it doubtful that if left to his own devices the next one will bring better results than the last two tries........

He is undoubtedly the best helmsman and tactical single handed dinghy sailor of his generation. He is also not bad on any other boat, like SailGP foiling 50's.

He is however not very good at running the show as the $250+ million he managed to spend on two AC campaigns only to produce the slowest boats has proven.

So he needs to step back and find a GD character to sort out getting a boat fast enough on the water so that he has an even chance of winning. 

Magnus has mentioned a chap called Sid a few times as the man who could do that and has done it for him in several Olympic campaigns. So maybe he should get him back onboard. 

 

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

I'm wondering, so why the flat hulls ? 

I think they may have been expecting a degree of heel, which would then reduce wetted area.

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

Lack of Brilliance?  Maybe lack of experience but they will be better next time.

Experience is only as good as what you learn from it...

I mean...

Ainslie
Scott
Simmer
Holroyd

I am guessing they would have said they had enough experience when they put together the team.

But also, I was kind of tongue in cheek when I said "brilliance". Clearly I am not qualified to judge them. And to me it seemed like they were damn close. As were AM.

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

Experience is only as good as what you learn from it...

I mean...

Ainslie
Scott
Simmer
Holroyd

I am guessing they would have said they had enough experience when they put together the team.

But also, I was kind of tongue in cheek when I said "brilliance". Clearly I am not qualified to judge them. And to me it seemed like they were damn close. As were AM.

I suspect Simmer is just there for the money. Ben would be better off with someone with a bit more belief. As for the design side you can't just leave it up to the technicians like Holroyd,  someone with sailing experience needs to point the techies in the right direction (and turn them back from the wrong one before it goes too far).

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

You will only be better if Sir Ben takes a step back into management and leaves the sailing team to younger sailors.  Those sailors should be the customers of the design team with Sir Ben taking a back seat.  Managing the whole thing in a chairman of the board type management role?  IMHO

I don't see that as the problem Kiwing, in fact quite the opposite.

I don't believe he has any kind of problem with sailing these boats.

It is his position in leadership that I would question.

Whether it is because he is naturally a poor leader or that he had too much on his plate, something just isn't working there.

Get him to stick to the handles, presumably providing the leadership to the sailing crew and things might get better.

Imagine if GD was to be on the handles or Burling to be running the whole show. Total freaking disaster I am sure, discounting the fact that GD was never a particularly awesome sailor.

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

I suspect Simmer is just there for the money. Ben would be better off with someone with a bit more belief. As for the design side you can't just leave it up to the technicians like Holroyd,  someone with sailing experience needs to point the techies in the right direction (and turn them back from the wrong one before it goes too far).

Whatever you think about Simmer (I kind of agree that he came across as having a great time just being on the team and didn't really have any fire), the point was that he has experience, and that it matters what you learn from your experience.

I don't know what interactions the sailing team had with the design team, but certainly Holroyd has enough experience to know what he thinks about that. And again, it's about whether he has learned important things from his experience.

And all of that is kinda what I meant by "brilliance" with my tongue in my cheek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the Benjamin Muyl interview (unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon speakers out there in French) there definitely is a subtext of lack of communication and cohesion within the whole Ineos organisation, eg design team receiving pushback from sailing team on ride height. He also said that the whole team had lots of bright and good ideas, but didn't have the culture to listen to each other, take the good ideas on board and develop them coherently - which in his words is the major strength of ETNZ...

Having done several projects for different English companies, I can't say I'm surprised to hear this, having had similar experiences in various environments - seems to me there's a cultural issue here B)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, alphafb552 said:

Listening to the Benjamin Muyl interview (unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon speakers out there in French) there definitely is a subtext of lack of communication and cohesion within the whole Ineos organisation, eg design team receiving pushback from sailing team on ride height. He also said that the whole team had lots of bright and good ideas, but didn't have the culture to listen to each other, take the good ideas on board and develop them coherently - which in his words is the major strength of ETNZ...

Having done several projects for different English companies, I can't say I'm surprised to hear this, having had similar experiences in various environments - seems to me there's a cultural issue here B)

You certainly have a point here. But one shouldn't forget for how long ETNZ and Luna Rossa are already around compared to Ben's team.

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

You certainly have a point here. But one shouldn't forget for how long ETNZ and Luna Rossa are already around compared to Ben's team.

Even if, tbh, Luna Rossa won the LVC on their first attempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alphafb552 said:

Listening to the Benjamin Muyl interview (unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon speakers out there in French) there definitely is a subtext of lack of communication and cohesion within the whole Ineos organisation, eg design team receiving pushback from sailing team on ride height. He also said that the whole team had lots of bright and good ideas, but didn't have the culture to listen to each other, take the good ideas on board and develop them coherently - which in his words is the major strength of ETNZ...

Having done several projects for different English companies, I can't say I'm surprised to hear this, having had similar experiences in various environments - seems to me there's a cultural issue here B)

About that point he said that the NZ team is "old" which is an advantage for a good communication.

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

Did you see him in sail GP and you think he should step off the boat????

Sir Ben will get his chance to shine again in the upcoming, SailGP regatta. Looking forward to seeing what he's got - no excuses this time.

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

Sir Ben will get his chance to shine again in the upcoming, SailGP regatta. Looking forward to seeing what he's got - no excuses this time.

Did you see him in the last sail GP?  I dont think the worlds most successful Olympic sailor has to prove himself to the likes of you or I. He has several gold excuses already. No doubt people like Churchill would not be up to the mark on here either. He is already the greatest sailor in any generation. Remember he has already won an AC.

 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”
 Winston S. Churchill

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

Experience is only as good as what you learn from it...

I mean...

Ainslie
Scott
Simmer
Holroyd

I am guessing they would have said they had enough experience when they put together the team.

But also, I was kind of tongue in cheek when I said "brilliance". Clearly I am not qualified to judge them. And to me it seemed like they were damn close. As were AM.

Well Prada have been trying to win for the last 20 years. INEOS is a relatively new team in AC circles. Thought the "Swiss" showed how it could be done in a short time. The more complicated the boats get the more advantage to the defender.

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

Well Prada have been trying to win for the last 20 years. INEOS is a relatively new team in AC circles. Thought the "Swiss" showed how it could be done in a short time. The more complicated the boats get the more advantage to the defender.

I am thinking too many excuses. Didn't BA work with ETNZ on one challenge, then came on late to help Larry and Spithill in SF, then spent upwards of $250÷ million on two very slow-boat challenges in 2017 and 2020/1. 

Enough for me that he needs to get better help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alphafb552 said:

Listening to the Benjamin Muyl interview (unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon speakers out there in French) there definitely is a subtext of lack of communication and cohesion within the whole Ineos organisation, eg design team receiving pushback from sailing team on ride height. He also said that the whole team had lots of bright and good ideas, but didn't have the culture to listen to each other, take the good ideas on board and develop them coherently - which in his words is the major strength of ETNZ...

Having done several projects for different English companies, I can't say I'm surprised to hear this, having had similar experiences in various environments - seems to me there's a cultural issue here B)

Found this in Oz as well. Some very bright (and successful) people can be rather prickly, and reluctant to consider views other than their own.

I quickly found that my team building skills were less than I would have wished. :(

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. I wonder about the INEOS Team UK culture too.

For example, I wonder how much listening goes on, as opposed to how much speech-making? Freddie Carr says, Sir Ben is a rousing speech-maker - all well and good, but is he listening as well? Maybe, maybe not.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget the discussion about whether Ainslie should have done better for one moment.

There is a basic truthy that the defender gave themselves a big advantage this time around through the development of the rule. The amount of design work they did before the rule was announced was hugely significant. It had to be because they had to prove that the new concept worked. We also know they did significant work on the rig (there is even videos of them testing 2 skin mains. This put ETNZ a long way ahead of all the teams. The CoR also got an advantage, but not as big, because ETNZ shared a lot of data with them to prove that the rule worked. These are facts, beyond any argument.

I don't think there has ever been another case of the defender coming up with a new rule on their own. Even the evil Ellison hired an outside designer to formulate rules for his defences.

The question is whether it was fair for the defender to do this. My problem with it is not whether it is fair or not, but the fact that Dalton was very vocal about Alhingi trying to "steal" a big advantage by writing the rule themselves. He suggested that was one of the main reasons they needed a tame (illegal) CoR, because no proper CoR would let a defender get away with it. Then, as soon as he wins, he does exactly what he said was so wrong. If he had said nothing on the subject, I would have little problem with this, but Dalton is a manipulative hypocrite, and yes, I do have an issue with him!

As for fairness, this is the AC. Is anything fair? If I were a defender, I would rather be known for stacking the deck as much as I could within the DoG than be known as being a hypocrite, which is what Dalton clearly is. 

  • Like 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Nah. Was very refreshing to read LRPP's Lucio Pascarelli's views on Sir Ben's whinging about AC fairness, up thread. Just sayin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites