Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 18.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's pissing down outside and yes, we are back to Level 3. To all those moaning and bitching about it and calling the PM childish names, get a grip, we are the luckiest people in the world right

Yes, quite light but I didn't see all the afternoon's sailing, can only comment on later in the day, when Britannia 2 was running a #1 jib and foiling around no problem. They look quite quick at times

After many hours of consideration, a lot of in-depth research on the SA technical threads, extensive computational modelling and a few quick & dirty minutes in Photoshop, I have produced this anal

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

Yes, we knew that Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airlines was to go and that TNZ would probably lose their sponsor. So Dalton is winning the Cup but in a very unconfortable place to have to defend without the money yet.

So what are his opportunities ? Racing around Isle of Wight against a good amount of money from Ratcliffe, but he looks like he doesn't want to pay for it. Try to pressure the NZ government to pay another time ? Try to find a new sponsor ?

I think Ratcliffe would be happy to sponsor racing around isle of wight, or at least make sure the costs of hosting are covered  and he wants TNZ to be a well funded defense . BUT (and its a big but) he is extremely wary of  any optics of being seen to "buy" the cup, so the amount of money that flows from an Isle of Wight event to TNZ will be limited .  This is not because Ineos cannot afford to be generous but because Ineos does not want to buy the cup.   Ratcliffe wants his team to demonstrate that they won the cup on the water....or its not worth winning at all.

If TNZ is not well funded for the next cup then its a problem for all the challengers because none of them want to beat a decimated Team New Zealand. 

GD will hopefully find the money and I suspect that will determine decisions of where and how to host the defense. ratcliffe has made it clear that the decision rests with NZ.

 

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

You know the story of every woman’s virtue having a price, don’t you?

 

A virtuous woman is worth more than rubies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mambo Kings said:

- because none of them want to beat a decimated Team New Zealand. 

Yeah, right. Maybe they will make some noises publicly, but they will be happy to take the win and rejoice. If your opposition sets up expensive, high tech rules then can't follow through, who gives a toss.

The way the team is and has behaved recently there will likely be some celebrations behind closed doors.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mambo Kings said:

I think Ratcliffe would be happy to sponsor racing around isle of wight, or at least make sure the costs of hosting are covered  and he wants TNZ to be a well funded defense . BUT (and its a big but) he is extremely wary of  any optics of being seen to "buy" the cup, so the amount of money that flows from an Isle of Wight event to TNZ will be limited .  This is not because Ineos cannot afford to be generous but because Ineos does not want to buy the cup.   Ratcliffe wants his team to demonstrate that they won the cup on the water....or its not worth winning at all.

If TNZ is not well funded for the next cup then its a problem for all the challengers because none of them want to beat a decimated Team New Zealand. 

GD will hopefully find the money and I suspect that will determine decisions of where and how to host the defense. ratcliffe has made it clear that the decision rests with NZ.

 

I understand that Ratcliffe does not want to look like buying the cup but it's the AC and I am sure any challenger will try to use the opportunity to get the cup.

BTW, I wonder if Dalton doesn't want to lose the Cup to UK next year rather than trying to survive painfully during 3 years without money. I am sure he already knows who he could be working for. Well,............... Ratcliffe ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tommy22 said:

Expected, since the airline industry is on its knees, for the foreseeable future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

This is the same guy these pages spent considerable time writing off as a rambling old fool, right?

Hey, leave it. SA has no interest in consistency or facts. Ever.  :lol:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2021 at 2:50 PM, jaysper said:

Nah, sorry  unless you've had a lobotomy I don't buy it.

You are a poor facsimile of the obnoxious yet creative TRG.

@barfy what do you think?

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

Hey, leave it. SA has no interest in consistency or facts. Ever.  :lol:

Sailing anarchy: post truth :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver lining to losing Emirates as a sponsor - we can also lose the ugly red paint job and go black to more menacing black and silver!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

This is the same guy these pages spent considerable time writing off as a rambling old fool, right?

Well.. you do have to wonder why he matters at all :) 

He had some kind of ceremonial role at LR and in the media center but with Prada out as CoR, who on earth’s behalf can he try to speak with any authority for, now? 
 

He says he spoke to Dalts but it could have been just a listen-in on a party-conference call, who knows.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 10:13 AM, Stingray~ said:

That would be interesting for sure. Can you imagine what  Bernasconi et al could do, with ‘ultimate’ compute systems at their disposal?

They already have it...

If you think cloud computing is expensive to rent, wait until you try total cost of ownership for the equivalent MIPs on real hardware...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic says that Air NZ should be the funding vector. the facilities are built this is about just the team really.

Covid is receding do we think Air NZ needs a plan for the future throwing 100s of millions into tourism marketing would be better spent on a massive marketing story. TANZ.

And as an aside make each team sell their boat/boats to new teams and allow only one new build for an AC in 2 years with a world series in each competitors country if wanted.

that would include Cowes lake Genève, New York,  etc.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 12:57 PM, NeedAClew said:

A virtuous woman is worth more than rubies.

has been known to hit the spot nicely............. at times

errrr----ummmm.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally figured out why ETNZ loss AC34 in SF.......... they did not push the limits enough, only had a near capsize.

They really need the capsizes to win, like in AC35 and AC36.

 

13_AC34_ETNZgoingover_360_rdax_90.jpg

2d787682fdf1359ba06d6228e0cf8a21.jpg

AC35TNZAC50Capsize20170606_ac35live_gmr2988.jpg

m4210_170606-ac35-rp4149.jpg

yysw297394.jpg

yysw275973.jpg

1610423544237.jpg

team-nz-capsizes-while-racing-against-ineos-team-uk-in-americas.hashed.1b894b16.mobile.story.homePage.jpg

1598935794564.jpg

_methode_times_prod_web_bin_3cbfdbd0-543e-11eb-b0d0-071d11d2d557.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fish7yu said:

I finally figured out why ETNZ loss AC34 in SF.......... they did not push the limits enough, only had a near capsize.

They really need the capsizes to win, like in AC35 and AC36.

team-nz-capsizes-while-racing-against-ineos-team-uk-in-americas.hashed.1b894b16.mobile.story.homePage.jpg

True, you never quite know just where ten tenths is, until you go to eleven tenths!  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, coercivity said:

The logic says that Air NZ should be the funding vector. the facilities are built this is about just the team really.

Covid is receding do we think Air NZ needs a plan for the future throwing 100s of millions into tourism marketing would be better spent on a massive marketing story. TANZ.

And as an aside make each team sell their boat/boats to new teams and allow only one new build for an AC in 2 years with a world series in each competitors country if wanted.

that would include Cowes lake Genève, New York,  etc.     

It would be nice to think that Air NZ could get naming rights, aiming at the tourism market, but I suspect they're getting their own government bail-out.  In some ways, Team NZ already does its bit for marketing New Zealand.  A  tourism focused sponsor would only add so much value.  If it were a New Zealand company, you're more likely to see a Fonterra or Rocket Lab.

In regard to selling boats, I wouldn't be surprised if ETNZ sell their current design, or even make aspects of it freely available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, fish7yu said:

I finally figured out why ETNZ loss AC34 in SF.......... they did not push the limits enough, only had a near capsize.

They really need the capsizes to win, like in AC35 and AC36.

Probably said in jest, but a large grain of truth in there.

When it came to boat design, aside from the idea of foiling, they were quite conservative.

I suspect that was because of what happened in 2003.

Those sorts of scars can haunt you.

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

Probably said in jest, but a large grain of truth in there.

When it came to boat design, aside from the idea of foiling, they were quite conservative.

I suspect that was because of what happened in 2003.

Those sorts of scars can haunt you.

Also Luna Rossa was too conservative this edition... apart some bold move like the dual helmsman and the hidden boom

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

Also Luna Rossa was too conservative this edition... apart some bold move like the dual helmsman and the hidden boom

I think due to the new class, the Challengers designed and built boats. Then they put those boats on foils, where Team NZ designed a complete package. The Team Nz design was essentially an exercise in drag reduction. In the hull in the foils and in the sail plan. The Challengers did what every other team has done before. Designed a boat and improved it over time. Team NZ had a fast package straight out of the box. They just had to work out how to race it properly.

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

I think due to the new class, the Challengers designed and built boats. Then they put those boats on foils, where Team NZ designed a complete package. The Team Nz design was essentially an exercise in drag reduction. In the hull in the foils and in the sail plan. The Challengers did what every other team has done before. Designed a boat and improved it over time. Team NZ had a fast package straight out of the box. They just had to work out how to race it properly.

I think you're quite right

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think ETNZ were too conservative in 2013 - they designed a boat to the Rule, sail in 5 - 33knots - and had shown it to be capable of doing so.

ORTUSA and Artemis didn't and as a result the wind limits got dropped for safety reasons.

ETNZ ended up with their maxed out 4x4 racing a porsche.

They did run out of development ideas in the end (pie warmers, anyone?), but there was only so much you could do with the original platform they had designed to the original rule.

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

 Team NZ had a fast package straight out of the box. They just had to work out how to race it properly.

Agreed.  In some ways they were more like Oracle in 2013.  Also, if they had been a challenger this time round and had the benefit of more sailing etc, the score line in the AC would have been a repeat of Bermuda.

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

Now that is an interesting idea. Turning the 3D rocket engine printing technology to AC boat.

Alignment in terms of tech, yes.  Don’t the Southern Spars guys go and work at Rocket Lab when things are quiet?

 

Having said that, I suspect Rocket Lab have a very short client list.  Sponsorship is hardly going to bring in new customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think INEOS would like to bring the AC75s to the Solent. But I doubt it has to be the actual match. More that they've lost out on a world series and a good showing on home waters would hopefully peak some wider interest.

Regarding a round the island race, whilst INEOS have sailed round before, it was in very light winds. I'm not saying they couldn't hold a race in this format with this class... but the boats would be purposefully built for that race and likely look quite different to the boats we've seen this cycle (unless they had a very narrow wind range). So, I think that's unlikely.

But also for Jim I'm not sure it's about widespread interest in the population, but more just the virtue of the challenge and the regard that is held for that within technically astute professions and industry. I do get the impression he is more interested in the challenge and process of attaining the goal, than he is in just the kudos of having whatever it is that is prize (this case the AC).

All that leads me to believe a Cowes (Solent) Cup match in 2022 is the least likely option and we're more realistically going to find ourselves back in Auckland. 

I think INEOS main aim in becoming CoR is to ensure the competition continues with continuity and regularity. Jim is clearly invested, and I think the set up believes that if they throw the right people, tech and money at it for long enough they will achieve the goal of winning. So the main threat to that is the Cup getting stuck in limbo or changing classes which increases the unpredictability which the previous UK campaigns have struggled with. 

In many ways, from a financial point of view bringing the competition to Europe is more beneficial to TNZ sponsors (+ potential sponsors). Plus maybe using it as a bargaining chip with NZL government. 

From TNZ perspective it's about getting a challenger who will keep things stable and invest enough to lighten the financial burden from TNZ and their own sponsors. 

For now it seems quite a well balanced relationship. I am sure that will change as things get competitive. 

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

I think INEOS would like to bring the AC75s to the Solent. But I doubt it has to be the actual match. More that they've lost out on a world series and a good showing on home waters would hopefully peak some wider interest.

Regarding a round the island race, whilst INEOS have sailed round before, it was in very light winds. I'm not saying they couldn't hold a race in this format with this class... but the boats would be purposefully built for that race and likely look quite different to the boats we've seen this cycle (unless they had a very narrow wind range). So, I think that's unlikely.

But also for Jim I'm not sure it's about widespread interest in the population, but more just the virtue of the challenge and the regard that is held for that within technically astute professions and industry. I do get the impression he is more interested in the challenge and process of attaining the goal, than he is in just the kudos of having whatever it is that is prize (this case the AC).

Agree. Jim regards it as a genuine challenge and he is not interested in a short cut

All that leads me to believe a Cowes (Solent) Cup match in 2022 is the least likely option and we're more realistically going to find ourselves back in Auckland. 

He has said clearly that the decision rests with NZ but he is open to a cup match in the Solent.

I think INEOS main aim in becoming CoR is to ensure the competition continues with continuity and regularity. Jim is clearly invested, and I think the set up believes that if they throw the right people, tech and money at it for long enough they will achieve the goal of winning. So the main threat to that is the Cup getting stuck in limbo or changing classes which increases the unpredictability which the previous UK campaigns have struggled with. 

Yes. The challenge requires a reasonably consistent pathway to attract Jim and other challengers. 4 entirely different boats for 4 successive cups has discouraged participation. Jim (and others I think ) realize that if the cup is going to attract good challengers, prepared to sustain several campaigns then there has to be a measure of continuity.

In many ways, from a financial point of view bringing the competition to Europe is more beneficial to TNZ sponsors (+ potential sponsors). Plus maybe using it as a bargaining chip with NZL government. 

From TNZ perspective it's about getting a challenger who will keep things stable and invest enough to lighten the financial burden from TNZ and their own sponsors. 

For now it seems quite a well balanced relationship. I am sure that will change as things get competitive. :wub:

100% agree with this. + some comments in red

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2021 at 1:00 AM, MaxHugen said:

True, you never quite know just where ten tenths is, until you go to eleven tenths!  :rolleyes:

No doubt you have to go to the limit if you want to win

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

No doubt you have to go to the limit if you want to win

In the latest Mozzy video, the boys make the assertion that LR were too conservative with their design, which is quite obvious when viewed along side ETNZ's boat.

Was surprisingly close in the end given how conservative they were. 

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

In the latest Mozzy video, the boys make the assertion that LR were too conservative with their design, which is quite obvious when viewed along side ETNZ's boat.

Was surprisingly close in the end given how conservative they were. 

I agree the problem now is that anyone copying ETNZ will now have a relatively competitive boat. 
The gains in each new generation of boat will become less and less

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mako23 said:

I agree the problem now is that anyone copying ETNZ will now have a relatively competitive boat. 

Kind of. 

I think unlike the IACCs, there is a LOT LOT more stuff that cannot be seen or easily analysed, including the profiles of the foils, the internal actuation mechanisms, the flight control systems, the internal mechanisms and the control software of the main sails, etc.

 

So yep, whilst the teams can get a good leg up by analysing ETNZ and LR (who also had a lot of good ideas), there will be at least as many questions that will go unanswered.

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

In the latest Mozzy video, the boys make the assertion that LR were too conservative with their design, which is quite obvious when viewed along side ETNZ's boat.

Was surprisingly close in the end given how conservative they were. 

LRPP were pretty close to start off with, but once the ETNZ boys figured out how to sail TR properly, LRPP were left way behind.

Remember, the races were sailed in the ideal wind strength range for LRPP, and they were match hardened. 

ETNZ was not race ready, practicing against a chase boat and in a simulator can not duplicate real race conditions, therefore once TR had a gauge on LRPP's strengths and weakness in real racing environment, TR were sailing constantly 2∼3knts faster VMG even in LRPP's preferred wind range of 8∼12knts.

I think TR is about 1/2 a generation ahead of the Challengers.

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

Kind of. 

I think unlike the IACCs, there is a LOT LOT more stuff that cannot be seen or easily analysed, including the profiles of the foils, the internal actuation mechanisms, the flight control systems, the internal mechanisms and the control software of the main sails, etc

I agree but people can be induced to speak by cash, regardless of all the non disclosure people sign. At some stage somewhere someone will fall out with some syndicate and blab. I doubt even ETNZ can stop that happening. There’s 30 plus designers in ETNZ it only takes one to leave and the secret is out.  
 

This is a problem in F1 and in 2007 McLaren got caught with their  hand in the cookie jar and got a massive penalty. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_controversy

Has the spying in F1 stopped, I doubt it

 

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

In the latest Mozzy video, the boys make the assertion that LR were too conservative with their design, which is quite obvious when viewed along side ETNZ's boat.

Was surprisingly close in the end given how conservative they were. 

One factor may have been the experience ETNZ got from AC35, in using and controlling very narrow thin foils successfully with their advanced controller systems.

Would be interesting if LR had had that experience too - how much closer would speeds have been?

Certainly in terms of sail control, I wouldn't describe LR as conservative. With their "boom" below the false deck, they had the cleanest mainsail profile at deck level of anyone. Of course they missed out on the extra ~3m2 of sail that NZ had, and I don't think LR could induce as much camber as NZ did with the mast-base "camber adjustment device".

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

I agree but people can be induced to speak by cash, regardless of all the non disclosure people sign. At some stage somewhere someone will fall out with some syndicate and blab. I doubt even ETNZ can stop that happening. There’s 30 plus designers in ETNZ it only takes one to leave and the secret is out.  
 

This is a problem in F1 and in 2007 McLaren got caught with their  hand in the cookie jar and got a massive penalty. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_controversy

Has the spying in F1 stopped, I doubt it

 

Well thats a different matter, although ETNZ does seem to have a fairly tight team.

However, I was responding to the benefits of copying the boat rather than poaching talent.

That said, I would argue that a team such as INEOS may not get the same performance out of any talent poached as does ETNZ.

If you look at INEOS during the racing, it was all very command and control. This is fine for the military when you want 1000 grunts to simultaneously race towards their likely deaths without question. However, not so valuable when dealing with such a creative and intellectually taxing task as designing a yacht.

If INEOS are like this on the boat, it is not unreasonable to surmise that it could very well be the same in the design office. Certainly their boat was solid but not particularly innovative.

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

If you look at INEOS during the racing, it was all very command and control. This is fine for the military when you want 1000 grunts to simultaneously race towards their likely deaths without question. However, not so valuable when dealing with such a creative and intellectually taxing task as designing a yacht.

Geez you post some crap.  Not only are you out of step with modern military methods your perception of how INEOS was managed on board is way off.

11 minutes ago, jaysper said:

If INEOS are like this on the boat, it is not unreasonable to surmise that it could very well be the same in the design office. Certainly their boat was solid but not particularly innovative.

It IS "unreasonable to surmise" not only because your onboard perception is wrong but you are comparing two completely different work environments which that in itself would demand differences.

You are also off in terms of innovation - not only were they very competitive in the ACWS they won enough races in a row to go straight through to the Prada Cup final.  Not a bad effort for their first attempt at this design class especially when you consider the head start ETNZ and Luna Rossa had.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Geez you post some crap.  Not only are you out of step with modern military methods your perception of how INEOS was managed on board is way off.

It IS "unreasonable to surmise" not only because your onboard perception is wrong but you are comparing two completely different work environments which that in itself would demand differences.

You are also off in terms of innovation - not only were they very competitive in the ACWS they won enough races in a row to go straight through to the Prada Cup final.  Not a bad effort for their first attempt at this design class especially when you consider the head start ETNZ and Luna Rossa had.

Well it is you that is posting crap as I've worked with the military and seen that at the end of the day that a person's opinion matters only so far as it doesn't contradict their superior officers.

Now if you have likewise worked with the military I can only surmise it was an enlisted serviceman since only enlisted personnel are ever so brainwashed to see it any other way.

Sheesh, talk about fucking clueless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Geez you post some crap.  Not only are you out of step with modern military methods your perception of how INEOS was managed on board is way off.

It IS "unreasonable to surmise" not only because your onboard perception is wrong but you are comparing two completely different work environments which that in itself would demand differences.

You are also off in terms of innovation - not only were they very competitive in the ACWS they won enough races in a row to go straight through to the Prada Cup final.  Not a bad effort for their first attempt at this design class especially when you consider the head start ETNZ and Luna Rossa had.

Plus that's not how Ratcliffe operates. His head office is very small and he lets individual operations make their own decisions with just the usual monthly CEO and board reports. I suspect he's on quite good terms with the NZ Gov.

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

If you look at INEOS during the racing, it was all very command and control. This is fine for the military when you want 1000 grunts to simultaneously race towards their likely deaths without question. 

Completely agree this top down approach doesn’t work, even in the military. Israel’s military is very much who’s best for the job...not what rank you have. The German army in both world wars where more willing to let low ranked men make decisions, because they were best placed to judge the situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You are also off in terms of innovation - not only were they very competitive in the ACWS they won enough races in a row to go straight through to the Prada Cup final.  Not a bad effort for their first attempt at this design class especially when you consider the head start ETNZ and Luna Rossa had.

You must be joking, they were not competitive at all. In the end, the results speak the loudest, they were crushed by Prada. 
Other people outside kiwis have been critical of the culture in Ineos.  A whole team to massage the ego of one man called Ben Ainslie. It was like something out of the Victoria period. “Alright Guv then doff your hat”.  The mozzie boys were brutal against their culture.  They will never win with him in the team. 

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

Plus that's not how Ratcliffe operates. His head office is very small and he lets individual operations make their own decisions with just the usual monthly CEO and board reports. I suspect he's on quite good terms with the NZ Gov.

Then Jim needs to get rid of Ben, there’s plenty of good sailors in England. 

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

In the latest Mozzy video, the boys make the assertion that LR were too conservative with their design, which is quite obvious when viewed along side ETNZ's boat.

Was surprisingly close in the end given how conservative they were. 

To be honest the difference between all the boats would fall within 1% but the hardest and most expensive part is within the 1%. I think INEOS wanting to be COR is to help on that 1% and give longer development time. It would have been interesting to speculate where we would be if covid had not stopped the other challenger races in 2020. All the boats would have been that bit better again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ETNZ won the design war. They also had a very skilled and cohesive sailing team with a good decision making structure. At the end of the day, they had all three ingredients for a successful AC campaign: Great Design team with good leadership

Talented Sailing Team with good decision making

Good overall management which allowed everyone to focus on their role but also collaborate.

Just because NZ won (deservedly), I think it is wrong to conclude that the other teams were universally bad at all these things.

Ineos had a talented sailing team with good and collaborative decision making. This was amply demonstrated in the round robin, where Ineos won all their races without having the fastest boat. The interaction between tactician, helm and other team members was very effective. I would argue it was also demonstrated in the humor and self depreciation in the ACWS.  The match with LR, some frustration emerged at times. They were losing and that is natural but I still felt the team worked as a team.     On design, t is clear that Ineos started on the back foot. They caught up and we give them some credit for that.....but clearly as they prepare for the next edition, they need to question their design process.   Arguably the management and separation of roles between sailing and management also needs strengthening.

AM had a talented design process. AM hada lot of potential as a boat and incorporated interesting innovation. I would suggest their sailing team was less strong than the other boats and the decision making was flawed.  Who made the final call on tactics? Was TH tactician or merely input provider or grinder?  What was Paul Goodison's role in the tactical decision tree? The fact that ths was not challenged or changed spoke to the question of whether the overall management was well structured with TH in charge of management and the tactician.   NYYC needs to think about management for the next edition and really needs to think how to step change upgrade the sailing team (no obvious and easy answers there)

LR were strong on all fronts but perhaps not as good NZ.  I do think that management and getting the very best from what they had was a noticeable feature of LR. To me, Max S is the quiet unsung hero that played an important part in LR's success in reaching the final.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, IPLore said:

ETNZ won the design war. They also had a very skilled and cohesive sailing team with a good decision making structure. At the end of the day, they had all three ingredients for a successful AC campaign: Great Design team with good leadership

Talented Sailing Team with good decision making

Good overall management which allowed everyone to focus on their role but also collaborate.

Just because NZ won (deservedly), I think it is wrong to conclude that the other teams were universally bad at all these things.

Ineos had a talented sailing team with good and collaborative decision making. This was amply demonstrated in the round robin, where Ineos won all their races without having the fastest boat. The interaction between tactician, helm and other team members was very effective. I would argue it was also demonstrated in the humor and self depreciation in the ACWS.  The match with LR, some frustration emerged at times. They were losing and that is natural but I still felt the team worked as a team.     On design, t is clear that Ineos started on the back foot. They caught up and we give them some credit for that.....but clearly as they prepare for the next edition, they need to question their design process.   Arguably the management and separation of roles between sailing and management also needs strengthening.

AM had a talented design process. AM hada lot of potential as a boat and incorporated interesting innovation. I would suggest their sailing team was less strong than the other boats and the decision making was flawed.  Who made the final call on tactics? Was TH tactician or merely input provider or grinder?  What was Paul Goodison's role in the tactical decision tree? The fact that ths was not challenged or changed spoke to the question of whether the overall management was well structured with TH in charge of management and the tactician.   NYYC needs to think about management for the next edition and really needs to think how to step change upgrade the sailing team (no obvious and easy answers there)

LR were strong on all fronts but perhaps not as good NZ.  I do think that management and getting the very best from what they had was a noticeable feature of LR. To me, Max S is the quiet unsung hero that played an important part in LR's success in reaching the final.

 

The unsung heroes of LR, apart from Max and Presti that everyone actually knows, were also Nobili and Vascotto.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, strider470 said:

The unsung heroes of LR, apart from Max and Presti that everyone actually knows, were also Nobili and Vascotto.

Agreed

Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion by Bruno Trouble and I am saying this again, to have AC37 contested in Auckland in 2022 as he claims, is inconceivable.

Even if you waive the CIC Rule (looks like he's pushing for that) so that ETNZ & INEOS can sell Te Aihe & Britannia 1 respectivly to new Teams you need to give these Teams time to get organized. That takes about half a year to a year I think.

Let's say ETNZ & INEOS publish the Protocol for AC37 between September and November this year and the Challenger Entry Period starts 1st January 2022 and closes June 30th. If that happens we might have some Preliminary Regattas in the 2nd Half of 2022 maybe in Cagliari, Portsmouth and Newport (that would be cool) and then another 2-3 Events in 2023, another few Events in 2024 culminating with the CSS starting in November 2024 and running through until February 2025 with the Match being contested in March 2025.

Remember: Auckland is also a Stopover for the rebranded "The Ocean Race" which starts in October 2022 in Alicante. The Auckland Stopover is likely to be in March 2023 so highly unlikely Trouble is right with 2022.

I predict either an AC Match in Auckland in 2024/2025 or in August/September 2022 on the Solent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, IPLore said:

Just because NZ won (deservedly), I think it is wrong to conclude that the other teams were universally bad at all these things.

Ineos had a talented sailing team with good and collaborative decision making. This was amply demonstrated in the round robin, where Ineos won all their races without having the fastest boat. 

In many ways Ineos had the worse boat in the fleet. I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a dog. It seemed to be half a generation behind.To be fair the crew work was good, and that was the difference between them and AM. They still have a long way to go before being competitive with LR and ETNZ. 
 

one thing we have learnt is F1 car designers know fuck all about hydrodynamic 

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

In many ways Ineos had the worse boat in the fleet. I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a dog. It seemed to be half a generation behind.To be fair the crew work was good, and that was the difference between them and AM. They still have a long way to go before being competitive with LR and ETNZ. 
 

one thing we have learnt is F1 car designers know fuck all about hydrodynamic 

I really disliked the Ineos B2 hull from launch. The least surface area for a given volume is via a sphere. The boxy skeg of Ineos seemed to increase wetted area and drag for take-off, compared to TR's curved canoe-shaped bustle. Not to mention that weird midship bustle they had to add as well.

Once airborne, I thought the Ineos skeg would also produce some nasty vortices compared to the other 3 boats. Although I can't calculate the drag of a hull, the CFD videos by @Mikko Brummer show significant vortices and turbulence from hull (he used a model of TR), so reducing these should also be an important consideration for the designers.

With what looked like a draggy external hinge on Ineos's "W" (seagull) foil, I'm assuming they tried out a Fowler flap arrangement. As @Basiliscusmentioned, having a slot between the foil body and flap can be helpful for lift.  However, maximum lift is really only required for take-off.  By the time the boat is doing 30 knots, foil angle is at or close to 0°, with only a small flap angle.  At 40 knots, the flap is primarily used to control flight height, as ample lift is available.

The Ineos team may have also underestimated the opportunities the double skin mainsail offered, and perhaps didn't give this area enough thought. Someone mentioned that BA wasn't overly impressed by it originally?

It will be interesting to see what the next iteration of the AC75 will implement... will ITUK follow ETNZ with foil design, and do something very different with the hull, etc?

Thoughts are, as always, IMO.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t wait to see the design resumes from the critics who think they did such a shit job.. 

picking holes in something from distance with only a tiny amount of data to create your hypothesis from is rather different from being given a blank sheet of paper and designing from scratch. 
 

some of the local experts would do well to remember that. Because we all know you ain’t gonna be turning up in anyone design teams come the next cup. 

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

I can’t wait to see the design resumes from the critics who think they did such a shit job.. 

picking holes in something from distance with only a tiny amount of data to create your hypothesis from is rather different from being given a blank sheet of paper and designing from scratch. 
 

some of the local experts would do well to remember that. Because we all know you ain’t gonna be turning up in anyone design teams come the next cup. 

You don’t really need a design resume to know which boats was slow AFTER the event. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MaxHugen said:

I really disliked the Ineos B2 hull from launch. The least surface area for a given volume is via a sphere. The boxy skeg of Ineos seemed to increase wetted area and drag for take-off, compared to TR's curved canoe-shaped bustle. Not to mention that weird midship bustle they had to add as well.

Once airborne, I thought the Ineos skeg would also produce some nasty vortices compared to the other 3 boats. Although I can't calculate the drag of a hull, the CFD videos by @Mikko Brummer show significant vortices and turbulence from hull (he used a model of TR), so reducing these should also be an important consideration for the designers.

With what looked like a draggy external hinge on Ineos's "W" (seagull) foil, I'm assuming they tried out a Fowler flap arrangement. As @Basiliscusmentioned, having a slot between the foil body and flap can be helpful for lift.  However, maximum lift is really only required for take-off.  By the time the boat is doing 30 knots, foil angle is at or close to 0°, with only a small flap angle.  At 40 knots, the flap is primarily used to control flight height, as ample lift is available.

The Ineos team may have also underestimated the opportunities the double skin mainsail offered, and perhaps didn't give this area enough thought. Someone mentioned that BA wasn't overly impressed by it originally?

It will be interesting to see what the next iteration of the AC75 will implement... will ITUK follow ETNZ with foil design, and do something very different with the hull, etc?

Thoughts are, as always, IMO.  :)

You raise some interesting points ...thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IACC Boats stayed for 5 AC Cycles (1992, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2007) and produced 3 Countries who won it:

United States 1992

New Zealand 1995 & 2000

Switzerland 2003 & 2007

Let's say the AC75 Class stays as long as the IACC Boats. If that happens things will undoubtedly get tighter meaning the America's Cup will change hands eventually.

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

I really disliked the Ineos B2 hull from launch. The least surface area for a given volume is via a sphere. The boxy skeg of Ineos seemed to increase wetted area and drag for take-off, compared to TR's curved canoe-shaped bustle. Not to mention that weird midship bustle they had to add as well.

Once airborne, I thought the Ineos skeg would also produce some nasty vortices compared to the other 3 boats. Although I can't calculate the drag of a hull, the CFD videos by @Mikko Brummer show significant vortices and turbulence from hull (he used a model of TR), so reducing these should also be an important consideration for the designers.

With what looked like a draggy external hinge on Ineos's "W" (seagull) foil, I'm assuming they tried out a Fowler flap arrangement. As @Basiliscusmentioned, having a slot between the foil body and flap can be helpful for lift.  However, maximum lift is really only required for take-off.  By the time the boat is doing 30 knots, foil angle is at or close to 0°, with only a small flap angle.  At 40 knots, the flap is primarily used to control flight height, as ample lift is available.

The Ineos team may have also underestimated the opportunities the double skin mainsail offered, and perhaps didn't give this area enough thought. Someone mentioned that BA wasn't overly impressed by it originally?

It will be interesting to see what the next iteration of the AC75 will implement... will ITUK follow ETNZ with foil design, and do something very different with the hull, etc?

Thoughts are, as always, IMO.  :)

Max,

I would not be surprised if the Mercedes Guys will be in charge designing & building the 3rd Generation AC75 Boat for INEOS. I am going even this far and say: Without the Mercedes Applied Sience Division Help ITUK would not have won a single Race during the Prada Cup. They turned this Boat around from the Christmas Regatta. Holroyd owed these guys from Merc some beers:)

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

You don’t really need a design resume to know which boats was slow AFTER the event. 

Yet no one here managed to come up with the winning combination before the event. Odd really considering the vitriol and hindsight being poured forth by so many. 

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

Yet no one here managed to come up with the winning combination before the event. Odd really considering the vitriol and hindsight being poured forth by so many. 

To be fair Max and I are not being vitriol about Ineos. It’s clear by the results that RITA was not the fastest boat. Discussing why this my be so, is fair and reasonable. I was cheering in for Ineos when they faced LR and was disappointed by their lose. 
However their nothing wrong about wondering why one boat is faster than another.

The lead boat designer was a Kiwi and that individual maybe shares more blame than anyone else. 

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

Max,

I would not be surprised if the Mercedes Guys will be in charge designing & building the 3rd Generation AC75 Boat for INEOS. I am going even this far and say: Without the Mercedes Applied Sience Division Help ITUK would not have won a single Race during the Prada Cup. They turned this Boat around from the Christmas Regatta. Holroyd owed these guys from Merc some beers:)

I believe they came up the gull wing which was an abject failure. I hold the opinion that Mercedes were a hinderance and not a help to Ineos. Just because your an aerodynamic expert doesn’t make you a hydrodynamic expert. 

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

To be fair Max and I are not being vitriol about Ineos. It’s clear by the results that RITA was not the fastest boat. Discussing why this my be so, is fair and reasonable. I was cheering in for Ineos when they faced LR and was disappointed by their lose. 
However their nothing wrong about wondering why one boat is faster than another.

The lead boat designer was a Kiwi and that individual maybe shares more blame than anyone else. 

Indeed. Nothing wrong with stating an incontrovertible fact that the boat was slower.

I don't personally think Holroyd is the major culprit. I suspect there is a larger problem with the team's culture that is the root cause.

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

Indeed. Nothing wrong with stating an incontrovertible fact that the boat was slower.

I don't personally think Holroyd is the major culprit. I suspect there is a larger problem with the team's culture that is the root cause.

How do we know there was a problem with the culture within the team? None of us were in that team...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Indeed. Nothing wrong with stating an incontrovertible fact that the boat was slower.

I don't personally think Holroyd is the major culprit. I suspect there is a larger problem with the team's culture that is the root cause.

Well, you "Super-Duper Expect" tell us what you would change if you were in charge then? Sitting in your comfortable chair or sofa and telling us the Team Culture is wrong is quite something!

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

How do we know there was a problem with the culture within the team? None of us were in that team...

True I wasn’t in the team, but a lot of commentators have stated that it was a top down approach to management. One of the key factors in ETNZ success was moving to a more flatter management structure were all teal member suggestions were given credence. 
 

It’s not just ETNZ have done this, the all blacks have also taken a flatter management approach were senior team members lead by example. 


https://successresources.com/5-leadership-secrets-to-being-successful-the-all-blacks-way/

 

NFL aka American Gridiron coaches have also taken note of All Black success and the culture they develop 

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

Max,

I would not be surprised if the Mercedes Guys will be in charge designing & building the 3rd Generation AC75 Boat for INEOS. I am going even this far and say: Without the Mercedes Applied Sience Division Help ITUK would not have won a single Race during the Prada Cup. They turned this Boat around from the Christmas Regatta. Holroyd owed these guys from Merc some beers:)

I don't know just what the Mercedes chaps were helping out with, do you?  AFAIK, they were pulled in just before Xmas. As a wild guess, I'd say say they may have been looking at foil design.

We'll never really know but I suspect Ineos's success in the Prada RR series was primarily due to the sailing team working together better and understanding how to get the best from the boat.

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

How do we know there was a problem with the culture within the team? None of us were in that team...

Clearly we don't, however I DID present it as an opinion rather than fact.

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

I don't know just what the Mercedes chaps were helping out with, do you?  AFAIK, they were pulled in just before Xmas. As a wild guess, I'd say say they may have been looking at foil design.

We'll never really know but I suspect Ineos's success in the Prada RR series was primarily due to the sailing team working together better and understanding how to get the best from the boat.

This is totally inaccurate!!!! ITUK started their Performance Partnership with Mercedes Petronas F1 Team in December 2019!!!

10 Mercedes Engineers were completely embattled within the ITUK Design Team and had already some Major Say in B2

https://www.ineosteamuk.com/en/articles/205_Performance-partnership-with-Mercedes-AMG-Petronas.html

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

This is totally inaccurate!!!! ITUK started their Performance Partnership with Mercedes Petronas F1 Team in December 2019!!!

10 Mercedes Engineers were completely embattled within the ITUK Design Team and had already some Major Say in B2

https://www.ineosteamuk.com/en/articles/205_Performance-partnership-with-Mercedes-AMG-Petronas.html

 They also had Adrian Newey from Red Bull F1 team involved very early in there team 

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

 They also had Adrian Newey from Red Bull F1 team involved very early in there team 

No, they didn't! At least not for this Campaign! Newey was briefly involved for their 2017 Campaign but was never put in any Official Capacity of the AC Challenge.

I made a slight mistake: 30 Members from the Mercedes Applied Science Division were involved with ITUK Boat 2 from the start of their Performance Partnership in 2019 through the end of their Challenge in February 2021.

https://www.ineosteamuk.com/en/articles/299_Pushing-to-the-leading-edge-of-design-with-Mercedes-F1-Applied-Science.html

I think Merc found the missing pieces after the Christmas Regatta and got ITUK Designers to implement it onto the Race Boat hence the Performance Gains in the Round Robin. BA consistently mentioned Merc after his Race Wins.

One Wonders if Merc had more time what they would have come up with. They ain't amateurs. They haven't won the F1 Constructors Championship for six straight years for naught.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dg_sailingfan said:

This is totally inaccurate!!!! ITUK started their Performance Partnership with Mercedes Petronas F1 Team in December 2019!!!

10 Mercedes Engineers were completely embattled within the ITUK Design Team and had already some Major Say in B2

https://www.ineosteamuk.com/en/articles/205_Performance-partnership-with-Mercedes-AMG-Petronas.html

Ah, OK I stand corrected. :rolleyes:

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

You said December 2020!!!

Yes, I probably got mixed up from a comment some time ago in the forum. :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MaxHugen said:

Yes, I probably got mixed up from a comment some time ago in the forum.

No problem, everyone mixes something up once in awhile. Happened to me too:D

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

I don't personally think Holroyd is the major culprit. I suspect there is a larger problem with the team's culture that is the root cause.

I’m not totally privy to who designed what in Ineos. So what percentage of the boat Holroyd is responsible is hard to gauge. Their B1 boat was an out and out dog and their B2 boat wasn’t , but still could of been the slowest boat in the second generation AC75 boats.

Their boom was a mess and their foils were not world beaters. Their W foils was a complete disaster and their last set seem to have a lot of wetted surface.  Seemed to me as an average boat sailed well.

 

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

One Wonders if Merc had more time what they would have come up with. They ain't amateurs. They haven't won the F1 Constructors Championship for six straight years for naught.

The key element is the foil and that is all hydrodynamics. A field that I suspect Merc has little experience in. 

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

No, they didn't! At least not for this Campaign! Newey was briefly involved for their 2017 Campaign but was never put in any Official Capacity of the AC Challenge.

I made a slight mistake: 30 Members from the Mercedes Applied Science Division were involved with ITUK Boat 2 from the start of their Performance Partnership in 2019 through the end of their Challenge in February 2021.

https://www.ineosteamuk.com/en/articles/299_Pushing-to-the-leading-edge-of-design-with-Mercedes-F1-Applied-Science.html

I think Merc found the missing pieces after the Christmas Regatta and got ITUK Designers to implement it onto the Race Boat hence the Performance Gains in the Round Robin. BA consistently mentioned Merc after his Race Wins.

One Wonders if Merc had more time what they would have come up with. They ain't amateurs. They haven't won the F1 Constructors Championship for six straight years for naught.

So in effect Mercedes F1 played an important part in the design of boat B2. If I were Mercedes I’d wouldn’t want to broadcast that fact too much. 

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

I don't know just what the Mercedes chaps were helping out with, do you?  AFAIK, they were pulled in just before Xmas. As a wild guess, I'd say say they may have been looking at foil design.

We'll never really know but I suspect Ineos's success in the Prada RR series was primarily due to the sailing team working together better and understanding how to get the best from the boat.

Max that box  Skeg that Ineos had makes me wonder. I’ve read somewhere that it was an attempt to reduces vortices being made at the leeward side of the skeg.  Because it had two edges you would have some vortices generated on the edge at the windward side mixing with vortices generated at the  edge on the leeward side. This could reduce total vortices being made. The same principle used as dimples on a golf ball. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 6:37 PM, MaxHugen said:

I really disliked the Ineos B2 hull from launch. The least surface area for a given volume is via a sphere. The boxy skeg of Ineos seemed to increase wetted area and drag for take-off, compared to TR's curved canoe-shaped bustle. Not to mention that weird midship bustle they had to add as well.

Once airborne, I thought the Ineos skeg would also produce some nasty vortices compared to the other 3 boats. Although I can't calculate the drag of a hull, the CFD videos by @Mikko Brummer show significant vortices and turbulence from hull (he used a model of TR), so reducing these should also be an important consideration for the designers.

With what looked like a draggy external hinge on Ineos's "W" (seagull) foil, I'm assuming they tried out a Fowler flap arrangement. As @Basiliscusmentioned, having a slot between the foil body and flap can be helpful for lift.  However, maximum lift is really only required for take-off.  By the time the boat is doing 30 knots, foil angle is at or close to 0°, with only a small flap angle.  At 40 knots, the flap is primarily used to control flight height, as ample lift is available.

The Ineos team may have also underestimated the opportunities the double skin mainsail offered, and perhaps didn't give this area enough thought. Someone mentioned that BA wasn't overly impressed by it originally?

It will be interesting to see what the next iteration of the AC75 will implement... will ITUK follow ETNZ with foil design, and do something very different with the hull, etc?

Thoughts are, as always, IMO.  :)

From a recent interview it appears the Frackers were expecting to spend more time in displacement mode with the Royal barge and on that note they succeeded... unfortunately.

Crikey what an eyesore both their boats were.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zeusproject said:

 They also had Adrian Newey from Red Bull F1 team involved very early in there team 

No they fucking didn’t. 
 

that was Bermuda or about 1 month with Land Rover BAR before  he realised it was nearly all one design and there was fuck all aero fiddling he could do  as well as he didn’t know how to design a boat. 

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

So in effect Mercedes F1 played an important part in the design of boat B2. If I were Mercedes I’d wouldn’t want to broadcast that fact too much. 

I wouldn’t take DG as an especially reliable source, 

like a crack addict as an informer, will turn tricks for  anyone if he thinks there is a score to be had. His form here is quite spectacular 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites