Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’m not calling this out for the sake of ostracizing you, nor to play PC police on a forum that is notorious for the opposite of that. I could just hit ignore, delete or whatever. I’m calling this out

Hilarious to watch Kiwis who've been around since AC35 twist themselves into intellectual pretzels to give ETNZ a pass on what they screamed bloody murder about when Oracle did it. Even Oracle di

Posted Images

On 3/20/2021 at 5:35 AM, Thewas said:

Not to insist too much, but just a small reminder:
Don't you miss the Italians? :P

No disrespect to the Italians, but I was speaking mainly from the viewpoint of a Defender's backers who find themselves left out in the cold by the actions of the Cup holder.

In fact, AC36 made me quite a Bruni fan, and I have no doubt PB is not pleased, well beyond the general distaste many are feeling, and rightfully so.

There are no saints in the AC game.  It's cut throat and that's part of what makes it unique, and attractive.

However, there still must be certain principles to be a respected, and despite whatever rosy picture may be painted, or defensed by devotees, there is a distinct stench coming from what is being proposed.

Regardless of the legalese, and how that may or may not be decided, adhering to the letter of the law (in this case the DoG) can still violate the spirit of the law.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko:)

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, weta27 said:

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko:)

To be fair Weta, they are ALREADY well and truly on record stating:

 

1. That the Isle of Wight is a possibility (a bit of a dick move, but I don't much are about this).

2. That they are trying to set the class of boat in stone for the next TWO cups (which I am rather apoplectic about).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, weta27 said:

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko:)

The intent has been published. Should we not have an opinion on that, just sit around and wait until it is too late to have an opinion?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, nroose said:

I had forgotten about this. Certainly this makes at least one of the new rules ironic!

Wonderful how changing shoes on feet gives one a reversal of perspective. Ironic indeed.

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

2. That they are trying to set the class of boat in stone for the next TWO cups (which I am rather apoplectic about).

One and a half cups?

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

One and a half cups?

Doesn't matter Kiwing.

By all means threaten the Government with the Isle of Wight or even go and have the race, I'm not especially annoyed about that.

But when you fuck with the cup in a manner that would make Ernie proud, thats where I get off the ETNZ bus.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, weta27 said:

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko:)

This is AC silly season. Nothing concrete will happen for another year/18 months. We have to find something to complain about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, weta27 said:

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko:)

That's what happens when you arrive at a party late, Weta.

Everyone else is pissed and out of their heads and you just can't get in the mood. ;-)

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

around in a straight line

So you're not a navigator then :) or is your keel so heavy it bends space time :)

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

If it were the Americans against the British, in a race around the Isle of Wight, it would have been a rematch of a classic event. This is only a farce, and a cash cow for ETNZ.

It's been done already in 2010. Not an AC match but Ben trying to get his foot in the door and a swansong for IACC boats whilst Oracle decided when, where, and in what, for the next AC.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CheekyMonkey said:

No disrespect to the Italians, but I was speaking mainly from the viewpoint of a Defender's backers who find themselves left out in the cold by the actions of the Cup holder.

In fact, AC36 made me quite a Bruni fan, and I have no doubt PB is not pleased, well beyond the general distaste many are feeling, and rightfully so.

There are no saints in the AC game.  It's cut throat and that's part of what makes it unique, and attractive.

However, there still must be certain principles to be a respected, and despite whatever rosy picture may be painted, or defensed by devotees, there is a distinct stench coming from what is being proposed.

Regardless of the legalese, and how that may or may not be decided, adhering to the letter of the law (in this case the DoG) can still violate the spirit of the law.

I was just being ironic.
Mostly trying to switch my mindset into "standard AC mode" after almost 4 years of ... don't know how to all it: la vie en rose ?
We fanboys are pretty prone to believe in fairy tales, sometimes.
Now back to business, as it's (almost) always been.

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

Surely that means being unable to defend the cup? 

A defence doesn't have to be expensive. They could pick an existing class like tp52s out imoca60 where many designs already exist.

They could do it in plywood optis by mutual consent!

 

 

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

The intent has been published. Should we not have an opinion on that, just sit around and wait until it is too late to have an opinion?

Haha you make it sound like our opinion would count. Be nice if it did. Oh hang on isn’t there a story about how the camel got designed?

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

A defence doesn't have to be expensive. They could pick an existing class like tp52s out imoca60 where many designs already exist.

They could do it in plywood optis by mutual consent!

 

 

Been there done that = DoG

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

Haha you make it sound like our opinion would count. Be nice if it did. Oh hang on isn’t there a story about how the camel got designed?

Just because no one listens to us doesn't mean we aren't entitled to an opinion.

 

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

A defence doesn't have to be expensive. They could pick an existing class like tp52s out imoca60 where many designs already exist.

They could do it in plywood optis by mutual consent!

 

 

I would expect that the specified minimum and maximum  LWL in the DoG overrides mutual consent.

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

Been there done that = DoG

Actually a plywood opti doesn't qualify for a DoG as it's too short. A TP52 would... So would an AC75 and i think you'd be hard pressed to find a boat that would beat one in a DoG race. 

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

Just because no one listens to us doesn't mean we aren't entitled to an opinion.

 

Quite true. 

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

Actually a plywood opti doesn't qualify for a DoG as it's too short. A TP52 would... So would an AC75 and i think you'd be hard pressed to find a boat that would beat one in a DoG race. 

I think it would depend on the conditions. A TP52 is a lot more seaworthy than an AC75.

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

Actually a plywood opti doesn't qualify for a DoG as it's too short. A TP52 would... So would an AC75 and i think you'd be hard pressed to find a boat that would beat one in a DoG race. 

My point was is that if an MC negotiation breaks down the challenger can revert to the DoG and make the event expensive and there is nothing the defender can do about that other than to pony up or hand over the Cup.

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

That was already discussed yesterday or the day before. Mutual consent 1:1 matches have been the norm for ages. A multi challenger AC is nothing that the DoG mandates. Nobody has a right for a multi chall AC.
There were several reasons why ping-pong cups cannot happen for a longer time. One is that the trust must not lead to a bizarre outcome (the actual legal term is different but I've forgotten it). There were other, even better arguments in the discussion.

Yes, for sure, for all that.

The point I am making,

1) I think the hip pocket concept has never been validated in a court

2) Hypothesis: because no YC may have been barred from entering before ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Now that UK is the COR, what if they said, "Fuck it.  No mutual consent. We're going straight DoG in 10 months."

Is an AC75 compliant under strict DoG rules?

1. They will already have a signed deal, so too late.

2. Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Now that UK is the COR, what if they said, "Fuck it.  No mutual consent. We're going straight DoG in 10 months."

Is an AC75 compliant under strict DoG rules?

Yes, but as pointed out it’s not seaworthy - remember, it would be real offshore races

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

Where did you read in the Deed that the defender can shop his challenger in order to eliminate an another one ?

I'll answer on behalf if the other guy!  The D can't. First "valid" challenge must be accepted OR the current holder of the Cup can relinquish it per the terms in the DoG.  

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

1. They will already have a signed deal, so too late.

2. Yes.

1.  Hmmm...  if there was an official mutual consent, wouldn't it be published?  As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, all that has really occurred is that UK has proffered a challenge with "conditions to be determined at a later date" and NZ accepted said challenge. Hypothetically, if all went to shit, UK could force a legit DoG match.  I think. Thoughts?

2. Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blitzkrieg9 said:

1.  Hmmm...  if there was an official mutual consent, wouldn't it be published?  As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, all that has really occurred is that UK has proffered a challenge with "conditions to be determined at a later date" and NZ accepted said challenge. Hypothetically, if all went to shit, UK could force a legit DoG match.  I think. Thoughts?

2. Thanks. 

Well I can't be 100% sure of course, but ETNZ would be grossly incompetent if the document you see them handing over from RYS to RNZYS didn't preclude some of the uglier outcomes.

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

Yes, but as pointed out it’s not seaworthy - remember, it would be real offshore races

Would it?  The harakamami harbor down there in NZ is huge. Couldn't they do a, what, 21 mile race in relatively protected waters?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weta27 said:

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko:)

Ha ha, I just skipped 5 pages to at once come upon your summary..thx!!

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

Yes, but as pointed out it’s not seaworthy - remember, it would be real offshore races

Correct, the AC75 has been raced in lighter conditions than the AC50. Let's say it can survive in stronger conditions, how low can their batteries last ? and the crew ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Would it?  The harakamami harbor down there in NZ is huge. Couldn't they do a, what, 21 mile race in relatively protected waters?

Really sweetheart, why don't you just have one look into the basic rules?

The Deed of Gift for the America's Cup:
 

Quote

...
All such races shall be on ocean courses, free from headlands,
...

 

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

Correct, the AC75 has been raced in lighter conditions than the AC50. Let's say it can survive in stronger conditions, how low can their batteries last ? and the crew ?

You nailed it: batteries are not allowed, unless there’s mutual consent

(20nm each up and down, 13nm triang,e)

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

You nailed it: batteries are not allowed, unless there’s mutual consent

(20nm each up and down, 13nm triang,e)

Nope.

Remember the engines on Dogzilla and Cheesezilla?

They were there cos Lazza failed to have Ernie's engine thrown out in court.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jaysper said:

Nope.

Remember the engines on Dogzilla and Cheesezilla?

They were there cos Lazza failed to have Ernie's engine thrown out in court.

Because Judge Kornreich believed Ernie's lawyer that the engine is a safety measure. She regretted the decision afterwards (no, I have no link, it was a statement in a private conversation).
 

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

Because Judge Kornreich believed Ernie's lawyer that the engine is a safety measure. She regretted the decision afterwards (no, I have no link, it was a statement in a private conversation).
 

However presumably this would mean a precedent has been set. @porthos?

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

However presumably this would mean a precedent has been set. @porthos?

But what if a precedent is wrong? (our legal system works totally different)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, strider470 said:

But what if a precedent is wrong? (our legal system works totally different)

Mate, I'm about as close to a lawyer as I am a billionaire.

However whenever I see some shit on the news, they seem to be always on about precedent.

I don't personally understand it cos if one total fuckhead judge makes the wrong decision, it seems to tie the hands of all subsequent judges.

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

You nailed it: batteries are not allowed, unless there’s mutual consent

(20nm each up and down, 13nm triang,e)

As long as the batteries do not directly propel the boat (ie a battery driven motor) the DoG does not prohibit batteries or winches or crew etc. The two requirements are that the vessel shall be propelled by sails and built in the country of the challenge.  I do not believe these are "conditions of the match" but are conditions of the gift.

 

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

Mate, I'm about as close to a lawyer as I am a billionaire.

However whenever I see some shit on the news, they seem to be always on about precedent.

I don't personally understand it cos if one total fuckhead judge makes the wrong decision, it seems to tie the hands of all subsequent judges.

If I am not mistaken. the supreme court can change that, but I understand less of legal stuff than of AC boats, so not much indeed :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weta27 said:

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko:)

Exactly Weta. 
People on here ecstatic we won the cup, but bitching about how GD managed it. 
some pricks can’t even enjoy the moment. 
 

see ya next cup. 
 

 

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

Doesn't matter Kiwing.

By all means threaten the Government with the Isle of Wight or even go and have the race, I'm not especially annoyed about that.

But when you fuck with the cup in a manner that would make Ernie proud, thats where I get off the ETNZ bus.

Like I said, fuck of then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all a waste of time because RYS and RNZYC are going to agree terms of AC37 by mutual consent.  There is no animosity here and both sides seem interested in a smooth progression to AC37.  There is no hint of a DoG match here or a lawsuit.

They have already agreed that the class of yacht for AC37 is the AC75.

We now patiently wait for further details.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, strider470 said:

If I am not mistaken. the supreme court can change that, but I understand less of legal stuff than of AC boats, so not much indeed :D

The supreme court will not change a decision of the supreme court. If I understand precedent law correctly (our system is different too), to make Judge Kornreich's decision a precedent, the next case needs to be very similar. Means, if it's not a safety concern, "no engine allowed" might work. But maybe that was the original sin.

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

A defence doesn't have to be expensive. They could pick an existing class like tp52s out imoca60 where many designs already exist.

They could do it in plywood optis by mutual consent!

 

 

You can't MC the minimum LWL requirements. That took an amendment to the DoG in 1956.

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

Waaaaahhhh Waaaah! Waaaah!

Want me to call you a Waaaaahmbulance? LOL!

 

Does fuck off require the double f as per the DoG, to be declared a proper insult?

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

Because Judge Kornreich believed Ernie's lawyer that the engine is a safety measure. She regretted the decision afterwards (no, I have no link, it was a statement in a private conversation).
 

However presumably this would mean a precedent has been set. @porthos?

I went back and read J. Kornreich's relevant decision (I think). She allowed the engine for trimming sails because "[t]he Deed docs not, however, contain any restrictions on ballast or design features regarding [motorized] trimming the sails. These features are therefore permitted because they are not prohibited by the language of the Deed." (2009 NY Slip Op 31722(U) .)  GGYC also tried to claim that SNG improperly changed its rules (to include motorized trimming of sails). J. Kornreich also denied that saying: "The court will not read this provision to require that the defending organization is precluded from changing its rules after the Notice of Challenge has been issued. There is no such limiting language in the Deed."

So she allowed the smokers to trim the sails because the Deed only requires that the vessels be powered by the wind and has no restrictions on how you trim sails. 

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

As long as the batteries do not directly propel the boat (ie a battery driven motor) the DoG does not prohibit batteries or winches or crew etc. The two requirements are that the vessel shall be propelled by sails and built in the country of the challenge.  I do not believe these are "conditions of the match" but are conditions of the gift.

 

I must also meet the LWL requirements in the DoG.

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

I don't personally understand it cos if one total fuckhead judge makes the wrong decision, it seems to tie the hands of all subsequent judges.

That sums it up nicely. Its flawed, but it works well too. There is consistency in the application of the law in USA.  We have two systems 1) written law (that the legislature codifies) and 2) case law that the judiciary, well, adjudicates.  Once a precedent has been set, it becomes law. It can be changed but is difficult to do so. 

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

But what if a precedent is wrong? (our legal system works totally different)

It's a tad more complicated than that and nowhere near as scary as you may think it is. We have a hierarchical court system with trial courts at the bottom, appellate courts in the middle, and the supreme court of the state (they may call it something else but there is always one top court) at the top.  A decision by a trial court judge (such as J. Kornreich) is almost never binding beyond the case in which the ruling is made. In other words, a different trial court isn't bound by what a previous trial court did. Now, the trial court may find what the prior trial court decided to be persuasive and a good idea, but it wouldn't be binding. 

Trial courts always have to follow the precedent (prior opinions) of the courts of appeal and the supreme court. 

In all of that, there are ample opportunities to either overturn a prior decision by a trial court or distinguish it as involving different facts such that it doesn't apply.

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

If I am not mistaken. the supreme court can change that, but I understand less of legal stuff than of AC boats, so not much indeed :D

Any court in the USA can change case law. You just need some pretty good justification to do so. Without compelling reason, the law remains the same. 

The Federal Supreme Court in the USA only has one authority (as established by Marbury v. Madison, i believe) and that is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. That's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Put yourself in Grant Dalton's shoes.  He has to raise a LOT of money.  Again.  And this time airlines like Emirates are broke.  What are you going to do?

So if someone offers a huge bucket of money to have a quick race (Isle of Wight), followed by a 'normal' series afterwards (the two events they have fixed the AC75 for), in NZ, and that made all your funding problems disappear, you'd be mad not to find some way to pull that off.  Wouldn't you? 

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

I went back and read J. Kornreich's relevant decision (I think). She allowed the engine for trimming sails because "[t]he Deed docs not, however, contain any restrictions on ballast or design features regarding [motorized] trimming the sails. These features are therefore permitted because they are not prohibited by the language of the Deed." (2009 NY Slip Op 31722(U) .)  GGYC also tried to claim that SNG improperly changed its rules (to include motorized trimming of sails). J. Kornreich also denied that saying: "The court will not read this provision to require that the defending organization is precluded from changing its rules after the Notice of Challenge has been issued. There is no such limiting language in the Deed."

So she allowed the smokers to trim the sails because the Deed only requires that the vessels be powered by the wind and has no restrictions on how you trim sails. 

Thanks for looking that up.

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

I must also meet the LWL requirements in the DoG.

Possibly. 

The NYSC decided that the paragraph describing the challenging club and a vessel propelled by sails built in the country of the challenger/defender could not be amended by mutual consent. (GGYC vs SNG)

The Spanish shell club and its challenge were not allowed.

The dimensions of the vessel come in a later paragraph.  Not sure if they comprise rules and regulations of the match which could be amended by mutual consent. I doubt Defemder and CoR would want to take the risk of going outside those specs, so when NYC wanted to go to 12 meters, it asked the court to amend the dimensions first.

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

I went back and read J. Kornreich's relevant decision (I think). She allowed the engine for trimming sails because "[t]he Deed docs not, however, contain any restrictions on ballast or design features regarding [motorized] trimming the sails. These features are therefore permitted because they are not prohibited by the language of the Deed." (2009 NY Slip Op 31722(U) .)  GGYC also tried to claim that SNG improperly changed its rules (to include motorized trimming of sails). J. Kornreich also denied that saying: "The court will not read this provision to require that the defending organization is precluded from changing its rules after the Notice of Challenge has been issued. There is no such limiting language in the Deed."

So she allowed the smokers to trim the sails because the Deed only requires that the vessels be powered by the wind and has no restrictions on how you trim sails. 

What a ridiculous fight that was . They fought over location, and sails and engines etc.   It illustrates how destructive a DoG match can be.

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

Put yourself in Grant Dalton's shoes.  He has to raise a LOT of money.  Again.  And this time airlines like Emirates are broke.  What are you going to do?

So if someone offers a huge bucket of money to have a quick race (Isle of Wight), followed by a 'normal' series afterwards (the two events they have fixed the AC75 for), in NZ, and that made all your funding problems disappear, you'd be mad not to find some way to pull that off.  Wouldn't you? 

Then in a couple of cycles, Alinghi wins the Cup, chose Club Náutico Español de Vela as COR (which in the mean time became DoG compliant) for a DoG Match, and it's xTNZ's turn to jump an edition... what is going to happen?

This is going to become a very dangerous precedent for the future of the AC.

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

Possibly. 

The NYSC decided that the paragraph describing the challenging club and a vessel propelled by sails built in the country of the challenger/defender could not be amended by mutual consent. (GGYC vs SNG)

The Spanish shell club and its challenge were not allowed.

The dimensions of the vessel come in a later paragraph.  Not sure if they comprise rules and regulations of the match which could be amended by mutual consent. I doubt Defemder and CoR would want to take the risk of going outside those specs, so when NYC wanted to go to 12 meters, it asked the court to amend the dimensions first.

This is again a question of the sections in the Deed. IIRC the LWL is not MCable. You're right, that's why it was changed by a Deed change.

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

It's a tad more complicated than that and nowhere near as scary as you may think it is. We have a hierarchical court system with trial courts at the bottom, appellate courts in the middle, and the supreme court of the state (they may call it something else but there is always one top court) at the top.  A decision by a trial court judge (such as J. Kornreich) is almost never binding beyond the case in which the ruling is made. In other words, a different trial court isn't bound by what a previous trial court did. Now, the trial court may find what the prior trial court decided to be persuasive and a good idea, but it wouldn't be binding. 

Trial courts always have to follow the precedent (prior opinions) of the courts of appeal and the supreme court. 

In all of that, there are ample opportunities to either overturn a prior decision by a trial court or distinguish it as involving different facts such that it doesn't apply.

+1,000.  At last!  I've found *somebody* that knows US law. Well done. Well done. 

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

Put yourself in Grant Dalton's shoes.  He has to raise a LOT of money.  Again.  And this time airlines like Emirates are broke.  What are you going to do?

So if someone offers a huge bucket of money to have a quick race (Isle of Wight), followed by a 'normal' series afterwards (the two events they have fixed the AC75 for), in NZ, and that made all your funding problems disappear, you'd be mad not to find some way to pull that off.  Wouldn't you? 

Nope.

No particular problem with the Isle of Wight. But fucking with the DoG like that is a deal breaker.

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

Possibly. 

The NYSC decided that the paragraph describing the challenging club and a vessel propelled by sails built in the country of the challenger/defender could not be amended by mutual consent. (GGYC vs SNG)

The Spanish shell club and its challenge were not allowed.

The dimensions of the vessel come in a later paragraph.  Not sure if they comprise rules and regulations of the match which could be amended by mutual consent. I doubt Defemder and CoR would want to take the risk of going outside those specs, so when NYC wanted to go to 12 meters, it asked the court to amend the dimensions first.

That amendment to reduce the LWL is a precedent that the court today would probably follow. You want to reduce LWL? Amend the DoG.

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

Well, they explicitly didn't in GGYC vs. SNG. Otherwise we wouldn't have had VLC in Feb. I thought we were talking AC here.

Dude. I'm sorry. You keep making blanket statements regarding the authority of the US Courts. I provide examples that prove your assertions wrong.  Then you attack me.  I'm done bro. I'm sorry. I won't contradict you further.  You win. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dhebbs said:

Put yourself in Grant Dalton's shoes.  He has to raise a LOT of money.  Again.  And this time airlines like Emirates are broke.  What are you going to do?

So if someone offers a huge bucket of money to have a quick race (Isle of Wight), followed by a 'normal' series afterwards (the two events they have fixed the AC75 for), in NZ, and that made all your funding problems disappear, you'd be mad not to find some way to pull that off.  Wouldn't you? 

So as a Kiwi you'd be okay with the risk of losing the Cup in a foreign country just over a year after ETNZ won it? And if that happened you'd be okay with hosting an AC in Auckland where ETNZ would be one of several challengers and not guaranteed to be in the match?

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

So as a Kiwi you'd be okay with the risk of losing the Cup in a foreign country just over a year after ETNZ won it? And if that happened you'd be okay with hosting an AC in Auckland where ETNZ would be one of several challengers and not guaranteed to be in the match?

I think GD actually prefers to put the teams in the CSS to have more training in race. And being in NZ they would have much more races and visibility as a challenger

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

So as a Kiwi you'd be okay with the risk of losing the Cup in a foreign country just over a year after ETNZ won it? And if that happened you'd be okay with hosting an AC in Auckland where ETNZ would be one of several challengers and not guaranteed to be in the match?

If the alternative is loosing the Kiwi design team to billionaire overseas teams because I simply can't scrape the dosh together, then, well, I wouldn't love it, but I am open to the idea of guaranteeing TNZ a serious crack at the whip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

Dude. I'm sorry. You keep making blanket statements regarding the authority of the US Courts. I provide examples that prove your assertions wrong.  Then you attack me.  I'm done bro. I'm sorry. I won't contradict you further.  You win. 

Whatever girl. I have no idea where I attacked you, au contraire, I sometimes even enjoyed the "conversation". But if you feel attacked, I will scroll on when you post. No big deal.

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

Whatever girl. I have no idea where I attacked you, au contraire, I sometimes even enjoyed the "conversation". But if you feel attacked, I will scroll on when you post. No big deal.

I've enjoyed the conversation as well, my friend. But you talk a lot in terms of "can or can not" when most of the time you should be saying "will or will not".   

I think we'd be on the same page 100% then. Will the courts do X?  No, no they will not. *Can* the courts do X?  Yes.  Emphatically YES. 

There is a huge gulf between "can" and "will" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

I've enjoyed the conversation as well, my friend. But you talk a lot in terms of "can or can not" when most of the time you should be saying "will or will not".   

I think we'd be on the same page 100% then. Will the courts do X?  No, no they will not. *Can* the courts do X?  Yes.  Emphatically YES. 

There is a huge gulf between "can" and "will" 

"Could do" and "might do" may be more suitable terms.

As we used to say in sailing, anyone who goes into a protest hearing claiming to know how the jury will decide hasn't been involved in many protests. A court isn't necessarily any different.

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

Correct, the AC75 has been raced in lighter conditions than the AC50. Let's say it can survive in stronger conditions, how low can their batteries last ? and the crew ?

I think we need to get rid of large energy stores for all classes of sailing.  This includes canters that do offshore races with a diesel generator running the whole time.

Make them use hydro generators to charge batteries (or oil bombs) that can only handle a few manoeuvres .  This will not only stop them being power boats, but bring in a new aspect of variability.  Imagine a tacking duel where both boats are near the bottom of their energy store, so after each tack they have a choice between boat speed or charging their store ready for the next manoeuvre.    Boats that can sail fast without constant foil adjustments will have a benefit as they will have less drag from less charging.

Load on the grinders is more difficult, as you don't want them stroking out.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, weta27 said:

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko:)

If the NYYC feels obliged to react, the possibility is high enough to be worth commenting it.

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

I think we need to get rid of large energy stores for all classes of sailing.  This includes canters that do offshore races with a diesel generator running the whole time.

Make them use hydro generators to charge batteries (or oil bombs) that can only handle a few manoeuvres .  This will not only stop them being power boats, but bring in a new aspect of variability.  Imagine a tacking duel where both boats are near the bottom of their energy store, so after each tack they have a choice between boat speed or charging their store ready for the next manoeuvre.    Boats that can sail fast without constant foil adjustments will have a benefit as they will have less drag from less charging.

Load on the grinders is more difficult, as you don't want them stroking out.

 

I could not agree more, we have to ban energy storage, allow racing between 5 to 40 kts and have a variety of courses, short and long. All that would allow us to have much more seaworthy boats.

I don't know how they can sail the AC75 around the Isle of Wight, they lack batteries, they probably lack man powered energy, their hulls are so wide that hitting a wave could damage them. As Verdier was saying, he was willing to have a much narower, trimaran type, hull at the beginning, he was imposed these wide hulls.

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

I think we need to get rid of large energy stores for all classes of sailing.  This includes canters that do offshore races with a diesel generator running the whole time.

Make them use hydro generators to charge batteries (or oil bombs) that can only handle a few manoeuvres .  This will not only stop them being power boats, but bring in a new aspect of variability.  Imagine a tacking duel where both boats are near the bottom of their energy store, so after each tack they have a choice between boat speed or charging their store ready for the next manoeuvre.    Boats that can sail fast without constant foil adjustments will have a benefit as they will have less drag from less charging.

Load on the grinders is more difficult, as you don't want them stroking out.

 

 

So, in the AC, this is already the case!!!  For AC35 the maximum hydraulic oil storage tank was 6 liters.   

AC36 was very similar. There is no significant storage.   Mozzy did the interview with the Ineos grinder and LSD did the interview with the AM trimmer.   They both said the same thing. 95% of the time the power is being generated in real-time.  The storage tanks are really just to "even the flow" so you don't have jumps and jerks. 

In the AM trimmer interview he talks about how after a tack, he could only trim "so much" as he had to wait for the pressure to build.  So you move the big shit that makes the most difference, then you do the finer trimming as the pressure builds back up. 

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

If the alternative is loosing the Kiwi design team to billionaire overseas teams because I simply can't scrape the dosh together, then, well, I wouldn't love it, but I am open to the idea of guaranteeing TNZ a serious crack at the whip.

Fair enough. It seems the definition of having to prostitute onself when there is no other means of support. I'm surprised there are some prepared to suck it up.

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

That's what happens when you arrive at a party late, Weta.

Everyone else is pissed and out of their heads and you just can't get in the mood. ;-)

All the available girls have given up and gone home, the beer's run out, somebody's repeatedly chucking up on the dancefloor and the DJ is playing the same f***ing song over and over again ....

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

I went back and read J. Kornreich's relevant decision (I think). She allowed the engine for trimming sails because "[t]he Deed docs not, however, contain any restrictions on ballast or design features regarding [motorized] trimming the sails. These features are therefore permitted because they are not prohibited by the language of the Deed." (2009 NY Slip Op 31722(U) .)  GGYC also tried to claim that SNG improperly changed its rules (to include motorized trimming of sails). J. Kornreich also denied that saying: "The court will not read this provision to require that the defending organization is precluded from changing its rules after the Notice of Challenge has been issued. There is no such limiting language in the Deed."

So she allowed the smokers to trim the sails because the Deed only requires that the vessels be powered by the wind and has no restrictions on how you trim sails. 

Is this decision publicly available? Can't find anything when googling the citation and don't have access to a subscription-based reporter.  

Link to post
Share on other sites