Jump to content

The AC 37 has started, news and rumours


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gissie said:

Sweet, we could run it out of McMurdo base. Lots of penguins as replacement spectators.

I've flown over Antarctica, looks stunning but a bit chilly? 

We were to see Mt Erebus, but weather conditions weren't suitable so we flew over the French and Aussie bases - red path is approximate:

Capture.JPG.8fef5c2c1551da22c9c40a96a3e9136e.JPG

Only a year or so later, the fateful 1979 flight from Auckland crashed on Mt Erebus, as a result of a "whiteout".   RIP.

Capture2.JPG.60349e7eee167517ad16bd35b6f68f1e.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • 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

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 )

Posted Images

1 hour ago, JonRowe said:

According to the Greenbird webpage, the current ice boat record is only 84mph, and they are confident there adapted "boat" can beat that.

Iceboat record appears to be 230 kph:

https://iceboats.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/iceboat-sponsor-kit-non-print-ready.pdf

Getting back to what is interesting to me. I found the 2007 AC 7 race series to be some of the best white knuckle sailboat match racing I've ever seen. Watch it for free on YouTube, about 27 minutes per race:  

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2021 at 5:50 PM, jaysper said:

I don't think you can overstate the importance of a key leadership figure such as Bernasconi.

You can have amazing talent and fuck it all up if the leadership and team culture are fucked.

I think INEOS are a reasonable indicator of this.

I think Ineos outperformed the potential of their design by reaching the Prada Cup final . Team culture seemed pretty good to me. b

However I agree that leadership is key in design teams and that Bernasconi is hugely talented guy.  It will be interesting to see if he stays with ETNZ or goes somewhere else for 37/38 or if Formula One tries to hire him back. Massive talent and leadership skills as well.

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

From NY Times, 24/12/17

So who's responsible for the AC75?

"Bernasconi says the boat should foil at 9 knots of wind speed and be capable of hydrofoiling for an entire Cup race in the right conditions. It is still in the conceptual phase: the class rule will not be finalized until March. But before Team New Zealand won the Cup, Verdier said he had already come up with a similar design for a 38-foot monohull for a private client in New Zealand who was brought to Verdier by Ray Davies, a longtime Team New Zealand sailor.

 

The initial drawing for that project still had a keel.

“We sat together with the client, and Ray said, ‘Hey, come on! After all we’ve learned, you’ve got to get rid of this keel. It’s looking draggy to have so much in the water,’” Verdier said. “And I said, ‘Yes, but Ray, it’s going to capsize too easily. We need some minimum stability here.’ ”

The solution was to propose putting the weight in the foils instead.

“That is completely counterintuitive because the foil is a lifting surface, so why put lead in a lifting surface?” Verdier said. “We need some stability before we start flying, so we make the foils like canting keels. This kind of boat existed in the past, with twin keels, so I said, ‘Let’s make a kind of twin keel but with foils, not too heavy, just enough so we can right it up at 90 degrees when we cant it the correct way.’”

That 38-footer has yet to be built, but at the end of a very big year for Verdier, he and Bernasconi and Team New Zealand will soon be building a much bigger version with much more at stake."

Pretty  close from the description given by Guillaume Verdier, he gives some more details at the end. In fact the original concept comes from Martin Defline.

AC75

-          One day day Ray Davis asks me to meet Howard Spencer, willing to get a fun 40 ft.

-          I design a foiling mono

-          Ray says that the keel is too much

-          I tell him it’s possible, however we need stability

-          I remember that a french architect, Martin Defline has made two queels boats who are pretty efficient, so we can do the same thing with ballast at the end of the foil

-          It’s counter intuitive to put weight where we want a lift but calcules show it is 50% more efficient that with the keel for the same mass.

-          The project doesn’t work as too expensive for the individual who asked for this boat

-          The Italians want a big mono for AC36, we could have a had a smaller boat for economic reasons

-          Ray Davies puts my drawing on the table, everybody laugh. He tells us: I give you one month to test the concept to test If it works in a simulator. I was not there, I did not test, Bobby tested the design and they said it was a fun concept and it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

1. The UK does a fantastic job at developing its young talent and has a pipeline of sailors that the US would die for. 

You make many good points - especially about our problem in the US.  The sport here has moved away from athletic sailing.  We seem to prefer sailing slowing and in a seated position.  Some bright spots in the 49er, FX, and especially the Nacra 17.

But the notion that all Ben needs is a faster ride in antiquated.  The days of sitting on a fast boat that sails itself - trim the main and jib and sit down - are gone.  The Kiwis boats are faster because the equipment AND THE SAILING MODES are developed with significant input from Glenn, Peter and Blair.  Those guys are miles ahead of Ben.  Before Bermuda, they envisioned trimming modes from their A-Cat experience that were going to allow smaller foils and require huge amounts of oil pressure.  That insight drove their innovation.  We saw the same thing this time - Moth and A-Cat sailing techniques that allowed for smaller foils.

Honestly, I think a UK victory would be great for the Cup and I'd love to see it.  To get there, the UK would be better off letting Ben use is celebrity to raise enough money to sustain a longterm AC team, as Peter Blake did.  And letting Ben use his intelligence and fierce drive to learn to be a great CEO.  

If he stays focused on personal glory, good chance he will continue eat the Kiwis exhaust.

 

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

You make many good points - especially about our problem in the US.  The sport here has moved away from athletic sailing.  We seem to prefer sailing slowing and in a seated position.  Some bright spots in the 49er, FX, and especially the Nacra 17.

But the notion that all Ben needs is a faster ride in antiquated.  The days of sitting on a fast boat that sails itself - trim the main and jib and sit down - are gone.  The Kiwis boats are faster because the equipment AND THE SAILING MODES are developed with significant input from Glenn, Peter and Blair.  Those guys are miles ahead of Ben.  Before Bermuda, they envisioned trimming modes from their A-Cat experience that were going to allow smaller foils and require huge amounts of oil pressure.  That insight drove their innovation.  We saw the same thing this time - Moth and A-Cat sailing techniques that allowed for smaller foils.

Honestly, I think a UK victory would be great for the Cup and I'd love to see it.  To get there, the UK would be better off letting Ben use is celebrity to raise enough money to sustain a longterm AC team, as Peter Blake did.  And letting Ben use his intelligence and fierce drive to learn to be a great CEO.  

If he stays focused on personal glory, good chance he will continue eat the Kiwis exhaust.

 

All good points bulg....but I continue to think that you underestimate Bens technical skills and foiling chops. Ben does not spend his time on comfy boats. At one time, he was contemplating a 6th medal in the Nacra (and I suspect he would have got one) but decided to focus on the AC and the best activity outside of the AC itself was the various high performance multi hull circuits and match racing.

I am not convinced there is a better foiling helm in the UK currently. I look at the best 3 moth and nacra sailors and I think Ben is probably better than they are. However I do think there are some choices for the CEO role.

Obviously I would like to see AM come back strongly...but I think that team needs more work. The sailing team for AM needs a complete revamp.  TH would probably be a good CEO and fund raiser but his error in judgement on putting together the sailing team scores against him a bit.  They really need to raise the bar , but they dont have a lot of options.  Rome Kirby and Brad Funk have been putting time in the Moth , but again, I dont think the moth is a very complex foiling boat ...but at least they develop "feel" . Howveer I think that most US high performamce sailors have a long way to catch up with the Kiwis, Brits and Italians.  We have not had much success in high performance classes for a long time and Rome is nowhere close to Ben A, Tom S, and Nathan O and Cecci when he goes up against them in foiling.

Yes I also agree a UK winner for the AC would be good for long term future of the cup.

 

Ashby and Burling are amazing but the Moth is not the complex boat that you think it is. The A cat is more technical and Glen's skills in developing a boat speed advantage and his role as skipper on ETNZ are part of TNZ's secret sauce. My gut tells me that the combo of Glenn and Burling and Tuke give great feedback to the design team and are good at figuring out how to get the best from the boat.   Glenn is very analytical and Burling has incredible feel.   ......However after the kwis, I would rank the Brits as having a deep bench of high perf sailors and Ben is part of that cadre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By sheer chance, YouTube suggested something that could well be considered for the AC75 v2, especially for asynchronous foil syzygy to reduce borborygmi, which leads to sternutation and even micturation at googol velocities :

Ref: tinyurl.com/AC37_Simple_Science

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

Why should they?

Well, if Bruno Trouble is right and the next AC is sailed in 2022 in Auckland with the existing Generation 2 Boats I can't see Ratcliffe & Ainslie agreeing to this since they would be penalized too much because Te Rehutai & Luna Rossa are faster than Britannia 2 therefore I can see them pulling the plug.

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

Well, if Bruno Trouble is right and the next AC is sailed in 2022 in Auckland with the existing Generation 2 Boats I can't see Ratcliffe & Ainslie agreeing to this since they would be penalized too much because Te Rehutai & Luna Rossa are faster than Britannia 2 therefore I can see them pulling the plug.

If they dont agree with this, why would they withdraw as CoR?   CoR has right of veto.

However, I dont think they withdraw or veto

1.  Ineos will build a new boat for 2022 and another new boat for 2024.

2. Rat has said the decision of where to host AC 37 is up to NZl.

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

Well, if Bruno Trouble is right and the next AC is sailed in 2022 in Auckland with the existing Generation 2 Boats I can't see Ratcliffe & Ainslie agreeing to this since they would be penalized too much because Te Rehutai & Luna Rossa are faster than Britannia 2 therefore I can see them pulling the plug.

But if they can't reach agreement then everything so far gets tossed and it becomes a DoG challenge and ITUK can sail whatever they want!

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

Well, if Bruno Trouble is right and the next AC is sailed in 2022 in Auckland with the existing Generation 2 Boats I can't see Ratcliffe & Ainslie agreeing to this since they would be penalized too much because Te Rehutai & Luna Rossa are faster than Britannia 2 therefore I can see them pulling the plug.

Luna Rossa can’t use the boat they challenged with until 2024

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

Luna Rossa can’t use the boat they challenged with until 2024

I doubt they would, anyway. I'm afraid the next LR will be uglier and faster

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

I doubt they would, anyway. I'm afraid the next LR will be uglier and faster

If it wins the AC you will find it the most beautiful boat in the world. 

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

If it wins the AC you will find it the most beautiful boat in the world. 

Nope, but maybe proudly ugly :D

I could close an eye, even two :D

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

I agree, but it will be a natural choice, not an anti-deed agreement.

And I'm sure Luna Rossa would chose the same Class.

I have zero fucking problem with them indicating they prefer the AC75 despite the fact that I don't

But when they start to make acceptance of this a condition of entry? Fuck em.

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

I doubt they would, anyway. I'm afraid the next LR will be uglier and faster

At the risk of triggering you Strider, I thought the AM boat was the most attractive this time around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DougH said:

Getting back to what is interesting to me. I found the 2007 AC 7 race series to be some of the best white knuckle sailboat match racing I've ever seen. Watch it for free on YouTube, about 27 minutes per race:  

Agreed! Super exciting, despite us getting beaten.

Just wish it was the FULL race.

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

Agreed! Super exciting, despite us getting beaten.

Just wish it was the FULL race.

Yeah, I never quite fully understand why they didn't uploaded the Full Races for AC32. I mean they have fully uploaded AC31!

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

I have zero fucking problem with them indicating they prefer the AC75 despite the fact that I don't

But when they start to make acceptance of this a condition of entry? Fuck em.

Exactly, Ben can have his preferences, but not twist the Deed.

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

Exactly, Ben can have his preferences, but not twist the Deed.

So I am not a huge fan of ETNZ shopping around the hosting rights for the cup, regardless of whether it is a bargaining ploy or not. However, it wouldn't cause me to abandon them as a team.

But this AC75 thing is a deal breaker.

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

So I am not a huge fan of ETNZ shopping around the hosting rights for the cup, regardless of whether it is a bargaining ploy or not. However, it wouldn't cause me to abandon them as a team.

But this AC75 thing is a deal breaker.

I have to say that if Dalton has to defend without the budget I have some empathy for him, as far as he does not try to denature the Deed.

The AC75 provides a good show but I think that the need a new upgrade to make it really exciting, their hull is too wide, if they hit a wave at 45 kts they would probably damage tjhe structure. It that what happened to AM before the final blow and capsize ? Their flat hull was less forgiving. It should look what it is when flying, a trimaran with a narrow central hull, then we really have a extreme boat.

Meanwhile I will be happy to see the AC50s with a small wing in strong conditions, it will be epic.

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

The AC75 provides a good show but I think that the need a new upgrade to make it really exciting, their hull is too wide, if they hit a wave at 45 kts they would probably damage tjhe structure. It that what happened to AM before the final blow and capsize ? Their flat hull was less forgiving. It should look what it is when flying, a trimaran with a narrow central hull, then we really have a extreme boat.

Yeah maybe.. But that was one helluva skyjump! 

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

I have zero fucking problem with them indicating they prefer the AC75 despite the fact that I don't

But when they start to make acceptance of this a condition of entry? Fuck em.

There’s an easy fix to that problem. Just don’t enter. Or enter, agreeing to those terms, win and change them, just as Team NZ did in Bermuda. They are quite within their rights as Challengers to do that. It really isn’t a big deal.

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

There’s an easy fix to that problem. Just don’t enter. Or enter, agreeing to those terms, win and change them, just as Team NZ did in Bermuda. They are quite within their rights as Challengers to do that. It really isn’t a big deal.

So why put it in? In Bermuda the agreement was a side contract, not a condition of entry. Now they want to try and make it a condition of entry, even though they know it is not legally enforceable.

Seems like a real dick move with no upside at any point. If 37 is just a 1 on 1, why not just have a joint presser announcing the commitment to same boat in Auckland no matter who wins.

Perhaps a desperate throw of the dice by Dalts, but just makes no sense at all.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Seems like a real dick move with no upside at any point. If 37 is just a 1 on 1, why not just have a joint presser announcing the commitment to same boat in Auckland no matter who wins.

Perhaps a desperate throw of the dice by Dalts, but just makes no sense at all.

It makes sense for the same reasons RC likely had. If agreement by all possible winners could be had, then it creates some degree of certainty for other parties including broadcasters and various various potential team sponsors. 

But it was done properly, nobody was forced to agree the boat for the subsequent Match. 

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

But it was done properly, nobody was forced to agree the boat for the subsequent Match. 

I was against the framework agreement but you are completely right, nobody was forced to agree the subsequent protocol.

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

I was against the framework agreement but you are completely right, nobody was forced to agree the subsequent protocol.

Right.. Turns out the AC75 is a great platform and so it worked out well. 
 

A lot of team ‘principals’ including Patrizio have commented about the importance of Class continuity and had he not yanked the chain on LR for AC35 Bermuda and instead competed, it’s quite possible that even he would have voted to keep the AC50’s as the start of a long-lived Class, who knows? He did enter for the original AC62 Cup, also for the AC72 Cup in SF. 
 

Ken Read and others have mused about where the AC72 Beasts might have evolved to by now, I wish that had happened! :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see there is still discussion about ETNZ's 'requirement' for teams to agree to the class of boat for next 2 cycles.  Rightly most people disagree with the 'requirement' part of their protocol.  Comparison is made to Oracle's attempt in 2017 and that hypocritically ETNZ wouldn't agree to that.  What most people forget is that Oracle was wanting more than just an agreement on the class of boat.  The agreement reached with all teams apart from ETNZ is set out below.  This wasn't being forced on ETNZ - but also, it was a far far greater and wide-reaching framework.

  • The America’s Cup will be on a two-yearly cycle for AC36 (2019) and AC37 (2021).
  • The America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) will start, at the election of the defender, as soon as Q4 2017. Venues, sponsors and media partners will be approached over the next six months to secure up to 12 international events over the next two years.
  • The first year of the America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) will be raced in AC45F foiling catamarans – the same boats used in America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) in the 35th America’s Cup.
  • The second year will see a transition to the America’s Cup Class (ACC) boats, the same technically sophisticated class of boats raced in Bermuda in 2017 (with a slight rule modification to extend the wind range in which they can race to 4 to 26 knots). After this transition to the America’s Cup Class (ACC), the AC45Fs will be retired from the America’s Cup competition and the ACC boats will be the only boats raced.
  • The America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) will culminate with a final event at the venue for the next America’s Cup and the final standings from the America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) will be used to qualify teams for the America’s Cup Challenger Playoffs.
  • The America’s Cup Challenger Finals and America’s Cup Match will be held in 2019 in a venue selected by the winner of the 35th America’s Cup.
  • To reduce costs, teams will not be permitted to build, test or train on AC45 surrogate boats as they have in this cycle of the America’s Cup.
  • This above will repeat for AC37, with the exception that all racing will take place in America’s Cup Class (ACC) boats.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Right.. Turns out the AC75 is a great platform and so it worked out well. 
 

A lot of team ‘principals’ including Patrizio have commented about the importance of Class continuity and had he not yanked the chain on LR for AC35 Bermuda and instead competed, it’s quite possible that even he would have voted to keep the AC50’s as the start of a long-lived Class, who knows? He did enter for the original AC62 Cup, also for the AC72 Cup in SF. 
 

Ken Read and others have mused about where the AC72 Beasts might have evolved to by now, I wish that had happened! :) 

That must be very, very insteresting, do you have a link ? The F50 may perhaps get at the same place with a more affordable boat, but the AC72 beasts were awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 1eyedkiwi said:

I see there is still discussion about ETNZ's 'requirement' for teams to agree to the class of boat for next 2 cycles.  Rightly most people disagree with the 'requirement' part of their protocol.  Comparison is made to Oracle's attempt in 2017 and that hypocritically ETNZ wouldn't agree to that.  What most people forget is that Oracle was wanting more than just an agreement on the class of boat.  The agreement reached with all teams apart from ETNZ is set out below.  This wasn't being forced on ETNZ - but also, it was a far far greater and wide-reaching framework.

  • The America’s Cup will be on a two-yearly cycle for AC36 (2019) and AC37 (2021).
  • The America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) will start, at the election of the defender, as soon as Q4 2017. Venues, sponsors and media partners will be approached over the next six months to secure up to 12 international events over the next two years.
  • The first year of the America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) will be raced in AC45F foiling catamarans – the same boats used in America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) in the 35th America’s Cup.
  • The second year will see a transition to the America’s Cup Class (ACC) boats, the same technically sophisticated class of boats raced in Bermuda in 2017 (with a slight rule modification to extend the wind range in which they can race to 4 to 26 knots). After this transition to the America’s Cup Class (ACC), the AC45Fs will be retired from the America’s Cup competition and the ACC boats will be the only boats raced.
  • The America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) will culminate with a final event at the venue for the next America’s Cup and the final standings from the America’s Cup World Series (ACWS) will be used to qualify teams for the America’s Cup Challenger Playoffs.
  • The America’s Cup Challenger Finals and America’s Cup Match will be held in 2019 in a venue selected by the winner of the 35th America’s Cup.
  • To reduce costs, teams will not be permitted to build, test or train on AC45 surrogate boats as they have in this cycle of the America’s Cup.
  • This above will repeat for AC37, with the exception that all racing will take place in America’s Cup Class (ACC) boats.

So that makes it okay for TNZ to make part of the entry conditions?

Yeah, nah. Oracle was wrong, but at least it was a voluntary side bar. TNZ are making it compulsory as a condition of entry.

Way, way over the line. At this rate history will look back at Oracle as just beginners in the fuck the cup, I want to keep it stakes.

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

That must be very, very insteresting, do you have a link ? The F50 may perhaps get at the same place with a more affordable boat, but the AC72 beasts were awesome.

Agreed! 
 

Sorry, don’t have good links handy but he may have repeated it in the latest Shirley R podcast. 

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

There’s an easy fix to that problem. Just don’t enter. Or enter, agreeing to those terms, win and change them, just as Team NZ did in Bermuda. They are quite within their rights as Challengers to do that. It really isn’t a big deal.

And so that makes ETNZ's behaviour acceptable?

Just wondering, are you one of the people that went nuts at Orifice in Bermuda?

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Gissie said:

So that makes it okay for TNZ to make part of the entry conditions?

No it doesn't and I didn't say it did.  I agree that it is unacceptable.

51 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Way, way over the line. At this rate history will look back at Oracle as just beginners in the fuck the cup, I want to keep it stakes.

I don't think that ETNZ/INEOS wanting the class of boat to be consistent for a couple of cycles is a way of ETNZ keeping the cup.  It is more beneficial to challenges for the class to be consistent rather than the defender.  Which is one of the reasons why, although I don't think ETNZ should have made it a condition of entry, I think all challengers will agree.  They can still host the Cup where they want and make the format whatever they want, they just have to keep the class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 1eyedkiwi said:

 

I don't think that ETNZ/INEOS wanting the class of boat to be consistent for a couple of cycles is a way of ETNZ keeping the cup.  It is more beneficial to challenges for the class to be consistent rather than the defender.  Which is one of the reasons why, although I don't think ETNZ should have made it a condition of entry, I think all challengers will agree.  They can still host the Cup where they want and make the format whatever they want, they just have to keep the class.

Precisely.

The wealthy patrons who foot the bills want a degree of certainty for a couple of cycles that the class will stay the same......as it did during the 12 meters.....as it did during the IACC.

The Deed did not envisage multi challengers and a challenger series. Arguably the same clause in the DoG (which some feel prohibits including agreeing to the AC75 as a condition of entry) could be interpreted to disallow a challenger series.....but the participants want a multi-challenger event and a challenger series, so as a side agreement separate from the DoG ,all the participants have agreed that who ever wins the challenger series, goes on to replace the challenger in the cup final. The Deed does not allow that.....but the modern cup protocol allows it.

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

No it doesn't and I didn't say it did.  I agree that it is unacceptable.

I don't think that ETNZ/INEOS wanting the class of boat to be consistent for a couple of cycles is a way of ETNZ keeping the cup.  It is more beneficial to challenges for the class to be consistent rather than the defender.  Which is one of the reasons why, although I don't think ETNZ should have made it a condition of entry, I think all challengers will agree.  They can still host the Cup where they want and make the format whatever they want, they just have to keep the class.

Apologies, it just came across that you were excusing the behaviour due to what Oracle had done.

In the end ot is the ham fisted way they have gone about doing something that they bitched about Oracle doing. Yet they try and make it a condition of entry. There are different ways they could have achieved a semblance of continuity without kicking the hornets nest and pissing people off.

I still struggle to see why it was done. The only answer I can see as possible is TNZ is in deep shit and Dalton is trying a bit of a hail Mary.

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

Right.. Turns out the AC75 is a great platform and so it worked out well. 
 

A lot of team ‘principals’ including Patrizio have commented about the importance of Class continuity and had he not yanked the chain on LR for AC35 Bermuda and instead competed, it’s quite possible that even he would have voted to keep the AC50’s as the start of a long-lived Class, who knows? He did enter for the original AC62 Cup, also for the AC72 Cup in SF. 
 

Ken Read and others have mused about where the AC72 Beasts might have evolved to by now, I wish that had happened! :) 

Apparently the AC72's were becoming a touch too dangerous to sail. Ian Murray was quite relieved to get the teams back to base safely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1eyedkiwi said:

No it doesn't and I didn't say it did.  I agree that it is unacceptable.

I don't think that ETNZ/INEOS wanting the class of boat to be consistent for a couple of cycles is a way of ETNZ keeping the cup.  It is more beneficial to challenges for the class to be consistent rather than the defender.  Which is one of the reasons why, although I don't think ETNZ should have made it a condition of entry, I think all challengers will agree.  They can still host the Cup where they want and make the format whatever they want, they just have to keep the class.

I don't think its a way of keeping the cup either.

However it is still a disgraceful attempt to subvert the intent of the deed.

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

Precisely.

The wealthy patrons who foot the bills want a degree of certainty for a couple of cycles that the class will stay the same......as it did during the 12 meters.....as it did during the IACC.

The Deed did not envisage multi challengers and a challenger series. Arguably the same clause in the DoG (which some feel prohibits including agreeing to the AC75 as a condition of entry) could be interpreted to disallow a challenger series.....but the participants want a multi-challenger event and a challenger series, so as a side agreement separate from the DoG ,all the participants have agreed that who ever wins the challenger series, goes on to replace the challenger in the cup final. The Deed does not allow that.....but the modern cup protocol allows it.

It's not like this. The Deed gives plenty of power to change some rules for the CURRENT AC by mutual consent. But it certainly does not for deciding any subsequent AC.

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

I don't think its a way of keeping the cup either.

However it is still a disgraceful attempt to subvert the intent of the deed.

Jaysper your dislike of the AC75 being used for the next two cup cycles is well known. It’s a free world and you don’t have to justify your opinion. Your clearly very annoyed by this part of the new protocol. But I’m not to sure where the major crime is.

I might be wrong, but I see non of the existing syndicates getting upset by this point. LR and AM are not happy with the DOG match, but apart from this the existing teams like the AC75 boats. The biggest surprise is AM giving the AC75 a thumbs up. 
 

Im failing to see a victim here ?

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

Jaysper your dislike of the AC75 being used for the next two cup cycles is well known. It’s a free world and you don’t have to justify your opinion. Your clearly very annoyed by this part of the new protocol. But I’m not to sure where the major crime is.

I might be wrong, but I see non of the existing syndicates getting upset by this point. LR and AM are not happy with the DOG match, but apart from this the existing teams like the AC75 boats. The biggest surprise is AM giving the AC75 a thumbs up. 
 

Im failing to see a victim here ?

In my opinion a multi AC protocol requirement is a crime against the Deed, even if I think all the teams more or less agree on the class. The 1 - 1 match is a crime against sportsmanship. And shopping the venue is a crime against New Zealand.

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

Jaysper your dislike of the AC75 being used for the next two cup cycles is well known. It’s a free world and you don’t have to justify your opinion. Your clearly very annoyed by this part of the new protocol. But I’m not to sure where the major crime is.

I might be wrong, but I see non of the existing syndicates getting upset by this point. LR and AM are not happy with the DOG match, but apart from this the existing teams like the AC75 boats. The biggest surprise is AM giving the AC75 a thumbs up. 
 

Im failing to see a victim here ?

They are attempting to subvert the deed, period. Absolutely NOTHING else is relevant.

 

Shopping the hosting rights? Irrelevant.

Other syndicates love the AC75? Irrelevant.

I hate the AC75? Irrelevant.

However attempting to subvert the deed is entirely relevant and when Orifice attempted a watered down version of this in Bermuda most of the Kiwis on here were apoplectic. But now *crickets*.

If you support your own team for doing the same sort of shit you criticised another team for doing, you're a hypocrite plain and simple.

Now I don't remember if you fall into this category or not, but plenty of Kiwis here sure as shit do.

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

At the risk of triggering you Strider, I thought the AM boat hull was the most attractive this time around.

I fixed it for you.;) (AM sails was painful to watch)

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

At the risk of triggering you Strider, I thought the AM boat was the most attractive this time around.

Hey, if you go back to the beauty contest poll, I voted AM! LR was a close second in my opinion. AM hull shape is very nice. LR has a very minimalistic style, also with colours, that I like. The other two boats, remind me of a dish of pasta with too much sauce and (scream of terror) cream in it (that Italians rarely put, except in specific recipes!).

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

However attempting to subvert the deed is entirely relevant and when Orifice attempted a watered down version of this in Bermuda most of the Kiwis on here were apoplectic. But now *crickets*.

In what way is the deed being subverted ....By forcing syndicates to agree that they will use AC75 for two cup cycles ??

What happens if existing syndicates willingly agree to use the AC75 for two cup rounds ?

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

They are attempting to subvert the deed, period. Absolutely NOTHING else is relevant.

 

Shopping the hosting rights? Irrelevant.

Other syndicates love the AC75? Irrelevant.

I hate the AC75? Irrelevant.

However attempting to subvert the deed is entirely relevant and when Orifice attempted a watered down version of this in Bermuda most of the Kiwis on here were apoplectic. But now *crickets*.

If you support your own team for doing the same sort of shit you criticised another team for doing, you're a hypocrite plain and simple.

Now I don't remember if you fall into this category or not, but plenty of Kiwis here sure as shit do.

If You refuse to look at those decisions with no regards to any context to the situation as it was at that time, then you're not doing those decisions any justice.

First, at that time, Oracle had gone through 3 different classes in 2 different cycles. One they had changed mid cycle, not through amendment of the class rule, because they knew they wouldn't get a unanimous vote, but through an amendment to the protocol because they knew they had a majority vote due to challenging teams being beholden to the Defender. The Committee vote they knew they had, came about because LR were naive. That Class change pissed off a lot of teams, and they did it to please teams like France and Japan because they were beholden to the Defender.

The reason why ETNZ refused to agree with the Framework, was because Oracle had effectively jeopardised the Kiwi campaign by the decision they made, mid cycle.

That decision cost ACEA a huge, and quiet, financial compensation payment. But at that time, due to the ramifications of that decision made by Oracle, the Kiwi campaign came within a day or 2 of shutting its doors. That was purely because of the underhanded (and illegal in terms of the AC) decision Oracle made. At that time, the Kiwi's weren't going to agree to anything Oracle proposed, including the framework, and rightly so. Hypocrisy, well that depends entirely on your own point of view. Justified? perhaps, again, depending on your own point of view.

Say what you want, but the framework back then disadvantaged new (independent) teams, and kept those beholden teams, beholden even longer. You might say "no it doesn't" or "how?" but to answer that question, you just have to look at SailGP. All of those teams, or at least the vast majority of them, are owned by Larry Ellison. The SailGP model is effectively the Framework the Bermuda teams signed up to. This decision seems to support the feedback these current, independent teams have put forward.

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

I am predicting that INEOS will withdraw as Challenger of Record!

the only thing that should have withdrawn was your dad.

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

It's not like this. The Deed gives plenty of power to change some rules for the CURRENT AC by mutual consent. But it certainly does not for deciding any subsequent AC.

When does an AC become a subsequent AC.

Challenger AYC challenges defendant BYC.    AYC hosts challenger series which is won by CYC.

But  "when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been
received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided"

The challenge was received from AYC, so can CYC be considered a challenger before the challenge from AYC has been decided?

If the answer is "yes", then we are conceding that this paragraph in the DoG can be overcome by mutual consent.

If we can mutual agree that, can we mutually agree that the next cup will be in AC75s?

My only point is that the Deed did not contemplate the modern AC with multiple challengers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest question -- how did the IACC class end up serving for as long, and as many cup cycles as it did?  How were all those cats herded?  I don't recall.

And, given the number of challengers during that era, over five events, would similar stability be a bad thing?

Granted, the world is a different place, and such a move alone isn't going to guarantee a return to the same level of interest, but not having such stability is more likely to work against attracting new challengers.

I guess my question how that was achieved, without raising the objections seen during Bermuda, and currently from some quarters.

Or for that matter, the 12 metre class before it?

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

When does an AC become a subsequent AC.

Challenger AYC challenges defendant BYC.    AYC hosts challenger series which is won by CYC.

But  "when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been
received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided"

The challenge was received from AYC, so can CYC be considered a challenger before the challenge from AYC has been decided?

If the answer is "yes", then we are conceding that this paragraph in the DoG can be overcome by mutual consent.

If we can mutual agree that, can we mutually agree that the next cup will be in AC75s?

My only point is that the Deed did not contemplate the modern AC with multiple challengers

On these basis, why if by mutual consent they prepare a new Deed of Gift, and it will be a friendly ping pong competition?

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

In what way is the deed being subverted ....By forcing syndicates to agree that they will use AC75 for two cup cycles ??

What happens if existing syndicates willingly agree to use the AC75 for two cup rounds ?

1) Exactly. If you have it laid down in the protocol as a requirement for entry. 

2) They can do this as long as the current protocol does not mandate it. They can issue press releases take vows, dance around an oak at midnight chanting "we will use AC75s as long as we live", but they must not write it into the AC37 protocol for AC38. 

1 hour ago, Mambo Kings said:

When does an AC become a subsequent AC.

Challenger AYC challenges defendant BYC.    AYC hosts challenger series which is won by CYC.

But  "when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been
received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided"

The challenge was received from AYC, so can CYC be considered a challenger before the challenge from AYC has been decided?

If the answer is "yes", then we are conceding that this paragraph in the DoG can be overcome by mutual consent.

If we can mutual agree that, can we mutually agree that the next cup will be in AC75s?

My only point is that the Deed did not contemplate the modern AC with multiple challengers

Not that it hasn't been discussed already at nauseam, but here we go... 

The CSS is kind of "without complaint there's no redress". Nevertheless, it's either in the protocol or implied that the challengers, once defeated in the CSS, withdraws and the next challenge is accepted. It's a linear process, which is kind of DoG compliant. 

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

They can do this as long as the current protocol does not mandate it. They can issue press releases take vows, dance around an oak at midnight chanting "we will use AC75s as long as we live", but they must not write it into the AC37 protocol for AC38. 

One point of clarification: they can write whatever they want in the protocol for AC37, including both a requirement to dance around an oak and use the AC75 in AC38. The key is whether anyone will complain. If nobody complains, or alternatively if everyone agrees to it, then it doesn't much matter what the Deed says. The NYSC won't open its own case and the NY AG sure as hell doesn't care enough to open one.  

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

When does an AC become a subsequent AC.

Challenger AYC challenges defendant BYC.    AYC hosts challenger series which is won by CYC.

But  "when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been
received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided"

The challenge was received from AYC, so can CYC be considered a challenger before the challenge from AYC has been decided?

If the answer is "yes", then we are conceding that this paragraph in the DoG can be overcome by mutual consent.

If we can mutual agree that, can we mutually agree that the next cup will be in AC75s?

 

You’re mixing up challenge and Challenger. 
 

think of it like the ‘33 act can the ‘34 act.  The “shall not consider” clause is the ‘33 act and regulates the transaction of a challenge. The club requirements are the ‘34 act and regulate challenger qualifications.  The two do not really mix  

 

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

One point of clarification: they can write whatever they want in the protocol for AC37, including both a requirement to dance around an oak and use the AC75 in AC38. The key is whether anyone will complain. If nobody complains, or alternatively if everyone agrees to it, then it doesn't much matter what the Deed says. The NYSC won't open its own case and the NY AG sure as hell doesn't care enough to open one.  

I agree, they can (are able to, physically) park their car in a non-parking zone. It might be that nobody complains and the police doesn't see it. That doesn't make it right, tho.

They cannot do it if they obey the Deed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

You’re mixing up challenge and Challenger. 
 

think of it like the ‘33 act can the ‘34 act.  The “shall not consider” clause is the ‘33 act and regulates the transaction of a challenge. The club requirements are the ‘34 act and regulate challenger qualifications.  The two do not really mix  

 

I realize that Alan.....and I was really just playing around with the wording to mess with the heads of the constructionists who are arguing that the DoG does not allow Rat and Dalts to squeeze in a quick one vs one but promise everyone that they will return to the AC75 in 2024.  If they want to do that (I doubt they will in the end), then I suspect they can.

In reality the Deed does not contemplate a multi-challenger protocol or establish any rules around a multi-challange.  It has evolved and the cup is better for it, so I think defenders will continue to encourage multi challenges.

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

I realize that Alan.....and I was really just playing around with the wording to mess with the heads of the constructionists who are arguing that the DoG does not allow Rat and Dalts to squeeze in a quick one vs one but promise everyone that they will return to the AC75 in 2024.  If they want to do that (I doubt they will in the end), then I suspect they can.

In reality the Deed does not contemplate a multi-challenger protocol or establish any rules around a multi-challange.  It has evolved and the cup is better for it, so I think defenders will continue to encourage multi challenges.

You didn't follow very well the discussion I fear. Nobody denied that a 1 - 1 Match would be perfectly legal, albeit far from recent consuetudes in AC and not a good example of sportsmanship towards the teams excluded. What was said is that this is a dark path that could bring more 1 - 1 match in the future, or, citing the NYYC, a huge step in the wrong direction.

The Deed hasn't evolved at all since the last time it was amended. The MC protocols have. But there are limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the last time a one and one AC match happened was 2010. Thats at least a 100 years in corona time.

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

You didn't follow very well the discussion I fear. Nobody denied that a 1 - 1 Match would be perfectly legal, albeit far from recent consuetudes in AC and not a good example of sportsmanship towards the teams excluded. What was said is that this is a dark path that could bring more 1 - 1 match in the future, or, citing the NYYC, a huge step in the wrong direction.

The Deed hasn't evolved at all since the last time it was amended. The MC protocols have. But there are limits.

I have followed closely.

Yes a 1 vs 1 match would be compliant with DoG.  It could also be by mutual consent unlike the two prior DoG challenges.

Like everyone, I would like to see a multi-challenge event.  A multi challenge event needs to be at least 2 years away and needs to find a way of allowing the same class of boat to stay in place so that new entrants can contemplate investing in the class and development over two cups to become competitive. Failing that it should be 3 years away.

The idea that has been floated of a "bridge" event , I was initially against, but I could be persuaded.

TNZ and Ineos are working out the route to the next AC. I think they are reasonably good trustees to get us there.

 

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

I have followed closely.

Yes a 1 vs 1 match would be compliant with DoG.  It could also be by mutual consent unlike the two prior DoG challenges.

Like everyone, I would like to see a multi-challenge event.  A multi challenge event needs to be at least 2 years away and needs to find a way of allowing the same class of boat to stay in place so that new entrants can contemplate investing in the class and development over two cups to become competitive. Failing that it should be 3 years away.

The idea that has been floated of a "bridge" event , I was initially against, but I could be persuaded.

TNZ and Ineos are working out the route to the next AC. I think they are reasonably good trustees to get us there.

 

And why not having a bridge event with everyone invited? Same dates. 2022 and 2024 in AC75. New teams could use it as a training for sailing team with old B1 updated to be more competitive.

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

And why not having a bridge event with everyone invited? Same dates. 2022 and 2024 in AC75. New teams could use it as a training for sailing team with old B1 updated to be more competitive.

Sure. But new teams will not want to spend $x million to be noncompetitive, and damage their brands. So they would only use the bridge event as a training path to a subsequent event in the same class.  So a bridge event with everyone invited only works if everyone signed a binding commitment to the next event.

If either the invitees wont sign into that, or if SA lawyers advise them that its not possible.....then are they they safer to have a 2 team bridge event? 

Dont get me wrong, I prefer multi-challenger bridge event.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

You’re mixing up challenge and Challenger. 
 

think of it like the ‘33 act can the ‘34 act.  The “shall not consider” clause is the ‘33 act and regulates the transaction of a challenge. The club requirements are the ‘34 act and regulate challenger qualifications.  The two do not really mix  

 

My worlds are colliding. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@JonRowewrote - "According to the Greenbird webpage, the current ice boat record is only 84mph, . ." 

Not remotely close . . Ice boats have been going well over 100 mph for over a century. 

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

@JonRowewrote - "According to the Greenbird webpage, the current ice boat record is only 84mph, . ." 

Not remotely close . . Ice boats have been going well over 100 mph for over a century. 

If you talk to Skeeter class pilots, they have a lot of skepticism about the veracity of those old records. As one put it to me, "Some guy goes out on the ice with his car and measures a distance with his odometer, spinning his wheels the whole time.  Then he sails that distance with his iceboat, it's timed manually, and he claims a speed record.  But the distance sailed in that time was shorter than it should have been." 

A-Class iceboats from that era were stern steerers, some of which still survive.  As they get going fast, the stern runner tends to lift off the ice, followed by a spin-out that catapults the crew out of the basket ahd shoots them across the ice.  I've only been sailing on ice a couple of times, but I used to race a landyacht and I have a hard time believing the yachts of that era were really capable of the speed records that have been on the books for a long time.

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

Honest question -- how did the IACC class end up serving for as long, and as many cup cycles as it did?  How were all those cats herded?  I don't recall.

And, given the number of challengers during that era, over five events, would similar stability be a bad thing?

Granted, the world is a different place, and such a move alone isn't going to guarantee a return to the same level of interest, but not having such stability is more likely to work against attracting new challengers.

I guess my question how that was achieved, without raising the objections seen during Bermuda, and currently from some quarters.

Or for that matter, the 12 metre class before it?

I think one of the things that lends stability over time is that the defender usually has the fastest boat of the previous class and therefore little incentive to change it radically and create opportunities for challengers to build a better widget.

Oracle had to do something different than the DoG boats but had lots of expertise with big multis so that's what we got, they knew they had to reduce costs if they wanted any challengers so they went for a downsized version of the same. TNZ had the best foils and foil controls, but they owed Prada for their support and Bertelli wanted a mono so we got a foiling mono.

I think it's just been a matter of external pressures forcing defenders away from the current class and we may be getting back to the normal course of things where the defender wants to keep their edge and therefore wants to keep the boats similar.

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

Honest question -- how did the IACC class end up serving for as long, and as many cup cycles as it did?  How were all those cats herded?  I don't recall.

And, given the number of challengers during that era, over five events, would similar stability be a bad thing?

Granted, the world is a different place, and such a move alone isn't going to guarantee a return to the same level of interest, but not having such stability is more likely to work against attracting new challengers.

I guess my question how that was achieved, without raising the objections seen during Bermuda, and currently from some quarters.

Or for that matter, the 12 metre class before it?

Seems like the people with the resources and will to fund and run AC campaigns have just gotten more thirsty for high tech everything. And high tech has gotten more exciting. It's not much of an incentive to create a whole new class if it's not going to be much more dramatic and different and high tech and fast.

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

a lot of skepticism about

You may well be correct - my word is not to be taken as the last one on anything. 

You have only to ask the admiral

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, idontwan2know said:

I think one of the things that lends stability over time is that the defender usually has the fastest boat of the previous class and therefore little incentive to change it radically and create opportunities for challengers to build a better widget.

Oracle had to do something different than the DoG boats but had lots of expertise with big multis so that's what we got, they knew they had to reduce costs if they wanted any challengers so they went for a downsized version of the same. TNZ had the best foils and foil controls, but they owed Prada for their support and Bertelli wanted a mono so we got a foiling mono.

I think it's just been a matter of external pressures forcing defenders away from the current class and we may be getting back to the normal course of things where the defender wants to keep their edge and therefore wants to keep the boats similar.

That makes sense.

I'm just trying to reconcile how two seemingly similar situations, then the with the IACC, and now with the AC75, could differ in the responses they generate, if not as a whole,, but certainly here.

If everyone was happy with the IACC then, and the AC75 now, and wish to continue with it, then what's the fuss about?

I guess it's part of land-based portion of the AC game, dueling around what can and can't be done per the Deed, and how nicely the question is asked, putting aside that both sides already agree on the answer.

What is surprising that after someone like Alighhi was caught obviously trying to cram a square peg into a round hole, that someone else, least of all ETNZ, might try to play a similar game a test the limits again.

In any case, I'll leave the debates on such matters to others, and re-emerge from the cave once some sort of racing occurs again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CheekyMonkey said:

That makes sense.

I'm just trying to reconcile how two seemingly similar situations, then the with the IACC, and now with the AC75, could differ in the responses they generate, if not as a whole,, but certainly here.

If everyone was happy with the IACC then, and the AC75 now, and wish to continue with it, then what's the fuss about?

I guess it's part of land-based portion of the AC game, dueling around what can and can't be done per the Deed, and how nicely the question is asked, putting aside that both sides already agree on the answer.

What is surprising that after someone like Alighhi was caught obviously trying to cram a square peg into a round hole, that someone else, least of all ETNZ, might try to play a similar game a test the limits again.

In any case, I'll leave the debates on such matters to others, and re-emerge from the cave once some sort of racing occurs again.

With the IACCs, I think there was a lot of fatigue among the teams with the grind of constant two boat testing and spending tens of millions to eke out a tenth of a knot of VMG. That plus the desire to create more of a spectacle for TV with a bigger faster boat got Alinghi excited about the AC90 concept. Reaction from the other teams was mixed.

Personally, I thought it was crazy to make a major change after just having some of the best racing the Cup had ever seen, but the cat is out of the bag at this point. There's an argument that Alinghi might have felt the racing was TOO close for comfort and felt they could gap the field with a new class they had advanced knowledge of.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Basiliscus said:

If you talk to Skeeter class pilots, they have a lot of skepticism about the veracity of those old records. As one put it to me, "Some guy goes out on the ice with his car and measures a distance with his odometer, spinning his wheels the whole time.  Then he sails that distance with his iceboat, it's timed manually, and he claims a speed record.  But the distance sailed in that time was shorter than it should have been." 

A-Class iceboats from that era were stern steerers, some of which still survive.  As they get going fast, the stern runner tends to lift off the ice, followed by a spin-out that catapults the crew out of the basket ahd shoots them across the ice.  I've only been sailing on ice a couple of times, but I used to race a landyacht and I have a hard time believing the yachts of that era were really capable of the speed records that have been on the books for a long time.

Not wanting to get sidetracked on iceboat speed records. The original point, I believe, was that if the fastest possible sailboat is the end goal, regardless of technology, then we already have had sailboats that exceed the AC75 speeds by quite a bit. The water needs to be hard and smooth. But then the AC75 water conditions need to be relatively flat/protected water.

Given the above, what is the eventual goal for the AC sailboat type? Is a glider (aka sailplane) considered a "sailboat"? They can go pretty fast over a closed course given a good thermal day or a good ridge lift location. We talk about "flight controls" on the AC75s. Sailplanes have flight controls too. Air has moisture in it. What is a "sailboat"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The shit fight between Oracle and Allinghi....I dont think it was about the AC90. I cannot remember, perhaps others can?   I think the issues revolved around the fact that using a shell club gave Allinghi too much control. But what in particular was Oracle upset about that led to the DoG event?

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

The shit fight between Oracle and Allinghi....I dont think it was about the AC90. I cannot remember, perhaps others can?   I think the issues revolved around the fact that using a shell club gave Allinghi too much control. But what in particular was Oracle upset about that led to the DoG event?

Like Berterelli said to Larry before the legal shit happened, "you'd want this situation too if you had the chance". I think it was just a simple pissing contest between two billionaires and Larry did really want that situation too.

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

Like Berterelli said to Larry before the legal shit happened, "you'd want this situation too if you had the chance". I think it was just a simple pissing contest between two billionaires and Larry did really want that situation too.

Was there something in the protocol that Larry did not like?    I seem to vaguely recall that the protocol was objected to and then Larry started the legal process to object to the CoR ....or perhaps he just didnt like the whole concept of a shell CoR?

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

Was there something in the protocol that Larry did not like?    I seem to vaguely recall that the protocol was objected to and then Larry started the legal process to object to the CoR ....or perhaps he just didnt like the whole concept of a shell CoR?

The protocol was too lopsided for Larry's liking, and engaging in a DoG match elegantly eliminated the CSS where Oracle has always failed. So, the reason for Oracle's intervention depends on which reading you prefer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites