Jump to content

Recommended Posts

With the likelihood of a “One Boat Build” (for next Cup) as a way of reducing costs how does any sane person come up with the scenario a new team has a “hope in hell chance” against the established teams ?

Team NZ may consider placing all their design / engineering (inclusive) specifications in the public domain to attract future teams as Challengers.

 

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

With the likelihood of a “One Boat Build” (for next Cup) as a way of reducing costs how does any sane person come up with the scenario a new team has a “hope in hell chance” against the established teams ?

Team NZ may consider placing all their design / engineering (inclusive) specifications in the public domain to attract future teams as Challengers.

 

Can they address this by having more liberal change rules to your one boat? I think they were limited this past time around to making changes to no more than 20% of the boat (I have no idea how they measured 20%).  If you make it easier to upgrade and change your one boat, that might ameliorate the advantage of the established teams. Certainly doesn't do anything to help expenses, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure sounds like the goal is to keep their speed advantage and limit competition so they can keep the chalice for another round.  I cant imagine why any new teams would sign up knowing this.  Probably another poorly attended event.

Defending does have privilege's.  The poison chalice strikes again.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

You might as well build 6 identical hulls and say “here hotrod this” within a box rule. Number of foil sets, mast height etc. 

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

I think they are saying... don't waste money on hulls. Put it into foils, sails and controls.

Possibly, but why not make it a OD hull then.

ETNZ build them (raises funds for them) and the teams can go to town on the rest.

Won't save money though, AC teams are notorious for spending what they can get and then some.

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

My thought is that each of the teams have a boat 1 that they can sell to a new team.

That may be an option in future cycles if the class continues, but this cycle they were very much prototypes/test beds and as such are of very limited value.

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

You might as well build 6 identical hulls and say “here hotrod this” within a box rule. Number of foil sets, mast height etc. 

Yeah, well we've already been there with AC50's, remember.

There are promised 'cost saving measures' to be agreed with the CoR (Sir James was bitching about cost reduction if he was to stay involved, as was Bertarelli, to re-enter) so who knows where this clusterfuck might end up?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It increases the value of the old boats of existing teams. Hell, someone might even by Rita 1... well maybe not, but Luna Rossa 1 will have some decent market value for sure. 

One boat does seem a bit tight though if it s 2024 multi challenger cup. If it is really a 2022 cup then I guess teams won't have too much time to do two builds anyway. They'd have to be pushing the button on a B1 right away build to get any use out of it. 

I think it's a nice balance between focussing spending on more important aspects, which also keeping the identity which went with the contrasting hull shapes. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Design Race The Rule should be placed in Public Domain in it’s entirety, currently you have to be bonafide ($ paid up) Challenger ~ why keep Part of the measurement rules away from the eyes of potential (designers) interested parties.

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

Design Race The Rule should be placed in Public Domain in it’s entirety, currently you have to be bonafide ($ paid up) Challenger ~ why keep Part of the measurement rules away from the eyes of potential (designers) interested parties.

It is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2021 at 1:53 AM, Southern Cross said:

There is no complete (as required by an architect / engineer) specification on mast and cant arms.

The OD Bits. Who holds the IP on these? ETNZ/LRPP? Could be a nightmare to unravel that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2021 at 7:34 AM, Priscilla said:

 Those tricky Kiwis could improve their odds with a one boat rule by agreeing to a defender series with a puppet club using Te Rehutai as a trial horse.

Wouldn't put it past ETNZ, since their funding options are looking decidedly outside the box at the moment.

But it would be funny if, Te Rehutai proved too strong for ETNZ's new boat.

GD would have to channel his inner Dennis Conner and do a Mighty Mary! ;-)

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

Wouldn't put it past ETNZ, since their funding options are looking decidedly outside the box at the moment.

But it would be funny if, Te Rehutai proved too strong for ETNZ's new boat.

GD would have to channel his inner Dennis Conner and do a Mighty Mary! ;-)

Nah, they'd take the flux capacitor out if her before racing commenced.

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

The OD Bits. Who holds the IP on these? ETNZ/LRPP? Could be a nightmare to unravel that.

You may be accurate ~ the IP card may work to the positive for LR on how the class is controlled in the future.

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

You may be accurate ~ the IP card may work to the positive for LR on how the class is controlled in the future.

Yes. I suspect so too.

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

You may be accurate ~ the IP card may work to the positive for LR on how the class is controlled in the future.

IP rights obviously didn’t hinder TNZ selling a design package to Stars and Stripes RG would have nailed the finer details of that transaction so LR had no room for objection or a share of the proceeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2021 at 9:34 AM, The Advocate said:

Possibly, but why not make it a OD hull then.

ETNZ build them (raises funds for them) and the teams can go to town on the rest.

Won't save money though, AC teams are notorious for spending what they can get and then some.

And so prevent Prada from showing their design style?? :D

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

Prada not being able to show their design style, go wash your mouth out mate. No one could stop Prada having style!

A one design ugly hull could :D

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

And so prevent Prada from showing their design style?? :D

The Prada Cup (if not used for the next CSS) should be awarded in a competition where AC75s do a 100m runway, a 360° foiling twirl, and return the way they came. The wealthy spectator fleet can applaud and admire the boats style, curves, and the cut of their jib. A panel of distinguished judges (not from SAAC) will award the Cup. Winner takes all!

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

IP rights obviously didn’t hinder TNZ selling a design package to Stars and Stripes RG would have nailed the finer details of that transaction so LR had no room for objection or a share of the proceeds.

The design IP (of a hull etc) has nothing to do with the IP of the Rule (if it exists ~ I’m sure lawyers could breath any possible life into same :-)  

One could draw a comparison to to the IP in the Manual (specification) of the Laser (ILCA).

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

The Prada Cup (if not used for the next CSS) should be awarded in a competition where AC75s do a 100m runway, a 360° foiling twirl, and return the way they came. The wealthy spectator fleet can applaud and admire the boats style, curves, and the cut of their jib. A panel of distinguished judges (not from SAAC) will award the Cup. Winner takes all!

And if there isn't enough wind just tow the shitters into the course.  Let them top this...

 

 

 

 

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

The OD Bits. Who holds the IP on these? ETNZ/LRPP? Could be a nightmare to unravel that.

I expect it's ACE that hold the rights to the design IP.

ETNZ did charge ACE $3M for the design of the AC75 :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Chapter Four said:

I expect it's ACE that hold the rights to the design IP.

ETNZ did charge ACE $3M for the design of the AC75 :ph34r:

Prolly right there, Cht4. So, imagine what mischief Tina could get up to, pulling those strings. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...