Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

Like with Oracle in Bermuda, ETNZ has decided to participate in the RR's but with no points scored, leaving their Challenger opponents free to back off should they choose. It seems in this case like an attempt to provide more racing for TV, something that was badly lacking in AC36 given only 3 Challengers and the AM wipeout. Some Kiwis here attacked the Bermuda format but will do another sudden about-face on this :)

Like in Bermuda it does not include the semis and finals, the actual knockout series.

After LE decided to not defend at home, and took the AC35 to Bermuda, I didn't watch or pay much attention to the event.

4 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Where the hell were you back in March this year?

My mistake.  You have jogged my (fading) memory.  If Bermuda was when it was first was cast aside, and then continued in Auckland, then I guess it's yet another lost tradition.  Hard to keep track of those now, and seeing it singled out made me think it was a new twist for AC37.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 807
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What a clusterfuck this is. Kiwis have taken all the shitty bits of Larry's vision and added pure incompetence to the mix.

Something like this: NYYC after begging back AM wins AC37. Terry H. attributes the victory to the innovative use of Cross-Fit-clors, who were a bunch of meatheads from a New Jersey gym. Rather th

We’re an autonomous collective.    (We’re still doing Monty Python, right?)

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Schakel said:

I have a remark:

Why are there no solar pannels included, sun energy is for free and provide the ship with enough electrical power, Please consider for next issue of protocol.
I discussed this with Dirk de Ridder and he agreed on that.

The boats use Lithium batteries and these batteries contain enough energy to get the job done during the day. Solar panels slowly charge batteries but this isn't necessary because the batteries are charged leading up to the race and then recharged after the race back at shore. 

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

The boats use Lithium batteries and these batteries contain enough energy to get the job done during the day. Solar panels slowly charge batteries but this isn't necessary because the batteries are charged leading up to the race and then recharged after the race back at shore. 

These batteries are loaded by shore power, Those boats are flying tesla's that need external eletricity. By making them independent, the value for other aplications becomes within reach. All teams can hire his own experts to get the solar panels being molten in the decks. A fantastic opportunity for sustainalbe energy research.... But makes the plan more expensive that is the counterweight in decision making. What is wisdom?

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

These batteries are loaded by shore power, Those boats are flying tesla's that need external eletricity. By making them independent, the value for other aplications becomes within reach. All teams can hire his own experts to get the solar panels being molten in the decks. A fantastic opportunity for sustainalbe energy research.... But makes the plan more expensive that is the counterweight in decision making. What is wisdom?

PV is great when the sun is shining. Not so much, when it's not. In these AC regattas we can't hardly rely on the wind, let alone the damn sun. Just sayin.

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

PV is great when the sun is shining. Not so much, when it's not. In these AC regattas we can't hardly rely on the wind, let alone the damn sun. Just sayin.

Make it a hybrid system. external energy is allowed when clouded, a green flag when lurking is prohibited.

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

Good. The AC50's sucked compared to the AC75.

And maybe whatever the next winner picks could be just as big an improvement.

They just have to pay for what every other winner took for granted.

Wanker move, especially as it will purely be money in Dalts pocket as the team will fold.

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

And maybe whatever the next winner picks could be just as big an improvement.

They just have to pay for what every other winner took for granted.

Wanker move, especially as it will purely be money in Dalts pocket as the team will fold.

Buddy. I'm starting to worry about you. Obsessive compulsive is not a good look, even around here. ;-)

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

And maybe whatever the next winner picks could be just as big an improvement.

They just have to pay for what every other winner took for granted.

Wanker move, especially as it will purely be money in Dalts pocket as the team will fold.

Its pointless trying to explain the difference to you while you have a permanent tin foil hat on your head.

The fact is, beholden teams signed a "Framework" after signing a protocol that mentioned nothing about it. Independent teams did not, as was their right.

This time, independent teams agree that continuation of the current class is good for the event.

Teams will sign/ agree to the clause when they enter, or not. Either way, they have a choice.

No one is holding a gun to anyones head forcing anyone to sign anything, nor are any teams beholden in any way to the Defender.

But of course your tin foil hat will prevent you from understanding this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a package it seems very cynical to me.

Yes, there is a long history of cynical defenders, but GD seems to have pushed the bounds a bit with this one. Especially as a means of sucking in money from other challengers (how much of that money goes to him personally is another question) 

1) Cynical pushing of these HSVs, even though as has been said it will achieve no reduction because the teams are still allowed 3 other vessels. They of course have been researching them for some time. Anyone else now either has the choice to try and spend lots catching up or give him $2m - which is a lot for a support boat

2) Carefully writing the protocol to maximise the worth of their existing boat. It is of not much use with all the changes, but they can now give new teams their only chance to get any sailing in early. Whilst not really helping them catch up much

3) Forced purchase of an AC40 - from them again - at an undefined price to do a small number of events. Using as a justification the introduction of womens AC, when that could easily be in the same boats 

And then there is the break clause. If you win and change classes then pay us a large amount of money. And since if NZ have lost most people think ETNZ will fold, that money will go to GD's pocket.

As a result I will be amazed if we get more challengers than last time, and unsurprised if its fewer

I am somewhat disappointed that BA agreed to it all. I think he has let himself be blinded to GD;s cynical plays.

After GB were knocked out in AC36 I wanted NZ to win for a number of reasons. I regret that now. And whilst I hope GB wins, I would rather anyone beat NZ if GB cannot.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

As a package it seems very cynical to me.

Yes, there is a long history of cynical defenders, but GD seems to have pushed the bounds a bit with this one. Especially as a means of sucking in money from other challengers (how much of that money goes to him personally is another question) 

1) Cynical pushing of these HSVs, even though as has been said it will achieve no reduction because the teams are still allowed 3 other vessels. They of course have been researching them for some time. Anyone else now either has the choice to try and spend lots catching up or give him $2m - which is a lot for a support boat

2) Carefully writing the protocol to maximise the worth of their existing boat. It is of not much use with all the changes, but they can now give new teams their only chance to get any sailing in early. Whilst not really helping them catch up much

3) Forced purchase of an AC40 - from them again - at an undefined price to do a small number of events. Using as a justification the introduction of womens AC, when that could easily be in the same boats 

And then there is the break clause. If you win and change classes then pay us a large amount of money. And since if NZ have lost most people think ETNZ will fold, that money will go to GD's pocket.

As a result I will be amazed if we get more challengers than last time, and unsurprised if its fewer

I am somewhat disappointed that BA agreed to it all. I think he has let himself be blinded to GD;s cynical plays.

After GB were knocked out in AC36 I wanted NZ to win for a number of reasons. I regret that now. And whilst I hope GB wins, I would rather anyone beat NZ if GB cannot.

 

 

FFS. Quit crying and Get over it.

”oh it’s all so cynical” blah blah blah.

"Ben Ainslie was blinded by GD's cynical plays" waaa waaaa Jesus Christ.

Winner gets to make the rules, and thats what we’ve done.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Schakel said:
35 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

PV is great when the sun is shining. Not so much, when it's not. In these AC regattas we can't hardly rely on the wind, let alone the damn sun. Just sayin.

Make it a hybrid system. external energy is allowed when clouded, a green flag when lurking is prohibited.

Doesn't make sense Schakel. You need to scrub up on solar, electronics and their real benefits. I like the way your thinking but you are too green.! LOL 

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

So whats the outcome? RNZYS says "you guys must hold the AC in NZ" to which Dalton replies, "see this contract here, it says we are responsible for organizing the AC" then what? The Squadron says "well then we don't want to be involved any more" to which Dalton responds "fine, see ya later, there's always another YC that'll want this big shiny trophy in their cabinet"

Sorry - not that simple. The Cup belongs to RNZYS, not ETNZ so your suggestion is a non-starter

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

So when Oracle wanted to insure continuation of the class it was an abomination, one that the team refused to accept.

Now the team has found a way to force a large financial penalty it is good. What a hypocritical bunch of wankers. Dalts should get into politics, he would fit in well with the lying and bullshitting.

Ha, ha. He wouldn't last 5 minutes. First political journalist to question him would be told to, 'fuck off'.

Wouldn't go down too well with some constituents I feel. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

As a package it seems very cynical to me.

Yes, there is a long history of cynical defenders, but GD seems to have pushed the bounds a bit with this one. Especially as a means of sucking in money from other challengers (how much of that money goes to him personally is another question) 

1) Cynical pushing of these HSVs, even though as has been said it will achieve no reduction because the teams are still allowed 3 other vessels. They of course have been researching them for some time. Anyone else now either has the choice to try and spend lots catching up or give him $2m - which is a lot for a support boat

2) Carefully writing the protocol to maximise the worth of their existing boat. It is of not much use with all the changes, but they can now give new teams their only chance to get any sailing in early. Whilst not really helping them catch up much

3) Forced purchase of an AC40 - from them again - at an undefined price to do a small number of events. Using as a justification the introduction of womens AC, when that could easily be in the same boats 

And then there is the break clause. If you win and change classes then pay us a large amount of money. And since if NZ have lost most people think ETNZ will fold, that money will go to GD's pocket.

As a result I will be amazed if we get more challengers than last time, and unsurprised if its fewer

I am somewhat disappointed that BA agreed to it all. I think he has let himself be blinded to GD;s cynical plays.

After GB were knocked out in AC36 I wanted NZ to win for a number of reasons. I regret that now. And whilst I hope GB wins, I would rather anyone beat NZ if GB cannot.

 

 

"As a package it seems very cynical to me."

You clearly don't understand the process of arriving at the Protocol. GD is not the author. In fact from the ETNZ side it is more likely their input into the wording would be from Russell Green. The Protocol is an agreement jointly produced by both the defender and the Challenger of Record, not a single handed epistle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 are you talking about the performance bond?

From memory when we threw our hat in the ring the performance bond was Euro 1m. It is now US$1m - that's a reduction.

EDIT - Just checked the archives - yep, AC32 Euro1m

Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone else notice it's 69 pages long? snigger snigger

3 hours ago, Gissie said:

So when Oracle wanted to insure continuation of the class it was an abomination, one that the team refused to accept.

Now the team has found a way to force a large financial penalty it is good. What a hypocritical bunch of wankers. Dalts should get into politics, he would fit in well with the lying and bullshitting.

20m USD is a big chunk, why are they so scared of people moving away from it? if you win this regatta, what other boat would you want to use?

 

As it surely goes against the deed, I think a lawyer could drive a bus through this clause.

image.png.02389e91b1ced2e24817790333744cfd.png

for a start, this boat called the AC75 is 20.7m/67 feet long right, without the bowsprit?

 

so you could create a new class, call it AC75 v3 and just something like this?

https://www.yachtingworld.com/yachts-and-gear/first-look-f70-carkeek-and-persico-join-forces-for-foiler-132389

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, terrafirma said:

Doesn't make sense Schakel. You need to scrub up on solar, electronics and their real benefits. I like the way your thinking but you are too green.! LOL 

Hi Terrafirma,

I really like this idea, makes people conscience about solarpower what I believe has the future.
So lying in de dock the crew has to polish the PV cells before they head to the startline, it'll benifit the grinders who have less work to do.
Man that's not torturte at all. Best scenario is the that the new boat doesn't need shore power, no grinders.
Perhaps in the far future.

It might work.
It's research for a good cause.

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

As it surely goes against the deed, I think a lawyer could drive a bus through this clause.

Porthos says not. You can argue NY law with him if you want, I'm not about to.

The hypocrisy after ETNZ's stance on the London agreement is, however, nauseating. Here's what they said at the time:

Emirates Team New Zealand was conspicuously absent from today’s press conference. They have not signed up to the framework agreement. The New Zealand team responded to today’s announcement in a Twitter statement, commenting: “Emirates Team NZ believe the future America’s Cup format is to be decided by the Defender and Challenger of Record as it has historically been.” 

https://www.yachtingworld.com/americas-cup/americas-cup-teams-sign-up-to-historic-new-format-without-new-zealand-104126

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

Buddy. I'm starting to worry about you. Obsessive compulsive is not a good look, even around here. ;-)

So you are happy that any winner must pay 20 mill to chose their own idea of the next boat?

The very thing the thing the team raged against when Oracle tried it. Still, they have found a 'legal' way to do the same thing so you now have no problem?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

peak solar energy available 1360watts per sq metre ( perfect conditions )

average solar over a day (sunrise to sunset )  ~ 320 watts per square metre ( perfect conditions )

most efficient solar cells available today <23%

=

not feasible at this point .. and am cup / gd wont be changing any of that any time soon

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

Porthos says not. You can argue NY law with him if you want, I'm not about to.

The hypocrisy after ETNZ's stance on the London agreement is, however, nauseating. Here's what they said at the time:

Emirates Team New Zealand was conspicuously absent from today’s press conference. They have not signed up to the framework agreement. The New Zealand team responded to today’s announcement in a Twitter statement, commenting: “Emirates Team NZ believe the future America’s Cup format is to be decided by the Defender and Challenger of Record as it has historically been.” 

https://www.yachtingworld.com/americas-cup/americas-cup-teams-sign-up-to-historic-new-format-without-new-zealand-104126

ok, lawyers driving buses sounds like fun, lemme give this a try. @porthos can answer if he feels, but this clause looks very tacky to non lawyer me.

 

"an obligation to pay 20m USD".

                        how does this acceptance of the obligation sound?

"I XXXX yacht club as winner of AC37 will defend AC38 in a new class of yacht. As per clause 23.2 of Deed of particpation I am obligated to pay 20m USD to AC37 Deed of participants.

XXXX yacht club agrees to pay this sum on or before 31 December 2199"

 

Sounds ridiculous, but not impossible. Given a 20m carrot, I'm sure a winning challenger that wants a different boat will find a way around this one as it does not look watertight to non lawyer me.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Would a DOG challenge circumvent this break clause I wonder?

Hard to see how.

For AC37, that ship has sailed. Can't challenge while a valid challenge is in progress.

For AC38, a half-competent winner is only going to accept a hip-pocket challenge, almost certainly from an AC37 competitor. And the latter is contractually bound by the AC37 protocol they signed.

The only DoG challenges of recent history have been where the new defender has royally screwed up the process.

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

 

For AC38, a half-competent winner is only going to accept a hip-pocket challenge, almost certainly from an AC37 competitor. And the latter is contractually bound by the AC37 protocol they signed.

 

Wouldn't be hard for an existing team to find a new club, and thus be a new challenger who are not bound by the contract

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

ok, lawyers driving buses sounds like fun, lemme give this a try. @porthos can answer if he feels, but this clause looks very tacky to non lawyer me.

 

"an obligation to pay 20m USD".

                        how does this acceptance of the obligation sound?

"I XXXX yacht club as winner of AC37 will defend AC38 in a new class of yacht. As per clause 23.2 of Deed of particpation I am obligated to pay 20m USD to AC37 Deed of participants.

XXXX yacht club agrees to pay this sum on or before 31 December 2199"

 

Sounds ridiculous, but not impossible. Given a 20m carrot, I'm sure a winning challenger that wants a different boat will find a way around this one as it does not look watertight to non lawyer me.

 

 

 

Shhh, you realize the protocol can be amended right...?

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

ok, lawyers driving buses sounds like fun, lemme give this a try. @porthos can answer if he feels, but this clause looks very tacky to non lawyer me.

 

"an obligation to pay 20m USD".

                        how does this acceptance of the obligation sound?

"I XXXX yacht club as winner of AC37 will defend AC38 in a new class of yacht. As per clause 23.2 of Deed of particpation I am obligated to pay 20m USD to AC37 Deed of participants.

XXXX yacht club agrees to pay this sum on or before 31 December 2199"

 

Sounds ridiculous, but not impossible. Given a 20m carrot, I'm sure a winning challenger that wants a different boat will find a way around this one as it does not look watertight to non lawyer me.

 

 

 

Something like this:

NYYC after begging back AM wins AC37. Terry H. attributes the victory to the innovative use of Cross-Fit-clors, who were a bunch of meatheads from a New Jersey gym. Rather than grind or cycle, the meatheads pumped ropes up and down on the starboard side of the boat and threw truck tires around on the port side of the boat to generate megawatts that powered AM to victory. 

NYYC accepts a challenge from Hamilton Island Yacht Club, which did not participate in AC37.  They release a protocol six months later indicating that AC38 will be contested in a revived and updated version of the AC90 -- full displacement.  Venue will be off of Newport.

RYSNZ sues in New Zealand court (pursuant to AC37 Prot. Sec. 67.22), seeking an injunction (see AC37 Prot. Sec. 23.2) requiring AM to race AC38 in AC75's. AM appears and contests the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts to resolve matters related to the Deed, which are rested exclusively in the NY courts. More specifically, the Deed allows the challenger the absolute right to pick a boat, and HIYC didn't participate in AC37. Moreover, AM says the Deed gives the defender the right to select its boat, and the Deed rules over the AC37 Protocol (see AC37 Prot. Secs. 1.3 and 33.2.) New Zealand courts dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

RYSNZ sues in NY courts making the same argument. Judge rules that the Deed prevails and RYNZS can't force AM to contest AC38 in AC75s.  RNZYS then argues that, even if it can't force AM to contest AC38 in AC75s, AM (as an AC37 Protocol signer) must pay the $20,000,000 liquidated damages. 

The NY views the Protocol as a binding contract and says that AM must pay liquidated damages. But NY law does not allow a liquidated damages provision to be so large as to be a penalty. Rather, the amount must be reasonably related to the actual damages suffered by the non-breaching party (i.e., the other competitors).  Judge receives an affidavit from Jim Ratcliffe saying he spent $300,000,000 the last two cup cycles and didn't get shit.  Larry Ellison says "Yeah."  Judge says that AM appears to have save everyone money, so judge, in a clever move reduces $20,000,000 to $100 pounds.  AM pays the damages.

The Cross-Fit-clors return to their gym.

Hamish Ross sues claiming Rhode Island must apply NY discrimination law. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Wouldn't be hard for an existing team to find a new club, and thus be a new challenger who are not bound by the contract

But in that case, a sane new defender (who wants to defend in AC62.5s) isn't going to accept that challenge.

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

But in that case, a sane new defender (who wants to defend in AC62.5s) isn't going to accept that challenge.

Except the AC is a challenger's trophy, not a defender's trophy. If the challenging club wasn't a competitor in AC37 nothing can be done

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

But in that case, a sane new defender (who wants to defend in AC62.5s) isn't going to accept that challenge.

Unless they too want to break from the Ac75s and are looking for a way out of paying the fee because a DoG challenge would effectively over-rule that clause

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

Except the AC is a challenger's trophy, not a defender's trophy. If the challenging club wasn't a competitor in AC37 nothing can be done

Not really true in practice since the invention of the hip-pocket challenge. So if the new defender wants to continue in AC75s, they won't accept a hip-pocket challenge from an AC38 challenger that wasn't bound by the AC37 protocol. That is easily achieved, you just don't let anyone onto the yacht except the challenger you want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

Unless they too want to break from the Ac75s and are looking for a way out of paying the fee because a DoG challenge would effectively over-rule that clause

Yes. But typically, defenders want to defend in the same class in which they won. Not always but usually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Forourselves said:

So whats the outcome? RNZYS says "you guys must hold the AC in NZ" to which Dalton replies, "see this contract here, it says we are responsible for organizing the AC" then what? The Squadron says "well then we don't want to be involved any more" to which Dalton responds "fine, see ya later, there's always another YC that'll want this big shiny trophy in their cabinet"

You forgot that it's not GD who owns the Cuo, even if you would like it that way. 

So. If the scenario was as above: The Squadron says: "Fuck off Dalts, you traitor, there are enough sailing teams around that would love to try to defend for us."

They would lose tho, but maybe ETNZ loses as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogwatch said:

Porthos says not. You can argue NY law with him if you want, I'm not about to.

The hypocrisy after ETNZ's stance on the London agreement is, however, nauseating. Here's what they said at the time:

Emirates Team New Zealand was conspicuously absent from today’s press conference. They have not signed up to the framework agreement. The New Zealand team responded to today’s announcement in a Twitter statement, commenting: “Emirates Team NZ believe the future America’s Cup format is to be decided by the Defender and Challenger of Record as it has historically been.” 

https://www.yachtingworld.com/americas-cup/americas-cup-teams-sign-up-to-historic-new-format-without-new-zealand-104126

You are damn right but this is the America's Cup. When you are a challenger you are a fervent believer in democracy, a level playing field, fair rules and whatnot. When you win the Cup and you become the defender you instantly become the Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, you make a 180-degree turn and try to shove up the challengers ass the exact same things you were opposing.

It's ironic that 15 years later, the Protocol is a modernized version of what Bertarelli had proposed in 2007. The format and concept are the same, the difference is in technology. Bertarelli had designed internal combustion engines running on diesel, Dalton offers 100% electric engines...  

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

.. He’s has basically taken the business model of organized crime and applied it to the AC

lol.

15 hours ago, dg_sailingfan said:

Book it: In the end the Venue will be CORK!

perhaps somebody familiar can explain Cork to me. For example, I guess Auckland is a lot like SF - a shiny and vibrant city - tourist friendly - and with some fancy postal codes within the city limits which support a rich cultural tradition.

But what is Cork like? My impression from a quick scan of real estate listings, is. Kind of small.

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

You forgot that it's not GD who owns the Cuo, even if you would like it that way. 

So. If the scenario was as above: The Squadron says: "Fuck off Dalts, you traitor, there are enough sailing teams around that would love to try to defend for us."

They would lose tho, but maybe ETNZ loses as well. 

So whats the point then? Tell ETNZ to fuck off, you lose the cup, hold the cup in NZ, you lose the cup, take it offshore you have an opportunity to keep it.

blowing squadron cash on court fees while dragging the Squadrons reputation through the mud, just to lose the cup is just stupid. 

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

Porthos says not. You can argue NY law with him if you want, I'm not about to.

The hypocrisy after ETNZ's stance on the London agreement is, however, nauseating. Here's what they said at the time:

Emirates Team New Zealand was conspicuously absent from today’s press conference. They have not signed up to the framework agreement. The New Zealand team responded to today’s announcement in a Twitter statement, commenting: “Emirates Team NZ believe the future America’s Cup format is to be decided by the Defender and Challenger of Record as it has historically been.” 

https://www.yachtingworld.com/americas-cup/americas-cup-teams-sign-up-to-historic-new-format-without-new-zealand-104126

If you actually read that statement, and read it for what it is, isn't that statement not only true, but also EXACTLY what Dalton is doing?

The "Framework agreement" signed during AC35, was not part of the protocol signed and agreed to at that time, therefor, it was not agreed to by either the Challenger, or the Defender, in terms of the Deed of Gift.

The Deed of Gift/ Protocol, are the ONLY governing documents in the Americas Cup. The Framework agreement was not Deed compliant, because it was not agreed to by the C or D, largely because in AC35, there was no CoR. 

 

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

i missed this on first glance, but the AC40 class only has 2 regattas?

 

How is that a cost saving exercise?

 

It's not the regattas, it's the fact that the AC40 is the test platform for everything. That is where the saving is, Putting an AC40 on the water everyday and testing foils, etc. Much cheaper compared than an AC75.

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

If you actually read that statement, and read it for what it is, isn't that statement not only true, but also EXACTLY what Dalton is doing?

The "Framework agreement" signed during AC35, was not part of the protocol signed and agreed to at that time, therefor, it was not agreed to by either the Challenger, or the Defender, in terms of the Deed of Gift.

The Deed of Gift/ Protocol, are the ONLY governing documents in the Americas Cup. The Framework agreement was not Deed compliant, because it was not agreed to by the C or D, largely because in AC35, there was no CoR. 

 

The fact the framework was outside the protocol was the only good thing about. It was purely because of this that the team got to chose what design they wanted to defend in.

Now they are in charge, the team has taken the only good part and thrown it away. It will now be the team that decides the boat design for the following cycle, even if they lose.

If they lose they will most likely fade away into nothing. Yet you are still proud that, from the sidelines, they will be able to dictate the boat.

Dalton, the team and NZRYS are making all other defenders over the years look like saints in comparison.

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

i missed this on first glance, but the AC40 class only has 2 regattas?

Two "preliminary regattas" but also an indeterminate number of youth and women's regattas, with mandatory team participation in the youth and women's finals. However only the preliminary regattas bear on seedings for the CSS round-robin which is, perhaps, a pity.

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

Dalton, the team and NZRYS are making all other defenders over the years look like saints in comparison.

We can do whatever we want it's our cup!  You can't judge us its our cup!  But LE and Bertarelli!   We deserve to both respected and loved!

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

The fact the framework was outside the protocol was the only good thing about. It was purely because of this that the team got to chose what design they wanted to defend in.

Now they are in charge, the team has taken the only good part and thrown it away. It will now be the team that decides the boat design for the following cycle, even if they lose.

If they lose they will most likely fade away into nothing. Yet you are still proud that, from the sidelines, they will be able to dictate the boat.

Dalton, the team and NZRYS are making all other defenders over the years look like saints in comparison.

Back to the subject… the statement is self explanatory. Either stick to the DoG and/ or the protocol or piss off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, phill_nz said:

peak solar energy available 1360watts per sq metre ( perfect conditions )

average solar over a day (sunrise to sunset )  ~ 320 watts per square metre ( perfect conditions )

most efficient solar cells available today <23%

=

not feasible at this point .. and am cup / gd wont be changing any of that any time soon

That is the research challenge of course, The solar cars that cross Australia have highest effenciency.
https://vattenfallsolarteam.com/
1265223377_Vattenfallsolarteam.thumb.PNG.7130718091d9544a8a87e41dbce0bd8d.PNG

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

Two "preliminary regattas" but also an indeterminate number of youth and women's regattas, with mandatory team participation in the youth and women's finals. However only the preliminary regattas bear on seedings for the CSS round-robin which is, perhaps, a pity.

Is there a limit on the number of AC40’s a team can buy?
 

Guessing not but it’s possible, for if they want to ensure that at the production rate they have outlined (every 3 weeks starting late Feb) they can get teams supplied with all of their demand before anyone else (non-Challengers) by a reasonable point. 
 

Ideally you might want 2 for two-boat R&D testing and training, plus 1 for staying OD and traveling the events. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Schakel said:

That is the research challenge of course, The solar cars that cross Australia have highest effenciency.
https://vattenfallsolarteam.com/
1265223377_Vattenfallsolarteam.thumb.PNG.7130718091d9544a8a87e41dbce0bd8d.PNG
537784706_Nuna11.thumb.PNG.9d50e9cda197e3b9297bb7dfaeee84b8.PNG

And when used in the deck of an ac75 version 2024, it will be an addition to shore power and grinding power.
Why not?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an interesting comment GD made yesterday about the Ineos Challenge, where it answered something we had tossed around here. He said something like ‘With the Ineos Challenge the default absent the MC (ie the Prot) would have been held in Sept next year, us against Britannia.’ 
 

Presumably Britannia would have been faster by then but what would ETNZ have responded with? 

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

Hi Terrafirma,

I really like this idea, makes people conscience about solarpower what I believe has the future.
So lying in de dock the crew has to polish the PV cells before they head to the startline, it'll benifit the grinders who have less work to do.
Man that's not torturte at all. Best scenario is the that the new boat doesn't need shore power, no grinders.
Perhaps in the far future.

It might work.
It's research for a good cause.

Interesting idea. But living in, 'The Land of the Long White Cloud', not at all that practical.

My sister-in-law and her husband have been off-grid in the Far North of NZL for 7 years. Their biggest frustration (apart from wild pigs, crap roads, the long drop and the useless neighbours) is the lack of sunshine. They have an six-bank specialist battery system and still can't make it work efficiently - firing up a diesel generator to keep the freezer from thawing, or the washing machine cycling. (Still cheaper than connecting to the grid, through Top Energy they reckon. Those guys charge like an Irish forward pack!

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

It was an interesting comment GD made yesterday about the Ineos Challenge, where it answered something we had tossed around here. He said something like ‘With the Ineos Challenge the default absent the MC (ie the Prot) would have been held in Sept next year, us against Britannia.’ 
 

Presumably Britannia would have been faster by then but what would ETNZ have responded with? 

Presumably Britannia would have been a sodding great wing-powered foiling multi and ETNZ would have responded with whatever clever design they could afford.  

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

It was an interesting comment GD made yesterday about the Ineos Challenge, where it answered something we had tossed around here. He said something like ‘With the Ineos Challenge the default absent the MC (ie the Prot) would have been held in Sept next year, us against Britannia.’ 
 

Presumably Britannia would have been faster by then but what would ETNZ have responded with? 

Te Rehutai with its electronic speed limiter tuned out. ;-)

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

Interesting idea. But living in, 'The Land of the Long White Cloud', not at all that practical.

My sister-in-law and her husband have been off-grid in the Far North of NZL for 7 years. Their biggest frustration (apart from wild pigs, crap roads, the long drop and the useless neighbours) is the lack of sunshine. They have an six-bank specialist battery system and still can't make it work efficiently - firing up a diesel generator to keep the freezer from thawing, or the washing machine cycling. (Still cheaper than connecting to the grid, through Top Energy they reckon. Those guys charge like an Irish forward pack!

It is an addition. anything that makes the effenciency higher is okay in my opinion.

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

Interesting idea. But living in, 'The Land of the Long White Cloud', not at all that practical.

My sister-in-law and her husband have been off-grid in the Far North of NZL for 7 years. Their biggest frustration (apart from wild pigs, crap roads, the long drop and the useless neighbours) is the lack of sunshine. They have an six-bank specialist battery system and still can't make it work efficiently - firing up a diesel generator to keep the freezer from thawing, or the washing machine cycling. (Still cheaper than connecting to the grid, through Top Energy they reckon. Those guys charge like an Irish forward pack!

Sounds like the SIL need to get the system sorted out properly if they need to continually fire up the genny. As for Top Energy, no more rapacious than any of the other energy companies.

Can certainly understand the possibility of crap neighbours up this way though.

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

Back to the subject… the statement is self explanatory. Either stick to the DoG and/ or the protocol or piss off.

That is about the level of your thought process. It is my cup so agree to us being arseholes and forcing our preferences onto future defenders or don't play.

When foreigners do it, they are a bunch of dirty picks.

When Kiwis do it, they are defenders of the universe.

You have the morals of a dead rat.

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

That is the research challenge of course, The solar cars that cross Australia have highest effenciency.
https://vattenfallsolarteam.com/
1265223377_Vattenfallsolarteam.thumb.PNG.7130718091d9544a8a87e41dbce0bd8d.PNG

Considering the Lucky Country is mostly desert, I don't doubt this might work across the ditch.

Think about the size of the solar array you could fit on top of the average road train.

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

Something like this:

[...]

RYSNZ sues in NY courts making the same argument. Judge rules that the Deed prevails and RYNZS can't force AM to contest AC38 in AC75s.  RNZYS then argues that, even if it can't force AM to contest AC38 in AC75s, AM (as an AC37 Protocol signer) must pay the $20,000,000 liquidated damages. 

[...]

Why would RYSNZ sue in NY? This case/clause would be referring to the AC37 not AC38 protocol. And for AC37 jurisdiction is within NZ. I wonder if NZ liquidated damages laws are also as restricting as NY ones ...

Also it is not only about payment of damages to RYSNZ but to all participants of the AC37. So with 4 contestants it might just be 5 Mio. $ for each of them - and that is a number that I believe it will be quite easy to calculate damages to by any of the teams.

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

Venue announcement in 4.5 months... now, that is fucking hilarious!

 

Yeah, but entries are open in less than 2 weeks. Imagine all those new teams gagging to join up, even with no idea of where they will be going.

Still, at least they will have the certainty of knowing the boat for the following cycle no matter who wins. That is a plus surely...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Yeah, but entries are open in less than 2 weeks. Imagine all those new teams gagging to join up, even with no idea of where they will be going.

Still, at least they will have the certainty of knowing the boat for the following cycle no matter who wins. That is a plus surely...

Funny.

But on the more serious side, I imagine that both ETNZ and Ineos will need to ‘enter’ under this Protocol and will presumably be first-in on Dec 1 (whatever the first entry date is) and so: there will be two

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, E2nO said:

Why would RYSNZ sue in NY? This case/clause would be referring to the AC37 not AC38 protocol. And for AC37 jurisdiction is within NZ. I wonder if NZ liquidated damages laws are also as restricting an NY ones ...

Also it is not only about payment of damages to RYSNZ but to all participants of the AC37. So with 4 contestants it might just be 5 Mio. $ for each of them - and that is a value that I believe it will be quite easy to calculate damages to by any of the teams.

The cup exists in a charitable trust governed by the laws of New York, and jurisdiction over matters of the Deed of Gift rest exclusively with the courts in New York. RYSNZ and RYSL can't change that by agreement in the Protocol. Moreover, the New York Attorney General represents the beneficiaries of the charitable trust.  The NY AG isn't appearing in a court in New Zealand. Litigation over whether a protocol -- any protocol -- violates the Deed has to be brought first in the New York Supreme Court.  

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about the damages issue, but the $20,000,000 liquidated damages amount does not appear to be tied to any actual damages that would be suffered by any of the remaining competitors. The AC is a money-losing endeavor, so to say that the competitors were "damaged" by having to race in a less-expensive boat doesn't, well, hold water.  This has all the hallmarks of a penalty provision.  

Edit: I did a brief check and NZ law on the issue of liquidated damages seems at least somewhat similar to NY law in that the amount of liquidated damages has to be reasonably related to actual damages and cannot be a penalty, but NZ courts may be a bit more lenient in enforcing such provisions.

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

Sounds like the SIL need to get the system sorted out properly if they need to continually fire up the genny. As for Top Energy, no more rapacious than any of the other energy companies.

Can certainly understand the possibility of crap neighbours up this way though.

It's only a problem when they've had three days cloud cover - which happens about as regularly as the proverbial 50-year flood. ;-)

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

Funny.

But on the more serious side, I imagine that both ETNZ and Ineos will need to ‘enter’ under this Protocol and will presumably first-in on Dec 1 (whatever the first entry date is) and so: there will be two

TNZ will enter? To Challenge themselves? Interesting..... ;-)

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

Is the trike-training-wheels wind limit supposed to encourage new teams? 21 kt upper limit and low-50 kt max speed is not very dramatic or exciting in the current and future (keeping the class ) sailing environment. Of course, in km/hr it's faster, lol.

Every time I edit it quotes, sorry.

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

Yeah, but entries are open in less than 2 weeks. Imagine all those new teams gagging to join up, even with no idea of where they will be going.

Still, at least they will have the certainty of knowing the boat for the following cycle no matter who wins. That is a plus surely...

:D

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

Is the trike-training-wheels wind limit supposed to encourage new teams? 21 kt upper limit and 50-something max speed is not very dramatic or exciting. 

Have you done 50 kts on water? Let me know how not dramatic you found it? 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Schakel said:

It is an addition. anything that makes the effenciency higher is okay in my opinion.

Sadly, the energy required on these boats means that solar would be like farting against thunder. Panels might be able to power starting computer and maybe broadcast system (at a push) but they are after removing weight, not adding it.

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

Have you done 50 kts on water? Let me know how not dramatic you found it? 

 

 

Lol.  But weren't the 2021 AC AC75s supposed to be faster than F50s? Racing?

Going to be business as usual for pro regattas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Sadly, the energy required on these boats means that solar would be like farting against thunder. Panels might be able to power starting computer and maybe broadcast system (at a push) but they are after removing weight, not adding it.

I 'll explain 100 times more if you want, You keep the shore power and the grinders, this is extra bonus. And it depends on the pv cell you use how much weight is added. Pure cristalline Silicium isn't heavy, a very thin layer of sand.
If you use Ni Cd, Cr, or what ever other heavy metal. you add much more weight.

The research which pv cell to use is been done by the solar cars in the world solar challenge. You can copy the best performing car, configuration.

https://www.worldsolarchallenge.org/the-challenge/classes/challenger-class
 

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

I 'll explain 100 times more if you want, You keep the shore power and the grinders, this is extra bonus.

No need mate. We get it. ;-)

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

I 'll explain 100 times more if you want, You keep the shore power and the grinders, this is extra bonus.

Weigh the panels + inverters + buffer battery and divide that by the amount of usable power they'll generate during a race.

Weigh a battery with that amount of power already stored in it.

The battery will weigh less.

There is no bonus, other than ballast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rh3000 said:

A plan could be to have solar panels at base that charge up the batteries used for racing.

This is what Tesla does with many of their supercharging spots - note that they do not have solar panels on their cars.

https://qz.com/1482588/why-teslas-dont-and-cant-have-solar-roofs/

I think SGP does this too.

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

The cup exists in a charitable trust governed by the laws of New York, and jurisdiction over matters of the Deed of Gift rest exclusively with the courts in New York. RYSNZ and RYSL can't change that by agreement in the Protocol. Moreover, the New York Attorney General represents the beneficiaries of the charitable trust.  The NY AG isn't appearing in a court in New Zealand. Litigation over whether a protocol -- any protocol -- violates the Deed has to be brought first in the New York Supreme Court.  

[...]

But then you would have to challenge the protocol right now - because I believe there are law rules that require you to go to court within a limited time once you were able to be aware about anything that you deem not legally right.

So when you sign now it is "Pacta sunt servanda" unless you go to  court immediately

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

They do. ..

This is from Feb '20 but I think they decided to keep it going

Following eight months of collaboration and development, a mobile off-grid solar and Tesla Powerwall system was installed in Sydney to power the battery container for the F50s. If the test is successful, it will lead to much wider use of renewable energy to ensure SailGP events are cleaner, greener and faster, bringing us closer to winning the race to carbon neutrality by 2025.

https://youtu.be/1IDopXtH3L8

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Existing Teams like AM & LRPP are now not allowed to train on their AC75 2nd Generation Boats until after September 17th 2022 should they enter AC37. That is a Major Boon to the Italians who have their Boats in Italy ready to train. Who came up with this?

Magnus Wheatley says no one will challenge aside from INEOS!

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites