Jump to content

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

And he had a good option because he knew a while back that would be the case and B&T would likely choose the Olympics. Of course if it were in Auckland they could have done both.

So much for the strong team ethic. GD threw both on the pyre when it suited him

Sounds more like a bit of pr excuses. Maybe B&T just don't want to be connected to the shitty decisions being made and would prefer to leave before they get tainted forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 800
  • 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.

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

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

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Sounds more like a bit of pr excuses. Maybe B&T just don't want to be connected to the shitty decisions being made and would prefer to leave before they get tainted forever.

Grant's pissed that Alinghy was trying to poach B&T. But through all of it Grant found Nathan.  B&T won because they had the best boat in the finals.  Put Spithill and Bruni on the NZ boat and NZ's boat wins.  It wasn't the helmsman in this case, it was the more superior boat.

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

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

Going to be business as usual for pro regattas. 

Seeing as that showdown never was going to happen it’s a dead discussion, like the 50plus pages dedicated to the fantasy cock off, not seen anything indicating the F50 was faster over a course either..

pros are gonna sail what they want and get paid to do it, everyone here can just wish they could 

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

Seeing as that showdown never was going to happen it’s a dead discussion, like the 50plus pages dedicated to the fantasy cock off, not seen anything indicating the F50 was faster over a course either..

pros are gonna sail what they want and get paid to do it, everyone here can just wish they could 

I own that. But flacks are gonna flack, hypers are gonna hype...sometimes past flackity hype is an inconvenient assumption. The fact NZ won does not erase pre-Cup claims about AC75 blazing speed that never was demonstrated due to conditions and wind limits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the choice between Olympics and AC is one that has to be made, it seems logical that the same choice would have to happen for SailGP as well. This would mean Outteridge is gone, if Slingsby signs with Ineos, him and Ainslie are gone, if B&T sign, they’re gone, if the Swiss sign, Psarophagis is gone, Spithill and Bruni are gone, who’s left? Phil Robertson? He’s about to lose his job soon too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The blazing speed of the holder that actually recorded the lowest top speed of all the entrants.. bit odd/disappointing we never got to see them at full noise. 
 

what not in doubt was the comments that they were significantly better than ac50 or f50 upwind 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, enigmatically2 said:

And he had a good option because he knew a while back that would be the case and B&T would likely choose the Olympics. Of course if it were in Auckland they could have done both.

So much for the strong team ethic. GD threw both on the pyre when it suited him

No, I don't think so, Riddle. GD had his eye on the big picture/strategy&tactics - to cover all bases. A view we don't share, obviously. 

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

Grant's pissed that Alinghy was trying to poach B&T. But through all of it Grant found Nathan.  B&T won because they had the best boat in the finals.  Put Spithill and Bruni on the NZ boat and NZ's boat wins.  It wasn't the helmsman in this case, it was the more superior boat.

Which is the case in all AC's.  The fastest boat always wins.

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

Oh...OK. Got it. ;-)

oops, 'Hydrogen powered Support Vessels'  (i wrote Vehicles above)

 

31. Support Vessels

(a) The Racing Rules agreed under Article 33.1(d) shall contain requirements in relation to team support vessels based on rule 87 of the Racing Rules of Sailing America’s Cup Version for AC36 together with any additions or amendments agreed by COR/D.

(b) At the date of this Protocol (and subject to Article 31(g) below), COR/D is considering a requirement that each Competitor will be required to employ a minimum of two hydrogen powered support vessels (“HSVs”) at the Match Venue to support its on water race operations, each HSV to be at least 10m LOA. This requirement, and the extent to which it will apply to the Competitors, will be confirmed in a Notice to Competitors published by COR/D on or before 1 June 2022, subject to COR/D first verifying that the current prototype under construction is fit for purpose following the completion of final sea trials.

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

Sounds more like a bit of pr excuses. Maybe B&T just don't want to be connected to the shitty decisions being made and would prefer to leave before they get tainted forever.

Better they stay put for a cycle or two more and learn as much as possible from the, AC Master, don't you think? ;-)

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

oops, 'Hydrogen powered Support Vessels'  (i wrote Vehicles above)

 

31. Support Vessels

(a) The Racing Rules agreed under Article 33.1(d) shall contain requirements in relation to team support vessels based on rule 87 of the Racing Rules of Sailing America’s Cup Version for AC36 together with any additions or amendments agreed by COR/D.

(b) At the date of this Protocol (and subject to Article 31(g) below), COR/D is considering a requirement that each Competitor will be required to employ a minimum of two hydrogen powered support vessels (“HSVs”) at the Match Venue to support its on water race operations, each HSV to be at least 10m LOA. This requirement, and the extent to which it will apply to the Competitors, will be confirmed in a Notice to Competitors published by COR/D on or before 1 June 2022, subject to COR/D first verifying that the current prototype under construction is fit for purpose following the completion of final sea trials.

Not to be confused with HSV-1 and HSV-2, or indeed, Holdens. Mind you, owning any kind of Holden is probably just as painful. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Which is the case in all AC's.  The fastest boat always wins.

Unless they get the speed wobbles, capsize horribly and catastrophically smash bilge panels - or was it a loose battery pinball effect?

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

I saw a few in South Africa many years ago. Yikes, I agree! :)

I should add, just for clarity, that I'm not a Ford fan boy either. :P

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

Fair enough

Glad to see someone got you there in the end :-)

Indycar top speed is "faster" than F1 due design decisions optimised for course (conditions)...

Round the same track at the same time? Different story...

 

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

Glad to see someone got you there in the end :-)

Indycar top speed is "faster" than F1 due design decisions optimised for course (conditions)...

Round the same track at the same time? Different story...

 

Cars are boring.  And noisy.  

 

 

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

oops, 'Hydrogen powered Support Vessels'  (i wrote Vehicles above)

 

31. Support Vessels

(a) The Racing Rules agreed under Article 33.1(d) shall contain requirements in relation to team support vessels based on rule 87 of the Racing Rules of Sailing America’s Cup Version for AC36 together with any additions or amendments agreed by COR/D.

(b) At the date of this Protocol (and subject to Article 31(g) below), COR/D is considering a requirement that each Competitor will be required to employ a minimum of two hydrogen powered support vessels (“HSVs”) at the Match Venue to support its on water race operations, each HSV to be at least 10m LOA. This requirement, and the extent to which it will apply to the Competitors, will be confirmed in a Notice to Competitors published by COR/D on or before 1 June 2022, subject to COR/D first verifying that the current prototype under construction is fit for purpose following the completion of final sea trials.

So you have to join in the pretend world series and buy the boats off the team.

Then you have to run two hydrogen support vessels that, surprise surprise, you need to buy from the team.

What is next, team uniforms? The actual race boat, the more you offer the better version you will get? How low can this team go?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the GD allegation that Olympics and AC are a professional conflict too far...to scare off Olympic sailors from competitor teams.

While of course Olympic sailors including B+T flit about a paying SailGP season tailored AROUND the Olympics.  

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

(Still cheaper than connecting to the grid, through Top Energy they reckon. Those guys charge like an Irish forward pack!

A quick google and you guys seem to be paying a third less for power than we are in Aus.

NZ 20c per kwH

Aus 30c per kwH

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

That's "bitch" to you, sonny. 

If the new AC75 specs say 52+ knots...

Well, F50s have done that in practice and they have new wings and foils...and the Cup isn't for years...it's cool until the Cup, right?

 

you would think by now with all the chest thumping he would at least have a clue who he's responding to. some people just see what they want to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/127022750/americas-cup-is-there-a-late-bolter-in-the-hosting-race

Hopefully Australia, either Sydney Harbour or Hamilton Island.

Spectacular venue, Easy logistics for Team NZ, Ben has a softspot for Sydney Harbour where he won his gold, and destroyed everyone on his first go round in SailGP.

McConaghy's has the contract to build the 40's, Ashby and Slingsby aren't signed to deals, the Oatley's aren't campaigning Wild Oats XI, at least this year anyway. Maybe coincide with a Sydney Hobart Race start. 

Time to get the Aussies back in the game!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A dark horse venue showing up in the last minute, or should that be the last 6 months, to snatch the coveted prize.

More likely just another negotiating ploy by the master fund raiser. Scare those still interested into raising their offer and signing up quickly with talk of a bolter coming in from left field.

After all, wasn't the talk of taking it offshore just a ploy to get the NZ Government to cough up more. Look at how well that played out. 

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

A quick google and you guys seem to be paying a third less for power than we are in Aus.

NZ 20c per kwH

Aus 30c per kwH

It's the line charges that are the issue. Here in NZL, we pay for the electricity by the Kw/H, as well as a daily line charge. Two seperate suppliers. Our over all charges are more like .29c per kWh on average. So pretty close.

But my SIL's issue was the $17,000 one-off lines connection fee!!!!! Admittedly, they do live in splendid isolation in the bush, but those 'troublesome' neighbours (same road access) are already connected. So...

And guess what? We burn filthy brown coal too - but we don't like to admit it.

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

A dark horse venue showing up in the last minute, or should that be the last 6 months, to snatch the coveted prize.

More likely just another negotiating ploy by the master fund raiser. Scare those still interested into raising their offer and signing up quickly with talk of a bolter coming in from left field.

After all, wasn't the talk of taking it offshore just a ploy to get the NZ Government to cough up more. Look at how well that played out. 

It hasn't played out yet. Just sayin.

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

That's a weird one, even for Dalts. He's good mates with them, but hasn't discussed this at all over the last six months?

If there's nothing behind the scenes here and take it as face value then it's really crap job by the CEO to ignore your prize asset and then spitball their options on the media.

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

It hasn't played out yet. Just sayin.

Absolutely. But you would have to admit his claims of those lining up with oddles of cash hasn't been that good so far. So a brave ruse that can never be shown to be a pile of bull.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, porthos said:

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. 

Thanks, this sounds plausible in AC world

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

It's the line charges that are the issue. Here in NZL, we pay for the electricity by the Kw/H, as well as a daily line charge. Two seperate suppliers. Our over all charges are more like .29c per kWh on average. So pretty close.

But my SIL's issue was the $17,000 one-off lines connection fee!!!!! Admittedly, they do live in splendid isolation in the bush, but those 'troublesome' neighbours (same road access) are already connected. So...

And guess what? We burn filthy brown coal too - but we don't like to admit it.

That price is fairly normal for running a new feeder in. I guess the neighbours are the last one on the line.

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

Absolutely. But you would have to admit his claims of those lining up with oddles of cash hasn't been that good so far. So a brave ruse that can never be shown to be a pile of bull.

There will be a venue, so someone, whether it be Cork, Spain, Jeddah, or the "bolter", Dalton WILL come to a deal at some stage. The September deadline was, and is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But there WILL be a venue, which means the team WILL end up with an amount that they feel confident in defending the AC.

So all your bluster and "bull" about no cash will have gone out the window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/11/17/dalton-says-tuke-burling-cant-do-both-olympics-and-am-cup/

Though it sounds harsh, he's right. No one is bigger than the team. B&T are part of the machine. That machine must work, with or without them. They understand that. Its the reason Burling turned down the sports person of the year award, because he said it was a team effort.

While no doubt it would be better to have them, if they decide not to, than it is what it is. You can't focus 100% of your time and effort into both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rh3000 said:

A plan could be to have solar panels at base that charge up the batteries used for racing.
It is possible indeed.:D

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/

It is a too modern idea, when you change the rule into, lurking (extra shore power) is prohibited during green flag periods, then you end up with modern design. And the race comitee decides if there is enough sun to get the batteries loaded. Only during racing with training power supply is free, to stimulate extensive training.

This is a dutch car that is in development, Lightyear, in which a trip to for instance Being (china) is obtainable without external power supply.
https://lightyear.one/

786691580_Lightyear12.PNG.64046e89ae37666d1ceb986185789eda.PNG

816850483_Lightyear1.PNG.288f4da0fc40682bcff450654dd18885.PNG
And frankly to say, sailing used to be a wind driven sport. Last cup was the first cup where shore power took the role as unmissable. An AC 75 is a flying tesla that consumes a lot of energy. It is about politics as well.

I know, it's gutsy... Just venting a good idea.

Imagine this deck filled with solar panels:
546290961_AC75versionAC37.PNG.18a851b8b0ba83a5844cfbcf97961d52.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is the new boat?
Taken from the drawing below
Length = 9150mm + 8200 mm + length of Bow = 17350 mm + length of bow56,922572 ft + length of bow.
790669954_DimensionAC75version2024.PNG.92437ee293525bbc8ec693bf6b949826.PNG

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

It is a too modern idea, when you change the rule into, lurking (extra shore power) is prohibited during green flag periods, then you end up with modern design. And the race comitee decides if there is enough sun to get the batteries loaded. Only during racing with training power supply is free, to stimulate extensive training.

There is a dutch car that is in development, Lightyear, in which a trip to for instance Being (china) is obtainable without external power supply.
https://lightyear.one/

786691580_Lightyear12.PNG.64046e89ae37666d1ceb986185789eda.PNG

816850483_Lightyear1.PNG.288f4da0fc40682bcff450654dd18885.PNG
And frankly to say, sailing used to be a wind driven sport. Last cup was the first cup where shore power took the role as unmissable. An AC 75 is a flying tesla that consumes a lot of energy. It is about politics as well.

I know, it's gutsy... Just venting a good idea.

Imagine this deck filled with solar panels:
546290961_AC75versionAC37.PNG.18a851b8b0ba83a5844cfbcf97961d52.PNG

I did, and it's slower.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

I did, and it's slower.

But wind driven and solar driven instead of extra energy in an era where energy reduction is on the program.
It's about politics as well.

What is the new total length of this new draft version? 60 feet?

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

I did, and it's slower.

And those six Olympic cyclists, a helmsman and a tactician, doesn't make the boat slower by weight compared to  solar cells and some electrical parts like  a converter and 60 volt accu's that were alllready there in the basic draft version?

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

And those six Olympic cyclists, a helmsman and a tactician, doesn't make the boat slower by weight compared to  solar cells and some electrical parts like  a converter and 60 volt accu's that were alllready there in the basic draft version?

You most definitely do not know what you're talking about and clearly have not done the sums. Do you see a solar panel on a Tesla roof? Do you see them on formula e race cars?

What you would produce is a fart in the thunder of the power budget. Drop it, or do some actual research and drop it.

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

There will be a venue, so someone, whether it be Cork, Spain, Jeddah, or the "bolter", Dalton WILL come to a deal at some stage. The September deadline was, and is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But there WILL be a venue, which means the team WILL end up with an amount that they feel confident in defending the AC.

So all your bluster and "bull" about no cash will have gone out the window.

This comment might not age that well

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

There will be a venue, so someone, whether it be Cork, Spain, Jeddah, or the "bolter", Dalton WILL come to a deal at some stage. The September deadline was, and is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But there WILL be a venue, which means the team WILL end up with an amount that they feel confident in defending the AC.

So all your bluster and "bull" about no cash will have gone out the window.

This comment might not age that well

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the presentation Ben spoke a bit about the disagreements they might have had in finding the common ground.

I thought the insistence of the AC75 class for the two cup cycles might have come from etnz, but it's probably more in Ineos' favour. 

AC75 v1 etnz clearly had the best boat. 

AC75 V2 we will see that gap close, if not even overtaken. A lot of these improvements will cost money. 

AC75 v3 for the 38th cup cycle will see the design evolve further and we get to marginal gains territory. Once again this is totally in Ineos' favour.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ben's "trying to reduce the costs" mantra as total smokescreen. Behind the scenes sir Jim has a really good opportunity to invest big time in this cycle to dominate the next two events. With the second one being in the Solent.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heroes have a short shelf life in NZ don't they? 6 months ago we were being told that B&T were the best sailors in the world, without compare. Essential for their inputs into the design which is why ETNZ won.

Now they are just insignificant bumps in the road to an offshore venue (well at least hopefully, this road doesn't appear to have any signs and no-one has a map)

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

How long is the new boat?
Taken from the drawing below
Length = 9150mm + 8200 mm + length of Bow = 17350 mm + length of bow56,922572 ft + length of bow.
790669954_DimensionAC75version2024.PNG.92437ee293525bbc8ec693bf6b949826.PNG

If the new boats are 75 feet long the length of the nose is calculation:
75 - 56,922572 = 18,077428 ft long = 5,5100000544 meter = 5510 mm significance. = 5,51 meter.
 

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

More likely the team has come up with a different answer for the energy requirements and it is just misdirection.

It is a matter of opinion.
Wonder what this man thinks of the proposal:
2130473731_GrantDalton.jpg.51aa06f0bdb528dca3716fa6deb2780a.jpg
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours 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.  

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.

Forgive my ignorance here Porthos, but why isn't it a contract issue? If a new cup holder decided to ignore the agreement they made for AC37 when holding AC38, its not an issue with the deed which permits them to change the boat, but an issue with the entry agreement they made for AC37. From my naive viewpoint that's just a contract they made with ETNZ/RNZYS?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, shebeen said:

You most definitely do not know what you're talking about and clearly have not done the sums. Do you see a solar panel on a Tesla roof? Do you see them on formula e race cars?

What you would produce is a fart in the thunder of the power budget. Drop it, or do some actual research and drop it.

Research has already been done by the solar cars. Just copy it. further research is up to the teams or make it a standard to keep it affordable.
505446705_Vattenfallsolarteam.thumb.PNG.de2cee54aa57bb64ac3d4af10484e8cc.PNG

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

Research has already been done by the solar cars. Just copy it. further research is up to the teams or make it a standard to keep it affordable.
505446705_Vattenfallsolarteam.thumb.PNG.de2cee54aa57bb64ac3d4af10484e8cc.PNG

No. It's not going to happen any time soon. A mid-sized car has a quite small roof area and even if it sat in the sun all day (which a majority of cars don't often do) it would generate only enough power to drive the vehicle maybe 2.5 miles. The numbers just doin't work, as Elon Musk (Tesla Inc.) has discussed. Google it:

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a36675078/why-we-dont-have-solar-powered-cars/ 

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

HSV? New Bathurst entry? No wait...we aren't talking Holden Special Vehicle here, right?

I'm only in my mid 50's, so not that ancient, but I was driving home today and saw a Commodore SS with historical plates. My heart sank just a little bit... :( :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

havnt read the article by musk

but .. the solar challenge has been going on in aussie for decades .. i followed the first and many more

the advances are there

our biggest problem is our transport is no longer a replacement for a horse

its a living room, lounge, tool shed, trailer, entertainment centre and great big penis to most.. musk included

his 2 tonne p.o.s will never be solar 

but like it or not we dont need a 2 tonne pos to get from a to b for > 90% of the times its used

 

for lifting > tonne up and down in a 15 min sail race .. its not there yet either .. even with regen

 

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

Research has already been done by the solar cars. Just copy it. further research is up to the teams or make it a standard to keep it affordable.
505446705_Vattenfallsolarteam.thumb.PNG.de2cee54aa57bb64ac3d4af10484e8cc.PNG

ok, that means nothing. Let's get done with this pipedream, I'll do the matchs for you.

The AC75 v1 has a 15kW hydraulic motor that controls the foils and rudder. The muscle does everything above the deck eg. sails. if you wanted to have it all muscle power, you'd need a team of 20-30 grinders. but since that would add about 2-3 extra tonnes to the boat the whole thing would need to be relooked at. 

The hydraulic FCS is powered by a 5kWh battery, would it be possible to totally replace that with solar then?

To produce 15kWp, you'd need some very efficient panels, you'd be looking in the ballpark of a 400W panel, with dimensions of 2x1m. so you'd need about 40 of these. and then you'd need them to be free of shade, so often maybe only use half of them. Tthen you'd also be a bit screwed if it was cloudy, so there goes Cork. they'd 

we could go further down the road, but the point is the power budget of these boats is monstrous. To sail without engines or stored energy is impractical. Having grinders to run the sail control is already a concession to not make it look like a radio controlled boat. Putting some panels on to run the basic nav electronics would require some redundancy backup anyway and would just be a marketing stunt with no practical reason.

 

 

 

 

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

In the presentation Ben spoke a bit about the disagreements they might have had in finding the common ground.

I thought the insistence of the AC75 class for the two cup cycles might have come from etnz, but it's probably more in Ineos' favour. 

AC75 v1 etnz clearly had the best boat. 

AC75 V2 we will see that gap close, if not even overtaken. A lot of these improvements will cost money. 

AC75 v3 for the 38th cup cycle will see the design evolve further and we get to marginal gains territory. Once again this is totally in Ineos' favour.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ben's "trying to reduce the costs" mantra as total smokescreen. Behind the scenes sir Jim has a really good opportunity to invest big time in this cycle to dominate the next two events. With the second one being in the Solent.

 

 

Makes sense. Ben can focus on winning the cup over 2 cycles. NZ will be distracted organizing the creation of HSVs and AC40s, womens and kids regattas, and fighting rear guard actions in various courts. Ainslie may be smart like a fox here, agreeing to HSVs and all to let Dalton spread himself thin. I love his comments saying he really really wants the cup in Auckland, meanwhile his boats and equipment are no longer there. That dude is a grinder, in the poker sense of the word.

As to this solar cars off topic thing, I spent over $40K putting solar on my old house in CA five years ago. I don’t remember the details but at the time we did a back of the envelope on how much more we would need to charge a Tesla. It was like 8-10 panels and $15 - $20K. Per car.

If you are spending the money for a top end EV perhaps popping another $20K for solar panels is in reach. For the average person it isn’t. The real issue though is the space. I don’t feel like working out all the math again but unless something has fundamentally changed with solar panels, putting panels on the actual car is a silly idea. The practical solution is solar farms and other renewables on the grid and plug in stations all over the place.

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

Forgive my ignorance here Porthos, but why isn't it a contract issue? If a new cup holder decided to ignore the agreement they made for AC37 when holding AC38, its not an issue with the deed which permits them to change the boat, but an issue with the entry agreement they made for AC37. From my naive viewpoint that's just a contract they made with ETNZ/RNZYS?

Fair question.  The short answer is that you are correct -- the Protocol is a contract that can be enforced to the extent the terms and conditions do not conflict with the Deed.

The AC37 Protocol (as it must) indicates that in the event of a conflict between the Protocol and the Deed, the Deed takes precedence.  (See AC37 Prot. Secs. 1.3 and 33.)  Moreover, the AC37 Protocol indicates that it governs the AC37 match, not the AC38 match.  (See AC37 Prot. Introduction, Para. F.)

Despite what Para. F says, Section 23 of the Protocol tries to control at least a portion of the match for AC38. That's the problem. The Deed gives the Challenger and Defender of AC38 the right to select the boats for that match.  The Deed doesn't qualify that right by saying "unless you selected your boat several years ago before the match existed and before you were even a Challenger or Defender in AC38, in which case you can't change your mind."  The Challenger and Defender of AC38 get to select their boats for the AC38 match in accordance with the terms of the Deed. Full stop.1

As a result, the sections of the AC37 Protocol that attempt to govern AC38 and require a team to contest AC38 in AC75s are void as they override the terms of the Deed. Those are Sections 23.2(a), (b), and (c). 

On the other hand, the sections of the AC37 Protocol that do not conflict with the Deed remain enforceable. It's a perfectly valid contract otherwise.  For example, the AC37 Protocol has provisions in it relating to intellectual property created as a result of AC37 and require those IP rights to be assigned following the end of AC37.  (See, e.g., AC37 Prot. Sec. 60.5(a).)  Deed says nothing about intellectual property rights, so the parties are free to make whatever contract they want to about that, and a subsequent court can enforce those agreements.

More germanely to this discussion, the right of the parties to contract would include the agreement of the AC37 participants to pay the liquidated damages provision of Section 23.2(d) of the AC37 Protocol if they do change their minds in AC38 and decide not to use AC75s. There is nothing in the Deed that even addresses liquidated damages, so the parties are free to contract regarding it.

Perhaps the best evidence that the AC37 Protocol drafters knew that Sections 23.2(a), (b), and (c) of the AC37 Protocol are not enforceable is the fact that they included Section 23.2(d), which they know is enforceable. In other words, if the drafters knew they could force an AC37 participant to use an AC75 in AC38 (see Section 23.2(c)), there would be no need to include a liquidated damages clause (Section 23.2(d)) because the circumstances that would trigger the liquidated damages provision would never come to pass such that the provision would be entirely unnecessary and superfluous. 

-------------------------------------

1Consider the silly situation where the Challenger for AC38 was not a participant in AC37 and didn't sign the Protocol. The Challenger issues a Deed challenge to be held on a 40 mile ocean course. Is the Defender required to sail that in an AC37 AC75 designed for in-shore racing (which is what Section 23.2(b) requires)?      

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question. Does this prevent LR to show Prada logo on the boat ? Or this apply only to such things as JS RedBull sponsorship ? 

59. Anti-ambush obligations

  1. (a)  A Competitor (and each of their Team Members) must not engage in any form of unauthorised promotional, advertising or commercial activity (“Ambush Marketing”) which:

    1. (i)  associates a commercial brand with the Events (as opposed to the Competitor’s participation in the Events); or

    2. (ii)  has the effect, in the reasonable opinion of ACE, of conferring the status of a commercial partner of the Events on a person who is not a commercial partner of the Events.

  2. (b)  Each Competitor agrees that in participating in AC37:

    1. (i)  it will use reasonable endeavours to eliminate or neutralise any Ambush Marketing, including in respect of any brands or logos of a third party that is not a commercial partner of the Events or any Competitor and is displayed during the Events; and

    2. (ii)  when it becomes aware of any Ambush Marketing, it will consult with and provide reasonable assistance to ACE in taking all necessary steps to eliminate or neutralise such Ambush Marketing.

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

Very cheap...jealous much......

I pulled out my last electric bill and looked at it in more detail. By the time you added all the surcharges and taxes, the base rate of US 8.34c becomes  US 13c, which is a bit over AUS/NZ 17c. Still cheap, but not as low as I originally thought. 

 

7 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

It's the line charges that are the issue. Here in NZL, we pay for the electricity by the Kw/H, as well as a daily line charge. Two seperate suppliers. Our over all charges are more like .29c per kWh on average. So pretty close.

But my SIL's issue was the $17,000 one-off lines connection fee!!!!! Admittedly, they do live in splendid isolation in the bush, but those 'troublesome' neighbours (same road access) are already connected. So...

And guess what? We burn filthy brown coal too - but we don't like to admit it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jean-Baptiste said:

So next AC is six Olympic cyclists, a helmsman and a tactician?

I was wondering if you could ditch that helmsman and tactician. Steer the boat by remote control with the tactician sitting next to the helm in a comfortable air-conditioned building.

But RRSAC 2.7 still has an outside assistance rule. So I guess not just yet.

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

 

And guess what? We burn filthy brown coal too - but we don't like to admit it.

This made me look. NZ has C02 emissions per capita almost 30% higher than UK (source)

And "New Zealand burned more coal for electricity production in the first quarter of this year than any quarter in nearly a decade" (source)

So probably will be even worse this year

But why so? don't get me wrong, you are well ahead of US, China and the ME states, but how come so far behind Europe? I thought you guys were supposed to be very pro-green?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Zaal said:

Quick question. Does this prevent LR to show Prada logo on the boat ? Or this apply only to such things as JS RedBull sponsorship ? 

 

Ambush marketing "associates a commercial brand with the Events (as opposed to the Competitor’s participation in the Events);"

Prada is associated with the LR's participation in the Events. So allowed.

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

How long is the new boat?
Taken from the drawing below
Length = 9150mm + 8200 mm + length of Bow = 17350 mm + length of bow56,922572 ft + length of bow.
790669954_DimensionAC75version2024.PNG.92437ee293525bbc8ec693bf6b949826.PNG

I'll save you the trouble of trying to scale things up from a small drawing:

"8.5 The aftmost point on the hull surface shall lie on TRP.

8.6.......

 8.7 The forwardmost point on the hull shall be no less than 20.600 m and no greater than 20.700 m from TRP."

That translates into a hull length of 67.913', or about 67' 11" in old numbers.

There is also something missing on the pointy end that was there last time.....

Mind you, this rule is still in draft form. Anything can change.

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

I was wondering if you could ditch that helmsman and tactician. Steer the boat by remote control with the tactician sitting next to the helm in a comfortable air-conditioned building.

But RRSAC 2.7 still has an outside assistance rule. So I guess not just yet.

Drone sailing isn't considered yachtmen sport, but fun to do:
1181673562_Screenshot2021-11-18at15-31-56beukske-september-2020pdf.png.dab62a8ffdb933c16c2ae1703179f05c.png
 

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

I'll save you the trouble of trying to scale things up from a small drawing:

"8.5 The aftmost point on the hull surface shall lie on TRP.

8.6.......

 8.7 The forwardmost point on the hull shall be no less than 20.600 m and no greater than 20.700 m from TRP."

That translates into a hull length of 67.913', or about 67' 11" in old numbers.

There is also something missing on the pointy end that was there last time.....

Mind you, this rule is still in draft form. Anything can change.

Thanks, I wasn't able to find that. So an AC 67,5853? Why not, I don't mind?

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

Quick question. Does this prevent LR to show Prada logo on the boat ? Or this apply only to such things as JS RedBull sponsorship ? 

59. Anti-ambush obligations

  1. (a)  A Competitor (and each of their Team Members) must not engage in any form of unauthorised promotional, advertising or commercial activity (“Ambush Marketing”) which:

    1. (i)  associates a commercial brand with the Events (as opposed to the Competitor’s participation in the Events); or

    2. (ii)  has the effect, in the reasonable opinion of ACE, of conferring the status of a commercial partner of the Events on a person who is not a commercial partner of the Events.

  2. (b)  Each Competitor agrees that in participating in AC37:

    1. (i)  it will use reasonable endeavours to eliminate or neutralise any Ambush Marketing, including in respect of any brands or logos of a third party that is not a commercial partner of the Events or any Competitor and is displayed during the Events; and

    2. (ii)  when it becomes aware of any Ambush Marketing, it will consult with and provide reasonable assistance to ACE in taking all necessary steps to eliminate or neutralise such Ambush Marketing.

I read that as allowing an individual team to have sponsorship but the team must make clear in any advertising or marketing that the sponsor is a sponsor of the team and not of the event. So Prada can sponsor LRPP and can have the Prada name on the boat, but LRPP can't say or reasonably infer in marketing, advertising, or through other conduct that Prada is somehow an official sponsor the event itself.  AC Media wants to sell the rights to be an "official sponsor" of AC37 and not have those rights diluted by the teams. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jean-Baptiste said:

So next AC is six Olympic cyclists, a helmsman and a tactician?

I'm just going to perform some post-mortem equine abuse one more time. When I was a young bowman, I could look at the AC bowmen and aspire to that. I could study how they do peels, how they set up for different sets and douses, etc... Same for any mast, pit, trimmer, or any other job on the boat. Just like how a young baseball player studies how the pros do it at their position. Now the AC is saying "oh, you're an elite foredeck/mast/spinnaker trimmer/etc...? Fuck off, we only want drivers, a trimmer, something called a flight controller, and a bunch of cyclists who have never sailed competitively before." This is the top inshore event for our sport now.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Schakel said:

So this is the rule:
1196728417_Perimeterline.PNG.9418d84f39ff922d35842ea7f31cf803.PNG

Those are beam constraints on the hull in plan view at various locations. Items (b), (c), and (d) are the same as they were in the last rule. Item (a) is new.

What you need to do in order to see what has changed and what is the same is read the old rule and the draft new rule side by side, not by rule number, but by the part of the boat controlled.

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

Fair question.  The short answer is that you are correct -- the Protocol is a contract that can be enforced to the extent the terms and conditions do not conflict with the Deed.

The AC37 Protocol (as it must) indicates that in the event of a conflict between the Protocol and the Deed, the Deed takes precedence.  (See AC37 Prot. Secs. 1.3 and 33.)  Moreover, the AC37 Protocol indicates that it governs the AC37 match, not the AC38 match.  (See AC37 Prot. Introduction, Para. F.)

Despite what Para. F says, Section 23 of the Protocol tries to control at least a portion of the match for AC38. That's the problem. The Deed gives the Challenger and Defender of AC38 the right to select the boats for that match.  The Deed doesn't qualify that right by saying "unless you selected your boat several years ago before the match existed and before you were even a Challenger or Defender in AC38, in which case you can't change your mind."  The Challenger and Defender of AC38 get to select their boats for the AC38 match in accordance with the terms of the Deed. Full stop.1

As a result, the sections of the AC37 Protocol that attempt to govern AC38 and require a team to contest AC38 in AC75s are void as they override the terms of the Deed. Those are Sections 23.2(a), (b), and (c). 

On the other hand, the sections of the AC37 Protocol that do not conflict with the Deed remain enforceable. It's a perfectly valid contract otherwise.  For example, the AC37 Protocol has provisions in it relating to intellectual property created as a result of AC37 and require those IP rights to be assigned following the end of AC37.  (See, e.g., AC37 Prot. Sec. 60.5(a).)  Deed says nothing about intellectual property rights, so the parties are free to make whatever contract they want to about that, and a subsequent court can enforce those agreements.

More germanely to this discussion, the right of the parties to contract would include the agreement of the AC37 participants to pay the liquidated damages provision of Section 23.2(d) of the AC37 Protocol if they do change their minds in AC38 and decide not to use AC75s. There is nothing in the Deed that even addresses liquidated damages, so the parties are free to contract regarding it.

Perhaps the best evidence that the AC37 Protocol drafters knew that Sections 23.2(a), (b), and (c) of the AC37 Protocol are not enforceable is the fact that they included Section 23.2(d), which they know is enforceable. In other words, if the drafters knew they could force an AC37 participant to use an AC75 in AC38 (see Section 23.2(c)), there would be no need to include a liquidated damages clause (Section 23.2(d)) because the circumstances that would trigger the liquidated damages provision would never come to pass such that the provision would be entirely unnecessary and superfluous. 

-------------------------------------

1Consider the silly situation where the Challenger for AC38 was not a participant in AC37 and didn't sign the Protocol. The Challenger issues a Deed challenge to be held on a 40 mile ocean course. Is the Defender required to sail that in an AC37 AC75 designed for in-shore racing (which is what Section 23.2(b) requires)?      

 

@porthos, thanks for these posts. 

Regarding the damages, could the argument be that the winner who reneges on the AC75 is only liable for damages incurred during AC37, i.e. none, as that is what the protocol governs? 

I'm thinking of a scenario like this: winner reneges, writes the new protocol to contest with the new challenger of their choice, doesn't pursue a DoG challenge but excludes ETNZ, Ineos, others party to the AC37 protocol by some kind of clause akin to nationality or constructed in country rules.

What damages arising from the boat change thus are incurred by ETNZ et al?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites