Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 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

1 hour ago, Gissie said:

Said every SS member.

You really are a fucking moron if you're comparing the Deed of Gift to Nazi Germany.

Every sport has rules, but just because they have to be followed, does not mean those who wrote them or enforce them are Nazi's.

Is this how fucking jaded you are that you'd compare Grant Dalton to Adolph Hitler? 

I bet your family would be really proud.

Idiot.

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

You really are a fucking moron if you're comparing the Deed of Gift to Nazi Germany.

Every sport has rules, but just because they have to be followed, does not mean those who wrote them or enforce them are Nazi's.

Is this how fucking jaded you are that you'd compare Grant Dalton to Adolph Hitler? 

I bet your family would be really proud.

Idiot.

Nobody compares GD with Hitler, well... apparently your imagination does. 

It's your generalized statements that make people write general statements too. 

"How can it be amoral or unethical to follow rules?" Can't you see for yourself how stupid this is? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the DoG are not the only applicable rules.  We do have a catch-all rule on sportsmanship

"A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. "

Does an AC defender running the event in such a way as to give themselves an advantage contravene this? Depends on who you ask I suspect

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

Nobody compares GD with Hitler, well... apparently your imagination does. 

It's your generalized statements that make people write general statements too. 

"How can it be amoral or unethical to follow rules?" Can't you see for yourself how stupid this is? 

Rennie, seriously, Gissie's post "Said every SS member." is totally uncalled for, in that context anyway. Gissie may not understand that, but you should. That was not just a "general statement", as you say, not at all.

And I am also genuinely surprised that you "liked" that post.

 

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

Rennie, seriously, Gissie's post "Said every SS member." is totally uncalled for, in that context anyway. Gissie may not understand that, but you should. That was not just a "general statement", as you say, not at all.

And I am also genuinely surprised that you "liked" that post.

 

Whereas I was just confused by it. I was trying to wok out which rules stars & stripes had followed that were so controversial

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, enigmatically2 said:

Whereas I was just confused by it. I was trying to wok out which rules stars & stripes had followed that were so controversial

You see, I do not expect too many here will get what I'm on about, never mind. Some of my Kiwi crew called me a Nazi too. Could not explain to them why that was not very appropriate to say.

Watched this documentary just the other day, lest we forget:

 

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

You see, I do not expect too many here will get what I'm on about, never mind. Some of my Kiwi crew called me a Nazi too. Could not explain to them why that was not appropriate to say.

 

Don't get me wrong. I agree its inappropriate to compare following the DoG with nazi germany. Its just that in the context when I read it I interpreted SS as Stars & Stripes.

 

On the other hand I don't think it is right to claim that just because the DoG is followed that makes it right. Most sports (including sailing) have rules on sportsmanlike and fair behaviour to catch such things.

After all Chappell's underarm bowl was legal at the time, but upset one or 2 kiwis at at the time

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, enigmatically2 said:

Don't get me wrong. I agree its inappropriate to compare following the DoG with nazi germany. Its just that in the context when I read it I interpreted SS as Stars & Stripes.

That's almost funny, but not really. I may be a bit over sensitive in that respect, but I almost get a chill when I see SA, for Sailing Anarchy.

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

Rennie, seriously, Gissie's post "Said every SS member." is totally uncalled for, in that context anyway. Gissie may not understand that, but you should. That was not just a "general statement", as you say, not at all.

And I am also genuinely surprised that you "liked" that post.

 

He's right, every SS member followed rules. I think you read more into Gissie's post than there is. He did not compare anyone specific to Nazis, that's your interpretation. I'm shocked about the ugly imagination some people here show. 

BTW, it's now already the second time you stalk my likes. Don't you think this interest in such a small detail is a bit creepy? 

Anyway, I'm not interested anymore in this ridiculous deliberate misunderstanding game. It's childish.

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

He's right, every SS member followed rules. I think you read more into Gissie's post than there is. He did not compare anyone specific to Nazis, that's your interpretation. I'm shocked about the ugly imagination some people here show. 

BTW, it's now already the second time you stalk my likes. Don't you think this interest in such a small detail is a bit creepy? 

Anyway, I'm not interested anymore in this ridiculous deliberate misunderstanding game. It's childish.

They didn't follow the rules though did they? They followed orders, not rules.

That was the main defence seen in the Nuremberg trials.

Soldiers whose only defence was "I was just following orders"

Officers gave orders that broke every international law and treaty they were bound by.

So they never followed rules, they followed orders, which is why the Nazi's were either executed, or fled, because they knew they would be arrested and executed for their crimes.

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

After all Chappell's underarm bowl was legal at the time, but upset one or 2 kiwis at at the time

Damn right. I'm still pissed about it!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only "sport" that's more boring, and more off-topic than F1 is ... cricket and croquet. And why did that batsman not give that rolling ball a hell of a wack for a six, like even a girl hockey player would have done?

Just remember, quite a while ago, that we were playing in a school baseball tournament. Being a rather snooty school we normally would play not even soccer, only field hockey. We were being beaten by a school with several real baseball players, and much bigger guys because they failed a few years. Desperately I began to throw underarm, with a piss bow, and they hit all balls sky high, and were caught out in no time. We still lost in the end, but in a more honourable way, or not...

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, enigmatically2 said:

So do you not then agree with the principle that just because the rules allow something, it still may be unsporting and you shouldn't do it?

Yes, e2. I do agree.

Now, tell me why you doubted that?

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

It's all about trying to save face now for Dunphy & Co. Good luck.

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

He's right, every SS member followed rules. I think you read more into Gissie's post than there is. He did not compare anyone specific to Nazis, that's your interpretation. I'm shocked about the ugly imagination some people here show. 

BTW, it's now already the second time you stalk my likes. Don't you think this interest in such a small detail is a bit creepy? 

Anyway, I'm not interested anymore in this ridiculous deliberate misunderstanding game. It's childish.

Thanks, it was certainly not to accuse anyone of being Hitler or a Nazi. More that there was blind following of rules, which orders could be construed to become for the pedantic. This blind following is now allowing the justification of things like moving venue, one design and penalising a new defender who wants to chose their own design.

I just can not see how a simple - the rules allow it - can make these things okay. The sort of mindset that can just go along is so different from mine that I just can't understand them.

I shall keep trying to ignore them as much as possible, sadly I am human and occasionally relapse.

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

Thanks, it was certainly not to accuse anyone of being Hitler or a Nazi. More that there was blind following of rules, which orders could be construed to become for the pedantic. This blind following is now allowing the justification of things like moving venue, one design and penalising a new defender who wants to chose their own design.

I just can not see how a simple - the rules allow it - can make these things okay. The sort of mindset that can just go along is so different from mine that I just can't understand them.

I shall keep trying to ignore them as much as possible, sadly I am human and occasionally relapse.

What!? Blind following of rules!? How can this even be a thing!? You think sports people should be able to pick and choose which rules they want to follow and which rules they don't?

Why don't they just give Oracle's trophies back? After all, they may have not wanted to follow the one design rule.

Why doesn't Lance Armstrong get all his trophies back? After all, sport doesn't need a doping rule right?

Why not let Olympic athletes take any PHD they want? Who needs a fair competition right? 

Let the Russians and their state sponsored doping program enter the Olympics, because thats a stupid rule right?

Why not get rid of the class rules in Olympic sailing and let Giles Scott in his Finn boat, go up against Pete in Te Rehutai? Who needs class rules right?

Why not just get rid of the Deed of gift if you want no rules at all? Why not just say the cup is always to be challenged anywhere, anytime, by anyone at any venue in any hemisphere in any boat at any cost?

Do you realise how chaotic sport would be without rules?

What an absolute Ludacris thing to say! Rules are there for a reason. Otherwise sport would be impossible. Just because you don't like the rules does not mean the rules shouldn't be followed.

 

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

What!? Blind following of rules!? How can this even be a thing!? You think sports people should be able to pick and choose which rules they want to follow and which rules they don't?

Why don't they just give Oracle's trophies back? After all, they may have not wanted to follow the one design rule.

Why doesn't Lance Armstrong get all his trophies back? After all, sport doesn't need a doping rule right?

Why not let Olympic athletes take any PHD they want? Who needs a fair competition right? 

Let the Russians and their state sponsored doping program enter the Olympics, because thats a stupid rule right?

Why not get rid of the class rules in Olympic sailing and let Giles Scott in his Finn boat, go up against Pete in Te Rehutai? Who needs class rules right?

Why not just get rid of the Deed of gift if you want no rules at all? Why not just say the cup is always to be challenged anywhere, anytime, by anyone at any venue in any hemisphere in any boat at any cost?

Do you realise how chaotic sport would be without rules?

What an absolute Ludacris thing to say! Rules are there for a reason. Otherwise sport would be impossible. Just because you don't like the rules does not mean the rules shouldn't be followed.

 

Cicadas will be here soon, meanwhile crickets.

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

Told you so...

You see no problem with one design and trying to force a defender to not have a choice.

You compare sports with rules to one where two of the teams get to make the rules.

So cicadas is all I wait for, because you are beyond all else.

Have a nice Xmas time.

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

You see no problem with one design and trying to force a defender to not have a choice.

You compare sports with rules to one where two of the teams get to make the rules.

So cicadas is all I wait for, because you are beyond all else.

Have a nice Xmas time.

Ugh, FFS man, get it through your thick skull! Mutual consent allows the Defender and CoR to make those decisions.

You may not like the Deed of Gift, but that document governs the Americas Cup. Take it or leave it, but thats never going to change, nor should it.

If you think the DoG should be abolished, the Americas Cup isn't your thing. The DoG has governed the Americas Cup for 170 years. It is what makes the Americas Cup what it is, and what makes it so hard to win. It is not fair, it has never been fair, and it will never be fair, why? Because the DoG never intended multiple challengers, therefor does not provide for them.

Every team is aware of this. 

You can talk bollocks about cicadas and crickets all you want, but the fact is, your thinking is out of touch with the times, its out of touch with reality, and its out of touch with this topic. 

You're living in a fantasy land. A fantasy land of an Americas Cup that is an absolutely level playing field with cutting edge technology that comes for free, billionaires who are completely honest about their intentions, their spending and their incomes, teams that don't have to follow any rules, and amazing cutting edge TV broadcasts that don't cost anything to provide.

Your fantasy world ISN'T REAL. You need to wake up and realise you've missed the reality boat.

 

 

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

Again, nothing of substance, just some pathetic attempt at a Dad joke.

eye-eyeroll.gif

Enjoy lala land Boomer.

Do better.

 

Look, you are prepared to accept one design and penalising a future defender for having a choice. Fine, looking at the above, maybe you are still in the flush of youth. Believing in the infallibility of your heros, eyes still blind to the realities of the world.

Sweet, enjoy it while it lasts.

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

Look, you are prepared to accept one design and penalising a future defender for having a choice. Fine, looking at the above, maybe you are still in the flush of youth. Believing in the infallibility of your heros, eyes still blind to the realities of the world.

Sweet, enjoy it while it lasts.

They aren't being penalised. If they don't agree with the protocol, don't sign it, its that simple.

But unless you are a CoR or D, you have NO SAY. Either accept that or don't enter, but don't enter saying "I didn't realise we had to follow the rules" because you'll get laughed out of the room.

The realities of the world is you pay to play. When you pay, you sign a contract confirming you agree to the protocol.

Contracts are an extremely common document in the real world. Its you that lives in a fantasy land where anyone can do anything they want, when they want without consequence.

You live a fake lala fantasy world.

 

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

They aren't being penalised. If they don't agree with the protocol, don't sign it, its that simple.

But unless you are a CoR or D, you have NO SAY. Either accept that or don't enter, but don't enter saying "I didn't realise we had to follow the rules" because you'll get laughed out of the room.

The realities of the world is you pay to play. When you pay, you sign a contract confirming you agree to the protocol.

Contracts are an extremely common document in the real world. Its you that lives in a fantasy land where anyone can do anything they want, when they want without consequence.

You live a fake lala fantasy world.

 

If they win and wish to decide their own design they are fined 20 mill.

Your answer is that is okay. If you don't like it then don't enter.

How many times did you sulk off home with your ball?

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

If they win and wish to decide their own design they are fined 20 mill.

Your answer is that is okay. If you don't like it then don't enter.

How many times did you sulk off home with your ball?

Look, all teams both current and existing have publicly stated their satisfaction with the AC75 for future events.

They have also stated the importance of continuity of class for the AC.

The clause in the protocol achieves that. It also still provides the choice of class if they should choose to change the class.

It is also perfectly legal within the DoG.

Am I okay with incentivizing the teams to continue with the current class for the good of the event? Yes, I am. As are the current teams it would seem.

So another fantasy issue in your lala land fantasy world.

 

 

 

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

Look, all teams both current and existing have publicly stated their satisfaction with the AC75 for future events.

They have also stated the importance of continuity of class for the AC.

The clause in the protocol achieves that. It also still provides the choice of class if they should choose to change the class.

It is also perfectly legal within the DoG.

Am I okay with incentivizing the teams to continue with the current class for the good of the event? Yes, I am. As are the current teams it would seem.

So another fantasy issue in your lala land fantasy world.

 

 

 

And where you on the side of Oracle, when they made it an option? Or did you agree with Dalton that any winner should be given the option?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Rennie, seriously, Gissie's post "Said every SS member." is totally uncalled for, in that context anyway. Gissie may not understand that, but you should. That was not just a "general statement", as you say, not at all.

And I am also genuinely surprised that you "liked" that post.

 

 

15 hours ago, Rennmaus said:

He's right, every SS member followed rules. I think you read more into Gissie's post than there is. He did not compare anyone specific to Nazis, that's your interpretation. I'm shocked about the ugly imagination some people here show. 

BTW, it's now already the second time you stalk my likes. Don't you think this interest in such a small detail is a bit creepy? 

Anyway, I'm not interested anymore in this ridiculous deliberate misunderstanding game. It's childish.

 

12 hours ago, Forourselves said:

They didn't follow the rules though did they? They followed orders, not rules.

I'm sorry, but Fore was right. It was not just follow the rules, it was "Befehl ist Befehl", and you know that. No ugly immigination in these matters at all, Gissie was plain and simple offensive, again.

And referring to your likeys for a repulsive poster is now stalking and creepy, really?

And I'm certainly not playing games, not this time.

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

 

 

I'm sorry, but Fore was right. It was not just follow the rules, it was "Befehl ist Befehl", and you know that. No ugly immigination in these matters at all, Gissie was plain and simple offensive, again.

And referring to your likeys for a repulsive poster is now stalking and creepy, really?

And I'm certainly not playing games, not this time.

You left out the other half of the story, but I will tell it to you now: Ever heard of the Nuremberg Race Laws (Nürnberger Rassengesetze)? They were laws not orders and were applied by judges who were often SS members. The judges' defense later on in the trials was "what was law back then, cannot be illegal now)". Was it right by them to apply he rules (laws)? Really?

I rest my case now.

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

Look, all teams both current and existing have publicly stated their satisfaction with the AC75 for future events.

They have also stated the importance of continuity of class for the AC.

The clause in the protocol achieves that. It also still provides the choice of class if they should choose to change the class.

It is also perfectly legal within the DoG.

Am I okay with incentivizing the teams to continue with the current class for the good of the event? Yes, I am. As are the current teams it would seem.

So another fantasy issue in your lala land fantasy world.

 

 

 

Speaking of la la land (you're going to try say it's not the same thing), 

ETNZ the challenger - this is not right!

ETNZ the defender - we're doing it!

 

has there even been a more hypocritical about turn in the AC? Pretty high bar there, but i doubt it!

 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-01-25-at-18.09.57-447x400.png

 

 

 

 

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

Speaking of la la land (you're going to try say it's not the same thing), 

ETNZ the challenger - this is not right!

ETNZ the defender - we're doing it!

 

has there even been a more hypocritical about turn in the AC? Pretty high bar there, but i doubt it!

 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-01-25-at-18.09.57-447x400.png

 

 

 

 

Is that not the case now? The D and C can decide the future. That’s never changed.

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

Is that not the case now? The D and C can decide the future. That’s never changed.

the protocol for AC37 includes pre-conditions for AC38.

That's never happened before,

Sir Ben signed up for a similiar agreement along with everyone else for AC35, GD said it was bullshit then, now he's signing it with Sir Ben. and putting a financial penalty on it.

200.webp

 

but you knew that already, but can't walk back the talk now so it makes you have to contradict yourself.

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

the protocol for AC37 includes pre-conditions for AC38.

That's never happened before,

Sir Ben signed up for a similiar agreement along with everyone else for AC35, GD said it was bullshit then, now he's signing it with Sir Ben. and putting a financial penalty on it.

200.webp

 

but you knew that already, but can't walk back the talk now so it makes you have to contradict yourself.

No he didn’t. What they tried to sign was a framework that had nothing to do with the protocol or DoG, which is EXACTLY what Dalton was talking about. The Framework had nothing to do with the Mutual consent clause in the DoG. It was not part of the protocol either. It was an attempt to dictate the future of the America’s Cup by circumventing the Deed and the protocol every challenger had signed up to. I don’t blame Dalton for turning it down. Either put it in the protocol or fuck off. The protocol was signed and agreed to. Either go through the proper process or fuck off.

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

No he didn’t. What they tried to sign was a framework that had nothing to do with the protocol or DoG, which is EXACTLY what Dalton was talking about. The Framework had nothing to do with the Mutual consent clause in the DoG. It was not part of the protocol either. It was an attempt to dictate the future of the America’s Cup by circumventing the Deed and the protocol every challenger had signed up to. I don’t blame Dalton for turning it down. Either put it in the protocol or fuck off. The protocol was signed and agreed to. Either go through the proper process or fuck off.

blah blah blah potato potarto

 

ps. it's kind the same thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2021 at 4:31 AM, Forourselves said:

What!? Blind following of rules!? How can this even be a thing!? You think sports people should be able to pick and choose which rules they want to follow and which rules they don't?

Why don't they just give Oracle's trophies back? After all, they may have not wanted to follow the one design rule.

Why doesn't Lance Armstrong get all his trophies back? After all, sport doesn't need a doping rule right?

Why not let Olympic athletes take any PHD they want? Who needs a fair competition right? 

Let the Russians and their state sponsored doping program enter the Olympics, because thats a stupid rule right?

Why not get rid of the class rules in Olympic sailing and let Giles Scott in his Finn boat, go up against Pete in Te Rehutai? Who needs class rules right?

Why not just get rid of the Deed of gift if you want no rules at all? Why not just say the cup is always to be challenged anywhere, anytime, by anyone at any venue in any hemisphere in any boat at any cost?

Do you realise how chaotic sport would be without rules?

What an absolute Ludacris thing to say! Rules are there for a reason. Otherwise sport would be impossible. Just because you don't like the rules does not mean the rules shouldn't be followed.

 

Pete vs Giles man on man Finn vs teehheee,  each boat sailed single handed? Petes getting smashed.. you right it wouldn’t be fair:-) 

 

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

blah blah blah potato potarto

 

ps. it's kind the same thing. 

It's even worse, because now it's against the Deed.
The LA was just a letter of intent, whereas the protocol is laying out rules for a challenge that is not allowed it be entertained yet. An extremely worrying move by the RNZYS/ETNZ/GD and CoR.

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

It's even worse, because now it's against the Deed.
The LA was just a letter of intent, whereas the protocol is laying out rules for a challenge that is not allowed it be entertained yet. An extremely worrying move by the RNZYS/ETNZ/GD and CoR.

i agree with you, in the first instance it was a gentleman's agreement, this time round it's essentialy transparent blackmail with the penalty.

there's pros and cons to what Larry/Russel and Ben/GD have been trying to do here.

 

it's a balance between ensuring continuity and respecting the oddities of the DoG.

part of me would like to see the AC37 winner testing it (in court) 

Ben has been behind it both times, but the flip flop of ETNZ is quite remarkable.

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

i agree with you, in the first instance it was a gentleman's agreement, this time round it's essentialy transparent blackmail with the penalty.

there's pros and cons to what Larry/Russel and Ben/GD have been trying to do here.

 

it's a balance between ensuring continuity and respecting the oddities of the DoG.

part of me would like to see the AC37 winner testing it (in court) 

Ben has been behind it both times, but the flip flop of ETNZ is quite remarkable.

The other big difference was that last time you could enter and choose whether or not to sign up. This time its a condition of entry. That to me is where it is absolutely worse. And the hypocrisy compared to ETNZs statements last time is mind-boggling

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, shebeen said:

blah blah blah potato potarto

 

ps. it's kind the same thing. 

But thats what the ETNZ reply to that LA stated.

The future should be decided by C and D, by virtue of the DoG, and protocol, the way it is supposed to be done in the AC.

Not some random document with no substance.

In the AC, it either IS the same or it ISN'T.

There's no "kinda"

In this instance its not the same.

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

The other big difference was that last time you could enter and choose whether or not to sign up. This time its a condition of entry. That to me is where it is absolutely worse. And the hypocrisy compared to ETNZs statements last time is mind-boggling

You could also sign the LA and not be bound by it, so there's really no point in signing it.

It had no substance.

 

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

But thats what the ETNZ reply to that LA stated.

The future should be decided by C and D, by virtue of the DoG, and protocol, the way it is supposed to be done in the AC.

Not some random document with no substance.

In the AC, it either IS the same or it ISN'T.

There's no "kinda"

In this instance its not the same.

So you already know who the D and C for AC38 are? I'm impressed. Care to tell me next week's lottery numbers?
 

7 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

You could also sign the LA and not be bound by it, so there's really no point in signing it.

It had no substance.

 

Bold: right.

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

..the flip flop of ETNZ is quite remarkable.

its true. I always the figured TNZ were the wearers of white hats. but come to think of it, black hats it is.

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

Gawd. Larry and Ernesto gamed things but at least they put on a good show and didn't publicly whine.  Can't believe I just wrote that but GD and kiwikoolaid are just too much whinging.

C'mon Clew, Larry and Ernie put on the biggest AC whingers show ever, all the way to the very public High Court. And then fucked over all the other challengers.

And the true whiners here are the haters, right in this forum. Get real.

 

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

Gawd. Larry and Ernesto gamed things but at least they put on a good show and didn't publicly whine.  Can't believe I just wrote that but GD and kiwikoolaid are just too much whinging.

I'm pretty sure Russell and the boys whined mightily when EssEff told them to fuck off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

I'm pretty sure Russell and the boys whined mightily when EssEff told them to fuck off. 

did they though? I lost track just about the same time they left town.

and I would be kinda surprised if the Kiwi public doesn't follow suit.

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

but GD and kiwikoolaid are just too much

funny you say that. this notion of Dalton handing out Kool-aid just seems to fit so well. I've never written a play before - so apologies in advance, but here goes:

Dalts: "Of course we can't sail our regatta in the City of Sails" - hands out Kool-aid.

Drinkers: "Ah, them Saudi's actually ain't so bad.." - slurp.

Dalts: "If we have to sail in the City of Sails, TNZ will fold within the hour" - hands out Kool-aid.

ABNZYS: "Why that's just fine Dalts, whatever you say" - slurp.

idk. but what seems to make common sense to one person, just ain't business sense to another - or - what strikes one ear as utter bullshit, might strike another as simply the way it needs to be.

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

did they though? I lost track just about the same time they left town.

and I would be kinda surprised if the Kiwi public doesn't follow suit.

Certainly I hear all th JAFA's are gearing up for an exodus for Christmas. Does that count? 

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

C'mon Clew, Larry and Ernie put on the biggest AC whingers show ever, all the way to the very public High Court. And then fucked over all the other challengers.

And the true whiners here are the haters, right in this forum. Get real.

 

But it wasn't about not getting enough public subsidy it was about the terms. 

1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

I'm pretty sure Russell and the boys whined mightily when EssEff told them to fuck off. 

LE didn't get his way with SF on a lot of things including developing piers and shoreline properties. AFAIK he didn't pull the Cup and ship it out for 2013.  Saved that for 2017. And look what happened...he and the boys got their terms but didn't have the fastest boat despite hanging out at the venue well in advance.

I wasn't a Kiwi Hater but am sick of the drama. It's a small country soap opera, undignified and not directed well. Bo-ring.

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

It was about Whingers, Whiners, and Wankers. :unsure:

 

Oh gee, next time I need to add "Larry and Ernesto...didn't publicly whine ABOUT NOT GETTING ENOUGH TAXPAYER MONEY OR ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD TO RUN THE EVENT, BUILD BOATS AND HAVE A TEAM TOO."

Sorry the era of spunky little underfunded underdogs from feisty little countries winning on a shoestring  seems to be ending. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, barfy said:

I much prefer watching the Q crowd waiting for the Kennedy(s) return...in fucking Dallas.

But they aren't holding out tin cups.  "If you don’t know where the money will come from to fund a Defense, you really can't afford to challenge."

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

Oh gee, next time I need to add "Larry and Ernesto...didn't publicly whine ABOUT NOT GETTING ENOUGH TAXPAYER MONEY OR ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD TO RUN THE EVENT, BUILD BOATS AND HAVE A TEAM TOO."

Sorry the era of spunky little underfunded underdogs from feisty little countries winning on a shoestring  seems to be ending. 

Sure Larry and Russell did about the 1st part. I remember distinctly the "SF Play ball or we're moving" and SF saying to, well, "fuck off"

Bermuda certainly wasn't a normal course on the GGYC course sheet.

The Kiwis just need another billionaire to step up. 

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

Sure Larry and Russell did about the 1st part. I remember distinctly the "SF Play ball or we're moving" and SF saying to, well, "fuck off"

Bermuda certainly wasn't a normal course on the GGYC course sheet.

The Kiwis just need another billionaire to step up. 

iirc - SF told them to fuck off right at the get-go. And it was understood they weren't going to be able to return to the pier - so it was a one-time gig. and for quite a while it didn't seem to matter - as the "next event" didn't seem it was going to be a thing. Which of course, as it turned out, it wasn't - as a self fulfilling prophecy.

makes one wonder though - is a troupe of clowns at Pier 39 worth more in annual revenue to SF than an America's Cup match? After all, the clowns at least have a pier to play on.

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

But they aren't holding out tin cups.  "If you don’t know where the money will come from to fund a Defense, you really can't afford to challenge."

The world changes, Clew - as does our circumstances. We adapt, or we die.

Can you see any signs of TNZ taking its last breath - yet? You might want to hold off on that obituary for a year or three yet.

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

iirc - SF told them to fuck off right at the get-go. And it was understood they weren't going to be able to return to the pier - so it was a one-time gig. and for quite a while it didn't seem to matter - as the "next event" didn't seem it was going to be a thing. Which of course, as it turned out, it wasn't - as a self fulfilling prophecy.

makes one wonder though - is a troupe of clowns at Pier 39 worth more in annual revenue to SF than an America's Cup match? After all, the clowns at least have a pier to play on.

The sailGP final early next year. Is it likely to be on the same course area as AC34?

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

Yearly america's cup chess will be won by swedish Magnus Carlsen.
Price money is 1.2 mln Euro for Magnus,
0.8 mln for Nepo.

First post in this forum to make some sense Shackle. Was it in a Test Match? Asking for a wicked friend.

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

But they aren't holding out tin cups.  "If you don’t know where the money will come from to fund a Defense, you really can't afford to challenge."

C'mon...I know it's OT but the entire premise of the Q and half of the 35% of media content in a large country chaotic poorly directed Shit Show is just to fill the tin cups.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 11/17/2021 at 8:44 PM, 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/

Mercedes is ahead of Tesla, They launched their concept solar car Mercedes Vision EQXX.
If the cup wants to lead in cutting edge technology they missed this opportunity.
The proposed AC75 is a concept as well. By the time the boats sail the final cuprace these cars are in production:
407262845_MercedesVisionEQXX3specs.png.23552fa750bd3669fc2e8cc138b94713.png
1715982740_MercedesVisionEQXX.png.b03bc3a427fb23223a7bb266ec382029.png
70929503_MercedesVisionEQXX2.png.ddcff847fb3f8897620a2fb329e90891.png
1183382895_MercedesVisionEQXX3.png.a417d2a9eff361bc69f3255ca43dac85.png

Source: https://www.techradar.com/news/mercedes-benz-vision-eqxx

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand it is a high tech exercise that requires a lot of attention, research and development, Better luck next time: perhaps AC 38 2028....

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

Mercedes is ahead of Tesla, They launched their concept solar car Mercedes Vision EQXX.
If the cup wants to lead in cutting edge technology they missed this opportunity.
The proposed AC75 is a concept as well. By the time the boats sail the final cuprace these cars are in production:
407262845_MercedesVisionEQXX3specs.png.23552fa750bd3669fc2e8cc138b94713.png
1715982740_MercedesVisionEQXX.png.b03bc3a427fb23223a7bb266ec382029.png
70929503_MercedesVisionEQXX2.png.ddcff847fb3f8897620a2fb329e90891.png
1183382895_MercedesVisionEQXX3.png.a417d2a9eff361bc69f3255ca43dac85.png

Source: https://www.techradar.com/news/mercedes-benz-vision-eqxx

Did you bother to read the article? The panel has nothing innovative to offer that car - the range is due to aero. The solar panel has its own battery's and is just used for ancillaries like AC. Best case scenario could extend range by 2.5%.

Solar driven ancillaries have been on cars before EVs existed. Mazda was doing this in 1992 with their 929.

Onboard solar isn't a good idea and won't make AC75s faster... 

Oh and BTW the first line states this concept car will never be produced so I don't think it will also arrive in time no matter how long you wait...

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

The solar panel has its own battery's and is just used for ancillaries like AC.

Well, that might be Prof. Shackle's great contribution in AC, green Airco in the helmets, to keep their heads cool in Jeddah.

Incredible what a bit of brainstorming on SA can achieve. B)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Did you bother to read the article? The panel has nothing innovative to offer that car - the range is due to aero. The solar panel has its own battery's and is just used for ancillaries like AC. Best case scenario could extend range by 2.5%.

Solar driven ancillaries have been on cars before EVs existed. Mazda was doing this in 1992 with their 929.

Onboard solar isn't a good idea and won't make AC75s faster... 

Oh and BTW the first line states this concept car will never be produced so I don't think it will also arrive in time no matter how long you wait...

The solar panels are producing electricity that can be stored even when you are not in the car or at the boat.
So less shore power is needed and the 2,5 % gain while on the water racing is an extra bonus.

When a team is able to install more effecient solar cells the gain might be 10, 30 or 50 %.
This is the state of the art of effinciency of Photo Electric research cells. Why not use them?
CellPVeff(rev210104).thumb.png.0735393ce24c9fbcdabe4767764c72c1.png
But it is a big afford and it's very technological, if the teams are not willing to do so, better luck next time. It's an expensive exercise as well.

Mazda was doing this in 1992 with their 929. True, but the above graph shows a lot has happened since then. 

Even a gain of 1 percent counts in top racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2022 at 9:49 AM, Schakel said:

Mercedes is ahead of Tesla, They launched their concept solar car Mercedes Vision EQXX.
If the cup wants to lead in cutting edge technology they missed this opportunity.
The proposed AC75 is a concept as well. By the time the boats sail the final cuprace these cars are in production:
407262845_MercedesVisionEQXX3specs.png.23552fa750bd3669fc2e8cc138b94713.png
1715982740_MercedesVisionEQXX.png.b03bc3a427fb23223a7bb266ec382029.png
70929503_MercedesVisionEQXX2.png.ddcff847fb3f8897620a2fb329e90891.png
1183382895_MercedesVisionEQXX3.png.a417d2a9eff361bc69f3255ca43dac85.png

Source: https://www.techradar.com/news/mercedes-benz-vision-eqxx

New year and prof Jack of All is still on this crap. 

 

If only they could use green energy to power the AC75 v2.

Oh wait they already do, it's called wind.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Schakel said:

Even a gain of 1 percent counts in top racing.

Please explain how solar panels on an AC75 will increase performance by 1%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2022 at 7:19 AM, rh3000 said:

Please explain how solar panels on an AC75 will increase performance by 1%.

I like the idea. Teams get to add solar energy to grinder output. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, barfy said:

I like the idea. Teams get to add solar energy to grinder output. 

Perhaps, not sure the added weight will make them quicker though...

A human can generate at least as much power as a 1 m2 solar PV panel on a sunny day — and as much as 10 m2 of solar PV panels on a heavy overcast day.