Jump to content

Will it be one Design hulls for the next AC?


Recommended Posts

If they go with a new one design hull, that reduces the chances of a start up team being able to buy a used boat from the last round.

Then again, it seems that there is less chance than ever that we will have any lower budget start ups. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TNZ has adopted everything else from AC35. Why not this? What a fucking shitshow. Hopefully the kiwis lose and are out of the ac for good. Just one fucking disaster after another starting with trying to win it off the water in '88.

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

ETNZ just posted this on Facebook:

1726942712_ScreenShot2021-11-11at7_08_28PM.thumb.jpg.6d1e7050e3d59e64dc6c5693a367b6ea.jpg

 

And in the comments someone mentioned that it will be a one design hull!

Maybe they are confusing it with the AC40's that will be used in the earlier sailing?

 

1855048289_ScreenShot2021-11-11at7_11_35PM.jpg.804ba5ba90cf274571e1599d57b1adfb.jpg

one design hull, or a supplied hull?

makes the "constructed in country" clause of the Deed rather elastic

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

Thick people on FB getting the 40 OD boat confused with the 75 

move on 

slow news cycle time....wait for next weeks announcement of the next delay rather i guess

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dalton has already declared he wants to take the event back to its roots, this is his reasoning for the nationality rule.

So why not one design as well. Both have a similar relationship to the original idea.

Truth is such a personal thing these days.

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

If it's not a one design hull, it's nice to see TNZ giving yet again giving themselves a decent head start over the other teams. They are the only team to have ever done this.

They still had or have to agree the design with the COR, so in fact Prada and Ineos have done the same. And all the teams are working on their foils and probably mainsail too. So stop whining, Sir Simon.

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

If it's not a one design hull, it's nice to see TNZ giving yet again giving themselves a decent head start over the other teams. They are the only team to have ever done this.

So you're just going to ignore what you said in the other thread are you? Because what you said in the other thread is COMPLETELY the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The post says "evaluate constraints". There were many constraints in the AC75 class rule last cycle on the design of the hulls. This was in no way a OD rule and resulted in an interesting variety of hull shapes.

Based on the visual appeal and talking points this provided I would be very surprised to see a OD hull. Maybe some changes, mast step height for instance, but not OD.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The images shared obviously don't give anything away, but the way I read the text its more about refining the rule than designing thier boat (although both go hand in hand). 

The hull in the picture doesn't have a mast pedestal. So are they writing a rule which will ban that? That would up the value of A36 challenger boats but consign te Aihe to the museum. 

If they have the surrogate rule it would effectively make Te Aihe an illegal surrogate, so they couldn't even use it early campaign. 

Maybe ETNZ think LR hull was better and the sunken deck and lower CoE on Te Aihe not worth the trade off for having more sail control mechanics above deck. 

Most of this glimpse just reminds me of how much I miss AC36 and dislike the politicking and dead time between cycles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2021 at 4:46 AM, Fiji Bitter said:

They still had or have to agree the design with the COR, so in fact Prada and Ineos have done the same. And all the teams are working on their foils and probably mainsail too. So stop whining, Sir Simon.

Just because the COR has the right to sign off on the design doesn’t mean they have as much background knowledge or research on the idea.  NZ had done all of the simulation work to demonstrate the AC75 foiling concept.  Prada agreed with the design, but there is no way the Prada had done a fraction of the design work that NZ did.  Yes, Prada was able to make some modifications, but you know fully well that NZ would only agree to changes that still fit within their design plans.  To assume that the COR is automatically equal to the defender because they “helped” design the boat is very naive. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Alchemist said:

Just because the COR has the right to sign off on the design doesn’t mean they have as much background knowledge or research on the idea.  NZ had done all of the simulation work to demonstrate the AC75 foiling concept.  Prada agreed with the design, but there is no way the Prada had done a fraction of the design work that NZ did.  Yes, Prada was able to make some modifications, but you know fully well that NZ would only agree to changes that still fit within their design plans.  To assume that the COR is automatically equal to the defender because they “helped” design the boat is very naive. 

Who cares about equal. The AC isn't equal. Never has been, never will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the thread was about one-design for the AC I will go ahead and state that there is room for NEAR one design and still have some room for design.   

I had the good fortune to be in Palma for the TP52 worlds last week, and cannot imagine ever seeing closer and more exciting racing to watch than that.   Not quite one design.   room for design development.  Loads of trickle-down for us regular sailors.   waaaaay more tactical way more fun to watch and way more relatable.

I cannot imagine in the foreseeable future any kinda silly foiler-contraption racing that even comes close to the cool factor of seeing these powered up 52's going at it in a far more genuine sense within the confines of 'racing'.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

But no defender wants close racing, they want as big an advantage as they can lever.  Thats the way its always been.  Its a design contest with the defender expecting to be leading the pack by virtue of having won the last regatta.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1sailor said:

Since the thread was about one-design for the AC I will go ahead and state that there is room for NEAR one design and still have some room for design.   

I had the good fortune to be in Palma for the TP52 worlds last week, and cannot imagine ever seeing closer and more exciting racing to watch than that.   Not quite one design.   room for design development.  Loads of trickle-down for us regular sailors.   waaaaay more tactical way more fun to watch and way more relatable.

I cannot imagine in the foreseeable future any kinda silly foiler-contraption racing that even comes close to the cool factor of seeing these powered up 52's going at it in a far more genuine sense within the confines of 'racing'.

So, is there not room for both? Let's hope so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2021 at 9:46 PM, Fiji Bitter said:

They still had or have to agree the design with the COR, so in fact Prada and Ineos have done the same. And all the teams are working on their foils and probably mainsail too. So stop whining, Sir Simon.

Yes, they have to get the changes agreed by the CoR, which they will do after spending significant time working on those changes when no other team can. People, including you, focus on the foils and sails but the total aero package of the platform makes a huge difference. You would have to be blind not to realise that a head start on the platform gives a team a big advantage.

What is wrong with this is that it is so easy to make it fair, by either getting somebody else to write the rule or by including designers from other teams in the rule development. Both of those approaches were used by other defenders before ETNZ decided to do it in house. ETNZ benefited from this approach with the AC72 because they were able to employ the designers who developed the rule, which placed them on at least a level playing field as the defender, if not ahead. Let's not forget that everybody, including Dalton, critisised Alinghi for developing class rules on their own. I still don't understand why, according to Dalton, it was wrong for others to develop rules using their own designers exclusively but why it is OK for ETNZ to do so.

But I guess that if you win the cup and can get away with it, why bind yourself to what you used to complain about and say was unfair for defenders. Why not give yourself as much advantage as possible, because that's the benefit of winning, even if it is hypocritical. 

At least the last truly fair defenders were the NZers back in 2000 and 2003. I wish that the spirit of Peter Blake really was still alive, but Dalton is not the man Blake was.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SimonN said:

, but Dalton is not the man Blake was.

Your usual rant, maybe not TLTR, but too long to answer, and has been covered endlessly for ourselves, anyway.

I just take exception to your last silly statement, which make me wonder if you really know or knew them, worked with them or even sailed with them or against them.

Because Dalton is NOT snooty. 888716395_Z2.jpg.62e1375cdbfc26c0660be4648fcf1882.jpg

And no one will disagree with that...

Regardless, both bloody good people, but you will not know or admit that, being rather snooty for yourself.

 

 

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

At least the last truly fair defenders were the NZers back in 2000 and 2003. I wish that the spirit of Peter Blake really was still alive, but Dalton is not the man Blake was.

Both men of their times, I'd say.

And for the record, I'm pretty certain that Sir Peter was NEVER interested in giving the competition any quarter, whatsoever. Obviously quite different to GD's inter-personal approach, but possessing that same indomitable determination.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SimonN said:

Yes, they have to get the changes agreed by the CoR, which they will do after spending significant time working on those changes when no other team can. People, including you, focus on the foils and sails but the total aero package of the platform makes a huge difference. You would have to be blind not to realise that a head start on the platform gives a team a big advantage.

What is wrong with this is that it is so easy to make it fair, by either getting somebody else to write the rule or by including designers from other teams in the rule development. Both of those approaches were used by other defenders before ETNZ decided to do it in house. ETNZ benefited from this approach with the AC72 because they were able to employ the designers who developed the rule, which placed them on at least a level playing field as the defender, if not ahead. Let's not forget that everybody, including Dalton, critisised Alinghi for developing class rules on their own. I still don't understand why, according to Dalton, it was wrong for others to develop rules using their own designers exclusively but why it is OK for ETNZ to do so.

But I guess that if you win the cup and can get away with it, why bind yourself to what you used to complain about and say was unfair for defenders. Why not give yourself as much advantage as possible, because that's the benefit of winning, even if it is hypocritical. 

At least the last truly fair defenders were the NZers back in 2000 and 2003. I wish that the spirit of Peter Blake really was still alive, but Dalton is not the man Blake was.

It was never designed to be fair.  The Defender always has the advantage 

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

What is wrong with this is that it is so easy to make it fair, by either getting somebody else to write the rule or by including designers from other teams in the rule development. Both of those approaches were used by other defenders before ETNZ decided to do it in house. ETNZ benefited from this approach with the AC72 because they were able to employ the designers who developed the rule, which placed them on at least a level playing field as the defender, if not ahead. Let's not forget that everybody, including Dalton, critisised Alinghi for developing class rules on their own. I still don't understand why, according to Dalton, it was wrong for others to develop rules using their own designers exclusively but why it is OK for ETNZ to do so.

Nailed it.

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

Yes, they have to get the changes agreed by the CoR, which they will do after spending significant time working on those changes when no other team can. People, including you, focus on the foils and sails but the total aero package of the platform makes a huge difference. You would have to be blind not to realise that a head start on the platform gives a team a big advantage.

What is wrong with this is that it is so easy to make it fair, by either getting somebody else to write the rule or by including designers from other teams in the rule development. Both of those approaches were used by other defenders before ETNZ decided to do it in house. ETNZ benefited from this approach with the AC72 because they were able to employ the designers who developed the rule, which placed them on at least a level playing field as the defender, if not ahead. Let's not forget that everybody, including Dalton, critisised Alinghi for developing class rules on their own. I still don't understand why, according to Dalton, it was wrong for others to develop rules using their own designers exclusively but why it is OK for ETNZ to do so.

But I guess that if you win the cup and can get away with it, why bind yourself to what you used to complain about and say was unfair for defenders. Why not give yourself as much advantage as possible, because that's the benefit of winning, even if it is hypocritical. 

At least the last truly fair defenders were the NZers back in 2000 and 2003. I wish that the spirit of Peter Blake really was still alive, but Dalton is not the man Blake was.

The problem is, the Deed of Gift provides only for C and D. The DoG is the governing document of the AC. The Deed does not provide for multiple teams, therefor, neither should the CoR and D.

Dalton criticised Alinghi (as everyone else did) because the rule they created was never valid because nothing else was valid, including their CoR.

Without a valid CoR, there is no valid MC, and therefor no valid/ legal protocol or Class rule, or event. Thats where the criticism originated with Alinghi.

It wasn't just Dalton "complaining" it was every single team because what alinghi was doing was not legal in terms of compliance with the DoG.

As long as there is compliance with the DoG and MC between CoR and D, no one has anything to complain about.

 

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

It wasn't just Dalton "complaining" it was every single team because what alinghi was doing was not legal in terms of compliance with the DoG.

As long as there is compliance with the DoG and MC between CoR and D, no one has anything to complain about.

No, Dalton was absolutely clear. His biggest issue was that Alinghi had developed the rule on their own and had a 6 month head start on everybody else. The illegal CoR was always a smoke screen, because, as I am sure you forget, Oracle and Alinghi came close to a settlement that would have left the "illegal" CoR in place, so close that Oracle actually signed the agreement and returned it to Alinghi for them to sign. Dalton too agreed to leave the CoR in place, but his condition was that the Alinghi design advantage was removed. Alinghi proposed that the challengers would be allowed to specify certain key measurements (IIRC, waterline beam) and this was accepted by Dalton and the other challengers as fair.

So I will ask the question again, because everything else is a smoke screen. Forget illegal CoR. Forget everything and just focus on what Dalton said was key and then on what he has done since ETNZ became defender. Back then, Dalton made it clear that it was unfair for a defender to gain advantage over the challengers by having a head start on design, through developing the rule. Why is that now OK? 

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

And for the record, I'm pretty certain that Sir Peter was NEVER interested in giving the competition any quarter, whatsoever.

Absolutely. Unbelievably competitive, very tough and very focused. I was a huge fan of the man and note that you never heard bad words about him, before and since his untimely death. However, while I agree completely with what you say, Peter Blake showed you could have that attitude and still be unscrupulously fair. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SimonN said:

No, Dalton was absolutely clear. His biggest issue was that Alinghi had developed the rule on their own and had a 6 month head start on everybody else. The illegal CoR was always a smoke screen, because, as I am sure you forget, Oracle and Alinghi came close to a settlement that would have left the "illegal" CoR in place, so close that Oracle actually signed the agreement and returned it to Alinghi for them to sign. Dalton too agreed to leave the CoR in place, but his condition was that the Alinghi design advantage was removed. Alinghi proposed that the challengers would be allowed to specify certain key measurements (IIRC, waterline beam) and this was accepted by Dalton and the other challengers as fair.

So I will ask the question again, because everything else is a smoke screen. Forget illegal CoR. Forget everything and just focus on what Dalton said was key and then on what he has done since ETNZ became defender. Back then, Dalton made it clear that it was unfair for a defender to gain advantage over the challengers by having a head start on design, through developing the rule. Why is that now OK? 

Yes, it was, because they had a fake CoR, which meant no MC, which meant they could do what ever they wanted, when ever they wanted with no questioning or accountability to anyone. That was the entire situation.

If you think Ellison was ever going to allow Berterelli to leave an illegal CoR in place, youre even more delusional than you make out to be.

The CoR was non deed compliant. The most FUNDAMENTAL starting point of any AC is ensuring the original CoR complies with the Deed of Gift.

You can't say "Forget the illegal CoR", because that single point means there is no Americas Cup, no matter what anyone thinks.

A defender must first establish MC with the Challenger. Daltons issue was that yes, Alinghi gave themselves an unfair advantage through an illegal protocol, which resulted in an illegal class rule.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Absolutely. Unbelievably competitive, very tough and very focused. I was a huge fan of the man and note that you never heard bad words about him, before and since his untimely death. However, while I agree completely with what you say, Peter Blake showed you could have that attitude and still be unscrupulously fair. 

Well, we'd need to debate your definition of, 'fair', I guess. Perhaps unsurprisingly, not everyone shares the same interpretation.

For example, might deluding the competition with untruths and innuendo be considered 'unfair' in certain quarters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Dalton projects a gruff take no prisoners macho man persona whilst Peter was more affable and less confrontational in public but both men achieved remarkable successes however Lord Dalton ain't finished yet and another win if you can call it that will place him way beyond the pearly heights that Peter scaled and I personally believe his sole focus is to lay to rest the demon he carries as Peters understudy.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Both men of their times, I'd say.

And for the record, I'm pretty certain that Sir Peter was NEVER interested in giving the competition any quarter, whatsoever. Obviously quite different to GD's inter-personal approach, but possessing that same indomitable determination.

Which is good,

Is the concept of the two up and down T foilers still in consideration?
I have been away for a while for this project:
https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/230396-energy-scenario-for-unlimited-green-cooling-down-the-planet-energy-without-carbondioxide-emmisions/

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

Which is good,

Is the concept of the two up and down T foilers still in consideration?
I have been away for a while for this project:
https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/230396-energy-scenario-for-unlimited-green-cooling-down-the-planet-energy-without-carbondioxide-emmisions/

Hey, Schakel. Yes, as far as we know, the AC75 is the Class intended for AC37. But we await the Proto, for confirmation of any Class Rule changes.

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

Hey, Schakel. Yes, as far as we know, the AC75 is the Class intended for AC37. But we await the Proto, for confirmation of any Class Rule changes.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2021 at 9:00 AM, Mozzy Sails said:

The images shared obviously don't give anything away, but the way I read the text its more about refining the rule than designing thier boat (although both go hand in hand). 

Experience suggests designing a boat and then writing a rule around it isn’t the best  approach. If you want a true development class, write the rules to prohibit what you don’t want to see and then let the teams experiment inside the more constrained box. The boats never end up looking like your original concept, so not the right place to start.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

Experience suggests designing a boat and then writing a rule around it isn’t the best  approach. If you want a true development class, write the rules to prohibit what you don’t want to see and then let the teams experiment inside the more constrained box. The boats never end up looking like your original concept, so not the right place to start.

I'm not sure what experience you have in mind but it seems to me that to write a rule without a clue what kind of boat will result is not the golden path. As for "true development class", mandating OD components precludes that anyway.

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

Hey, Schakel. Yes, as far as we know, the AC75 is the Class intended for AC37. But we await the Proto, for confirmation of any Class Rule changes.

Not, surely, in the protocol. Is there a given timeframe for the class rule revision?

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

Not, surely, in the protocol. Is there a given timeframe for the class rule revision?

Sorry, Doggy. The Class Rule is published seperately, but the Protocol I think defines the Rule publication date, IIRC.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2021 at 3:06 AM, Gissie said:

Dalton has already declared he wants to take the event back to its roots, this is his reasoning for the nationality rule.

So why not one design as well. Both have a similar relationship to the original idea.

Truth is such a personal thing these days.

You really need to read up on your Americas Cup history.

A nationality rule only came into effect in 1980, after American Andy Rose sailed as tactician for AUS in ‘77.

If you think the early boats were one design, you are beyond help.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has gone back to its roots 

Defender taking every advantage they can find to make it an unequal contest. Well funded Brit campaign without success (so far). Defender stealing Brits (sailors then, designers now) to win. Boats that are well out of reach of average sailor. 

I reckon GD would re-introduce the rule out about sailing to the event on your own bottom, except that might be further for him than the Europeans

 

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

You really need to read up on your Americas Cup history.

A nationality rule only came into effect in 1980, after American Andy Rose sailed as tactician for AUS in ‘77.

If you think the early boats were one design, you are beyond help.

The lecture cited below gave a bit of historical context on the nationality of America's Cup crews.  As you suggest, constraining the nationality of crew members is a construct of the "modern" AC era. More historically, the nationality requirements--essentially the Constructed in Country requirements of the Deed of Gift--applied only to the design and construction of the boat.

Virtual Lecture by Juan E. Corradi: "The Norwegian Steam" - Herreshoff Marine Museum

Unfortunately, I can't find an active link to the lecture itself, but the introductory note tells you quite a bit.

The huge controversy over Australia 2 in  1983 was over not just the characteristics of the design, but where it was designed and by whom.

One-design and/or supplied components are really a feature of the most recent iterations of the Cup.

No value judgment is implied on their appropriateness. The Cup evolves, within the constraints of the Deed of Gift.

 

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

I think it has gone back to its roots 

Defender taking every advantage they can find to make it an unequal contest. Well funded Brit campaign without success (so far). Defender stealing Brits (sailors then, designers now) to win. Boats that are well out of reach of average sailor. 

I reckon GD would re-introduce the rule out about sailing to the event on your own bottom, except that might be further for him than the Europeans

 

You mean, Defender and Challenger respecting the terms of the DoG? Yes.

 

 

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

No, Dalton was absolutely clear. His biggest issue was that Alinghi had developed the rule on their own and had a 6 month head start on everybody else. The illegal CoR was always a smoke screen, because, as I am sure you forget, Oracle and Alinghi came close to a settlement that would have left the "illegal" CoR in place, so close that Oracle actually signed the agreement and returned it to Alinghi for them to sign. Dalton too agreed to leave the CoR in place, but his condition was that the Alinghi design advantage was removed. Alinghi proposed that the challengers would be allowed to specify certain key measurements (IIRC, waterline beam) and this was accepted by Dalton and the other challengers as fair.

So I will ask the question again, because everything else is a smoke screen. Forget illegal CoR. Forget everything and just focus on what Dalton said was key and then on what he has done since ETNZ became defender. Back then, Dalton made it clear that it was unfair for a defender to gain advantage over the challengers by having a head start on design, through developing the rule. Why is that now OK? 

I agree, except for the smokescreen. It was rather a wide open door to go through if the then protocol and defender's advantages are not accepted by the other challengers. Oracle went through. 

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

You really need to read up on your Americas Cup history.

A nationality rule only came into effect in 1980, after American Andy Rose sailed as tactician for AUS in ‘77.

If you think the early boats were one design, you are beyond help.

My apologies, should have used the sarcasm font...

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

My apologies, should have used the sarcasm font...

Even a muppet and my silly emojis saw that, so funny...

And that is what I like about SA AC, everybody so incredibly polite and nicey nice too!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2021 at 2:15 PM, The_Alchemist said:

ETNZ just posted this on Facebook:

1726942712_ScreenShot2021-11-11at7_08_28PM.thumb.jpg.6d1e7050e3d59e64dc6c5693a367b6ea.jpg

 

And in the comments someone mentioned that it will be a one design hull!

Maybe they are confusing it with the AC40's that will be used in the earlier sailing?

 

1855048289_ScreenShot2021-11-11at7_11_35PM.jpg.804ba5ba90cf274571e1599d57b1adfb.jpg

You're confusing a brand sponsorship post with real fact.

And never read the comments. the quality of replies goes downhill the deeper you get, much like on here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2021 at 11:34 AM, SimonN said:

Yes, they have to get the changes agreed by the CoR, which they will do after spending significant time working on those changes when no other team can. People, including you, focus on the foils and sails but the total aero package of the platform makes a huge difference. You would have to be blind not to realise that a head start on the platform gives a team a big advantage.

What is wrong with this is that it is so easy to make it fair, by either getting somebody else to write the rule or by including designers from other teams in the rule development. Both of those approaches were used by other defenders before ETNZ decided to do it in house. ETNZ benefited from this approach with the AC72 because they were able to employ the designers who developed the rule, which placed them on at least a level playing field as the defender, if not ahead. Let's not forget that everybody, including Dalton, critisised Alinghi for developing class rules on their own. I still don't understand why, according to Dalton, it was wrong for others to develop rules using their own designers exclusively but why it is OK for ETNZ to do so.

But I guess that if you win the cup and can get away with it, why bind yourself to what you used to complain about and say was unfair for defenders. Why not give yourself as much advantage as possible, because that's the benefit of winning, even if it is hypocritical. 

At least the last truly fair defenders were the NZers back in 2000 and 2003. I wish that the spirit of Peter Blake really was still alive, but Dalton is not the man Blake was.

Neither the Defender or COR have any real advantage this time around. Every team saw all the detail they needed from AC36 racing to jump right into the deep end of designing the next AC75, and the serious teams will have been doing it since March 18th 2021.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChairborneRanger said:

Neither the Defender or COR have any real advantage this time around. Every team saw all the detail they needed from AC36 racing to jump right into the deep end of designing the next AC75, and the serious teams will have been doing it since March 18th 2021.

You do know that they are changing the rule and nobody knows what's in those changes except for ETNZ. The post at the very top of the page, of an ETNZ Facebook post, tells us that at very least, the rules regarding the hull is changing. Design away, but you would have no idea whether your hull will meet the new rule. The same applies for the rest of the boat

What the existing teams have been doing since the end of the last cycle is validating and refining their modelling against the mountains of data they now have regarding actual performance. They will also be looking at how their modelling shows the performance of other teams (particularly ETNZ). Finally, they will modify their proprietary models to reflect this new knowledge. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't yet finished that work, because there would be a huge amount to do. It's why existing teams have such a big advantage over new teams, because the new teams need to start from scratch. You can't exactly buy AC75 design software over the counter.

Of course, TNZ have another big advantage - they have a very heavy computer;)

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

You do know that they are changing the rule and nobody knows what's in those changes except for ETNZ. The post at the very top of the page, of an ETNZ Facebook post, tells us that at very least, the rules regarding the hull is changing. Design away, but you would have no idea whether your hull will meet the new rule. The same applies for the rest of the boat

What the existing teams have been doing since the end of the last cycle is validating and refining their modelling against the mountains of data they now have regarding actual performance. They will also be looking at how their modelling shows the performance of other teams (particularly ETNZ). Finally, they will modify their proprietary models to reflect this new knowledge. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't yet finished that work, because there would be a huge amount to do. It's why existing teams have such a big advantage over new teams, because the new teams need to start from scratch. You can't exactly buy AC75 design software over the counter.

Of course, TNZ have another big advantage - they have a very heavy computer;)

ETNZ and the CoR, as per the DoG, the governing document of the Americas Cup.

The only 2 teams who need to know, are the D and CoR.

MC exists only between those 2 teams.

The rest, hurry up and wait.

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

ETNZ and the CoR, as per the DoG, the governing document of the Americas Cup.

The only 2 teams who need to know, are the D and CoR.

MC exists only between those 2 teams.

The rest, hurry up and wait.

At least we don't have to listen to the peerless sportsman bullshit you kiwis have spouted up until now. That fairplay bullshit was as nauseating as your nasal whine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

At least we don't have to listen to the peerless sportsman bullshit you kiwis have spouted up until now. That fairplay bullshit was as nauseating as your nasal whine.

Dalton has never once said the AC is, has, or ever will be fair. Infact quite the opposite.

He knows its not fair, its never been fair, never will be fair and frankly, shouldn't be fair. Dalton has said as much many times.

You can make it as fair as the DoG provides it to be, but thats it. The Defender always has an advantage, it always has, and always will.

Anyone who thinks there has been a Defender without an advantage is delusional, or stupid.

The Americas Cup is not fair. But thats what makes it so hard to win, and why those that have, can call themselves the best the sport has to offer.

 

 

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

ETNZ and the CoR, as per the DoG, the governing document of the Americas Cup.

The only 2 teams who need to know, are the D and CoR.

MC exists only between those 2 teams.

The rest, hurry up and wait.

So you still haven't answered the question. Why was it OK for Dalton to complain that it was unfair when he was a challenger, to the point that it was his only condition for allowing Alinghi to retain their "illegal" CoR, but now it's OK for him to do the thing that he said was unfair.

I make no secret of the fact that I don't like Dalton, that I think he is a manipulative, 2 faced whinger but I will give credit where credit is due. In all other aspects except for the design rule, ETNZ were a great defender, played fair and organised a good AC. However, in the history of the AC, there has only been 2 occasions where the design rule has been written only by the defender, then approved by the CoR, and finally released to the others, giving the defender a significant head start. On all other occasions, the defender has gone with one of 3 different approaches. 1 - They agreed with the challenger to use an existing rule (12m, J Class etc) 2 - they have commissioned an outside designer to come up with the rule and not put any constraints on that designer to stop them, working for another team 3 - developed the rule with a team of designers representing the known challengers at the time. Developing the class rule in isolation gives a huge advantage

And those 2 occasions? The last cycle and the coming one. The only times in the history of the AC that the defender has given itself a big head start over all the other teams.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SimonN said:

So you still haven't answered the question. Why was it OK for Dalton to complain that it was unfair when he was a challenger, to the point that it was his only condition for allowing Alinghi to retain their "illegal" CoR, but now it's OK for him to do the thing that he said was unfair.

I make no secret of the fact that I don't like Dalton, that I think he is a manipulative, 2 faced whinger but I will give credit where credit is due. In all other aspects except for the design rule, ETNZ were a great defender, played fair and organised a good AC. However, in the history of the AC, there has only been 2 occasions where the design rule has been written only by the defender, then approved by the CoR, and finally released to the others, giving the defender a significant head start. On all other occasions, the defender has gone with one of 3 different approaches. 1 - They agreed with the challenger to use an existing rule (12m, J Class etc) 2 - they have commissioned an outside designer to come up with the rule and not put any constraints on that designer to stop them, working for another team 3 - developed the rule with a team of designers representing the known challengers at the time. Developing the class rule in isolation gives a huge advantage

And those 2 occasions? The last cycle and the coming one. The only times in the history of the AC that the defender has given itself a big head start over all the other teams.

Link to these complaints? Dalton has ALWAYS been forthcoming in his admissions of the AC being unfair. Why? Because he knows it is! If you're saying something that is unfair is unfair, does it make it a complaint, or merely speaking truth? The AC is unfair, it is now, it was before, and it will be in the future, because the DoG is inherently unfair.

The DoG gives the D and C an inherent advantage. Every other Challenger knows this before and after they sign up to the protocol.

The class rule is developed by BOTH the D and CoR. Yes, it gives those 2 teams a head start, thats the whole point of winning the cup, to be able to choose the next class and set the rules for the next event. Again, all teams are well aware of this before and after they sign up.

Well I guess that all depends on what kind of advantage you're giving yourself. The DoG provides an advantage by virtue of winning. 

If you're talking about Oracle, they knew exactly what they were signing Morelli and Melvin up to do. They gave M&M a design brief. A design brief they had chosen, and hired M&M to write the rule around that design. That design brief was a 72ft rigid wing sailed Catamaran incorporating features they had developed and trialed during AC33. Oracle were the ONLY team at that time who were experienced in designing, building and racing large wing sailed multihulls around an inshore course, so that alone gave them a massive advantage even before M&M wrote the rule.

So EVERY defender had an advantage, simply because the DoG allowed/ allows it.

What Dalton was complaining about were the other issues Oracle had during their tenure, outside of those gained inherently by virtue of being the current Defender, that were disadvantaging them and other teams. Alinghi was obvious, the fake CoR, invalid Protocol and Class rule.

Oracle - blatant  cheating, and infringement of spying rules to gain advantage in 2013, and breach of contract and replacement of a class rule mid cycle, disadvantaging LR and ETNZ.

There were many teams in Valencia who were clearly smaller budget teams than the big 4 teams, not to mention that Oracles performance in multi challenger events was at that point extremely poor, and by switching to a much more technical wing sailed multihull, which no teams except Oracle had developed tools to design or build, it smacked of attempting to disadvantage those challengers who were clearly better than them at that stage. 

But again, the DoG allows for a D, and a CoR, Mutual Consent and solutions should that MC fail to be established, and thats what happened, whether by simple fate, or by plan.

Frankly, I don't give a crap about your personal disdain for Dalton, but you need to brush up on your history.

 

 

 

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

Dalton has never once said the AC is, has, or ever will be fair. Infact quite the opposite.

He knows its not fair, its never been fair, never will be fair and frankly, shouldn't be fair. Dalton has said as much many times.

You can make it as fair as the DoG provides it to be, but thats it. The Defender always has an advantage, it always has, and always will.

Anyone who thinks there has been a Defender without an advantage is delusional, or stupid.

The Americas Cup is not fair. But thats what makes it so hard to win, and why those that have, can call themselves the best the sport has to offer.

 

 

From the Deed of Gift:

"This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

Why, exactly, should this  "friendly competition" be inherently unfair?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accnick said:

From the Deed of Gift:

"This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

Why, exactly, should this  "friendly competition" be inherently unfair?

To be clear, there are inherent advantages in being the Defender. But why the assertion that the competition  shouldn't  be fair?

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

From the Deed of Gift:

"This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

Why, exactly, should this  "friendly competition" be inherently unfair?

I don't think Schuyler thought that far. All the challenges up to that point were never "fair", and never have been.

calling it "friendly" might as well just mean there's no prizemoney involved, once the gun goes there are no favours.

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

I don't think Schuyler thought that far. All the challenges up to that point were never "fair", and never have been.

calling it "friendly" might as well just mean there's no prizemoney involved, once the gun goes there are no favours.

According to the "Absorbing Interest" there are letters by GS saying that he wishes for a fair competition.

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

From the Deed of Gift:

"This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

Why, exactly, should this  "friendly competition" be inherently unfair?

Because it was never envisioned as a multi challenger event, therefor is not written to incorporate them.

If you're the D or CoR, its perfectly fair. 

If you're not, no, it isn't fair.

Challengers outside of the mutual consent clause are at an immediate disadvantage, but then again, you can either bitch and moan about it, or overcome it.

Dalton overcame it. Along with everything else.

And won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want fair, get rid of the circuses.  Having a lot of sailing, a lot of venues, a lot of places to attract spectators and grow an audience/fan base all f with the fairness. 

If you have to ask how much it costs to be CoR or Defender, you can't afford it.

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

The only way the AC becomes fair is if it gets rid of the DoG.

That won't/ can't happen.

That is true but the change in the degree of the unfairness is what irks. My view is it it foolish to try to go back to what was because the world and the cup keep changing sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Nonetheless…in most of the history of the cup there was a greater degree of mutual consent. Dalton deserves tremendous credit for righting the ship and winning it back, but no two have stacked the deck more than Ellison and Dalton. No two have hurt the cup more. 

When it comes around again I’ll watch the damn thing but I care less and less. After the spectacle of seeing those fast boats move in 36 I found I really didn’t care. I only watched two of the finals. No non-sailor I knew watched at all, and probably only a dozen people in our YC watched. Most of the races lacked the characteristics of “match racing”, they were short speed races in a bathtub, non human powered controls, a mix of nationalities sprinkled across all the boats, few competitors, and in the US it was a pain in the ass to get it on TV. Most of the cup was the competitors still just trying to figure out how to sail the damn boats! It was just stupid. How does NZ feel good about winning that way? If it ends up being NZ with the deck stacked and they defend it in Cork against three other teams, with mostly non nationals, why should I even care? The only hope for the future is for Dalton to lose.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2021 at 6:48 PM, ChairborneRanger said:

You're confusing a brand sponsorship post with real fact.

And never read the comments. the quality of replies goes downhill the deeper you get, much like on here.

I am not confusing a brand sponsorship with fact (there is only one kind of fact).  

The fact is NZ posted a teaser talking about their designers working on constrains for the next AC hulls.  It was posted as a brand sponsorship, but the statement is still a fact.   A person responding to that posting commented that it would be an OD hull.  We all know that comments can be full of BS, but I thought it would be interesting to see what other thought about it or if they had heard any other information.  I prefaced the topic by suggesting that the person who made the comments may have been confusing the AC40 with the AC75.  So there was no confusion on my part.  Also, if you never read comments why are you on SA?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2021 at 12:32 AM, SimonN said:

So you still haven't answered the question. Why was it OK for Dalton to complain that it was unfair when he was a challenger, to the point that it was his only condition for allowing Alinghi to retain their "illegal" CoR, but now it's OK for him to do the thing that he said was unfair.

I make no secret of the fact that I don't like Dalton, that I think he is a manipulative, 2 faced whinger but I will give credit where credit is due. In all other aspects except for the design rule, ETNZ were a great defender, played fair and organised a good AC. However, in the history of the AC, there has only been 2 occasions where the design rule has been written only by the defender, then approved by the CoR, and finally released to the others, giving the defender a significant head start. On all other occasions, the defender has gone with one of 3 different approaches. 1 - They agreed with the challenger to use an existing rule (12m, J Class etc) 2 - they have commissioned an outside designer to come up with the rule and not put any constraints on that designer to stop them, working for another team 3 - developed the rule with a team of designers representing the known challengers at the time. Developing the class rule in isolation gives a huge advantage

And those 2 occasions? The last cycle and the coming one. The only times in the history of the AC that the defender has given itself a big head start over all the other teams.

He will never answer the question.  He follows no sense of logic.  Myself and others have spent numerous pages tying to discuss the most directly obvious topics and he just never understands, usually changes the topic and falls back into his Kiwi fanboy obsession.   It is more productive talking to a wall.  Ignore is the choice that many of us have done.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

That is true but the change in the degree of the unfairness is what irks. My view is it it foolish to try to go back to what was because the world and the cup keep changing sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Nonetheless…in most of the history of the cup there was a greater degree of mutual consent. Dalton deserves tremendous credit for righting the ship and winning it back, but no two have stacked the deck more than Ellison and Dalton. No two have hurt the cup more. 

When it comes around again I’ll watch the damn thing but I care less and less. After the spectacle of seeing those fast boats move in 36 I found I really didn’t care. I only watched two of the finals. No non-sailor I knew watched at all, and probably only a dozen people in our YC watched. Most of the races lacked the characteristics of “match racing”, they were short speed races in a bathtub, non human powered controls, a mix of nationalities sprinkled across all the boats, few competitors, and in the US it was a pain in the ass to get it on TV. Most of the cup was the competitors still just trying to figure out how to sail the damn boats! It was just stupid. How does NZ feel good about winning that way? If it ends up being NZ with the deck stacked and they defend it in Cork against three other teams, with mostly non nationals, why should I even care? The only hope for the future is for Dalton to lose.

In most sport competitions there are rules that try to level the playing field and make if more fair.  "May the best team win".  

The AC lets the Defender establish the rules for each competition.  This allows teams that are afraid of straight up matches to give themselves advantages by manipulating the rules.  Teams can win the cup not because of their sailing skills, but by tricks they have hidden in the rules.  This in turn discourages challengers that see the deck stacked against them with no chance of wining.  Especially if it requires for the challengers to spend $200 million dollars just to compete.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I heard that there will be more supplied parts.  Hope they turn out better than the foil mechanism did first time around. 

Would that be genuine safety/cost reduction or some sweetheart deal for the designers and manufacturer of same? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just spotted that the size of the foils is also changing. Change in weight and foil size means you start again designing foils, with ETNZ having a nice head start. Nice work if you are prepared to (legally) an advantage that no previous defender has taken.

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

Also just spotted that the size of the foils is also changing. Change in weight and foil size means you start again designing foils, with ETNZ having a nice head start. Nice work if you are prepared to (legally) an advantage that no previous defender has taken.

You mean oracle had never designed and built a wing before forcing it on the teams?

Link to post
Share on other sites