i.stuff.co.nz
Yep. That's a Rules jack-up I don't agree with.
I am with you. I don't agree with that either. I am guessing that the reasoning was that Luna Rossa was more race hardened & race sharp in Auckland bcuz they had more racing so it was time to change the Rules. I am flummoxed & flabergasted why INEOS/Royal Yacht Squadron agreed to this.
2 defenders who race off for right to defend at the same time as the challengers.
Am resigned to it being okay, given how (unfortunately) only 1 new boat is allowed. We have seen late-late stage improvements made even after the RR's.
If you go all the way back to earlier cups, most challengers and defenders spent months and moths trialing against other boats and even previous winners and losers to get that race experience, so in a way getting that race experience is normal, it just doesn't vibe well.
Yeah. It's more expensive if you let teams do 2-boat testing. Most countries are not big enough to have 2 defenders these days and the defender doesn't really want that anyway. But the problem is that the defender gets to race with no skin in the game.
It is a risk, if they have some serious contact with another team or a bad capsize, then the Defender is risking everything.
I suppose. But with no skin in the game, they can avoid this more, and with their shore crews, damage is less of an issue.
A decent foil arm to foil arm incident would likely be the end of two teams at least. With the energy transfer into the FCS and other internals, the damage would be catastrophic.
If you go back even further before ww2 it was normal for contenders to have only one boat.
They wont be scrapped, and INEOS have had their 40 for ages. since well before the end of the year.
ARBR doesn't have their AC40, AM doesn't have their AC40, Luna Rossa & K-Challenge doesn't have it either. Which City will pony up the $$$$ in a Post-COVID World with every Economy in the Tank in Europe.
