Team Vestas grounded

[LeoV]

Tried a few hours the mental game, what happened before the crash.

who was responsible for what, what are the night settings of the Nav aids, what is the protocol at watch switches etc etc.

So many variables, can see that something went wrong.

But I learned what the shading is around the 200m.
Learned that ECDIS changes navigation a lot.

And that Admirality chart 38 and 2851 (Gulf of Oman area) has a 2 degrees latitude difference.

Lets hope they notice that when they use paper charts

 

[LeoV]

Estar,

Magenta line with marks:
I noticed that limit too but I really had to search for that.

Was not in my memory. While I must have crossed such lines before in my live.

 

[solveig]

Just Google Earth and olds sayings.

 

[LeoV]

Kent,

that blue line does not scare me enough, not with the 200 m line, but the numbers inside, 20 and 40, and the magenta line made me wonder.

That and the question marks on the next shoal. But we will never know if htat was the scale they used or less.

explanation blue line.

 

[CraftyBob]

Wouter certainly does have an impressive racing resume but it doesn't mention any sailing other than in organized races. But my point wasn't really to criticize Wouter because there's been plenty of that already and I understand that there's a chain of events that could potentially lead to almost all of us running into a charted island. No doubt he screwed up big time but who hasn't? Fatigue, change in plans/routing, software, screen size, and probably other issues none of us have even thought of all contributed to Wouters lack of awareness of the island. If you reread my post, i was referring not so much to the captain and navigator, but more to the rest of the crew to raise the possibility that the crew may have only a very few savvy mariners and the rest were racing specialists who didn't have much experience with the more routine habits and tasks involved in overall good seamanship. But if you are right, and everyone aboard these boats knows everyone else's job and practices overall good seamanship, then WHY did none of the other crewmembers take a look at the chart and ask why they were headed for a reef? I think it's because that wasn't considered to be their job and it might even have been considered a faux pas to be "tinkering" with the navigators screens or questioning his routing (after all, as you pointed out, he's got a VERY impressive resume as a navigator!), and despite some of them having many ocean crossings under their belt, they had never had to be involved in basic navigation so never bothered to check on the boats intended course, just took it or granted that somebody else had that covered. In the hundreds of posts about this incident, I've seen plenty of fingers pointed at the captain and the navigator, but very few seem to be putting much blame on the rest of the crew. Why is that? After all, according to you they are all accomplished mariners and yet each of them just allowed his boat to run into a charted island! I think they correctly aren't being much blamed because it's well understood that they were doing just what they were good at and were hired to do, making the boat go faster than the other boats in the fleet almost as if they were involved in a dinghy race on steroids, but NOT participating in navigation decisions or regularly checking on their position as good seamanship demands that any watchkeeper do. I realize it's an ultra competitive environment and to have a chance at winning, making the boat go fast ALL the time is super important, but I think that this accident shows that it's not wise to compartmentalize important tasks like basic navigation to the extent this crew must have done. If you disagree, how else do you explain all 9 guys apparently not even being aware of an island right in their path?

+1

 

[Trickypig]

This is interesting:

Team Vestas Wind media call on Monday

What/when: Team Vestas Wind will be holding a one-hour media conference call via the Webex system (details below) on Monday, December 8, 2014, at 1130 local time in Abu Dhabi/0730 UTC/0830 CET.

Background: Team Vestas Wind’s boat was grounded last Saturday (November 29) on a reef in the Indian Ocean during Leg 2 of the Volvo Ocean Race 2014-15. The crew subsequently were led to safety and are now in Abu Dhabi following a debriefing this weekend.

Attendees:

Morten Albæk, CEO, Team Vestas Wind, and Vestas Chief Marketing Officer

Knut Frostad, CEO, Volvo Ocean Race

Chris Nicholson, Team Vestas Wind skipper

Wouter Verbraak, Team Vestas Wind navigator

Moderator: Morten Kamp Jørgensen, Director of Communications and PR, Team Vestas Wind,

How: We invite media to submit their questions about the incident detailed above (‘Background') in writing to Morten Kamp Jørgensen at [email protected] in advance in this call so he can put them to the appropriate member(s) of the panel. Please let us know to whom you wish your question(s) to be addressed. We also intend to give time to media to ask oral questions during the call.

As sailors this could be very enlightening or not at all.

If there is a room full of non sailing journalists it'll cover all the drama but may not get down to the brand of electronic charts, what exact scale the plotter was at when they hit, whether Wouter was off watch/asleep and, if he was, how the nav duties are attended to when Wouter sleeps.

There is certainly an issue to be worked through with skipper verses navigator's responsibilities; especially when it was Nicco who came on deck with the " shoals at 40m depth ahead" comment. Did Wouter tell Nicco that or did Nicco check the plotter himself?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[southerncross]

This is interesting:

Team Vestas Wind media call on Monday

What/when: Team Vestas Wind will be holding a one-hour media conference call via the Webex system (details below) on Monday, December 8, 2014, at 1130 local time in Abu Dhabi/0730 UTC/0830 CET.

Background: Team Vestas Winds boat was grounded last Saturday (November 29) on a reef in the Indian Ocean during Leg 2 of the Volvo Ocean Race 2014-15. The crew subsequently were led to safety and are now in Abu Dhabi following a debriefing this weekend.

Attendees:

Morten Albæk, CEO, Team Vestas Wind, and Vestas Chief Marketing Officer

Knut Frostad, CEO, Volvo Ocean Race

Chris Nicholson, Team Vestas Wind skipper

Wouter Verbraak, Team Vestas Wind navigator

Moderator: Morten Kamp Jørgensen, Director of Communications and PR, Team Vestas Wind,

How: We invite media to submit their questions about the incident detailed above (Background') in writing to Morten Kamp Jørgensen at [email protected] in advance in this call so he can put them to the appropriate member(s) of the panel. Please let us know to whom you wish your question(s) to be addressed. We also intend to give time to media to ask oral questions during the call.

Will this exclude your upcoming private interview with Nico?

 

[Boo-Yah]

Wouter certainly does have an impressive racing resume but it doesn't mention any sailing other than in organized races. But my point wasn't really to criticize Wouter because there's been plenty of that already and I understand that there's a chain of events that could potentially lead to almost all of us running into a charted island. No doubt he screwed up big time but who hasn't? Fatigue, change in plans/routing, software, screen size, and probably other issues none of us have even thought of all contributed to Wouters lack of awareness of the island. If you reread my post, i was referring not so much to the captain and navigator, but more to the rest of the crew to raise the possibility that the crew may have only a very few savvy mariners and the rest were racing specialists who didn't have much experience with the more routine habits and tasks involved in overall good seamanship. But if you are right, and everyone aboard these boats knows everyone else's job and practices overall good seamanship, then WHY did none of the other crewmembers take a look at the chart and ask why they were headed for a reef? I think it's because that wasn't considered to be their job and it might even have been considered a faux pas to be "tinkering" with the navigators screens or questioning his routing (after all, as you pointed out, he's got a VERY impressive resume as a navigator!), and despite some of them having many ocean crossings under their belt, they had never had to be involved in basic navigation so never bothered to check on the boats intended course, just took it or granted that somebody else had that covered. In the hundreds of posts about this incident, I've seen plenty of fingers pointed at the captain and the navigator, but very few seem to be putting much blame on the rest of the crew. Why is that? After all, according to you they are all accomplished mariners and yet each of them just allowed his boat to run into a charted island! I think they correctly aren't being much blamed because it's well understood that they were doing just what they were good at and were hired to do, making the boat go faster than the other boats in the fleet almost as if they were involved in a dinghy race on steroids, but NOT participating in navigation decisions or regularly checking on their position as good seamanship demands that any watchkeeper do. I realize it's an ultra competitive environment and to have a chance at winning, making the boat go fast ALL the time is super important, but I think that this accident shows that it's not wise to compartmentalize important tasks like basic navigation to the extent this crew must have done. If you disagree, how else do you explain all 9 guys apparently not even being aware of an island right in their path?

+1

Take a look at the Sydney to Hobart race or any other big boat distance race outside or the Volvo. None of those 60 footers hit the line with 9 guys to race balls out 24/7 for days on end. You bet any of them can do any job on the boat. During most of the race each of the 9 struggle to do their own job and non sailing task assignments there is only so much time and physical energy in the day. Here is the junior lightweight on the boat...

Team Vestas Wind

Trimmer, data processing & food (Under 30)

Peter Wibroe

He speaks: Danish and English.

Who he is: Pete has a solid background in match racing. He was a crew member of the SAP Extreme 40 and has competed in the Melges 32 and RC 44. And he has a PhD in pharmaceutical sciences with a master’s degree in nanotechnology. Pete’s bachelor of nanotechnology thesis topic was: “Exploring encapsulation efficiency in single vehicles by passive transport across bilayers around phase transition.”

http://www.sailing.org/biog.php?id=DENPW1

 

[southerncross]

Not arguing the "number of crew" argument but it sure puts the IMOCA boys into perspective especially with the likes of Gabart winning with such eerie precision and flawlessness

 

[stief]

Not arguing the "number of crew" argument but it sure puts the IMOCA boys into perspective especially with the likes of Gabart winning with such eerie precision and flawlessness

Wasn't that facilitated by shore-based routing? (at least in the Route de Rhum)

 

[southerncross]

Not arguing the "number of crew" argument but it sure puts the IMOCA boys into perspective especially with the likes of Gabart winning with such eerie precision and flawlessness

Wasn't that facilitated by shore-based routing? (at least in the Route de Rhum)

Good point. But I don't think in the Vendee.

 

[Bruno]

"Around the world without assistance

Around the world via the three capes

The course for the Vendée Globe illustrates the straightforward nature and simplicity of the idea behind this major event. You sail around the world from west to east via the three major capes of Good Hope, Leeuwin and the Horn."

But...

Different animals because,

A. Crewed boats of similar size but different power, sailed more intensly and intensively, AFAIK, not having done either. When it is breezy then you are on deck during your watch without much shelter, one helm, one main trimmer, one kite trimmer, one grinder = 4.

B. Solo guys have those plush dugouts (nappy?) where they sit in their canting padded chairs monitoring the weather, routing, and traffic whilst the AP steers, popping up for trimming as needed. Generally out of visual contact with the fleet.

C. Route for VOR has been contorted for sponsors, creating much trickier navigation and seamanship challenges (viz the trip to and from China in the winter, what fun) at the same time cutting crew numbers and increasing workloads.

Hmm, something had to give.

All 4 on deck in vid are astonished and unnerved by the appearance of shoals in what they thought was open water, they have no idea which way to turn. At 20 kn even rolling up the zero took time, by the time they struck it was over already, sure maybe they shoulda woulda coulda made a blind bat turn in the dark into potentially worse danger but I doubt I would have. If I fault their reactions for anything it is that they didn't slow down but they are paid to take risks.

Even though there seems to be an over abundance of mental masturbation about a relatively simple, easy to explain incident (sorry I was tired and distracted and did not see it until we hit it, my bad) I am still learning from this thread, have to try navionics.

 

[southerncross]

^ Still, gybing in the middle of the night, deep in the South, with 40+ and mountains, all alone.

 

[jzk]

"Around the world without assistance

Around the world via the three capes

The course for the Vendée Globe illustrates the straightforward nature and simplicity of the idea behind this major event. You sail around the world from west to east via the three major capes of Good Hope, Leeuwin and the Horn."

But...

Different animals because,

A. Crewed boats of similar size but different power, sailed more intensly and intensively, AFAIK, not having done either. When it is breezy then you are on deck during your watch without much shelter, one helm, one main trimmer, one kite trimmer, one grinder = 4.

B. Solo guys have those plush dugouts (nappy?) where they sit in their canting padded chairs monitoring the weather, routing, and traffic whilst the AP steers, popping up for trimming as needed. Generally out of visual contact with the fleet.

C. Route for VOR has been contorted for sponsors, creating much trickier navigation and seamanship challenges (viz the trip to and from China in the winter, what fun) at the same time cutting crew numbers and increasing workloads.

Hmm, something had to give.

All 4 on deck in vid are astonished and unnerved by the appearance of shoals in what they thought was open water, they have no idea which way to turn. At 20 kn even rolling up the zero took time, by the time they struck it was over already, sure maybe they shoulda woulda coulda made a blind bat turn in the dark into potentially worse danger but I doubt I would have. If I fault their reactions for anything it is that they didn't slow down but they are paid to take risks.

Even though there seems to be an over abundance of mental masturbation about a relatively simple, easy to explain incident (sorry I was tired and distracted and did not see it until we hit it, my bad) I am still learning from this thread, have to try navionics.

No one should be without the Navionics app on their cell phone. Why? Is it because it is the best navigational technology available? Hardly. It is because it is almost free and it is a complete backup to whatever else you use. You can be in your bunk off watch on someone else's boat and just verify in your hand that all is well. And, it goes in the dinghy with you where ever you go. You don't have to go down below or to the helm to check your position or the chart. It is right there with you. There is plenty about it that I would fix, but it shows you where you are and where you are going very well. There is even a little red line that extends forward so that you can see exactly where you are going.

 

[jtsailjt]

Wouter certainly does have an impressive racing resume but it doesn't mention any sailing other than in organized races. But my point wasn't really to criticize Wouter because there's been plenty of that already and I understand that there's a chain of events that could potentially lead to almost all of us running into a charted island. No doubt he screwed up big time but who hasn't? Fatigue, change in plans/routing, software, screen size, and probably other issues none of us have even thought of all contributed to Wouters lack of awareness of the island. If you reread my post, i was referring not so much to the captain and navigator, but more to the rest of the crew to raise the possibility that the crew may have only a very few savvy mariners and the rest were racing specialists who didn't have much experience with the more routine habits and tasks involved in overall good seamanship. But if you are right, and everyone aboard these boats knows everyone else's job and practices overall good seamanship, then WHY did none of the other crewmembers take a look at the chart and ask why they were headed for a reef? I think it's because that wasn't considered to be their job and it might even have been considered a faux pas to be "tinkering" with the navigators screens or questioning his routing (after all, as you pointed out, he's got a VERY impressive resume as a navigator!), and despite some of them having many ocean crossings under their belt, they had never had to be involved in basic navigation so never bothered to check on the boats intended course, just took it or granted that somebody else had that covered. In the hundreds of posts about this incident, I've seen plenty of fingers pointed at the captain and the navigator, but very few seem to be putting much blame on the rest of the crew. Why is that? After all, according to you they are all accomplished mariners and yet each of them just allowed his boat to run into a charted island! I think they correctly aren't being much blamed because it's well understood that they were doing just what they were good at and were hired to do, making the boat go faster than the other boats in the fleet almost as if they were involved in a dinghy race on steroids, but NOT participating in navigation decisions or regularly checking on their position as good seamanship demands that any watchkeeper do. I realize it's an ultra competitive environment and to have a chance at winning, making the boat go fast ALL the time is super important, but I think that this accident shows that it's not wise to compartmentalize important tasks like basic navigation to the extent this crew must have done. If you disagree, how else do you explain all 9 guys apparently not even being aware of an island right in their path?

+1

Take a look at the Sydney to Hobart race or any other big boat distance race outside or the Volvo. None of those 60 footers hit the line with 9 guys to race balls out 24/7 for days on end. You bet any of them can do any job on the boat. During most of the race each of the 9 struggle to do their own job and non sailing task assignments there is only so much time and physical energy in the day. Here is the junior lightweight on the boat...

Team Vestas Wind

Trimmer, data processing & food (Under 30)

Peter Wibroe

He speaks: Danish and English.

Who he is: Pete has a solid background in match racing. He was a crew member of the SAP Extreme 40 and has competed in the Melges 32 and RC 44. And he has a PhD in pharmaceutical sciences with a master’s degree in nanotechnology. Pete’s bachelor of nanotechnology thesis topic was: “Exploring encapsulation efficiency in single vehicles by passive transport across bilayers around phase transition.”

http://www.sailing.org/biog.php?id=DENPW1

Once again, a very impressive resume and clearly a very intelligent and accomplished guy, but it doesn't even mention any qualifications as a mariner other than as a match racer. Nothing wrong with that at all, but I think it supports my initial suggestion that many of the crew were more racing specialists than all around seamen. Rather than being generalists who are proficient at all the sorts of things that most people who cross oceans are, many of the crew are specialists whose role has always been to make a boat go fast and possibly that's part of the reason why nobody else aboard happened to take a look at the chartplotter and notice they were heading for an island.

In a previous life I was an F-16 pilot. In those days almost everyone who got to fly a F-16 was a least in the top 10% of his initial pilot training class and then you competed constantly against all of your peers to try to be the best. As a F-16 pilot you were required to maintain proficiency at air to ground, close air support, air to air, and interceptor missions against all sorts of adversaries, and stay up to date with ever evolving tactics and weapons, and of course things were always happening/changing at a rather fast pace on every single training mission. It was very challenging and rewarding and fun! However, a disproportionate number of F-16's were crashing and killing their pilots while flying a routine instrument approach, something the guy who finished last in his pilot training class could do just fine. A very good pilot who was my best buddy while we were in F-4 training class together was killed a few years later in an F-16 while flying instruments at night in nonchallenging conditions. The F-16 had adequate instruments but not great instruments, it was designed to win dogfights and drop bombs, not fly instrument approaches. Still, one would think that this group of some of the best fighter pilots in the world would be able to reliably fly a routine instrument approach in the fog without killing themselves and crashing the airplane. It turned out that the problem wasn't primarily with the instruments or even the reclined seating position causing vertigo, though both of those factors probably had some effect, but was more that fighter pilots tend to take great pride in making themselves into the best dogfighters or bombers in the squadron, but many considered working at refining their instrument flying skills to be not cool. If there was extra fuel left at the end of a training mission, nobody ever said "I think I'll fly an extra ILS approach just for practice." In other words, we were a community of pilots who were flying one of the most technologically advanced airplanes in the world, had well above average talent, were all passionate about becoming the very best fighter pilots we could be and constantly worked hard at improving ourselves, but had a worse record at flying instrument approaches than almost any other group of pilots, civilian or military.

Maybe some sailboat racers suffer from the same sort of mindset where they are more concerned about being the best dogfighter in the squadron than they are about honing such basic seamanship skills as knowing where they are and what lies just ahead. I'm not suggesting it as a way of criticizing them but more as a way of trying to understand how 9 top notch sailors could run their boat into an island.

 

[Guest]

JZK, you are to the Team Vestas grounding as Doug Lord is to foiling.

Yes, the big problem here is not the skipper and navigator skirting responsibility for putting their multi-million dollar boat on the rocks and putting the crew in danger. It is me calling BS on their statements about it.

Dude, give it a rest. We get it. They fucked up. They admit they fucked up. It seems no one is trying to say otherwise. You are parsing words now and beating deceased equines. I think when they do the formal investigation, they will get at ALL the contributory factors out. I don't think anyone is shying away from the "human error" angle and trying to place blame on technology. You calling BS is irrelevant. Public statements outside of the formal investigation process are also irrelevant, as they are often based on incomplete information - i.e. one guy's perspective or emotion. Once they do the reconstruction of the event second by second, and put all perspectives of the crew together to build a single model of what happened - then and only then will the full picture be built. Until then your take is just as much speculation as anyone else's. So kindly STFU.

 

[Guest]

Can someone in the know confirm that a new build is happening!?

No comment..............

I hope not, why should they get the advantage of a new boat??

What happens to the next team that need a new one? Or any of the spares being used to set up the new hull?

Putting them on a ship between legs was a step, giving a team a new frikken boat is beyond a joke.

I can't say that I agree with that. Why is it a joke? At the end of the day, the VOR is a commercial enterprise out to make money and promote their product. If they can pitch the extreme adversity and a rise from the ashes comeback story and it becomes a global sensation (which it could very well become) - then they will have succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams of exposure to a new audience.

I think putting the TVW crew right back in the saddle will accomplish that. Feel good story of the century. In several months when the VOR is over, they can show the pics of absolute anquish in Nico's eyes as he's standing in knee deep water at the back of a crashed boat with no stern next to pics of Nico and crew triumphantly sailing into port at the final finish line. Win for the VOR, win for the Vestas Wind company and win for sailing. I don't see a downside.

 

[Guest]

In a previous life I was an F-16 pilot. In those days almost everyone who got to fly a F-16 was a least in the top 10% of his initial pilot training class and then you competed constantly against all of your peers to try to be the best. As a F-16 pilot you were required to maintain proficiency at air to ground, close air support, air to air, and interceptor missions against all sorts of adversaries, and stay up to date with ever evolving tactics and weapons, and of course things were always happening/changing at a rather fast pace on every single training mission. It was very challenging and rewarding and fun! However, a disproportionate number of F-16's were crashing and killing their pilots while flying a routine instrument approach, something the guy who finished last in his pilot training class could do just fine. A very good pilot who was my best buddy while we were in F-4 training class together was killed a few years later in an F-16 while flying instruments at night in nonchallenging conditions. The F-16 had adequate instruments but not great instruments, it was designed to win dogfights and drop bombs, not fly instrument approaches. Still, one would think that this group of some of the best fighter pilots in the world would be able to reliably fly a routine instrument approach in the fog without killing themselves and crashing the airplane. It turned out that the problem wasn't primarily with the instruments or even the reclined seating position causing vertigo, though both of those factors probably had some effect, but was more that fighter pilots tend to take great pride in making themselves into the best dogfighters or bombers in the squadron, but many considered working at refining their instrument flying skills to be not cool. If there was extra fuel left at the end of a training mission, nobody ever said "I think I'll fly an extra ILS approach just for practice." In other words, we were a community of pilots who were flying one of the most technologically advanced airplanes in the world, had well above average talent, were all passionate about becoming the very best fighter pilots we could be and constantly worked hard at improving ourselves, but had a worse record at flying instrument approaches than almost any other group of pilots, civilian or military.

Maybe some sailboat racers suffer from the same sort of mindset where they are more concerned about being the best dogfighter in the squadron than they are about honing such basic seamanship skills as knowing where they are and what lies just ahead. I'm not suggesting it as a way of criticizing them but more as a way of trying to understand how 9 top notch sailors could run their boat into an island.

GREAT POINT! What years did you fly vipers? By the time I got to my ops Sq (early 90s), much of that mindset had been beaten out of us and we always flew more instrument approaches and overheads if we had extra gas. Also, my first tour was in the UK - so instrument approaches down to no shit mins was more the norm for us. So by default we got pretty good at it as opposed to the guys at Luke or Nellis or such where there was rarely a cloud in the sky.

But I think you make an excellent point about what tasks top pros tend to focus on more than other tasks. Would be interesting if there was some of that going on here.

 

[southerncross]

In a previous life I was an F-16 pilot. In those days almost everyone who got to fly a F-16 was a least in the top 10% of his initial pilot training class and then you competed constantly against all of your peers to try to be the best. As a F-16 pilot you were required to maintain proficiency at air to ground, close air support, air to air, and interceptor missions against all sorts of adversaries, and stay up to date with ever evolving tactics and weapons, and of course things were always happening/changing at a rather fast pace on every single training mission. It was very challenging and rewarding and fun! However, a disproportionate number of F-16's were crashing and killing their pilots while flying a routine instrument approach, something the guy who finished last in his pilot training class could do just fine. A very good pilot who was my best buddy while we were in F-4 training class together was killed a few years later in an F-16 while flying instruments at night in nonchallenging conditions. The F-16 had adequate instruments but not great instruments, it was designed to win dogfights and drop bombs, not fly instrument approaches. Still, one would think that this group of some of the best fighter pilots in the world would be able to reliably fly a routine instrument approach in the fog without killing themselves and crashing the airplane. It turned out that the problem wasn't primarily with the instruments or even the reclined seating position causing vertigo, though both of those factors probably had some effect, but was more that fighter pilots tend to take great pride in making themselves into the best dogfighters or bombers in the squadron, but many considered working at refining their instrument flying skills to be not cool. If there was extra fuel left at the end of a training mission, nobody ever said "I think I'll fly an extra ILS approach just for practice." In other words, we were a community of pilots who were flying one of the most technologically advanced airplanes in the world, had well above average talent, were all passionate about becoming the very best fighter pilots we could be and constantly worked hard at improving ourselves, but had a worse record at flying instrument approaches than almost any other group of pilots, civilian or military.

Maybe some sailboat racers suffer from the same sort of mindset where they are more concerned about being the best dogfighter in the squadron than they are about honing such basic seamanship skills as knowing where they are and what lies just ahead. I'm not suggesting it as a way of criticizing them but more as a way of trying to understand how 9 top notch sailors could run their boat into an island.

GREAT POINT! What years did you fly vipers? By the time I got to my ops Sq (early 90s), much of that mindset had been beaten out of us and we always flew more instrument approaches and overheads if we had extra gas. Also, my first tour was in the UK - so instrument approaches down to no shit mins was more the norm for us. So by default we got pretty good at it as opposed to the guys at Luke or Nellis or such where there was rarely a cloud in the sky.

But I think you make an excellent point about what tasks top pros tend to focus on more than other tasks. Would be interesting if there was some of that going on here.

I think it's an interesting point too. Maybe this new type of offshore OD racing requires a more rigorous selection and training process than the one that is currently being implemented. All new stuff and a great deal of learning going on.

 

[Surf-n-Turf]

Can someone in the know confirm that a new build is happening!?

No comment..............

I hope not, why should they get the advantage of a new boat??

What happens to the next team that need a new one? Or any of the spares being used to set up the new hull?

Putting them on a ship between legs was a step, giving a team a new frikken boat is beyond a joke.

Not to argue your point, but they will get a DNF/DNC for at least 2 maybe 3 legs plus the in-port races. They saved the sails and running rigging so that will not be replaced. The likelihood of them winning the overall is zero. They might get a leg or in-port win, but….

We will know in the morning after the press conference.