Old school approach. Use the proven technology. It's much faster and way less expensive, once developed.In case of 1-1 event, I'd ask Max sirena (and Patrizio), to spend one year in New Zealand of DAILY racings against vs American Magic so that both teams can improve and experiment modifications on existing boats
You don't even have any two boats testing limitations, until you challenge.You don't want too many events. Get on the water every single day with the Americans and fight for hard races, grab data, allow modifications on the boats for one year. Just drop a few events to attract medias and hold fans attention
So do I. He's bound to be lead down a rabbit hole. ;-)I hope Max Sirena is silently reading this forum![]()
Mate, it's the second time in a row that I am considered to be old school on this board, I guess I am :lol:Old school approach. Use the proven technology. It's much faster and way less expensive, once developed.
Luckily he is smarter than usSo do I. He's bound to be lead down a rabbit hole. ;-)
FWIW, this is a copy of the Commodore's letter. Not as dramatic as hopped-up Granny Herald would have it but certainly a thumbs down on a one-on-one match in Cowes. Interestingly enough, a thumbs-up on the AC 75 Class.
So can you, stop going on about how unfair it all is?I'm confident you can find the answer on you own.
Not as close to 70 as me, probably!!Mate, it's the second time in a row that I am considered to be old school on this board, I guess I am :lol:
There's an interesting point here:That would be quite amusing. A few teams setting up camp in NZL training and developing, learning the conditions better and filling the fuck out of the NZL media whilst the 378's are off playing catch my checkbook.
There was some seriousness to my point. I agree. I noted earlier that there is nothing stopping a non 378 team from testing as much as they want.There's an interesting point here:
It seems likely that future editions run by ETNZ would continue to apply the "no two boat testing" rule - it's a reasonable way of controlling costs, and seems to have worked this time round.
*If* there were a 1-on-1 AC37 followed by a multi-challenger AC38, the protocol for AC38 doesn't apply until AC37 is over. So the teams not involved in AC37 can line up against each other and two-boat-test to their heart's content, whilst the teams involved in AC37 only have the event itself to get some real racing experience.
We've seen how quickly the teams/boats improve when they actually get to race against each other. What's going to get you to AC38 with the fastest package? Racing in AC37, or sitting it out and learning how to go fast, with only your budget dictating how much kit you can build and test?
Yep! There is as much to learn there as any design feature of the boats themselves.Judging by recent revelations from ETNZ about their simulator, AI and Bot developments, ITUK would be better off re-building their software development, no?
That’s fine as long as the rules and spec for aC38 are defined exactly prior to AC37 or you are just sailing your boats around with no idea of the criteria that will apply to them other than being a 75ft foiling mono hull.There's an interesting point here:
It seems likely that future editions run by ETNZ would continue to apply the "no two boat testing" rule - it's a reasonable way of controlling costs, and seems to have worked this time round.
*If* there were a 1-on-1 AC37 followed by a multi-challenger AC38, the protocol for AC38 doesn't apply until AC37 is over. So the teams not involved in AC37 can line up against each other and two-boat-test to their heart's content, whilst the teams involved in AC37 only have the event itself to get some real racing experience.
We've seen how quickly the teams/boats improve when they actually get to race against each other. What's going to get you to AC38 with the fastest package? Racing in AC37, or sitting it out and learning how to go fast, with only your budget dictating how much kit you can build and test?
I'm still convinced that a 1 - 1 Match, in the contest of modern era AC, is totally unfair and against sportmanship and the good of the America's Cup itself. And if Prada had made such a proposal to ETNZ after AC35 (they had the means to do that if wanted) I would have been disgusted as well.So can you, stop going on about how unfair it all is?
they had a choice, continue the break down in relations with GD during AC36 or put out an olive branch fix the issues and be COR again.
they didn’t and are potentially worse off for it.
Training camps work well for the, French. One of the reasons why they're world leading ocean racers.There's an interesting point here:
It seems likely that future editions run by ETNZ would continue to apply the "no two boat testing" rule - it's a reasonable way of controlling costs, and seems to have worked this time round.
*If* there were a 1-on-1 AC37 followed by a multi-challenger AC38, the protocol for AC38 doesn't apply until AC37 is over. So the teams not involved in AC37 can line up against each other and two-boat-test to their heart's content, whilst the teams involved in AC37 only have the event itself to get some real racing experience.
We've seen how quickly the teams/boats improve when they actually get to race against each other. What's going to get you to AC38 with the fastest package? Racing in AC37, or sitting it out and learning how to go fast, with only your budget dictating how much kit you can build and test?
True but if and only if there are other teams out there with the considerable funding needed to do that. Unclear that is true.*If* there were a 1-on-1 AC37 followed by a multi-challenger AC38, the protocol for AC38 doesn't apply until AC37 is over. So the teams not involved in AC37 can line up against each other and two-boat-test to their heart's content, whilst the teams involved in AC37 only have the event itself to get some real racing experience.
Too many logical fallacies to deal with here.That’s fine as long as the rules and spec for aC38 are defined exactly prior to AC37 or you are just sailing your boats around with no idea of the criteria that will apply to them other than being a 75ft foiling mono hull.
plus if you are doing this is shoots a hole in the argument to reject the two cup cycle proposal, if you hated the idea of being dictated too so much you wouldn’t be two boat testing