Americas cup
-
-
I don't think our boat was that much better. Could have possibly been different if there had been more wind / lumpy seas.
Ineos dealt to Luna Rossa in those conditions and handed us our two defeats when the swell was up.
I think our meteorologist has to be given credit too. We seemed to know which was the better side of the course even when the commentators called otherwise.
Still think the race format is flawed. Course is too narrow. Makes for a great spectacle from shore but really reduces passing lanes. Makes it relatively easy for the leading boat to defend.
-
@Bovidae said in Americas cup:
The starts were always a weakness for Burling in previous ACs. I wouldn't under-estimate the input/expertise from Outteridge either. Like Ashby before.
He won virtually every start in 2017 AM cup. It was embarrassing for Spithill
-
@dogmeat said in Americas cup:
I don't think our boat was that much better. Could have possibly been different if there had been more wind / lumpy seas.
Ineos dealt to Luna Rossa in those conditions and handed us our two defeats when the swell was up.
I think our meteorologist has to be given credit too. We seemed to know which was the better side of the course even when the commentators called otherwise.
Still think the race format is flawed. Course is too narrow. Makes for a great spectacle from shore but really reduces passing lanes. Makes it relatively easy for the leading boat to defend.
Upwind and the manoeuvres is where it was better.
The one race that Ineos won (not including the one where we came off our foils as they were miles ahead!) I. Their favoured conditions we were only 50 metres behind at the finish line. When we were in front we extended and had some really big wins.
That’s generally the sign of a faster boat.
-
@nzzp said in Americas cup:
@sparky said in Americas cup:
@Canes4life said in Americas cup:
Hard to see them losing it for a while yet.
I'm not so sure. Ineos and the Italians were excellent teams this time. If either of them have a better boat than our lot next time, we'll be in trouble.
spot on. Fastest boat wins the comp.
We got beaten at the start today, but just sailed away upwind. You can't do much about that. And honestly, AmCup is as much about the boat tech as it is about the sailing these days.
Was reflecting - TNZ were the innovators - with the foiling initially, then with teh cyclors. Wonder what will be next!
Wrong.
-
@Bovidae said in Americas cup:
The starts were always a weakness for Burling in previous ACs. I wouldn't under-estimate the input/expertise from Outteridge either. Like Ashby before.
It was all a facade in the LV Cup. ETNZ knew they had 30% more power and a faster foil package that would allow them to catch and pass any team from anywhere. Come the match, Burling destroyed JS. The only start JS won was the last race where ETNZ performed the manoeuvre of the century on the first downwind leg and smoked OTUSAUS.
-
@nzzp said in Americas cup:
@Canes4life said in Americas cup:
@sparky said in Americas cup:
@Canes4life said in Americas cup:
Hard to see them losing it for a while yet.
I'm not so sure. Ineos and the Italians were excellent teams this time. If either of them have a better boat than our lot next time, we'll be in trouble.
If we keep Burling, we will be good for a while. No other skipper comes close.
Ainslie at least equalled him in the starts. He's good, but not head and shoulders over others. Having a faster boat is the key.
Disagree.
-
@dogmeat said in Americas cup:
I don't think our boat was that much better. Could have possibly been different if there had been more wind / lumpy seas.
Ineos dealt to Luna Rossa in those conditions and handed us our two defeats when the swell was up.
I think our meteorologist has to be given credit too. We seemed to know which was the better side of the course even when the commentators called otherwise.
Still think the race format is flawed. Course is too narrow. Makes for a great spectacle from shore but really reduces passing lanes. Makes it relatively easy for the leading boat to defend.
Our VMG was better which meant we were faster. We had a high mode they couldn't match. Sure we sailed slower at times but our VMG was better so we got to where we needed to go faster.
Well never know if INEOS was faster in the higher wind range because we never had it for the match. And Race 6, another 200m and we mow them down.
Plenty of people are saying the gap is closing. 7-2 with a gimme says Yeah Nah.
-
@DaGrubster said in Americas cup:
@dogmeat said in Americas cup:
I don't think our boat was that much better. Could have possibly been different if there had been more wind / lumpy seas.
Ineos dealt to Luna Rossa in those conditions and handed us our two defeats when the swell was up.
I think our meteorologist has to be given credit too. We seemed to know which was the better side of the course even when the commentators called otherwise.
Still think the race format is flawed. Course is too narrow. Makes for a great spectacle from shore but really reduces passing lanes. Makes it relatively easy for the leading boat to defend.
Upwind and the manoeuvres is where it was better.
The one race that Ineos won (not including the one where we came off our foils as they were miles ahead!) I. Their favoured conditions we were only 50 metres behind at the finish line. When we were in front we extended and had some really big wins.
That’s generally the sign of a faster boat.
When we needed to, we had the wheels downwind as well. The data supports this.
-
you know you can quote multiple time in one post?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Americas cup:
you know you can quote multiple time in one post?
This forum software doesn't do multi quoting notifications which is a drawback.
-
