Jump to content

Talk:2013 America's Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newport?

[edit]

I found a claim that AC34 will be held in Newport: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.mascalzonelatino.it/%3FMainID%3D5%26SubID%3D39%26ArticleID%3D553&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMascalzone%2BLatino%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DELD%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhixexQEY2NFa325tIIW10LIAIGOvA. Does anyone know how valid this is? 24.188.207.20 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be one of the three venues Oracle is seriously considering. I don't think we can use that as a reliable source though. Mattlore (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source number 3, they don't mention anything else than Newport... Where did you get the information for Valencia or San Francisco and San Diego ? (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change name?

[edit]

Since the date of 2013 has now been announced, should we already change the name of the article to "2013 America's Cup", or would it be more prudent to wait until it actually takes place before renaming the article?--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with changing the name now to conform to the naming convention used by the other AC articles. If it doesn't happen, we can always change it again.--Paul (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.2x and 1.6x

[edit]

is hardly encyclopedic content. Is 1.2x and 1.6x the design requirements submitted to naval architects or pure speculation ,albeit published by the ACM? Please advise. Nuttyrave (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a design spec.--Paul (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. And it will surely be met, see the actual performance realized by Alinghi 5 and USA 17 during the 2010 Cup.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New articles for AC72 AC45

[edit]

Suggest we have a separate article describing the AC72 and AC45 boats as a lot of info will emerge over the next few months. Lots of detail of the boats, rigs etc probably does not belong in the main 2113 America's Cup article. Recommend an 'AC72 (America's Cup Class Catamaran)' article and a redirect from a new 'AC45 (America's Cup Class Catamaran)' article. Comments please?? Boatman (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But we should wait at least until Sept 30, when the AC72 class rules are due to be published.--Paul (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I think that we might need to wait even a bit longer, until some of the boats actually get built.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect Boatman (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. Has anybody found any secondary sources that we can use in order to start writing about the AC72 class?--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gladwell's articles at Sail-World.com might be a good place to start. And, I would think there will be some material in Seahorse. --Paul (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mascalzone out?

[edit]

I am on sailnet.com, and someone there posted a link in part about the new Energy team, but what he also said was that Mascalzone is running into money problems and may not be able to participate. Can someone who knows Italian say if this link actually says that? If so, this ought to be mentioned. YellowAries2010 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.giornaledellavela.com/content/html/index.php?s=Onorato_pensa_di_ritirare_Mascalzone_Latino_dalla_Coppa_America_Vincenzo_Onorato_fondatore_di_Mascalzone_Latino_non_smentisce_e_anzi_a_sorpresa_confer&page=nodeDetail&idRecord=11595

I've seen an English language article that said this - maybe NZ Herald - along the lines of Russell Coutts denying there was a problem. Will see if I can find it. Mattlore (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was thinking of [1]: "Cup insiders say even Mascalzone Latino is feeling the financial pinch. Among the rumours are: That Mascalzone could even drop out and resign as chall-engers of record, meaning Artemis will take over." Mattlore (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent). I am fluent in Italian and all I can say is "wow, jeepers creepers". Indeed the article says that Onorato (the boss) has publicly confirmed, in a press conference, the rumors regarding a likely withdrawal. The article says that none of the challengers except for Artemis have funding, and quotes Onorato as having said at the end of 2010 "Right now we don't have any sponsor to finance our America's Cup challenge, despite the fact that discussions are taking place. In all honesty, here at Mascalzone Lation we are finding it hard to survive." According to the article, Onorato told Scuttlebutt in February 2011 that it was difficult to find sponsors until the exact racing schedule is announced, and that he would not participate in the Cup unless he could be competitive, which required financing. The English-language version of this interview is at [2]. It seems to me that this stuff is in the "breaking news" category, and not worth adding to the article at this stage. If confirmed, it will make the deal between Alinghi and CNEV look whistle clean by comparison.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Challengers

[edit]

I see that, according to the latest edit, the Australia team has dropped out and a Spanish team has come in. I wonder whether we should add some text regarding who drops in and out, or whether such detail is not needed.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a citation then yeah, I'd add it in the text. Mattlore (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DefenderS?

[edit]

Were the rules set up to allow people US yatch clubs to compete to become defenders? If so, were there no other defenders in other words, are were sure the 2 unnamed teams are challengers? Either way, IMHO both of these should be mentioned. (As I intepret the DOG, it's not possible for a a US team be a challenger.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender is the club or organization that won the cup last time. It is not the USA, it is the Golden Gate Yacht Club. "Golden Gate YC (GGYC) holds the America's Cup as trustee, and defends the trophy against the challenger selected in the Louis Vuitton Cup Regatta." Here's a link that may help: http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-34-the-next-americas-cup-details.phpCstar47 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the defender is the GGYC. It is up to GGYC to decide what team and boat will actually sail as defender, and to decide what method it wishes to use to select the team and boat that will sail as defender.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes precisely. While my wording may not have been as clear as it could have been, the point is not that the US is the defender but a US yacht club is and for this reason as I understand the DoG, the only way other US yacht clubs or teams can participate is if a defenders series was held, as has been done several times before when the defender was a US yacht club (as one of the few places where there are enough of them with enough possible financial backing to make it likely). While it's true the GGYC does not have to hold such a series, and the defending team whoever they are associated with (whether a yatch club or not) will ultimately represent the GGYC, I think we should remember (at least as I understand the DoG), there is no requirement for a challengers series either. This is primarily an evolution related to the fact that there tend to be multiple teams wanting to participate. And the defenders generally want to increase interest and avoid perception that they're avoiding strong challengers. And of course if the defender always accepts a challenge from a weak team the moment they successfully defend and does not hold a challenger series despite other teams wanting to challenge we can be sure of litigation; and in fact I'm not sure if it's clear what happens if another team challenges after an existing valid challenge but before the match between defender and challenger has been held, whether they can ignore the challenge if they have a valid existing challenge or have to accept the challenge and presuming they successfully defend, face the other challenger either under DoG terms or negotiated terms before they continue with future challenges (which will definitely prevent the defender avoiding strong challenges for long). And the challenger themselves want to be seen as a genuine challenger not simply there to do the defenders bidding and have little to gain by failing to successfully challenge but being seen as clearly the best challenger as shown by a challenger series is at least some sort of consolation, plus a challenger series increases air time so helps in securing sponsorship. Of course what's happened since my comment has illustrated that it's unlikely anyone was interested in competing to be the defender because of the costs involved and perhaps not helped by the perception that the GGYC is too heavily influenced by Oracle. And from the PoV of the defender, one of the aims of a defenders series namely to given your team a challenge to get them ready has probably been somewhat offset by the preseason regattas and improved intra-team racing. I expect helped by the fact the highly technical nature of the current boats likely means just sailing and testing the boats in a non competitive way is of much increase importance. Still I noticed that the 2013 AC website does say they encouraged other teams to compete to be the defender although doesn't say, at least at the part I noticed, if they established a protocol for such a series. Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The agreement between the defender and the challenger (which must both be yacht clubs) specifies whether there can be a selection of defenders and/or challengers. In order to avoid the confusion in terms, people have started to use the term of art Challenger of Record to refer to the club that made an agreement with the defender. Usually the defending yacht club selects the boat/team that will actually sail on the basis of some internal competition, but it does not have to do so. So, in summary, the defending club designates the boat/team that will sail, and an agreement between the defender and the Challenger of Record specifies the process by which the actual challenger (that is, the one that will sail) is picked.Gautier lebon (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many challengers?

[edit]

The text suggests that there are 7 challengers now. The list shows 8. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have corrected the text.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Updates

[edit]

I saw that the AC World Series events were out of date and added the new series. Then I noticed the link to a separate entry that has all the events and the results, so I removed ALL the events. Sorry if this was a bit clumsy -- I'm a newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstar47 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AC72 Safety

[edit]

The public has had a great deal of concern regarding these boats and now a 2ed tragic crash has according to Wired caused the entire Americas cup race to be in question. I think it might be time to break out the crashes into a stand alone page.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/05/americas-cup-boat-crash/

--WPPilot 15:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it warrants a separate page yet. But the current section "First Fatality" could be retitled "AC72 Safety Concerns" or something like that, and the first crash should be included.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating Scandal

[edit]

Seems relevant:

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_24006797/americas-cup-team-oracle-usa-penalized-two-points — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.123.224 (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring 2013 America's Cup

[edit]

I note Wikipedia's America's Cup article states that ETNZ has to score only 9 points to win the cup. However, following Oracle's shameful cheating earning it 2 demerit points, does not ETNZ in fact need to score only 8 points in the best of 17 race series? (ETNZ:wins 8 races = 8 points, Oracle:wins 9-2 demerits=7 points) Comments? Lez Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.139.108 (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to the Americas Cup website, Oracle now need to win 11 and NZ need to win 9 in the first to 9 series. Mattlore (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in which case the competition never was the "best of 17 races" as described in Wikipedia. However, as the competition is limited to 17 races isn't it possible that neither team will score enough points to win? 202.78.139.108 (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Lez Williams[reply]

The following page mentions the possibility of the series going to 19 races: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/americas-cup/9123659/Severe-penalties-for-cheating-Oracle However I don't think this should be treated as official. It still needs to be clarified what would happen in the situation where Oracle has won 10 races and Team New Zealand has won 7.

I did check the America's Cup website to see if there was any provision in the rules for extending the number of races but couldn't find anything. I have to say that the website is pretty poor in terms of design, navigation and content but one of its pages does state that there are only 17 possible races ( http://www.americascup.com/en/events/ac-finals/san-francisco-us-sep-07-sep-21 ). 202.78.139.108 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Lez Williams[reply]

I think its correct as it stands in the article. But I noticed on the organizations results site, [3] at the bottom theres an 'if necessary' Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cup site is indeed hard to navigate, but I managed to find the place where the official documents are published. It is at [4]. The "Sailing Instructions" [5] are clear: the matches keep going until one side wins. (The Sailing Instructions also show the course. Unlike usual practice, the start is not dead to windward, it is a reach.)

I don't find any explict mention of first-to-nine rule, but maybe I didn't look hard enough. I suppose it is implied from the Sailing Instruction which list 9 scheduled days with 2 Regattas each, meaning that it will be first-to-nine (it then lists reserve days and makes it clear that they keep going until one side wins, which I guess must mean 9 wins). For what it is worth, earlier they had planned it to be first-to-five, see [6].--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another indication that it is a race to 9 points, and not the "best of 17", is the official race schedule (now several days out of date), which gives dates for race 18 and 19 (if necessary).[7] I would expect it to change soon, but it currently reads:
America’s Cup Final schedule (first to 9 points wins)
  • Thursday, Sept. 19: Race 12 (1:15 pm PT), Race 13* (2:15 pm PT)
  • Friday, Sept. 20: Race 14* (1:15 pm PT), Race 15* (2:15 pm PT)
  • Saturday, Sept. 21: Race 16* (1:15 pm PT), Race 17* (2:15 pm PT)
  • Sunday, Sept. 22: Race 18* (1:15 pm PT), Race 19* (2:15 pm PT)
(*If necessary)
-- ToE 13:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

The New Zealand Prime Minister John Key has dismissed the possibility of Team New Zealand defending the next America's Cup overseas. The Prime Minister who is the Minister of Tourism, said that he favours the next America's cup being held in a class that encourages more entries. He has committed the New Zealand government, which gave $37 million NZ to the 2013 cup,to increasing the government financial input.[1] The Mayor of Wellington ,New Zealand's capital, has raised the possibility of holding the next America's Cup in the nearly land locked Wellington Harbour. But Waterfront Auckland's manager Rod Marler said they have already held talks with Team New Zealand about what needs to be done to upgrade Auckland's facilities for the next cup defence. The Viaduct Basin used for the 2000 and 2003 America's cup events no longer has the space needed but he said there are 3 other options available.[2] Television rating's Throng announced that 669,000 viewers watching live coverage of the second race in the cup from New Zealand, about 1/4 of New Zealand's adult population.[3] Harvey Schiller,vice president of the America's Cup 2013 has suggested that in the next America's Cup there should be a stronger national identity.[4] In the current contest there is only one American on Team Oracle USA with the skipper being Australian, the team manager an ex Kiwi, the tactician British and the majority of the crew either New Zealanders or Australians.[5] This could lead to increased dominance by New Zealand which is strong in many Olympic sailing classes, both male and female, at both international and youth level, has an advanced high technology boat building industry and a comprehensive youth sailing programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Race 10 attracted 1 million New Zealanders watching the live TV coverage and another 260,000 watching the race live on line.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ TVNZ Sept 9, 2013.
  2. ^ TVNZ Sept 9 2013.
  3. ^ Throng.
  4. ^ Stuff.co.nz. 13/9/2013.
  5. ^ TVNZ,Live Cup Coverage.Peter Lester commentary. 13.9.2013
  6. ^ Waikato Times.16/9/2013.

Imminent Front Page

[edit]

This page is almost certainly going to be In The News in just a few days. Can we pull together and tidy it up a bit. A lot of the stuff towards the top can probably be culled, or maybe moved under the actual racing. There's still some future tense prose floating around as well. Thanks for the help! JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "34th America's Cup"

[edit]

I propose that this page be moved to "34th America's Cup", and "2013 America's Cup" left as a redirect. The event is known as such, is officially branded as such, and is being reported as such. Wikipedia should reflect the common usage here. Even the lead of this article calls it 34th rather than 2013. It may be that historical America's Cup articles should also be changed, but for now I would like to concentrate on the one that's likely to be mentioned on the main page in a few days.

JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all moved at the same time then I don't have a problem really. But they should all be consistent. Mattlore (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP Stephens never referred to the 13th America's Cup and neither will I. It would just confuse me. Until two deed of gifts take place within 8 months and in the same year, I oppose a page move from years to numbers for the America's Cup. my 2¢. signed:Donan Raven (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too. That the other articles would have to be changed shows that the Cup series are traditionally known by year, not number. We don't have to comply with modern trendy advertising. htom (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

35th Americas Cup

[edit]

Yachting experts in Auckland such as Chris Dickson and Penny Whiting are predicting that the next America's cup will be sailed in 2017 to avoid clashes with other major sporting events. They say that to keep the spectacle the cup will be sailed in foiling catamarans but possibly of a smaller size - 60ft has been suggested- to lower the cost so more teams can compete. Alternatively it has been suggested that all teams use a standard hull that is mass produced in Auckland to lower costs, with teams developing their own appendages and sails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On water penalties -- how do the work?

[edit]

"Race 17 saw two penalties at the start against Emirates Team New Zealand ... By the time the Kiwis absorbed those penalties, Oracle found themselves up by 18 seconds after crossing gate one. Can we add some information about how these penalties work? Presumably, the race committee is making instant judgments, and the penalized boat must slow down or stop for a period of time. Details could be added to the "Course" section, where penalties are touched on. -- ToE 13:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. I am thoroughly confused from watching so if someone knows I will be interested. AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is explained in the rules, for which I provided the reference above. Indeed the jury makes an instant decision. The penalty requires the penalized boat to fall two boat-lengths behind. In the case at hand (and in some of the other cases) the penalty actually had no effect because the penalized boat had anyway fallen more than two boat lengths behind.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an explanation in the course section as suggested. Cited ref is the rules document. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I reworded the first sentence to make it clear that the penalty line is moving. I did not mention the speed of the penalty line (100% of "universal VMG / VMC" for ten seconds, 90% thereafter). The "universal VMG" is not defined in the rules, but it is discussed here and here, and as best as I can make out, they are precomputed speeds based on wind speed and relative direction, and not actual speeds either of the penalized or infringed boat. -- ToE 15:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Day 13 and 14 narratives

[edit]

The prose for day 13 and 14 have no citations, and the edit summaries for their additions imply that they are copies of news articles. I have google'd sections of the text, and only found this page so I am unsure if there is actual copying here. I can do some replacement text if required. Any comments? JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. AIRcorn (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I don't have time right now, maybe tonight when I get home from my shift. I've done day 15 so it's ok for ITN, but 13/14 will have to wait :( JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on those two. They don't have to be perfect, but will need references. Feel free to redo them tonight, but the sooner we get this ready the better for ITN. AIRcorn (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to sneak in a few improvements at work. Good work to all on the successful ITN nom :) JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2013 America's Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2013 America's Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teams section; conflicting information

[edit]

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

The 'Teams' section of this article contains conflicting content. In the first paragraph, it never says that Sail Korea was a contestant. The table below agrees with this. However, the second paragraph contradicts this and brings Sail Korea into the situation. I'll be working on this chapter, and it would be much appreciated if I could have some help.

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pier 27 (San Francisco)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Pier 27 (San Francisco) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 9 § Pier 27 (San Francisco) until a consensus is reached. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned September 16 was reserve day?

[edit]

One thing neither the table nor text makes clear is that September 16 was AFAICT a reserve day. Since 2 races had already been missed, it could have been used to make up for these. It wasn't because both teams agreed not to. At least in New Zealand, this can still be a source of controversy as it's claimed some of these advantages Oracle gained came from changes they made this day (see e.g. [8] and [9]) and although they could not have predicted the outcome nor can we know if it would have been different if they had raced this day and no matter how far they were ahead it was a major blunder not to keep pushing. (I.E. Given their position it made sense for Oracle to want a day off, but not Team New Zealand.)

I'm not suggesting we add anything about all that but do feel we should mention it was a reserve day but it was agreed by both teams not to race on that day. Trouble is this far out I'm having trouble finding sources on this. Those earlier sources are blogs and while I have no idea if Matthew Sheahan is a subject matter expert I'd prefer something better than this. I also found [10] which suggests it came from the official schedule which might be on the internet archive (when it's back online) but I'd really like a non primary source and in any case it could only be used to support it was a reserve day and not why there was no racing.

I did find [11] but while Sail World may or may not be an RS, I don't think that particular article can be used as it's really just quoting what someone said. I also found [12] (try [13] if you can't view it). While the NZ Herald is definitely a reliable source, this is mostly just a discussion between various commentators, I don't think the "With Team New Zealand leading 7-1, it was reported Grant Dalton agreed with Oracle's suggestion of a rest day. In 2014, Barker said Dalton had taken the decision without consulting the sailing team." bit before the discussion is really enough.

Ironically the same person who wrote the earlier Sail World article which as said is really just quoting someone else seems to be suggesting it's untrue. But while the reason they didn't race might be unclear given the limited sourcing I've found, it seems to me it was a reserve day given it was likely in the official schedule (hopefully can be confirmed once IA is back up). Possibly Richard Gladwell was getting confused by September 9 (which was before any races were abandoned or postponed anyway), September 11 and September 13 which weren't reserve days. It also seems unlikely all those people e.g. Harold Bennett who were actually involved (instead of just media reporting especially media reporting after the Team NZ lost) were misremembering that badly.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After writing that I did another search and found [14] which IMO still isn't usuable as an op-ed. But I also found [15]. While it's mostly based on an interview, I feel there is enough in the NZ Herald's voice to add this. I'll be doing so soon and leave this behind to explain my reasons for adding it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the article. Others are free to modify the format etc. In the prose I added it under Day 7 - September 17 because I'm not sure how else to include it given the numbering of the days. Feel free to modify if you feel there's a better way but I do feel this is something worth mentioning given continued discussion over it including that 2021 discussion among commentators.

One thing I'd add which I was thinking but neglected to mention, we can't be certain if there would have been racing on September 16. (The source I used does mention weather forecasts although just as someone's memory. This is actually an interesting thing, I assume there might be some records of actual wind speeds on what would have been the course and others details over the actual conditions which would reveal if racing was likely if anyone was that interested in researching such coulda, shoulda, woulda situations. Maybe no Kiwis were actually that interested since I didn't see anything when looking for this.)

Irrelevant to adding this IMO and in any case, part of the point with such arguments is mostly that it gave Team USA more time since even if racing was eventually abandoned or postponed, they'd still need to have either spent that time out waiting until it was or risk losing the cup by default for now showing up for either race.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_America%27s_Cup&oldid=1251143163"