time for a new ACC rule? [Archive]

Crag Cay

05-02-2007, 11:30 AM

I totally disagree. The ACC rule has certainly entered a mature stage where all design teams have ended up at the same point in the trade -offs. This makes total sense as they are all trying to maximise speed using the same variables and the same predicted conditions. Any rule at this stage of its life will be the same. Radically different designs only occur if the racing conditions are highly variable or there is still some uncertainty about where the beneficial trade offs might lay. For the box rule advocated above, they would all look identical from the word go . (- Lwl max, Bmax, SA max, Displ min, Draught max)

The fact they all look the same is therefore not a function of the rule but a reflection that all the gross variables have been eliminated. However this means that real in depth research is being done on the fine detail, such as boundary layers, appendages, loadings, etc. The researchers actually like this reduction in variables so they can have some control over their trials and as such this event is still the driving force for most research being done in yacht design.

Whether this all makes it a great spectator event is another matter. But the cup has only ever been a real passion for those actually taking part. Interest by the public over the years has been patchy at best. Most people wouldn't care if it was still sailed in 12metres. But then, most people wouldn't care if it was sailed at all.

So the only real gripe I have with the staging of the whole show is the ludicrous control over the TV rights. Instead of seeing this as a cash cow, they should be giving the coverage away in the hope that it generates interest. Making money from the TV rights can then come after they have generated the demand.

yipster

05-03-2007, 09:21 AM

a search for inflatable battens lead me to http://www.alinghi.com/en/32ndac/rules/
at page 29 rule F 34 http://www.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/2006/04/accv5___.pdf inflatable battens are surprisingly within -restricted- rules
so on tv i saw them using a bicycle pump and valve in the batten, not the full lenght mast furling remote cup making type i thought
was impressed seeing the air batten in the rules but i rather see the ruling book -most of it- trown away and a good race

RHough

05-03-2007, 10:48 PM

The fact they all look the same is therefore not a function of the rule but a reflection that all the gross variables have been eliminated. However this means that real in depth research is being done on the fine detail, such as boundary layers, appendages, loadings, etc. The researchers actually like this reduction in variables so they can have some control over their trials and as such this event is still the driving force for most research being done in yacht design.

Yep, the only people that want to change the rule are those that don't understand what the AC is about. The AC is about match racing. Any good match racing rule will generate boats with similar performance that sail in displacement mode.

Speed is relative, there is no need for faster boats. Indeed, boats that can plane would ruin the racing. AFAIK, the only reason that they changed from 12's is to use bigger, more visually impressive boats. Some of the best racing was the 12's in Perth ... they managed quite a show for TV and no one cares what boats they use as long as the racing is good.

yipster

05-04-2007, 09:37 AM

after posting above i felt this coming becouse indeed i didnt really understand what match racing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_race) was about
not my favorite racing style but still; fastest of the two boats over the lines wins so why not full battens etc

gggGuest

05-04-2007, 04:11 PM

I for one think the AC would be a lot more exciting ... if it were opened up a lot. Set a few maximum dimensions and safety regulations, and let the designs find their own optimum.

There was an AC sailed on that basis that not so many years ago. It was not exciting.

xarax

05-05-2007, 06:01 PM

DGreenwood

05-05-2007, 07:27 PM

RHough

05-06-2007, 04:22 AM

xarax

05-06-2007, 12:27 PM

Sailors were always modest about the power of their own minds against the power of the elements. If one is alive today, it is because he is probably a descendant of a modest sailor. Arrogant sailors were used to serve as part of the fish, not the human evolution process. Today, the technological innovations of modern society endow the survival of even the weakest minds. Now, this is something we should really be proud of, not the one sixteenth of knot that our vessel goes faster than some other people s vessel. Especially when both vessels, although built with the help of the most powerful computers and space age materials, manage to sail with a lamentable speed, as they pathetically obey an incomprehensible complex set of bureaucratic rules.
If one is determined to discover elements of human mind strength, it is advisable not to seek it in wrestlers around cranks and lawyers around conference tables, but in engineers around computer screens, on desks covered with fluid dynamics handbooks. And as everybody should know by now after the evaporation of the infamous dark "Sameness Empire", engineering ingenuity flourishes in freedom, not sameness. "Same tyres, same engines, same sails, same sail maker..." So, why not the same boats, sailed in the same conditions, in the same harbour, in the same day of the year...? Rules of the game is one thing (and a useful one), bureaucratic totalitarian equalization is something totally different (and frightening). A mind blinded of the delusion of its own power usually fails to see the obvious difference. "F1 cars today are more alike than different; just like ACC boats are more alike than different". Who is really proud of this? If the sameness of the boats were a mere outcome of something that has reached the end of its evolutionary potential, we wouldn’t t discuss the whole thing right now. For people that supposedly enjoy the harmony of sailing, the sad fact is that modern technology and ACC class rules are in no harmony at all...
We are fed up with sameness. Sameness of the same people that are elected in the same public office for dozens of years, sameness of same yacht clubs that hold the Americas cup hostage for centuries...Let there be simple box rule posing reasonable limits that any one can understand and follow, and then let the best man win. Unless some bad losers lost their "powerful mind" after the Australia 1983 defeat...

gggGuest

05-07-2007, 01:10 AM

Would you truly believe that formula 1 cars would have been so fast, so safe and so popular if they were technologically archaic and almost identical
I suggest you read the formula 1 rules and regulations. http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/ They are far more restrictive and prescriptive than the ACC rules, and very many technological advances have been banned over the years.

xarax

05-07-2007, 06:02 AM

"I suggest you read the formula 1 rule and regulations. http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/ They are far more restrictive and prescriptive than the ACC rules..."
A formula 1 car is a far more complex machine than an ACC boat, it is moving with a speed almost a hundred times greater. The dangers of dozens of cars full of high flammable gasoline moving one next to other with the speed of airplanes, in close proximity to thousands of spectators, fatal accidents that happened over the years, all these are factors absent on a ACC match race.
"Very many technological advances have been banned over the years."
Technological advances that may pose a danger to the sport, or raise the cost of a to disproportional levels, so that the teams can not follow it, is quite reasonable that they have been banned. The use of airplane get engines and their fuels, for example, is quite reasonable to be banned. A formula 1 car should still be a car, resembling, albeit remotely, the cars we use on the streets. This should supposedly be the case with an ACC boat also. We don’t want an ACC sailing boat be a glider, neither do we want an ACC boat whose cost will prohibit the participation of a handfull of teams. The use of very expensive or radioactive materials from the keels, for example, or kites extending dangerously from the boats, many technological possibilities that pose dangers ore excessive costs to the sport should be banned.
So what? Anyone who believes that the rules of the ACC boats are written with the sole purpose the prevention of dangers and excessive cost, has not read the rules themselves, or has not understand them.
The simple fact is that formula 1 cars are the most technologically advanced cars, and some of these technological advances reach, sometimes, the level of everyday cars, while the ACC boats are not. The reasons of this sad fact have to do with the ACC boat unreasonable restrictions. It is also a sad fact that there were always some people, (and there will always be some people) that are proud of these restrictions, and of as many restrictions in as many sections of life whatsoever. They are usually the people that are proud of their own powerfull mind and afraid of other people s freedom.

bcv99

05-07-2007, 12:11 PM

Hello everybody,
this is my first post on this site! I followed the discussions of this forum for quite a while, and I think now is the time to break the silence ;)

The ACC are often compared to the formula 1 race cars. But even with all the restrictions in the F1, there are still the fastest cars around a track by far. This is what the ACC lacks IMO. Just imagine you could beat a F1 car with your standard Porsche (or whatever). I definitely think the class would loose its fascination. This is why I think the real F1 on water are the C class catamarans!

Bernd

yipster

05-07-2007, 01:14 PM

i agree and welcome to the forums bcv99
nevertheles alainghi is trying inflatable sail battens
witch are a new innovation that is permitted
and are likely to be seen in the main stream of sailing in the future
http://www.alinghi.com/en/32ndac/rules/
ii came acros that info pumping sails on my ladybird idea
http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/data/500/ps.gif
also see http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/stories/053101/new_wing.html

CT 249

05-07-2007, 11:49 PM

No. America s cup in not about match racing, just as formula 1 championship in not about match racing. Would you truly believe that formula 1 cars would have been so fast, so safe and so popular if they were technologically archaic and almost identical, as ACC boats are ? It is against the power of the elements and the weakness of our mind that we sail, not against each other. But some people just never grow up to understand it...

"America's Cup is not about match racing"

Completely and utterly wrong. The Deed of Gift specifies that the AC IS about match racing. The lawsuits regarding the big boat v cat challenge centred on the definition of "match racing". All but the first 3 ACs have been one boat v one boat.

Sorry, but there's no credibility in a post that is so wrong.

Formula 1 cars, last time I checked, were not much (if at all) faster than Indy Cars around many courses and had a slower top speed than Le Mans cars.

Formula 1 cars are in some ways technically archaic, because they ban many things (traction control, turbos, superchargers, ABS) that are used in normal road cars, and they have banned many things formerly seen in F1.

Formula 1 cars are not popular- the worldwide car industry is worth 1.9 trillion dollars (if it was a country it would have the GDP of the world's 6th biggest country) and yet F1 gets only two dozen entries - well down on that of earlier years. For all the enormous wealth of the car and motorsport industries, they are not very good at getting people to compete. Why use them as a model to emulate?

In many nations (including, I think, the UK, USA, Australia and Germany) I think more people watch touring car racing than F1. The strongest local racing is not normally F3 etc, but Super Tourers, DGT, Supercars, NASCAR etc because most fans want to watch something that looks like their own car - not something that is super fast like an open wheeler.

There WAS a major series for no-rules cars....Can Am. It died long ago. There are "Libera" classes with almost no rules, but they are highly unpopular because people want fair and close racing.

We test each other against the elements, yes - but we have human competitors there to give us the yardstick for how well we fare against the winds. It seems very tough for you to say that anyone who has a different approach to you is immature.

CT 249

05-08-2007, 12:11 AM

Is the ACC rule archaic yet? Fixed keels w/trim tabs. Kites flown from spinnaker poles.Displacement sailing.

AC boats have normally been "archaic". Uffa Fox pointed this out in the 1930s when he said that dinghies lead the way and that small Metre boats etc then took up developments that ended up in Js etc.

Has much changed in displacement v planing sailing? There have been planing keelboats since the 1940s. In the '40s there were tales of planing keelboats planing past Metre boats, yet the Metre boats were the AC type for decades.

It's not as if planing is some modern passport to speed; multis don't plane, the most influential high-performance skiffs and dinghies (ie modern Bieker and Bethwaite skiffs, seahugger and foilng Moths) are designed LESS about planing than their earlier counterparts.

Long bow and stern overhangs almost reminiscent of the j class. Have we progressed from yachts like this or are the current boats the true pinnacle of yacht design and high performance sailing?

Again, you could say that AC boats have never been "the true pinnacle of yacht design and high performance sailing", so it's not part of what the AC is all about.

You mentioned long overhangs - maybe we need prettier bows and sterns. When I look inside galleries and picture framers, I see lots of pics on classic Js and schooners and very few pics of short-ended modern raceboats. Maybe the general public - the people on who the sponsors depend - would rather see a graceful "old style" shape moving at 9.8 knots instead of a short-ended boat doing 13.5 knots - particularly when any leadmine or any sailboat is incredibly slow.

This is all very subjective, but with any historical perspective we can see that short ends are not new and modern; they've been around since the 1800s. It's not like they are a badge of being modern.

Is there sufficient room for development within the current rules?
has the time come for a whole new ACC boat?

If you looked at the direction of current sailing, you could make a good case that the "archaic" classes are what's happening. Many of the classes that are doing well are old style. Modern high performance boats are just a tiny minority of worldwide sailing, just as they have almost always been. Most Skiff classes have gone OD. Formerly diverse development classes like NSs and MRs are now close to OD.

If anything, modern sailing could be said to be showing a shift AWAY from development. So maybe the very idea that the AC boat should be fast and fast-changing is archaic?????

After all, we're dealing with a very slow sport, and ballasted monos are pretty much the slowest part of that very slow sport. Trying to make them heaps faster seems illogical in some ways.....it's sort of like making a racing campervan, or making F1 cars useful for picking up the kids and shopping.

PI Design

05-08-2007, 04:29 AM

Whilst I quite enjoyed watching the fleet racing elements of the previous ACTs, there is no doubt (as pointed out earlier) that the AC IS about match racing.
Canting keels would not be a great idea for match racing - pre-start manoeuvres would be hazardous with keels sticking out the side.
I am actually quite impressed that the ACC boats can sail at 9.5kts in 8.5kts of true wind, and sail upwind at 35 degrees TWA. Not bad for a class constrined by archaic rules.
The only thing I would like to see, from a purely personal basis, is rotating masts. And a few more home grown sailors on the boats!
If you want the America's Cup in quicker boats and with freer rules, there is always the Little America's Cup, sailed in C-Class cats, but sadly it has never really caught on, despite them being fabulous boats.

xarax

05-08-2007, 07:18 AM

Hello CT,
"America's Cup is not about match racing" Completely and utterly wrong. The Deed of Gift specifies..."
It is really amusing when one has to show his grand-grand father s silver to prove his wealth. Are we living in a medieval society or something? Respect to tradition should be a way of keeping alive the good part of dead-now things, not the dead part of the good-then things. Are we going to humiliate the spirit of the sport again, taking the case to the court, like 1983? When I was saying that America s cup is not match racing, I was trying , through a hyperbole of course, to convey the feeling that America s cup, after all these years, should stand up to today s people expectations, and promote technological ingenuity at least as much as skill competitiveness. Nobody would like to abandon the sheer pleasure one feels at the sight of two sailboats whirling around each other, of the frantic movement on deck, of the childish innocent joy of victory. So please, do not look like immature to pretend that what I am saying is against the very idea of the sport. It is against the danger of a bureaucratic degeneration of this marvellous sport, degeneration that will surely spread if we keep following a dead tradition of posing more and more unreasonable and incomprehensible restrictions.
"Formula 1 cars were not much (if at all) faster than Indy Cars around many courses and had a slower top speed than Le Mans cars."
It is not about being seconds, or better tenths of seconds, slower or faster. It is even not about top speed at all! It is about technological development, science discoveries, engineering progress. Formula 1 cars are far ahead of any other type of racing cars today, and if one visits the pits of a formula 1 car he can immediately understand the difference.
"Formula 1 cars are in some ways technically archaic, because they ban many things (traction control, turbos, superchargers, ABS) that are used in normal road cars, and they have banned many things formerly seen in F1."
Turbos and supercharges are banned because they are found, at the end, to be less powerful than normal engines, if the comparison is made, as it should have been, between engines with equal fuel consumption and gas emissions. Equal fuel consumption and gas emissions are a reasonable rule that everybody understands. The car industry worldwide follows this rule without been forced to, and, at the end of the day, this rule produced engines far more powerful than before. Are you able to detect similar intentions in the ACC rules? I have to admit that I, for one, am not. Traction control and ABS were used and found that they diminish driver’s contribution to the steering of the car, making the cars too automatic and dangerously fast at the end of long straight runs and around corners. It was a technological innovation that was at first promoted, then used and finally abandoned, again for some reasons, right or not, that are reasonable and one can at least understand. If some technological innovation has been tried at ACC and has been found that it makes the boats something like radiocontroled toys, of course it should have been banned. Is that the case in ACC history? There is really no credibility in the view that modern technological innovations have been tried and then abandoned in ACC boats, because they destroyed some deep truth of the sport of sailing.
"Formula 1 cars are not popular-the worldwide car industry is worth 1.9 trillion dollars, and yet F1 gets only two dozen entries."
Popularity is counted mainly by the number of spectators of the sport event, not by the number of participants. It would be far more dangerous to have more formula 1 cars in the track. The worldwide car industry is worth of trillions, but the car producing companies are, for good or not, only a handful left. Sorry CT, this was also a not so good counter example, was it?
"Most fans want to watch something that looks like their own car"
This is a point where we finally agree on something. As I have said,” We don’t want an ACC sailing boat be a glider ". An ACC sailing boat should be something that looks like our own sailing boat, and, what I find more important should look like a sailing boat, period. Nobody would have liked radio controlled sailing robots, sailing kites or gliders hanging from the clouds, even if we had this technological capability.
"There WAS a major series for no-rules cars that died long ago."
As it should have been clear by now, I am not, and I thing no reasonable person could ever be, a proponent of no-rules sports. The war itself has, (or at least should have), some rules (like the fair treatment of prisoners of war, hold in jails in the victors own territory or not, for example...:) ) At the contrary, at the beginning of the thread I posted some elements of a strict box rule that I thing could liberate the sport. And in those elements, I proposed a maximum LOA, AND a maximum SA, AND a maximum draft, AND a maximum ballast ratio, which undoubtedly quite many people would find too restrictive! I proposed a maximum ballast ratio ( say, 0.50), just because I think it is good for the sport of sailing to have sailing boats resembling a sailing boat and not a sailing submarine, and because I am also a sports fun myself, and "most fans want to watch something that looks like their own boat".
I have also to confess that, although I follow the scientific and technological developments, I am no fun of the formula 1 race at all...I see no point in the development of cars that look like airplanes, travel with the speed of airplanes, and are driven by the best could-be-fighter-pilots. The restrictions in the formula 1 car race should have been MORE, as they should allow cars to look like cars and travel with a maximum car-like speed of, say, 250 klm/hr. Formula 1 engines are too powerful and allow unreasonable highs speeds. Does anybody believe that we should permit the use of technologically advanced rocket engines or wings that could keep the cars off the ground? Does anybody believe that ACC rules are reasonable rules that one can understand and respect for the sailing sport s own good? I think not. It seems very tough for you to say that anyone who has a different approach than THIS approach, and not the simplistic naive approach that would have been too easy to dismiss, is mature...:)

CT 249

05-08-2007, 08:56 AM

Hello CT,
"America's Cup is not about match racing" Completely and utterly wrong. The Deed of Gift specifies..."
It is really amusing when one has to show his grand-grand father s silver to prove his wealth. Are we living in a medieval society or something?
Respect to tradition should be a way of keeping alive the good part of dead-now things, not the dead part of the good-then things. Are we going to humiliate the spirit of the sport again, taking the case to the court, like 1983?

Of course not, and I never implied that we should.

When I was saying that America s cup is not match racing, I was trying , through a hyperbole of course, to convey the feeling that America s cup, after all these years, should stand up to today s people expectations, and promote technological ingenuity at least as much as skill competitiveness.
Nobody would like to abandon the sheer pleasure one feels at the sight of two sailboats whirling around each other, of the frantic movement on deck, of the childish innocent joy of victory. So please, do not look like immature to pretend that what I am saying is against the very idea of the sport.

Please DO NOT yet again level charges of immaturity against those who do not agree with you.

People like Grant Simmer and other leading lights of the AC are NOT immature.....one might think that the real immaturity lies in slurring and insulting people (like the AC sailors) who have much more expertise in the AC and dare to hold a different opinion to you.

It is against the danger of a bureaucratic degeneration of this marvellous sport, degeneration that will surely spread if we keep following a dead tradition of posing more and more unreasonable and incomprehensible restrictions.
"Formula 1 cars were not much (if at all) faster than Indy Cars around many courses and had a slower top speed than Le Mans cars."
It is not about being seconds, or better tenths of seconds, slower or faster. It is even not about top speed at all! It is about technological development, science discoveries, engineering progress. Formula 1 cars are far ahead of any other type of racing cars today, and if one visits the pits of a formula 1 car he can immediately understand the difference.

Please Xarax, I was responding to your point about F1 cars being "so fast". If it's not about speed then why did you raise their speed?

I can't get into the F1 pits. I can read Racecar Engineering magazines and their articles about rolling wind tunnels etc, or the way the Nissan LMGT car of a few years ago suffered intake problems due to rules, and I can talk to ex McLaren mechanics. These give us an idea of the level of F1 technology v other cars.

"Formula 1 cars are in some ways technically archaic, because they ban many things (traction control, turbos, superchargers, ABS) that are used in normal road cars, and they have banned many things formerly seen in F1."
Turbos and supercharges are banned because they are found, at the end, to be less powerful than normal engines, if the comparison is made, as it should have been, between engines with equal fuel consumption and gas emissions. Equal fuel consumption and gas emissions are a reasonable rule that everybody understands.

Given the fact that every F1 race uses enormous amounts of fuel (spectators cars, planes flying in teams, cars and equipment; planes flying in spectators, etc) and enormous amounts of other material, some of us would find it utterly hypocritical to save .000000000000000001% of the pollution by ranking engines according to fuel consumption and gas emissions. So to me, it seems utterly unreasonable in some ways.

However I won't go into F1 rules in detail as they are not my area of expertise

Traction control and ABS were used and found that they diminish driver’s contribution to the steering of the car, making the cars too automatic and dangerously fast at the end of long straight runs and around corners. It was a technological innovation that was at first promoted, then used and finally abandoned, again for some reasons, right or not, that are reasonable and one can at least understand. If some technological innovation has been tried at ACC and has been found that it makes the boats something like radiocontroled toys, of course it should have been banned. Is that the case in ACC history? There is really no credibility in the view that modern technological innovations have been tried and then abandoned in ACC boats, because they destroyed some deep truth of the sport of sailing.

But what could happen if we dropped the rules like you want us to do? What happens if you say "here are these minimalist rules" and then someone comes along and creates something that DOES destroy the deep truth in sailing?

When this happens, the "advance" will be defended by its creators - and often they will be successful and the "advance" that hurts the class will do its damage.

"Formula 1 cars are not popular-the worldwide car industry is worth 1.9 trillion dollars, and yet F1 gets only two dozen entries."
Popularity is counted mainly by the number of spectators of the sport event, not by the number of participants.

Really? Why? Why should we, as sailors, care if a lot of people come to watch the sport. I had that in the pro windsurfer days....spectators are annoying.

What is vastly better for the sport is to have SAILORS, not couch potatoes.

It would be far more dangerous to have more formula 1 cars in the track. The worldwide car industry is worth of trillions, but the car producing companies are, for good or not, only a handful left. Sorry CT, this was also a not so good counter example, was it?

In the '70s etc the problem of having too many cars for the track was handled by the fact that you had to pre-qualify, then the best cars there had to qualify once more. That brought up to (from memory) 49 cars in qualifying down to 24 on the grid.

The F1 field is NOT small just because of danger and space problems, as past experience proved these can be overcome....it's because of the skyrocketing costs and other factors.

So my example definitely applies

It seems very tough for you to say that anyone who has a different approach than THIS approach, and not the simplistic naive approach that would have been too easy to dismiss, is mature...:)

I never said that anyone who wanted rules was mature. I merely said that you can like the rules and still be mature.

I actually like the restricted class idea. Restricted classes, rather than those with unrestricted sail area like 18s, are where most developments come from.

However I think these are more complicated questions than you may be prepared to admit, and I still dislike the way you insult anyone who dares to hold a different view to you. Some or all or most of the guys who like the ACC class (which I don't, really) are highly intelligent and mature.

PI Design

05-08-2007, 09:09 AM

Can we find a different word for 'restr*cted' classes? The post gets flagged to my secur*ty officer as a potential breach of secur*ty for giving away secr*ts. :eek:

xarax

05-08-2007, 12:10 PM

Please, CT 249, DO NOT yet again level charges of immaturity against those who do not agree with you. I purposely repeated the unlucky comments by you yesterday at 10.49, remember ? I would not address such impolite, to say the least, comments against people that do not agree with me EVEN ON SERIOUS MATTERS. We are discussing, friendly I hope, sport themes here, so do not throw gloves if you do not wish somebody, however immature you think he is, to raise them and accept the silly duel. If you read the messages, you will see that any such impolite comments I ever made were mere answers to people that do not seem to have reached the level of been able to express themselves with words and not exclamations and bellowing, ( like : huh?, etc.), or people that are so proud of their own "powerful mind" against our weak one, that should better ask for professional help... So, any advises for not slurring and insulting people are welcome, but you should have addressed them elsewhere. I respect people, like Grant Simmer and other leading lights of the ACC, but this does not mean that they are not wrong on this matter, as you or me might be. It is only a matter of opinion, and I think that I am not alone in defending the case of fewer, more reasonable and less incomprehensible restrictions on ACC class boats. Am I ?
"If it's not about speed then why did you raise their speed? "
As I already said, speed is not the only factor, and may well be not a significant factor at all, that F1 cars are the most technologically advanced race cars. I personally believe that, even if there were more restrictions in their engines, so that their maximum speed were at the levels of the faster production cars, they will still be what they are : The best designed and the best build cars around. The level of F1 technology v other race cars is not comparable, I can assure you. Of course some restrictions posed problems for newcomers, and they could be different or absent, but the progress in F1 is unquestionable. F1 is a private company, you know, and many restrictions are commanded by the clients needs, i.e. the spectators AND the advertisers.
"Some of us would find it utterly hypocritical to save .000000000000000001% of the pollution by ranking engines according to fuel consumption and gas emissions. So to me, it seems utterly unreasonable in some ways."
Two reasons : First, the hypocritical "ecological" reason you mentioned, that may be/is dictated by hypocritical advertisers who are selling ecological concerns alongside pure cancer to the public. Second, the simple reason that non-atmospheric engines are abandoned by the car industry because of higher cost of fuel and environmental restrictions.It is a good thing for the industry and the sport to use engines that are like our cars engines. So, you must admit that the whole thing, far from been finally settled, is at least not so "utterly unreasonable" as one might suppose in the first place.
"What happens if you say "here are these minimalist rules" and then someone comes along and creates something that DOES destroy the deep truth in sailing? When this happens, the "advance" will be defended by its creators - and often they will be successful and the "advance" that hurts the class will do its damage."
Yes, nobody who is not pretending that he is a sorcerer s apprentice and have looked into the crystal ball of future can deny such a possibility. But freedom has always its cost, there is no free meal even in a genuine democracy of highly civilized people respecting each other. If such a thing happens, and if it is not abandoned due to the prevalence of the true spirit of the sport right afterwards, THEN we should find what we will do. Somebody comes with the idea of a catamaran in a monohull race. If he is able to keep the trophy "legally", i.e. with the help of his own town judges, then he better is left alone with the trophy, and the whole world advance elsewhere.
"It’s because of the skyrocketing costs and other factors.
So my example definitely applies."
If your example applies, and as I, as I have already said, have no reason to defend one or the other sport s bureaucracy, it could be seen as an example for my case, too. You search for reasons, for real unavoidable factors that are behind this or that restriction. If you find something that has to do with the reality of the engineering domain, like rare or dangerous materials, or the reality of the economic domain, like the number of participants that can afford the costs of the event, or the reality of the social domain, like environmental factors, then you can understand and accept the rule. If you find something that has mainly to do with the self-reproduction necessities of some bureaucratic establishment, then you agree with me...
"However I think these are more complicated questions than you may be prepared to admit, and I still dislike the way you insult anyone who dares to hold a different view to you. Some or all or most of the guys who like the ACC class are highly intelligent and mature."
I like what ACC could very well have been, and that is why I am concerned about its future. Less "intelligent" and even "immature" people than these "lighting stars" that are so proud of their own glory, can still have their opinion, and you are obliged to respect that, whether you like it or not.
See you in Valenzia !:) We will both be there, as two more "annoying spectators"...

Vega

05-08-2007, 03:24 PM

Formula 1 cars are not popular- ... they are not very good at getting people to compete. Why use them as a model to emulate?

In many nations (including, I think, the UK,...and Germany) I think more people watch touring car racing than F1. The strongest local racing is not normally F3 etc, but Super Tourers, DGT, Supercars, NASCAR etc because most fans want to watch something that looks like their own car - not something that is super fast like an open wheeler.
...

You know a lot about boats, but not much about F1:) . There are some countries, like USA and probably Australia where they are not popular, but in Europe, Japan, Brazil, Argentina and in many other countries, F1 is the top of motoracing and by far the most popular races.

More important is the fact that all the best pilots are there. A pilot that leaves F1 because he is not good enough will be a top pilot (and a winner) in any other world series.

F1 is not about getting people to compete. Is about getting the best competing in the fastest cars (there is nothing that can curve at the same speed). Only the very best pilots of other motorsport series manage to get there. F1 is the dream of any competitive racing car pilot. And the reason of its popularity is precisely that. People want to see the best competing between them.

The AC is not about that? Having the best competing between them?
Should not they compete on fast boats, boats that should be technologically developed instead of simply hugely expensive?

RHough

05-08-2007, 10:43 PM

F1 is not about getting people to compete. Is about getting the best competing in the fastest cars (there is nothing that can curve at the same speed). Only the very best pilots of other motorsport series manage to get there. F1 is the dream of any competitive racing car pilot. And the reason of its popularity is precisely that. People want to see the best competing between them.

The AC is not about that? Having the best competing between them?
Should not they compete on fast boats, boats that should be technologically developed instead of simply hugely expensive?

The boats are technically developed ... within the rule. Like NASCAR and F1, the ACC rule is written to provide good close racing. Not the fastest racing. The fact that the top two boats are only one point apart shows how close the racing is. If NZL and ESP win tomorrow, the top 4 boats will have 38,37,33, and 31 points. Almost every team has shown competitive speed on one or more legs of the course.

There is nothing wrong with the ACC Rule (unless Alinghi has found a loophole that allows a canting keel). To make the boats faster requires that they sail a higher percentage of wind speed. I don't think that is desirable for good match racing. It means the boats would plane in some conditions. Any race where planing conditions do not exist the racing could be good (as it is now). In a race where planing conditions existed over the whole course for the whole duration of the race, the racing *could* be good. It is the marginal conditions and changing condition races that would become a lottery and very bad racing.

Match racing requires that the trailing boat has a means to attack the leading boat and for leading boat's to defend themselves. ACC boats, sailing in displacement mode do a pretty good job of providing tactical opportunity. As soon as one of the boats can plane, all it would take is one lucky gust/wave combination and one boat could separate from the other and remove tactical options. I think this would be very bad for match racing and the ACC. IMO the ACC boats are too close winded and may be too fast as they are. The only change to the rule that I think would make for better racing is to find a way to increase the upwind tacking angles. This would make it possible to cover on both tacks (like the 12's could).

There are many sailing venues and classes that allow and cater to extreme boats and extreme speed. There is no need to race those boats in match races for the America's Cup. Millions of people have visited the AC venue and watched one or more races. There is nothing wrong with the event. I wish people that don't see that would stop trying fix something that is not broken. The boats may not be perfect, but they are a darn sight better than the boats that a rule written by non-match racers would come up with.

CT 249

05-08-2007, 10:46 PM

Xarax, the remarks of yours that I objected to were contained in posts by you. The first one (in post 9 - "But some people just never grow up to understand it...") came days before my first post.

I definitely agree that F1 can be used to support both sides of this argument.

As I said, I agree that a restricted (box rule) class may work, but the other point of view is not as dumb as you make out. I remember being on a boat (already succesful) when Simmer hopped on board and seeing the enormously refined level of his rig tune. His Farr 40 tuning sheet had different stay settings for every 2 knot change in windspeed.

From the perspective of such sailors, who know a lot more about this stuff than you and I do, there's still a world of fascinating development left in the ACC rule, even if they seem to be minute advances to us. Surely their perspective should be respected even if there may be better ways forward?

Vega, I agree I'm not an F1 expert. However, I never said that F1 wasn't popular in Japan, Brazil, Argentina etc. All I said was that it's not popular (ie there's only 22 or 24 active F1 cars in the world and therefore it's arguably a poor model if we want a sport to be popular at top level) and that in some countries, a very different style of motorsport is more popular. This is an undeniable fact in the USA and arguable in some other countries.

About the best drivers - we all know that there is a long history of mediocre "pay drivers" in F1. We know of the champs (Mansell, the Hills, Lauda) who almost lost their careers before they started because they couldn't get the cash.....what about the many who never had that luck and never got to show what they were worth???

xarax

05-09-2007, 12:51 AM

Hello CT,
If this comment by me was the stormy petrel indeed, I gladly withdraw it and I apologize for it, and for the, a bit bitter, replies it might have provoked. However, it was meant only as an answer to the preceding comments (at 05-03-2007) :
Yep, the only people that want to change the rule are those that don't understand what the AC is about. The AC is about match racing. .
The simple fact is that if AC was only about match racing, it would have been restricted into a one-design, (almost) identical boats like the boats in the Olympics. And even then, one would have the right to ask for a change, allowing the ingenuity of the engineers to flourish, as much as the skills of the sailors. Many people that understand the subject a lot more than me are also opponents of the ACC rule as it stands today.
Have a look at the Open 60 rule pages : The greatest part of them is about safety, the whole box rule is contained in just a few lines. Are the French the sole keepers of any Cartesian rationality left in sailing regulators? Simple, reasonable, comprehensible rules that produced a great popular sports event.
Americas Cup is still a great sailing festival, and it is really a pity if retrogressive thinking from the rules regulators hinders a much greater future development.

RHough

05-09-2007, 02:53 AM

Hello CT,
If this comment by me was the stormy petrel indeed, I gladly withdraw it and I apologize for it, and for the, a bit bitter, replies it might have provoked. However, it was meant only as an answer to the preceding comments (at 05-03-2007) :

The simple fact is that if AC was only about match racing, it would have been restricted into a one-design, (almost) identical boats like the boats in the Olympics. And even then, one would have the right to ask for a change, allowing the ingenuity of the engineers to flourish, as much as the skills of the sailors. Many people that understand the subject a lot more than me are also opponents of the ACC rule as it stands today.
Have a look at the Open 60 rule pages : The greatest part of them is about safety, the whole box rule is contained in just a few lines. Are the French the sole keepers of any Cartesian rationality left in sailing regulators? Simple, reasonable, comprehensible rules that produced a great popular sports event.
Americas Cup is still a great sailing festival, and it is really a pity if retrogressive thinking from the rules regulators hinders a much greater future development.

Match Racing did not exist until the America's Cup. The America's Cup IS Match Racing.

You might find the Vision Statement of the ACC Rule of interest:

The America's Cup Class is intended:
(a) to produce wholesome, fast and manoeuvrable day sailing monohulls of similar performance intended for spectacular match racing in a wide wind range while fostering design developments that will flow through to the mainstream of yachting; and
(b) for yachts that are raced "around the buoys" with tenders present, as opposed to off-shore in high wind and rough sea conditions.

What different rule would provide better Match Racing?

One Designs cannot be used, they don't add to the spectacle. One Design racing is not interesting to spectators or sponsors. Note that statement is not limited to sailing. One design racing in motorsports has never been popular. Even though NASCAR and F1 cars are more alike than different, their is an attraction for spectators and sponsors in the perceived differences.

In the AC as it is, you can choose to support a sailor, a boat, or a Country. Just as you can support a driver, brand, or team in motorsports.

Nothing you have said indicates that you understand match racing at all. Until you or someone else can point out flaws in the rule and the quality of racing it produces, calls for a rule change are born of ignorance.

The ACC is the most popular "class" of yacht ever to race for the AC. There have been more boats built to the ACC rule than any other rule that the cup has been raced under. If there is something wrong with the rule, why has the AC become more popular?

Why would you want to replace the most successful AC rule ever?

Just because you don't understand the rule (One whole line):

Length + 1.25 x sqrt Sail Area - 9.8 x cube root Displacement / 0.686 <= 24 meters

Is no reason to change it. :)

What would you change about the boats to make the Match Racing better?

The ACC rule is unique, the event is unique. It is not broken and does not require meddling from people that want to compare it to Open 60 and other ocean racing box rules. It does not need multi-hulls or one-designs, or canting keels, or hydrofoils, or more speed. It is just fine, the rule is written by and for the people that want good match racing. If they thought there was a problem, it is a simple matter to change the rule. The rule may well get changed after this cup, for sure it will get changed if Alinghi has found a loophole and has a canting keel. :D

You cannot compare the ACC boats and the rule that produces them to any other rule for sailing boats. The goals of the rule are not the same. Box rules produce boats that are similar, just as the ACC rule produces boats that are similar. The ACC rule must produce good match racing boats, until you understand what good match racing is, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the rule.

xarax

05-09-2007, 04:01 AM

Nothing you have said indicates that you understand match racing at all. Until you or someone else can point out flaws in the rule and the quality of racing it produces, calls for a rule change are born of ignorance.
Just because you don't understand the rule (One whole line):
Length + 1.25 x sqrt Sail Area - 9.8 x cube root Displacement / 0.686 <= 24 meters
Is no reason to change it. :)
until you understand what good match racing is, you are not qualified to have an opinion on the rule.

As I ceased playing with skull and crossbones long time ago, I rest my case, Your Supreme One and Only Connoisseur of match racing...

RHough

05-09-2007, 04:52 AM

As I ceased playing with skull and crossbones long time ago, I rest my case, Yours Supreme One and Only Connoisseur of match racing...

What case? :D

You have offered generalities and no specifics.

You have not stated how your box rule would improve match racing.

You have no case.

nflutter

05-09-2007, 06:11 AM

We have ascertained that good, spectacular match racing can be achieved in slow boats. It’s true. Yay. (Bring out the foundation 36s!)

My original point was more about this part.
…while fostering design developments that will flow through to the mainstream of yachting…

The restrictions posed on the F1 rule are complex and mostly aimed at making the sport safe and keeping driver alive etc. As are the restrictions posed on open 60s and other offshore classes. I’m sure you would agree the need for safe ACC boats is not so apparent. Is it fair to say the restrictions on the ACC rule are aimed at creating an even playing field in the interests of a fair match race?

That’s fine.

The real question remains. Is ACC about the technological progression of the sport of sailing, or is about determining which country’s billionaires can win at a sailing (or anything) test. Would the racing be the same if they were still sailing Js? Those are pretty big and spectacular. Would it be the same if they weren’t allowed carbon fibre? Or what if they couldn’t use anything but canvas for sails?

I see this game as an opportunity to explore the true boundaries of technology, with massive budgets and advertising dollars and the best sailors in the world. I hate to think that’s its just a match racing regatta and that’s it. If you want to find the best match-racing skipper in the world, buy some RC44s. seriously. That’s not entirely what this is about, is it.

Your right in saying there need to be a lot of limitations, in order to give the designers some strict bounds to work within, and to encourage innovation in this way, and to create a level playing field. You don’t want to end up with horizon jobs. But I don’t see why these limitations should advertently or inadvertently affect the pace of the boats, as some are designed to do in F1. Are we not at a stage where technology has outgrown the limitations of the rule and its restrictions? (I’m not just talking about the above formula and all the other critical ones that were neglected of mention, but the pages and pages of constraints)

I understand that there are lots of people who are happy with the Americas Cup how it is. Cool. I think it’s a shame the 100 million euro budgets aren’t being used to properly develop the likes of canting keels and canting rigs, wing masts and double skin sails, canards etc. and hull shapes that are remotely relevant to contemporary yachting. (Surely trade-offs similar to the current ones could be formulated to make a CBTF yacht compete with a fixed keel yacht.) anyway this necessary development is being left up to the comparatively low budget low exposure classes like open 60s etc, and individual designers. I think new technology could easily be shoe-horned into ACC without any change whatsoever to the spectacle, or the intense match racing.

xarax

05-09-2007, 06:51 AM

What case? :D
You have no case.
Even "the fair treatment of prisoners of war, hold in jails in the victors own territory or not" requires the right of defenders to present what they think, at least, it is a case.
Skull and crossbones was a common sight at the Caribbean, where Cuba belongs too. How is this place in Cuba called ? You could be a valuable member of the community there, Your Supreme One and Only Connoisseur of match racing, Your Lordship.
(In court, a High Court judge is referred to as My Lord or Your Lordship if male, or as My Lady or Your Ladyship if female.)

CT 249

05-09-2007, 08:32 AM

We have ascertained that good, spectacular match racing can be achieved in slow boats. It’s true. Yay. (Bring out the foundation 36s!)

My original point was more about this part.

The restrictions posed on the F1 rule are complex and mostly aimed at making the sport safe and keeping driver alive etc. As are the restrictions posed on open 60s and other offshore classes. I’m sure you would agree the need for safe ACC boats is not so apparent. Is it fair to say the restrictions on the ACC rule are aimed at creating an even playing field in the interests of a fair match race?

That’s fine.

The real question remains. Is ACC about the technological progression of the sport of sailing, or is about determining which country’s billionaires can win at a sailing (or anything) test. Would the racing be the same if they were still sailing Js? Those are pretty big and spectacular. Would it be the same if they weren’t allowed carbon fibre? Or what if they couldn’t use anything but canvas for sails?

I see this game as an opportunity to explore the true boundaries of technology, with massive budgets and advertising dollars and the best sailors in the world. I hate to think that’s its just a match racing regatta and that’s it. If you want to find the best match-racing skipper in the world, buy some RC44s. seriously. That’s not entirely what this is about, is it.

Your right in saying there need to be a lot of limitations, in order to give the designers some strict bounds to work within, and to encourage innovation in this way, and to create a level playing field. You don’t want to end up with horizon jobs. But I don’t see why these limitations should advertently or inadvertently affect the pace of the boats, as some are designed to do in F1. Are we not at a stage where technology has outgrown the limitations of the rule and its restrictions? (I’m not just talking about the above formula and all the other critical ones that were neglected of mention, but the pages and pages of constraints)

I understand that there are lots of people who are happy with the Americas Cup how it is. Cool. I think it’s a shame the 100 million euro budgets aren’t being used to properly develop the likes of canting keels and canting rigs, wing masts and double skin sails, canards etc. and hull shapes that are remotely relevant to contemporary yachting. (Surely trade-offs similar to the current ones could be formulated to make a CBTF yacht compete with a fixed keel yacht.) anyway this necessary development is being left up to the comparatively low budget low exposure classes like open 60s etc, and individual designers. I think new technology could easily be shoe-horned into ACC without any change whatsoever to the spectacle, or the intense match racing.

While the AC has often claimed to be about progress in sailing design, surely it's always been a pretty poor example of that. Some materials and winches have been developed in the AC but not much else considering the $$$.

It's interesting to look back at great AC boats and see what they gave us.

Intrepid? She gave the AC the separated skeg and rudder - already old news in other classes. Trim tabs - normally banned because the speed isn't worth the cost. Under-deck winches - horrible for the crew and since banned. Snubbed ends - still allowed (at aesthetic costs, perhaps).

Courageous? She gave us sailing computers.

Australia II? Nice sail panel layouts are a good thing. The winged keel isn't widely used.

S&S? Fat boats with lots of rating certificates (?). Shark skin (banned).

ACC boats? Bulb shapes that are good for massively high aspect keels carrying massive amounts of lead on skinny boats; ie ACC boats.

Obviously there were other advances, but many of the AC "advances" seem to have just been blown-up small boat ideas. Others are largely restricted to AC boats. So considering the time and money that's gone into the AC it seems pretty wasteful as a tool to develop designs.

Surely it will always be that way. Historically the big boats have NEVER lead the way because experiments cost too much. Even in offshore boats the 22s, 1/4s and 1/2s etc lead the way.

Personally I think the low development in ACC is sort of okay 'cause I can't see the point of a lot of the potential "improvements". Stick a canting keel, double-skin sail and rotating wingmast on any ballasted mono and it's still very slow in terms of speed for length or speed for cost or speed for crew or speed for hassle or speed for anything else. Do what you want, a Formula cat that costs 1/7 of the AC boat's mainsail will still probably be faster much of the time. Same with the vaunted Open 60s.......still very slow compared to an ORMA 60 so why worry about their speed?????

The other alternative is to have a rule that would make ACC boats a bit more like "normal" yachts; a bit fatter, more seaworthy, with fixed keels etc. That way the AC may be able to develop ideas that flow into "normal" sailing.

PI Design

05-09-2007, 08:45 AM

[QUOTE=CT 249;138999]
Obviously there were other advances, but many of the AC "advances" seem to have just been blown-up small boat ideas. Others are largely restr*cted to AC boats. So considering the time and money that's gone into the AC it seems pretty wasteful as a tool to develop designs.

[QUOTE]

Dang it! The R word again.

I agree that leadbellies will always be slow, but there is something elegant about trying to make them as efficient as possible. I would like to see things like double skinned sails and rotating masts allowed, because I can't see many good reasons to ban them. As I said earlier, canting keels are much good in a match race, so no need to allow them. But generally the rule is okay.
There may be a case for relaxing the rules gradually, so that once the existing rules are well unmderstood and allboats the same, then you allow some extra things like wing masts to give the boffins something else to play with. Once they've cracked wingmasts, say in another 3 cups time, then allow something else.

xarax

05-09-2007, 10:00 AM

The other alternative is to have a rule that would make ACC boats a bit more like "normal" yachts;...That way the AC may be able to develop ideas that flow into "normal" sailing.
The first think that has to change is the maximum allowed ballast ratio. Sailing boats are meant to have a keel only to help the hull not to turn turtle, not having a hull only to help the keel not to sink !
Will a reasonable maximum ballast ratio restriction diminish the marvelously close windward capabilities of ACC boats ? I don t think so, provided some other restrictions are lifted. That is why, at the beginning of the thread, I have proposed a maximum ballast ratio of, say, 0.5, just what one can could well have on a "normal" yacht. Not a maximum displacement, just a maximum ballast ratio. Then the boats would again look, albeit remotely, to our "normal" yachts, but the most important thing is that they would again be sailing boats and not just-floating sailing mines or sailing submarines.

RHough

05-09-2007, 10:30 AM

My original point was more about this part.

…while fostering design developments that will flow through to the mainstream of yachting…

Is it fair to say the restrictions on the ACC rule are aimed at creating an even playing field in the interests of a fair match race?

That’s fine.

The real question remains. Is ACC about the technological progression of the sport of sailing, or is about determining which country’s billionaires can win at a sailing (or anything) test.
...

I think new technology could easily be shoe-horned into ACC without any change whatsoever to the spectacle, or the intense match racing.

Well said. The truth is that the best teams (and probably the biggest budgets) will be sailing for the cup. No matter what rule is in place.

I think there has been much more AC technology that benefits sailing in general than we give the event credit for.

The big budgets (and big egos) have funded advances in tank testing that apply to all boats.

The computerized design tools have improved due to to AC funding. Downwind sail shapes and the twisted flow wind tunnel they are tested in are AC fall-out that applies to the mainstream. Every cruising sailor that enjoys an easy to trim A-Sail can thank AC sail development. Laminate headsails with shapes that work over wider wind ranges than the sails they replace are other benefits from AC sail development budgets.

Advances in rigging and rope apply to the mainstream. Would be have high modulus fibre sheets and halyards without the cup?

Vim developed the dip pole gybe.

The state of the art in carbon spars has been advanced at a greater rate due to the AC. Carbon masts have gone from being an option to being standard on some production boats.

As far as canting keels and CBTF go, I doubt that you will ever see either one in the AC (unless Alinghi has figured out how to do it under the rule). Canting keels in general require stored power and an engine to run, CBTF requires a huge fee to the patent vultures. Running engines and license fees don't make for better match racing.

I think the technical advances are there, they just are not as obvious as the direct progression of Vim's dip pole gybe to other racing. VPP's and the idea of sailing to polars are common knowledge, as are Wally's. VPP's are better and more accurate in part due to AC funding. The software that was developed for pre-start timing is included in mainstream on-board navigation packages (for less than $1000).

One of the benefits of the ACC rule is that the the boats from the 32nd AC will be for sale. They well become seeds for new campaigns, as Prada was for Team Shosholoza in this cup. I think their performance as a one boat team with the oldest boat in the event (#83) shows that the AC is open to teams with less than Oracle sized bank accounts. The fact that design #99 did not make the semi's shows that new boats are not always faster than older boats.

IMO a move to make the boats more main-stream would be a bad idea. The unique nature of the boats and the event are part of what makes pursuit of the cup a passion for many sailors. I have no doubt that there are as good or better sailors in other events, there are certainly faster boats on the water. I'm not sure that a rule for a contest so far out of the mainstream (How many of us have ever done any match racing?) will produce boats or features that have direct application to sailing in general. There is also no doubt in my mind that the indirect benefits are there and those benefits justify the AC as it is.

nflutter

05-10-2007, 04:47 AM

I’ve done some match racing.
Anyway I pretty much agree with everyone here. On the one hand ACC designers seem reluctant to go to extremes with their designs, and thus innovation is sort of capped. On the other hand, there really has been a heap of knowledge gained over the years. Most of it seems to be in fine-tuning existing designs philosophies. In this way the cup has, in the past, contributed to the sport of sailing, in refining or at least categorically proving or disproving existing ideas. Should the aim not be about this? The big $$$ as repeatedly mentioned, I think, could be spent on unproven technologies…

Having done a lot of match racing I think there is heaps of fun to be had with a canting keel, for instance. Last year at Airlie Beach Race Week (http://www.hogsbreathraceweek.com.au/)(sailing a pretty conventional but surprisingly quick sportboat) we competed against the first production "sports 8" 8m canting keel sports boat. Like this (http://www.bethwaite.com/designs/custom/gallery/20/212/)but with a hydraulic winged canting keel. And a bigger rig.
Needless to say they had a bit on getting the thing around the course, and it was early days for the boat, but they came up with some interesting tactics involving keel position. One thing was that with the keel fully canted and crew weight in, they could slide sideways and carry an a-symmetrical kite deeper. And carry a bigger kite. The obvious down side to their configuration became super-apparent when they ducked another yachts stern and took their rudder off with the bulb, a meter or so to windward of the rail.

Imagine doing a dial-up with a canting keel, and having to worry about the rig, keel position etc could they manage? However you can use the keel to roll the boat around a mark if you’re under-shooting it. You can use it to roll the rig off the start to get a pump. You could potentially sail with windward heel, which would allow you to lee-bow someone from further away. You could do roll-tacks. You could sail upwind super low-grove. With CBTF you can make the boat go sideways to windward. You can get super height or super depth under kite, with potential speed losses but possible VMG gains. You can turn faster. I have a IOM with CBTF, with a 50cm fin and a 800g bulb, 55 degrees of cant (that I built before CBTF was patented, I might add) and you should see that thing turn! And stop. And go. Most manoeuvrable thing I’ve ever seen, once you get your head around the tricky controls. The added bonus is that it beats the pants off a conventional IOM. Does that not meet the intentions of the ACC class?

I reckon give them the problem: canting keels are allowed, but they must be manually powered. (Remembering that there are heaps of un-tapped sources of power available, like the strain on the side stay, or the righting moment of the hull, or the load on the keel its self, and there could be ways of storing this energy and using it to power a keel etc) (And remembering that every problem has a correct answer, with sufficient cash) I think open ended things like that SHOULD be (maybe not are) what ACC is about. In the interests of sailing!!!

and i believe a similar level match racing could be achieved. it would just look a whole lot cooler.

xarax

05-10-2007, 05:20 AM

You can use it to roll the rig off the start to get a pump.
This is something that may non be allowed under any match racing rule.:)
Pumping is little too much for a presumably large boat, like a 24 m LOA or something, do you agree ?

nflutter

05-10-2007, 06:00 AM

no. how fast can a keel move from one side to the other?
the point is we dont know. its up to someone to propperly develop the technology.
as far as i know its legal as long as you do it once, you may have to alter course to windward, as if you are heeling the boat to leeward in order to assist rounding up.
anyway not the point.

xarax

05-10-2007, 06:41 AM

nflutter

05-10-2007, 06:58 AM

i will see your 100 inflationary dollars and raise you a further hundred given that canting keels can cant till their hearts content (the trade-off being hull shape) and that water ballast be disallowed on grounds of it being too old-school. i fully support the pilgims cup, and will donate the tropy myself. it will be a mug. with "the pilgrims cup" written on it in crayon. utilitarian.

Vega

05-10-2007, 11:35 AM

... In this way the cup has, in the past, contributed to the sport of sailing, in refining or at least categorically proving or disproving existing ideas. Should the aim not be about this? The big $$$ as repeatedly mentioned, I think, could be spent on unproven technologies…
...
I reckon give them the problem: canting keels are allowed, but they must be manually powered. (Remembering that there are heaps of un-tapped sources of power available, like the strain on the side stay, or the righting moment of the hull, or the load on the keel its self, and there could be ways of storing this energy and using it to power a keel etc) (And remembering that every problem has a correct answer, with sufficient cash) I think open ended things like that SHOULD be (maybe not are) what ACC is about. In the interests of sailing!!!

and i believe a similar level match racing could be achieved. it would just look a whole lot cooler.

I agree:cool:

xarax

05-10-2007, 12:46 PM

One could imagine many ways so that the wave motion, through the keel weight moving up and down a little, could also be used to store energy for the canting mechanism.

yipster

06-01-2007, 11:24 AM

The ACC are often compared to the formula 1 race cars. But even with all the restrictions in the F1, there are still the fastest cars around a track by far. This is what the ACC lacks IMO. Just imagine you could beat a F1 car with your standard Porsche (or whatever). I definitely think the class would loose its fascination. This is why I think the real F1 on water are the C class catamarans!
i second that view on "little america's cup" C class catamarans (http://www.cclass.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=28)

Ljurgens

06-03-2007, 02:28 PM

Let's define our GOAL first, then pick a design rule. Is the goal to provide good match racing, design creativity... what, exactly? I like the current AC rule; it's as close to one-design as you can get, yet still allowing for some creativity. Please, let's not come up with another IOR or IMS!

Vega

06-03-2007, 02:46 PM

Why not listening to what the main racingsailboat designers say about those boats? Most of them say they don't make sense.

yipster

06-03-2007, 03:20 PM

different cup i understand and googled up what i could find but havent found the main racingsailboat designers comments nor specs, goals, rules or video's yet
did learn of butterfly or dragon double skinned or wing sails that open 180 degree at the sternside for downwind sailing and more

mighetto

06-03-2007, 03:47 PM

I therefore bet 100 inflationary US$ that at 2020 America s cup race at Beijing we will see:
1. Canting keels with a 15 degrees limit.
2. Rotating masts
3. Canard rudders
3. Water ballast
And that it will be an other event, called "America s cup, the One and Only Original, made in USA", sailed in proud 12 m class yachts, near a local courthouse, somewhere near the Pilgrims disembarkation area...:)

If ever there were a cry for mighetto. This is it. So here are my thoughts on Xarax comments on the ACC. But first congratulations UW rowing and thanks Larry Ellison.

The ACC is about growing the sport of sailing. It is advertising for our sport as well as the sponsors. And contrary to what the rich and powerful would like, it is still about national pride. I am not chatting for Larry but he probably chats as I do. We in the USA just suck at sailing. When an EU crew needs a moral boost, it is sent to the USA where that team almost certainly will shine against our incompetent ones and why is that?

It is because the east coast of the USA, which until recently controlled the sport, adopted the old ways of Europe which are the ways of patronage, the ways of the ivy league, good old boys club, secrete society, skull and bones, German ways, what every you want to call it. But get a clue, these old ways are being abandoned by the youth of the EU.

These old ways of business as well as sailing involve minding your pees and queues, not questioning, and letting those who came before you and their sons and daughters get the plumb jobs. These old ways also create climates of cheating and worse. In Seattle we can hardly chat ACC because of the cheating in 2003. In Germany you can not chat WWII.

Contrast with the "dog eat dog" culture that is better called Americanism. We in the USA have pumped 5 times the money into Germany and Bavaria than into China according to todays Seattle Times and it makes sense. We want the EU to be more democratic and less dictatorial. When competition is fair, when it is performance over "the system" AKA patronage, all of the polite societies benefit.

One of the great notions brought to mind by the latest Pirates film is that crew is part of the boat. Think about that. Lets think about rules for the ACC that involve crew. Like age rules and nationality rules. Lets also think about rules for the designer. Is it enough that the boat be built in the country represented. Should not the design team be of the nationality represented, or at least marginally so?

Frank L. Mighetto
member US Sailing
member SSSS

Vega

06-03-2007, 05:51 PM

different cup i understand and googled up what i could find but havent found the main racingsailboat designers comments nor specs, goals, rules or video's yet

Hello there, I have posted this before on another thread but it seems relevant here:

"I have read a recent interview (in French) where Juan Kouyoumdjian talked about it .... I will make a translation of the relevant part of the interview":

What are the main performance criteria for an Open 60?

The same as for any other racing sailboat: Maximize propulsion force and stability and minimize the drag (resistance to the forward motion).

A lot of sail area on a narrower boat ?

Normally it is assumed that a narrow hull has less drag. I can prove otherwise. With less than 12k of wind, the narrow boat has the advantage, but with more wind that’s not the case and these boats race along with strong winds.

Do you prefer to work with Class boats or Open boats?

Open boats. We are very happy, doing Open Boats (3). That’s much more exiting than Class America, an uninteresting and completely obsolete class. The boats have a monstrous ratio costs/performance.

In what direction would you like to see an evolution of the Class America?

That’s funny because that question was also made to Bruce Farr and our answer is very close: A little bit more of 600m2 of sail area, around 90/100 ft length, canting keels…and more liberty on the class rules (regarding design).

The problem is that Chris Dickson (BMW/Oracle) is very conservative. He likes heavy boats. I don’t expect big changes.

mighetto

06-04-2007, 09:21 AM

Hello there, I have posted this before on another thread but it seems relevant here:

"I have read a recent interview (in French) where Juan Kouyoumdjian talked about it .... I will make a translation of the relevant part of the interview":

What are the main performance criteria for an Open 60?

The same as for any other racing sailboat: Maximize propulsion force and stability and minimize the drag (resistance to the forward motion).

A lot of sail area on a narrower boat ?

Normally it is assumed that a narrow hull has less drag. I can prove otherwise. With less than 12k of wind, the narrow boat has the advantage, but with more wind that’s not the case and these boats race along with strong winds.

Do you prefer to work with Class boats or Open boats?

Open boats. We are very happy, doing Open Boats (3). That’s much more exiting than Class America, an uninteresting and completely obsolete class. The boats have a monstrous ratio costs/performance.

In what direction would you like to see an evolution of the Class America?

That’s funny because that question was also made to Bruce Farr and our answer is very close: A little bit more of 600m2 of sail area, around 90/100 ft length, canting keels…and more liberty on the class rules (regarding design).

The problem is that Chris Dickson (BMW/Oracle) is very conservative. He likes heavy boats. I don’t expect big changes.

What we need is JK's thoughts on course changes. The in port-races will be Class America. This is owing to the need for spectator accommodation. The AC boats sail only windward leeward and that is apparently good for spectator boats and video coverage. (I remain unconvinced.) The problem here is that ocean going vessels need crew competency in reaching work and direct upwind is generally not how one would race them. So in the name of spectators the in-port events are being changed from what makes sense for ocean racing (Olymplic style courses) to what makes sense for spectators (possibly). The boats will be designed for the course.

It makes no sense whatsoever when you think auto racing. Sure there are drag races but oval courses seem to draw the most spectators. What is wrong with oval courses for sail boat racing? I mean sure, middle course is going to be a problem but you could do something with gates like is proposed for the in-port upwind downwind. My point is that the design of the America's Cup vessels is not the design of ocean racing vessels and that making the in port course, like the AC course will lead to design adaptations likely poor for ocean conditions.

Wynand N

06-04-2007, 01:20 PM

nice to see you are still alive Frank:cool:

CT 249

06-04-2007, 08:46 PM

Why not listening to what the main racingsailboat designers say about those boats? Most of them say they don't make sense.

Do they? What do R/P, Farr, Jeppersen, Johnstone etc say about them?

Vega

06-05-2007, 03:49 AM

Do they? What do.. Farr.....say about them?

...".that question was also made to Bruce Farr and our answer is very close: A little bit more of 600m2 of sail area, around 90/100 ft length, canting keels…and more liberty on the class rules (regarding design)".

Vega

06-05-2007, 05:29 AM

From the Architect of AREVA team:

Restricting the Field of Research:

"In fact, version 5 of the ACC (America's Cup Class) rules was a new way of attaching parameters. The measured length (approximately 20 meters) can vary only 5 centimeters or so. Displacement is 24 tons more or less fifty kilograms. And, the measured surface area of the sails can be modified only within 10 square meters. The only really free parameter is with the width, but with a limit of 4.50 meters that nobody utilizes. All the new modifications are aimed at penalizing the smaller syndicates by increasing the draft by 10 centimeters (up to 4.10 m), which does not bring a lot to the boat's performance, but comes at a considerable cost...

.. Everyone has thus converged in a similar direction because of the Version 5 ACC rules. The field of investigation and research is reduced because the larger syndicates decided it was better to test sails, crews, and to focus on the appendages (keels and rudders). Their fear was that a smaller budget, but very innovative team would be able to build a faster boat…."
.....
“Bernard Nivelt”

He doesn’t seem very happy with the rules either;) .

http://www.areva-challenge.com/news.php?sel=magazine&value=9

xarax

06-05-2007, 03:02 PM

Sorry, Valencia, no. It is not. And all the fans of the ACC rule should honestly admit that, if this was the main purpose of the unreasonable restrictions of the rule, it failed, and failed completely. We are watching some interesting pre-match moments, and then a boring long wait to the pre-established finish.
The outcome of almost all races is determined from the beginning. Match race is reduced in pre-match race... It should be something more, and we must honestly admit that.

Paul B

06-05-2007, 07:10 PM

Is it an exciting match race what we watch? Sorry, Valencia, no. It is not. And all the fans of the ACC rule should honestly admit that, if this was the main purpose of the unreasonable restrictions of the rule, it failed, and failed completely. We are watching some interesting pre-match moments, and then a boring long wait to the pre-established finish.
The outcome of almost all races is determined from the beginning. Match race is reduced in pre-match race... It should be something more, and we must honestly admit that.

Welcome to match racing. The "unreasonable restrictions of the rule" have nothing to do with this. Any rule, regardless of restriction, will produce type-formed participants after the first iteration.

No matter the ultimate speed, if the participants are closely matched then winning the race will be dependent on winning the start and owning the favored side of the course. This is true wheter the matches are held in old, slow 12 metres, in the current ACC designs, in some new canting keel design, or in C Class cats.

Furthermore, if you try to have a match race with boats that perform very differently upwind versus downwind (planing-types) the boat that arrives first to the windward mark will set and plane away to a safe distance before the trailing boat can set. This negates one of the things that helps keep matches close, the ability of the trailing boat to attack and blanket the leading boat.

If the goal of the America's Cup is to produce the ultimate in speed, then the current ACC boats are wrong and you are right. However, it seems to me the idea is to produce boats for good match racing. In that respect the rule seems to deliver pretty well.

If you want even closer racing you could eliminate the A-Sails and maybe find some way to limit the amount of "pole forward" a boat could sail with. That would give more ability to attack to the trailing boat downwind. Maybe add more gates on the course to force more engagement, with perhaps alternating right/left for each boat at each gate. Limit the amount of technology available (no electronic navigation aids, no weather info from 1 hour before the start) so the sailors have to do all the choosing of favored sides, laylines, etc by sight.

xarax

06-05-2007, 07:51 PM

Paul B

06-05-2007, 11:20 PM

"Maybe add more gates on the course to force more engagement, with perhaps alternating right/left for each boat at each gate."
It would be spectacular to watch some reaching duels, too. A match race through a complicated course could be much more interesting if the boats were not so one-design, though. Let the designers and the engineers to participate, as the sailors do, in the race, they are part of the same team!

What exactly do you think reaching legs would add to a match race? Reaching legs would be nothing but follow-the-leader. Do you remember 1992's Z course? There can be no blanketing on a reaching leg by the trailing boat, unless it is far faster and overtakes. That is not going to happen in a match race situation with boats type-formed to a rule. Every rule type-forms, so the boats approach (as you say) one design.

The Designers and Engineers do participate now, and did in the eras of 12 metres and J boats.

So again, please tell us how match racing would be improved with closer racing after the pre-start by changing the rule or adding reaching legs.

xarax

06-06-2007, 05:08 AM

It is quite obvious that the truly creative part of designers and engineers participation is diminished as the boats approach the one-design limit. If you don t believe this, ask anybody who has designed anything !:)
Sailboat racing, at this level of publicity is, like it or not, a public spectacle, not only an athletic event. Reaching legs don t contribute to the sailing races per se, but I think that they might well make the whole event less boring for the public that fills the docs of Valencia or watch the series from their T.V. sets. Think Monte Carlo F1 race, what a bad racing car course, but what a great public spectacle !

Crag Cay

06-06-2007, 05:08 AM

Paul B (and others) are dead right. You can grumble all you like about the cost and complexity of these boats, but essentially they are ideal for their purpose and the proof is that more syndicates turned up for this challenge than (IIRC) at any other time in AC history.

All the criticism of it as a spectator event stems not from any short comings of the boats, but the nature of the event itself: It's match racing, and match racing is always superficially dull to watch. The interest lies in the subtlety and nuances, but this is lost on the vast majority of the viewing public.

Whilst a windier or rougher venue might satisfy the 'crash and burn' cravings of your average beer swilling TV audience, I wouldn't be too sure. The European skiff circuit, the inshore racing with 60 ft tri's and even footage from the southern ocean have only attracted very limited and short lived TV audiences.

Most of the 'fixes' suggested for the event itself are similar to putting a hidden mine field under some of the squares on a chess board. Whilst it might make watching the game more exiting, it's not really what chess is about. And so with the AC. It's always been about very rich people believing they have the money, power and control to put together a complete campaign package to wrestle the trophy from another bloke who similarly believes he has the same. It's the game they want to play and that's fine as it's all done largely with their money.

Only rarely in the AC history has interest in it ever spilled over into the public domain. Then it has usually been some scandal, or underdog story, or jingoistic nationalism, or even rarer; a genuine news worthy story (Australia winning) after over 100 years of predictable dullness. Only New Zealand in recent years has bucked this trend, but they are probable unique in the position sailing has amongst both their national sports and their economy.

If the AC holds no interest for you, then ignore it. But it won't go away as long as there are rich people who want to play. And how and what they play is entirely up to them. But it's not all bad. When that amount of money is being carved up on the table, even the crumbs that fall beneath are worth picking up. Our clients are still racing and there is already talk of the next generation of boats... "Happy days are here again......"

PI Design

06-06-2007, 05:45 AM

Welcome back Crag - are you saying you've done some work for one of the syndicates? If so, can you eloborate?

Vega's quote of the Areva designer was interesting, but on the whole I still agree that the current format is not bad. As I said earlier, if you want to watch fast boats with loose rules, there is always the Little America's Cup. But it's not popular, so this doesn't seem to be the answer.

xarax

06-06-2007, 08:46 AM

"...they are ideal for their purpose and the proof is that more syndicates turned up for this challenge than (IIRC) at any other time in AC history."
This is not a proof. It can be explained by the better organization of the Luis Vuitton cup with its many Round Robins, by the better publicity of the the city of Valencia, by the rising economical situation of many people in many countries, etc. It is not a proof that the rule is good, and of course it is not a proof that the boats "are ideal", unless one understands the meaning of the word "ideal" in a very peculiar way indeed.
"It's always been about very rich people believing they have the money, power and control...
...as long as there are rich people who want to play. And how and what they play is entirely up to them."
So ? Are you satisfied with this, somewhat dark, side of the America s Cup? (I am not.) But it is not the whole story. And it is not determined by any mysterious fate that it will remain that way. Anyway, that is also no proof that the boats are "ideal», and so we must really fell privileged that we are convicted by our own poverty to watch any games rich people play...
"It's match racing, and match racing is always superficially dull to watch."
If this is so, let us change it! Let us change the boats, the courses, the rules, so the sport of sailing become a spectacular sport to watch, and sailing gets the publicity it deserves.

PI Design

06-06-2007, 08:59 AM

All sailing is dull to watch. But it is fun to do. Proper sporting events should be about the competitors, not the spectators.

PS I love the poetry of your writing, Xarax.

xarax

06-06-2007, 09:27 AM

From time immemorial, sporting events were about spectators, not competitors. Competitors were just actors in a stage for the pleasure of the spectators, who, by their own money, pay, at the end of the day, for the whole process. We, the poor spectators, work and pay for the BMW, Oracle, Emirates, Toyota, Prada, TIM, UBS etc. If the rich men wanted it so, they could very well buy a private bay or even island and sail their yachts there, in the absence of any spectator, birds included. But no, they want publicity, they die for publicity, for the simple reason that they pay their own rent from publicity, that is, from our money...Therefore, I think that we deserve the minimum right to tell them, offer us a better spectacle, sail in more interesting boats. (Which, probably, would be cheaper, too...):)

Doug Lord

06-06-2007, 09:54 AM

Xarax, I agree with you 100%! Great job here...
Those who say sailing is dull to watch must never have seen videos of Aussie 18s or Foiler Moths sailing,or that great day in Perth years ago or Open 60's and ORMA 60's at full tilt.
Imagine a 60' Moth! A 60' Aussie 18! Change the boat and open the design back up-that was a key element of the old America's Cup. Fast, exciting ,dangerous, capsizable(and rightable) boats on short, difficult courses in plenty of wind would eliminate the frustration of the race being over at the start because the boat that won the start could always have trouble before the end of the race. And the boats would be stunningly exciting to just to watch sailing.

PI Design

06-06-2007, 10:23 AM

:) Well, there's a number of points there. The majority of sports are under-pinned by amateur participation. The best amateurs become pro's. People watch the pro's because they admire the skills on display. If you change the rules so that armchair fans get more a more televisual sport, you are potentially ruining it for the thousands of amateurs who particpate away from the cameras. For example, football may be more exciting if the goals were bigger, but it rather ruins the game for all those who play goalkeeper for their pub team every Sunday. Why should they suffer, just so that some fat slob can watch Beckham score more goals? Sport should be played. By all means watch the best play, but don't change the rules so the uneducated, who have never played, find it more fun to watch.
If you want to increase AC viewing figures, make the grinders bikini-clad girls.:) but that is hardly the point.
I've seen the foiling Moths and Aussie skiffs, and yes they look spectacular. But in the same way snow boarding does. It looks good for about 30 seconds and then its repetitive. Worse than that, sailing is always hard to follow because you get little sense of where the boats are relative to each other (until they cross) orthe finish line. Having said that, I've quite enjoyed watching this AC, the computer graphics help. But it is the competion aspects that make the good viewing, not lingering shots of boats sailing.
The Big Boat/US Catamaran cup had boats designed to free rules, but wasn't much cop to watch - it was sooo one sided. Mind you the controversy did wonders for the publicity.
And I'll say it one more time. Little America's Cup. Like the real thing, but in C Class cats (which, incidentally, have very few rules but are still stereotyped wing sail boats - to the casual observer). Well, it used to be like the real thing, but it proved so unpopular they've had to change the format.
I like boats. I like boat design. I like radical boats. The AC isn't perfect. But a radical overhaul of the rules will not make it much more fun to watch.

Vega

06-06-2007, 11:10 AM

Paul B

06-06-2007, 03:22 PM

"It's match racing, and match racing is always superficially dull to watch."
If this is so, let us change it! Let us change the boats, the courses, the rules, so the sport of sailing become a spectacular sport to watch, and sailing gets the publicity it deserves.

You keep writing, but you say nothing. Please tell us, specifically, what changes to the boats, courses, or rules do you forsee that would make for closer match racing, especially something that will take the focus away from the pre-start?

It has already been pointed out time and again that using boats with great discrepancies in upwind vs downwind speed make for less competitive match racing, as the lead boat at the weather mark will not be attacked on the run, so it becomes a parade.

It has been pointed out, and agreed by you, that adding reaching legs will not make better match racing. So what other course changes would you suggest?

What rules can be changed that will make for better match racing, where the winner of the pre-start and favored side of the first beat will not have an almost insurmountable advantage? Use boats that will capsize? Sure, that will make for very close match racing!

The S&S catamaran in '88 was far faster than any other boat type being mentioned by some of you, but watching it on TV was no more spectacular than watching a 12 metre.

Watching an F1 car race on TV is less spectacular than watching NHRA Funny Car drag racing, yet more people worldwide watch the F1 races. In a straight line the Funny Cars are far faster than an F1 car, and have spectacular flames from the exhaust, the odd explosion, great biles of smoke from the burn out, parachutes to stop them, etc. Do we all say F1 would be improved with this sort of spectacle added?

The America's Cup is about Match Racing. There are other "more spectacular" forms of sailing, but they are not the America's Cup. So change it to Team Racing in Unlimited 18 footers, or C Class Cats, or 60 foot C Class Cats, or in 14 metre Centomiglia Boats, or Unlimited sinker boards, or make it a timed 500 metre run in 30 knots of breeze, but it is no longer the America's Cup.

xarax

06-06-2007, 03:26 PM

"Sport should be played. By all means watch the best play, but don't change the rules so the uneducated, who have never played, find it more fun to watch."
I agree 100%. Alas, social reality tells otherwise. I wish it was not, but it is only wishful thinking. In a society where middle class is shrinking, lower classes are addicted to T.V. soap-life consumption and more and more wealth is owned by less and less people, one should have predicted something like this would happen. It is sad, it is depressing, and it might even become really dangerous, sooner or later. We live in a consumer’s kingdom, in a spectator’s arena, and we must find a way to survive...
I believe that a possible way out is always through rational thinking : rationality in choosing a simple, comprehensible set of rules that everybody accepts and understands, so that, in the long run, "uneducated" people, even the "fat slobes", can appreciate the value of rationality in general ( and eat better and less, for example...:) ) This set of rules should hopefully promote technological development as well as sport ethics. Now, technological development has its own dangers of course, and a lot of them, as we all know. But it is in the best aspects of human nature to take well measured risks: if «a radical overhaul" of present rules has even a slight chance to succeed, I think it will be worth these risks. What we have to lose? This ACC set of rules is nothing but a house o cards, a sad reminder of a not-so-glorious past. Otherwise...Otherwise the future of the cup will remain captive of a handful of some rich people and the associated mass media hysteria they stir, a bleak future indeed...

sailsmall

06-07-2007, 02:22 AM

As a troll, Frank is much more entertaining than xarax. Could be the language thing.

Vega

06-07-2007, 07:39 AM

All sailing is dull to watch.

I don’t agree with you here. I like watching sailing (if it is spectacular stuff) and I am not the only one. Over here there is a TV cable channel dedicated only to sailing (and I will bet that also in England, as all over most of Europe). That means that a LOT of people doesn’t think that "All sailing is dull to watch".

And it is because there are a lot of people that likes watching sailing events that you have on Europe a lot of sailing Sponsorship, particularly on the Med. region.

xarax

07-05-2007, 10:07 PM

"I think the rule will be reasonably tight, like a box rule, but obviously this rule is pretty complicated. It would be nice to open it up a little bit more. It will be encouraged to come up with new innovative ideas. This is a design contest - a technology race. I think that’s the way the Cup has always been, and we are going to keep it that way."

nflutter

07-06-2007, 05:10 AM

who could say this cup was dull to watch! amazing sailing. close racing, shifts, pressure differences, great prestart, kites blowing out, penalties. tops! When a design rule produces two boats as evenly matched as NZL92 and SUI100, though, you know its almost at its end because you are approaching a one-design scenario.

with todays announcement, it appears design and technology, spectacle and excitement has won over close, one-design esque racing.

quote from sailworld:
'Haven't really thought about the new boat. Want one that is bigger faster and more exciting to sail. have to come up with a rule for that. The rule will need enough time to allow people to build - about 20,000 man hours required to build a 90fter,' said Alinghi skipper, Brad Butterworth.
(brad was a bit vague)

now since the new rule is being written by the defending design team, ie a bunch of designers, keen to show what theyre made of, i predict (as do most i gather) that the new class will be much more up to date and much lighter and quicker, and they will be eager to push at least one or two boundaries other than how much money you can spend on a sailing boat.

sorry doug sounds like no hydrofoils, nor propper canting keels, but i feel its a step in the right direction. finally the richest yachties in the world are accepting back their responsibility to advance the sport of sailing.