Breaking News - New America's Cup Class

[BR3]

The next America's Cup will be contested in a new design of America's Cup class boat. The new class will be 90ft LOA, draw 6.5m (21ft 4in) with a lifting keel that will reduce the draft to 4m (13ft 1in) to allow the boats access to ports.

http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20070605123447ywamericascup07.html

[Doug Lord]

A new rule that DOESN"T allow canting keels and/or on-deck sliding ballast, wide racks and hydrofoils is just so much wasted paper. And will insure that the so-called "new" boat is etched firmly in a niche behind the fastest of the newest monohull keelboat technology. And that would be a shame.......

[national]

I am going to stick my neck out here for the barrage of abuse!
The previous rules provided us with the most exciting racing that has been seen in ages even if it was not the fastest of boats. You cannot argue that it was damm exciting Doug?

[PI Design]

Call me a cynic, but I think the proposed new class is just a way of strengthening Alinghi's position. 2009/2010 is not a long time to have worked up, developed and fully tested a boat for the AC, to a complete new set of rules. So Alinghi have a head start as they've probably been working on the new design for the last year.
Secondly, at 90ft the boats will be harder to design and build, suiting the rich teams and those with time.
Thirdly the extra crew will need recruiting and paying, which just costs money without making the event one iota (sp?) more exciting. Advantage rich teams.
Why do the new boats need to be bigger, more expensive and more to the liking of the ultra elite? It just smacks of making it as difficult as possible to set up a serious challenge.

[Stephen Ditmore]

What we really need to know: displacement range of the new class. The ACC currently rewards displacement too much, resulting in too much ballast under the current boats.

[SailDesign]

I say we go to Optimists on a large pool, with a battery of fans at one end. Skippers can then match race to their hearts content without boring the rest of the world stupid. If you're gonna be slow, be SLOW... :p

I'll tell you how I REALLY think later. :)

[xarax]

We need to believe in Brad Butterworth words:
"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."
It would be nice if :
1. The new, box rule ( hopefuly...) limits somehow the maximum ballast ratio. At the end one should have a boat hull self-righting with the help of a ballast, not a ballast floating with the help of a boat hull...
2. The maximum draft is at least one fifth to one fourth of the LOA, so the boats have lighter keels.

[Doug Lord]

I am going to stick my neck out here for the barrage of abuse!
The previous rules provided us with the most exciting racing that has been seen in ages even if it was not the fastest of boats. You cannot argue that it was damm exciting Doug?

I didn't get to see the races but I wish I had. Seems like at least two were great.
I didn't propose the new rule but I commented on what I'd like to see incorporated which includes:
1) a self-righting 60' Moth with canting keel and sliding on-deck ballast.
2) reinstatement of most of the nationality rules...
--------------
It seems absurd to me that adding boats with such stunning visual appeal and an element of high speed danger/excitement could be viewed negatively. But some people see the Moth as ugly-go figure.....

[oldsailor7]

Now I am going to stick MY neck out.

The recent spectacle of a giant Catamaran racing against a giant Trimaran in the AC makes me shudder at the prospect of throwing back to those gross monohull sinkers.
Please don't resurrect the age of the Dinosaurs. :eek:

[dskira]

Now I am going to stick MY neck out.

The recent spectacle of a giant Catamaran racing against a giant Trimaran in the AC makes me shudder at the prospect of throwing back to those gross monohull sinkers.
Please don't resurrect the age of the Dinosaurs. :eek:

This the beauty of yachting, you call them dinosaurs, some call them ultimate beauty.
Everyone is wright, and nobody wrong.
Do you know an other sport with so much freedom and diversity?
And on top of that we can fight for our beleif :D

Daniel

[oldsailor7]

A Yacht----any Yacht is a thing of beauty under sail.
Some of the loveliest sailboats on the water are monohulls.

However I am talking about the AC.
The original race was intended to bring out the fastest sailing ship on water.

Technical advances in ocean sailing have produced the fastest sailboats in history.

All the major ocean sailing records are now held by Multihulls.

The last AC demonstrated the superiority of Multihulls in racing.

Why go backwards. :?:

[ancient kayaker]

Actually, I kinda like the old stuff and so do a lot of others. I would love to see a race between 1930's era racing cars for example, ancient Bentley's and Alphas batting it out on skinny tires but I digress ...

Let's talk about size first. A big boat will always beat a small boat at the same technology level unless there is something peculiar about the course or conditions, so all the use of bigger boats gets you is a faster race and a lot more money needed to enter. Since the speed increase does not keep up with the size increase, the race seems to get slower and slower as far as the spectator is concerned, until the boats hardly seem to be moving and they will seem to creep regally and inevitably from one end of the course to the other. Yawn ...

In the light of that, there would seem to be a choice of three things in the future of the AC:
1) make the boats smaller and have lots more of them so it acquires spectator interest, which would eliminate its uniqueness
2) forget about spectators altogether and plunge ahead with the event as it receeds farther and farther from the public awareness
3) invent a class of boat that is different from the mainstream of racing boats and spectacularly beautiful.

Choice 3) seems attractive and would keeps the AC unique and in the public eye. After all, does anyone really care if a AC boat is faster than some totally different kind if there is excitement, achievement and reward for human effort in winning? The original AC was a challenge involving privately owned yachts; it woudl be nice if it returned to its roots but how many of those are there these days?

[Chris Ostlind]

Do you know an other sport with so much freedom and diversity?




Yes, Daniel, I can... Mountaineering

[dskira]

Yes, Daniel, I can... Mountaineering

My brother who do both, from high sea to the Everest, agree with you.
I never climb mountain, so I can comment on that, but everybody who does it are in love with it.
Daniel

[CT 249]

A Yacht----any Yacht is a thing of beauty under sail.
Some of the loveliest sailboats on the water are monohulls.

However I am talking about the AC.
The original race was intended to bring out the fastest sailing ship on water.

No it wasn't.
The original winner, America, was easily outsailed in trials by Maria before she left the USA.

Steven's first challenge to the British fleet was to race against schooners only, not to prove "the fastest ship on the water". It was only when he could not get a race that he agreed to race against cutters, which the British considered to be a faster type.

Similarly, quite a few times the AC boats were slower (theoretically and/or in truth) to other craft. For example, in the cutter era, boats like Meteor and Satanita were rated faster than the AC challengers, and Meteor's performance indicated that she was probably considerably faster than the defenders.

From the first match-racing challenge, the AC was sailed either on corrected time under rating rules, or under class rules. The AC was NOT about finding the fastest boat on the sea. For example, Herreshoff instituted new measurement rules after the extreme "Reliance" won the AC, in order to slow the boats down and make them more seaworthy.

From then on, the AC has been about class racing with just two exceptions, those involving multis.

Sorry, your historical basis for the statement is incorrect on the facts.



Technical advances in ocean sailing have produced the fastest sailboats in history.

All the major ocean sailing records are now held by Multihulls.

And for years, all the speed sailing records were held by windsurfers. Did that make inshore multis any less wonderful, fascinating and relevant? Hell no.

In exactly the same way that boards were not "better" than inshore multis when boards held the speed records, multis are not "better" than keelboats because they hold the offshore records.

Is Thrust SST or a Le Mans car "better" than a Formula One car just because they have better top speeds?


The last AC demonstrated the superiority of Multihulls in racing.

Why go backwards. :?:

What superiority? Sure, the multis were faster. We knew that and have known it for decades. But pure speed is not what counts in ANY class. Every class has rules, and in every class it is speed compared to other boats in the class that counts.

Is the D Class (which has almost never raced as a class) superior to Tornado class in racing because it's faster? Hardly. Is the NZ 8.5m class superior to the Hobie 16 in racing because it's faster? Surely not. The foiler Moth is often quicker than the Hobie 16 - is the Moth class, with its 200 or so active boats, "superior" to the Hobie class with its thousand of active boats? Is the dying Laser II class superior to the hugely popular Laser class, because it's faster?

Just like in almost every other sport, what counts is speed against the others in your event, and pure speed is of little or no importance. After all, if pure speed was what counts, what the hell would we be doing sailing? BMWO went around the course slower than a 65 year old man can go around a hilly course on a $600 bicycle.

Fast boats are not more popular. Fast boats are not the way the sport is heading, if you look at the trends in popularity over the past few decades. Fast boats are not "superior", except in the same way that a speed board is "superior" to a Tornado or Hobie.

It's still saddening to see the hate and contempt that is expressed against monos, or any other boat.

[Doug Lord]

But pure speed is not what counts in ANY class.

, and pure speed is of little or no importance.
It's still saddening to see the hate and contempt that is expressed against monos, or any other boat.

===============
Lighten up CT!!! Oldsailor said: "All the major ocean sailing records are now held by Multihulls."And you go off on one of your "hate" lectures. Absolutely crazy....
Speed DOES count 100% for every major ocean sailing record. Quit jumping on people when you don't understand what they said-or when you choose to ignore what they said!
And by the way: fast boats are MUCH MORE POPULAR when trying to set speed records! Fast boats are much more popular with the sailing press BECAUSE THEY GENERATE EXCITEMENT.

[troy2000]

If speed were the only consideration in America's Cup matches, they'd have thrown away the sails several generations ago. Since they're still banning engines, it doesn't make much sense to me when folks complain about arbitrary design restrictions....

If they go ahead and run 90-ft monohulls in the next series, I expect them to be beautiful under sail and I'll love watching them. Hopefully, they'll require them to face whatever prevails on race day (within reason, of course) instead of waiting for some narrow, ideal slot of wind and sea conditions.

90-footers in rough weather, clawing to windward anyway and trying to slalom through the waves downwind? Awesome. Watching how they go about coaxing performance out of a boat that large in light airs? Some people might consider that boring; I wouldn't. Of course, I also like chess matches.

[Doug Lord]

If speed were the only consideration in America's Cup matches, they'd have thrown away the sails several generations ago. Since they're still banning engines, it doesn't make much sense to me when folks complain about arbitrary design restrictions....

If they go ahead and run 90-ft monohulls in the next series, I expect them to be beautiful under sail and I'll love watching them. Hopefully, they'll require them to face whatever prevails on race day (within reason, of course) instead of waiting for some narrow, ideal slot of wind and sea conditions.

90-footers in rough weather, clawing to windward anyway and trying to slalom through the waves downwind? Awesome. Watching how they go about coaxing performance out of a boat that large in light airs? Some people might consider that boring; I wouldn't. Of course, I also like chess matches.
---------------------
Troy, I watched the last race and enjoyed the pure spectacle of such incredble boats just flying around the course-and I've watched almost every AC since they were televised and enjoyed most of them for the sheer beauty of the boats from 12's to USA. I enjoyed the rough weather race in Perth probably more that any other race except '83.
But I think using boats representative of the highest level of sailing technology should be used for the Cup-right now thats probably multihulls. But it won't be long before a monofoiler sails right past a "foil assist" multi-and then thats the boat that should be used. And I hope whatever boat is used is big, spectacular-and fast!
PS-both boats in the last race used engines while racing....

[Chris Ostlind]

...Speed DOES count 100% for every major ocean sailing record.



Speed does not count for 100% of every major ocean record. Never has and never will.

Behind every fast boat is the need to contain all the incredible loadings and transmit the drive from the sails into motion through the water. Put that foiling speedster, L'Hydroptere, out on the same course that was used by any of the recent Jules Verne boats and you'll quickly see that speed is not the 100% answer. The fragile Hydrop will blow itself apart in short order because it is not made to go that fast in the toughest of conditions.

Very simply stated, speed is a direct result of design structure. Without the engineered structure, there will be no speed.

Now, I know you don't like hearing that Douglas, but it's an inescapable truth. When you do get your priorities in order as to how all this works, you might be able to line yourself up in a bombastic fashion. Until then, I would suggest that you have seriously missed the mark and need to do some homework.

[bistros]

===============
Lighten up CT!!! Oldsailor said: "All the major ocean sailing records are now held by Multihulls."And you go off on one of your "hate" lectures. Absolutely crazy....
Speed DOES count 100% for every major ocean sailing record. Quit jumping on people when you don't understand what they said-or when you choose to ignore what they said!
And by the way: fast boats are MUCH MORE POPULAR when trying to set speed records! Fast boats are much more popular with the sailing press BECAUSE THEY GENERATE EXCITEMENT.

Actually Doug, records are set by the boat that covers the required distance in the shortest time period.

How you get there, and what was the highest speed attained isn't as important. Often on the drag strip cars can reach amazing speeds but they are beaten over the quarter mile by competition that get there first. Frequently the elapsed time is lower for cars that pass the traps at lower speeds than their opposition. High peak speeds do not automatically translate into lower elapsed times.

What matters is who wins, not who went faster.

The sailing press and fanatics like you are not the people we need to get excited. That's preaching to the choir. Why does stock car racing have a much larger following than Formula One? Because many more people in the seats can see themselves in the driver's seat of a car that has the same name. There is an easy connection between the enthusiastic crowd and the sport.

Although most of us here are fascinated with a level of detail and technology far deeper than the average beer can club racer, there is one hell of a lot more beer can club racers than there are Boat Design members. And that fact is very important to understanding what type of event will attract more viewers, sponsors, advertisers and sports fans.

You have a very defined opinion that you believe to be the one true path - but your obvious truth is not for everyone. Recognize that and you will be far along the path to understanding why people argue with you.

--
Bill

[dskira]

What matters is who wins, not who went faster.


This is so true.
The forgoten factor will say someone :D
Daniel

[troy2000]

---------------------
Troy, I watched the last race and enjoyed the pure spectacle of such incredble boats just flying around the course-and I've watched almost every AC since they were televised and enjoyed most of them for the sheer beauty of the boats from 12's to USA. I enjoyed the rough weather race in Perth probably more that any other race except '83.
But I think using boats representative of the highest level of sailing technology should be used for the Cup-right now thats probably multihulls. But it won't be long before a monofoiler sails right past a "foil assist" multi-and then thats the boat that should be used. And I hope whatever boat is used is big, spectacular-and fast!
PS-both boats in the last race used engines while racing....

Really? It looked to me like they were sailing, not motoring. They weren't using engines for propulsion.

[wet feet]

Why does stock car racing have a much larger following than Formula One?
:D
With the exception of one country,sandwiched by Mexico and Canada,this is a nonsensical assertion.It may have an AC parallel though because one type of motor racing uses neolithic technology,no longer even available in most showrooms and one pushes the technological boundaries.I would suggest that dragging tons of ballast around the ocean is about as modern in concept as using a carburetted pushrod engine to transmit power to a solid axle on a racing circuit.I would include on deck ballast and powered ballast adjusting systems in this description.I would hope that any new class allows some freedom to innovate and that the boats will be required to sail without the use of powered systems to adjust the trim of the sails or hulls.I would also hope they retain the requirement that the boats be left unshrouded and in view during the event.

[Doug Lord]

Really? It looked to me like they were sailing, not motoring. They weren't using engines for propulsion.
====
I wasn't knocking them for using the engines-but a whole lot of people do. I think it is part and parcel of modern high performance sailboat design....

[Chris Ostlind]

So snicketty, Wet, my boy.

Beyond the issues involved, I would be willing to bet that if you have any competitive sense as a driver, you'd give your left nut to get behind the wheel of a full-tilt NASCAR machine and do some hot laps. Who wouldn't when the car weighs-in the same as a Toyota Camry and runs a whopping 850 hp at right around 10,000 rpm?

Me thinks you are chasing the wrong muse if you are passionate about cars at all. F1, Rally, Dakar, Indy, NASCAR... they all have their place and they are all different.

As for popularity and attendance, it would probably come as no big surprise that the FIFA World Cup is the biggest draw of them all and they have the very bad sense to run around on their absoutely Neolithic legs and feet. Good God, what has sport come to, anyway?

[Gary Baigent]

I know we're not talking about the joy of sailing here, far from it - but L.Francis said words to the effect that, "the real pleasure of sailing is related to the speed in which the boat sails" - and I don't give a rat's fart what wacko theories abound trying to deny that, also if you're talking about spectators, they want speed .... and you all know that, so stop spinning a load of old bull defecation, I mean you CT especially..

[gggGuest]

and you all know that, so stop spinning a load of old bull defecation, I mean you CT especially..

It could be argued that's why sailing doesn't get much of an audience, because there are few sports worse at providing speed...

This speed thing is a popular theory, but it just doesn't stand up to any serious examination. For example the popularity of fast boats has collapsed in the UK in the last 15 years to the extent that the Olympic 49er is, I think, the only high performance trapeze boat any of them sell. By and large all the performance classes have been junked from their ranges in favour of slow heavy rotomoulds...

When I helped start off a generation of talented youngsters at my club in 29ers a few years ago I thought I'd be seeing a new and more numerous generation sailing the kinds of boats I love, but instead they are mostly now sailing boats that are far slower than the 29ers... "Yes, but the racing is better" seems to be the answer from those I've broached the subject with.

The number of folk sailing fastish boats at my club is the lowest I think its been for the last twenty years... The only thing I can say for sure about high performance boats from my years sailing them and administering classes is that the number of people who will buy one are outnumbered about twenty-five to one by the people who say they'd love one, but when it comes down to it find an excuse to buy a Laser instead. There's nothing wrong with buying a Laser of course if that's what you want, but its galling if you're promoting something else and you've been listening to all the talk.

Tell me Mr Baigent - what boats do *you* own?

[oldsailor7]

CRUMBS----I really did open a can of Worms, didn't I. :o

[ancient kayaker]

Actually, what counts in a race is who wins. It's as true for a foot race as it is for an F1 or a plane race. Speed is relative, and relatively unimportant.

In a race where the speeds are somewhat reproducible like a foot race the breaking of a record is of interest, but there's no such thing as a record for the AC: different boats, different rules, different venue, different conditions.

Few people remember the speed at which a race was won, unless it is a historic event like the 4 minute mile, but they remember who won.

In an outright speed record attempt it is indeed the speed that counts. Record attempts are rather boring events that usually don't attract a lot of spectators, just a news item usually forgotten the next day. People remember the new speed record as well as who set it, but not for long.

People remember a race if one of their own is participating or won, if it is a sport they follow, or if it is exciting. The AC attracts about as large a TV audience as frog jumping so it's got a ways to go. Problem is, even the competitors don't give a cuss about audience size.

[oldsailor7]

Most of the people I know, who aren't sailors, regard yacht racing to be as interesting as watching grass grow.

However in Europe there are masses of people watching the Formular 40 races.
WHY?? Because they are fast and furious.

[Gary Baigent]

Mr.gggGuest, we're not talking about encouraging young people to sail, (completely different scene) the Americas Cup is the topic, and the new/old dinosaurs they're encouraging, which IMO is a retrograde step after seeing the astonishing developments from BMW-O and Alinghi in the last AC. Aside from the flat earthers here, many would like to see a similar, less expensive boat type for the next AC.
I sail self designed and built foil trimarans, 6x6 and 11x11metres.

[Chris Ostlind]

...However in Europe there are masses of people watching the Formula 40 races.

WHY?? Because they are fast and furious.




And typically, right near the shore, quay, etc. where the action can be seen and heard up close. Lest we leave out the sound factors that excite the human senses.

Ever watch an F1 race on TV with the sound turned off. Can anyone say animated wallpaper?

[dskira]

===============
Lighten up CT!!! Oldsailor said: "All the major ocean sailing records are now held by Multihulls."And you go off on one of your "hate" lectures. Absolutely crazy....
Speed DOES count 100% for every major ocean sailing record. Quit jumping on people when you don't understand what they said-or when you choose to ignore what they said!
And by the way: fast boats are MUCH MORE POPULAR when trying to set speed records! Fast boats are much more popular with the sailing press BECAUSE THEY GENERATE EXCITEMENT.

At LEAST yOur POSt GenraTe eXciteMENt

dAnieL

[Doug Lord]

At LEAST yOur POSt GenraTe eXcitMENt

dAnieL

===================
I sure hope so, thanks!

[Paul B]

the Americas Cup is the topic, and the new/old dinosaurs they're encouraging, which IMO is a retrograde step after seeing the astonishing developments from BMW-O and Alinghi in the last AC. Aside from the flat earthers here, many would like to see a similar, less expensive boat type for the next AC.


Gary, we're not all flat earthers here. I've sailed just about everything, and I like going fast.

But as you point out we are talking AC here. Match Racing. The last event had no entertaining match racing tactics at all. The USA team did some practice in Reynolds 33 cats to see what they could do with match racing tactics. The result wasn't very good.

In fact, the cross in the last race would have been a great opportunity for a lee bow, but that type of boat could not perform that well-respected match race tactic even though they could cross by 2 BL. Not to mention an attempt at a dial up resulted in a boat caught in irons for minutes.

With all the talk about speed, the fact is the boats this time were covering about the same number of boatlengths in the same period of time as the last monohull AC boats did. The multis were slightly faster (BL/Time) if you do the math, but not significantly, and it sure didn't translate on the video screen.

I'll bet if you showed this footage to non-sailors, then showed them footage from 12s in Perth, the non-sailor would bet the 12s were going faster.

[Paul B]

However in Europe there are masses of people watching the Formular 40 races.
WHY?? Because they are fast and furious.

Is that the reason? I'll bet when the Laser Slalom used to take place off StFYC in the 70s/80s there were as many people watching as currently watch F40s. Was that because Lasers are so fast and furious?

[Paul B]

Ever watch an F1 race on TV with the sound turned off. Can anyone say animated wallpaper?

Be fair. The start through the first corner can be worth watching.

[Chris Ostlind]

Is that the reason? I'll bet when the Laser Slalom used to take place off StFYC in the 70s/80s there were as many people watching as currently watch F40s. Was that because Lasers are so fast and furious?


I'd be willing to bet that a fresh shipment of Ganga had just blown into town and the locals were just groovin' on the scene, man. It's easy to get hung-up at the shore, man, when there's fresh weed in the air. ;-)

Truth is... who knows why the San Franner's would come out in numbers for that bit of the trade. There might have been some friendly wagers and there might have been some friendly smack talk to settle. Then, once there are more than ten, the rest of the crowd could have simply been Looky-Loo addicts, expecting it to turn out badly and bloody. It is California, after all. The state where nobody seems to have a real life...

[CT 249]

There is no real correlation between the pure speed of an event and the spectators it attracts.

As an example, look at one of the biggest spectator shows of all, the Olympics. The IOC broadcasting report for the Beijing Games shows that the most-watched sporting moment in the USA was Phelps' 8th gold medal, where he swam at about 3.5 knots. In Japan, it was the women's marathon, probably raced at about 11 knots. In Germany, women's soccer, where players run at about 17km/h, as a rough average. In Brazil, it was beach volleyball; Italy, men's handball. Africa, soccer. All those sports are much slower than (say) the cycling, so people DID NOT prefer the fastest sports.

There's a breakdown for the Winter Olympics viewer figures. Top sport was figure skating (155,000 viewer hours) followed by snowboarding and nordic combined (113,000 abnd 97,000 respectively. The fastest sports (luge, bobsleigh and skeleton) all recorded 25-27,000 viewer hours, which put them at the bottom of the list. The fastest form of skating was much less popular than the slowest form.

So once again, there is NO preference to faster sports.

Details of the world's most-watch sport event are hard to find, but the Tour de France is always up there and it's run at an average speed of about 40 km/h.

So the facts do NOT show that there is a correlation between speed and viewers. The simple fact is that vastly more people in the home of the AC watched a man swim at about 3 knots than watched any fast-boat racing.

[CT 249]

Gary, why does it so offend you when I put up a post that simply asks for mutual respect for the choices we sailors make and for the preferences we have? Your boats are fantastic even if they may not be (as far as I understand, forgive me if I am wrong) as quick as some others. Why not apply the same to other craft?

I'm in a development class that gets verified GPS speeds of 32+ knots just among the local crowd, which isn't bad for something smaller than a Laser. It's also newer than multis (foilborne or seahugging), but we don't go around calling your wonderful boats "dinosaurs" or suggesting that foiler tri owners are stuck in the mud. Why can't such respect go both ways?

If pure speed is what matters, why aren't you sailing a kite or a board? If pure speed is what matters, why are Lasers or Sunbursts so popular? And please, let's not just insult all Laser and Sunburst sailors. Many sailors from fast boatws enjoy slow boats, just like Cam Lewis loves his North Haven Dinghy (the oldest OD dinghy in the world that still has its original design) despite sailing G Class cats.

Unless you believe that you are smarter than all the sailors of slow boats, surely you must agree that there are those who find them more fun to sail. Personally, I find my speed boards are as boring as batshit after a short while, and that a Laser has more sensation of speed. That's strictly my own taste and it's great that others differ, but bizarre that some will insult anyonke who is not just like them. I'd have thought that a creative person of your repute would have been able to understand that we can all have different tastes and find different delights, rahter than want to see us all straight-jacketed into one speed-worshipping monoculture.


Doug, the relevance about the oceanic and speed records was that a type of craft does not become "gross" or "a dinosaur" just because a different type owns the speed records.

Whether or not a type holds a record is not what makes a type worthwhile and wonderful. Inshore multis were fantastic boats when boards held the speed record, and in exactly the same way monos are fantastic boats when multis hold the speed record. It's really not a difficult concept.

We were throwing around the idea of getting another Tornado the other day at home, but at the moment it doesn't suit our personal needs and tastes. A mono suits us better at the moment. Many other people are in comparable positions where they are NOT biased but just find that monos suit them better - so why call such craft "dinosaurs" and "gross"?

Multis are wonderful, but the way that some of their proponents insult and belittle the craft of those who dare to have different taste is depressing. The funny thing is that it's the multi people who should surely be rejoicing in the fact that we are all free to like different things, instead of expecting everyone to march to just one drumbeat.

The funny thing is that some multihullers complained for years that they were kept out of some races. Now that multis are welcome at some major clubs, the mono majority and their craft are treated with disdain and insults. That hardly seems to be the way to reward fellow club members for allowing you to race.

If you don't like people "being jumped on", Doug, then why not encourage people not to jump on the type of craft that others prefer?

[oldsailor7]

CT. You are going off on a rant again. A behavioural trait you have demonstrated before on the SA forums. :eek:

Neither Doug nor I were commenting on ALL monohull sailboats. Just on the AC monohull dinosaurs

I repeat what I said before, where the AC is concerned the ballasted monohull is an outdated 19th century technology which has reached its point of diminishing returns. Engine powered canting keels etc: are the last effort to squeeze the final drop out of the lemon.

We are not talking about ultimate speed here. Rather we are talking about Efficiency. It's not very efficient to drag around a horrible lump of ballast just to prevent a boat from falling over. The Pacific peoples realised this 1000 years ago and sailed their 100ft twin canoes all over the Pacific Ocean.

Unfortunately Luddites like you can't accept that today, in ALL areas and conditions of ocean sailing----- MULTIHULLS RULE. :D

[CT 249]

I get passionate (or rant as you call it) because I love the sport, like and respect most of its followers, and fail to see why insulting them and their craft is worthwhile. BTW, your post spoke of "the superiority of Multihulls in racing", not just in AC racing.


In addition, I get agitated because the failure to respect others may well be holding back the development and acceptance of multis and the sport in general.
People like John Partridge, who got multis into what is (I believe) your local club, went out and worked hard for the multihull cause. Why harm the acceptance of multis merely to sling insults around, especially when some are aimed at someone who has spent several years sailing cats and newer forms of craft and therefore is hardly a luddite?

As regards efficiency v speed; surely the efficiency of a sailboat built for pleasure is the amount of pleasure that it generates, and that does not depend on pure speed.

What this does show, once again, is that BDF is not a place for respectful and informed discussion of sailing craft, but an arena (for some) to insult those who dare to have different tastes in pleasure, and their boats. That's quite sad.

[ancient kayaker]

Now I am going to stick MY neck out.

The recent spectacle of a giant Catamaran racing against a giant Trimaran in the AC makes me shudder at the prospect of throwing back to those gross monohull sinkers.
Please don't resurrect the age of the Dinosaurs. :eek:

oldsailor: if you aren't in favor of resurrection then why did you resurrect this hoary old thread? The problem with this thread is, it is no longer relevant and never had much of a point in the first case. Just how many AC threads do we need anyway?

CT. You are going off on a rant again. A behavioural trait you have demonstrated before on the SA forums. :eek:
... MULTIHULLS RULE. :D

Dind't read like a rant to me, just a reasonable request for courteous discussion. Your's is the rant.

Multihulls rule. Foilers rule. boarders rule. Monos are dinosaurs :rolleyes:

Folks, can you just give it a rest with the testosterone-driven claims of world supremacy please? The dinosaurs ruled the world for millions of years and were far more interesting than the shrunken remnants of nature that slink around the tame jungles these days. I would love to see live dinosaurs, not from too close up though :) and if the great boats of yesteryear were re-created and raced they would probably attract a great deal of interest; next time the tall ships visit your neck of the woods make a note of the turnout.

[oldsailor7]

I'm happy to let it rest.

Perhaps we should talk about the S-H.

A bit off topic here Terry, but I had my car buried in a snowdrift one winter at Alliston. I learned to sail on Lake Wilcox, on a Sailfish. I went on to sail monos for two years on Lake Simco, before I turned to the dark side and built sailed and raced my first Trimaran. :D

[Gary Baigent]

CT, I understand your point about my rude bluntness but your analogies are suspect: the top swimmers are swimming faster than any other human being - that's very impressive, same for the top sailors in any class of boat you can think of, top speed and top skills in their class. I have absolutely no argument with that - but we WERE (I'll not comment again) talking about the retrograde (IMO) swinging back to old fashioned lead carriers for the AC, nothing else. By your own analogies these designs are not quick - and a number of us have become impatient with the repetitive ramming down our throats of returning to tight match racing etc. etc in mediocre performing boats - seems oxymoron-like after seeing BMW-O.

[sorenfdk]

However in Europe there are masses of people watching the Formular 40 races.

And where in Europe might that be?

[ancient kayaker]

Maybe we should have a poll to decide between ourselves at least, what the AC is all about. I seem to have a consistent theme in my own postings here and elsewhere that it is a form of entertainment that should aim at attracting larger audiences as well as the competitive aspects. Others, I suspect see only the part it can play in advancing technology with the true test played out with full exposure to the might of the ocean far from land. There is always a group that want to convert it into a sailing class so it can promote improvement within the restrictions of consistent rules. Certainly, we will all agree that it does not belong in a courtroom with a judge of all people attempting to decide policy; if that progresses further we'll end up with it in the hands of the UN! I hope we can all agree on one thing, it is unique and should stay unique. We already have the Volvo and any number of class boats with more or less restrictions IMHO, so in what direction should the future of the AC be steered?

My poll suggestions are:

1: it's theater; lets aim for big TV audiences with rules intended to make its development, testing and races highly visible
2: It's the purest form of sailing, no rules, go for speed in delicate and pampered sailing monsters
3: it's all about man and machine against the elements; you must race "on the day, at the time" no matter the weather so design for that
4: Lets set class rules, reduce the costs to get many entries, maybe set up a round-robin eliminator and playoffs like hockey

Indicate your interest in a poll and suggest more options if you are interested in pursuing this further.

[bistros]

My poll suggestions are:

1: it's theater; lets aim for big TV audiences with rules intended to make its development, testing and races highly visible
2: It's the purest form of sailing, no rules, go for speed in delicate and pampered sailing monsters
3: it's all about man and machine against the elements; you must race "on the day, at the time" no matter the weather so design for that
4: Lets set class rules, reduce the costs to get many entries, maybe set up a round-robin eliminator and playoffs like hockey

Indicate your interest in a poll and suggest more options if you are interested in pursuing this further.

Terry:

Your career history of pragmatic discovery of what people REALLY want is rearing it's head here. Problem is, there is no one client and consensus will never be reached. Fanatics on all of the hundred faces of this debate aren't willing to compromise their views, therefore we will end up exactly where we start, just with less hair remaining.

Personally, I'm for walking away from the discussion. Like you I enjoy rational debate and discussion, but I need to see the possibility of a compromise and resolution to make the effort worthwhile.

I'm more concerned with more people having fun in boats - new people, young and old. Cost-no-object technology spending wars and millionaire ego fights interest me not at all.

One man's view.

--
Bill

[dskira]

My poll suggestions are:

1: it's theater; lets aim for big TV audiences with rules intended to make its development, testing and races highly visible
2: It's the purest form of sailing, no rules, go for speed in delicate and pampered sailing monsters
3: it's all about man and machine against the elements; you must race "on the day, at the time" no matter the weather so design for that
4: Lets set class rules, reduce the costs to get many entries, maybe set up a round-robin eliminator and playoffs like hockey

Indicate your interest in a poll and suggest more options if you are interested in pursuing this further.

I thick it is a fun idea.
3-I find it the best
5-Reestablish the county rule
6-Every winner should have a complete physiological examine and a follow up to cure the "malignant ego"
7-Sponsor prohibited, can provide only booze, parties and girls
8-Inventing a yacht club in Valencia is not authorize
9-To boost the TV audience, "American Idol" can be held on deck of each boat during the race.
10-Everyone who is sleeping watching the race on TV should be awarded a "Serta" mattress

Just kidding. I am not making fun at your idea, I am just mocking the AC as it is right now.
I think your poll is valuable between us and please start a thread with it.
It will be interresting to see the result.
Daniel

[Gary Baigent]

I'm for 2, Terry - but with a 22 knot true wind speed limit - also agree with 1 (they both belong together) - not interested in one designs - we already have ocean racing - AC should be the apotheosis of yacht design development and sailing skills. Will anyone listen to me? - pigs arse. That's the thing about blog forums, comments have a half life of 2.5 minutes maximum, only historian cranks (include myself) will wade through all this (fascinating) stuff.

[jwboatdesigns]

One of the things that has not surfaced in this discussion other than a very brief mention, is that the Americas Cup is about match racing, and big heavy boats with lots of ballast and momentum make for hugely interesting pre start maneuvers, the slow acelleration that makes tacking too often costly so tactics and planning are very important, the relatively limited top speed is not so much of an issue for the average non technically minded spectator, as long as they are big enough a quick enough to be impressive, its the racing that grabs them and when you get 70 footers still within seconds of each other after a couple of hours, thats what keeps the punters glued to the sets.
Being a techo minded type myself, I'd love to see more innovation and sheer speed, but suspect that it would not sell the event at all.
Thats sadly why in car racing Nascar gets more spectators than Formula one. ( Go McLaren!)
But how about a 35 m long shunting proa with a massive wing sail, hydrofoils and a four line kite of about 150 sq m flown on 200m long lines for downwind and reaching. Could be done, 50 knots anyone?
But not for match racing.

John Welsford

[Doug Lord]

But not for match racing.

John Welsford
=================
You know, match racing is NOT the "idea" behind the Cup-its relatively new and only rarely provides real excitement. I've watched almost every Cup ever televised and the last race was exciting to me. If the rule used in the last race was continued the racing would get closer and closer.
Plenty of speed and tough conditions make a pretty -and exciting- picture.

EDIT-4/19/10 :This may be wrong-I found this quote: "The first match race in the America's Cup occurred in 1870 between the U.S. defender Magic and the English challenger Cambria . Since then every race in the 29 events which have followed, as well as all of the defender and challenger trial races, have been match races."
http://www.sailing.org/sailors/856.php

[ancient kayaker]

Consistent rules maintained over a reasonable period of time should allow evolutionary development to take place, and might to lead to closer results and perhaps a resumption of public interest and understanding. A set of consistent rules would at least define what the AC is all about other than being a kind of rich man's club.

I reiterate my opinion that public interest is something that should be encouraged. Without public interest the AC is a matter between obscenely rich private individuals who should be free to do whatever they wish without interference or comment from the great unwashed.

[Paul B]

=================
You know, match racing is NOT the "idea" behind the Cup-its relatively new and only rarely provides real excitement.

The AC not about match racing? Match racing "new" to the cup?

America won the hardware in a fleet regatta.

The first defense almost 20 years later was a fleet event (1870).

EVERY contest since has been a match race.


The DOG multihulls are not well suited to match racing.

[bistros]

=================
You know, match racing is NOT the "idea" behind the Cup-its relatively new and only rarely provides real excitement. I've watched almost every Cup ever televised and the last race was exciting to me. If the rule used in the last race was continued the racing would get closer and closer.
Plenty of speed and tough conditions make a pretty -and exciting- picture.

The "idea" behind the Cup changes with each new winner - as each new winner has a great degree of latitude in which they can interpret the boats sailed and the venue. Generally, each winner tailors the next contest to their own strengths, budgets and motivations.

This ever-changing "idea" is probably a good thing, as the series can evolve to fit the times and technologies. Without this ongoing evolution the contest would lose relevance quickly.

Each spectator as well had their own interpretation of what is exciting. What turns your crank Doug may not have the same effect on the next guy. You have a habit of projecting your own personal "desire" as one everyone agrees with.

It really depends on whether you want to see a contest of boats, or a contest of sailors. Match racing optimizes a contest of sailors. Contests of boats favor radical spending, radical rules bending and often unbalanced results.

I expect the "idea" of the Cup is changing quite radically from the recent contest, as Mr. Ellison probably needs to ratchet down the spending from pre-bubble Oracle levels to the new economic realities of the world today. I think he's gained some confidence in his ability to field a winning team of sailors as well, which may steer the contest more towards match racing than the last one.

Personally, I'd rather that the contest be much more financially accessible, and if people feel the need to spend more it be allocated to bringing more people to the sport.

--
Bill

[Paul B]

The "idea" behind the Cup changes with each new winner - as each new winner has a great degree of latitude in which they can interpret the boats sailed and the venue. Generally, each winner tailors the next contest to their own strengths, budgets and motivations.

Actually, the challenger has control over the type of boat.


It really depends on whether you want to see a contest of boats, or a contest of sailors. Match racing optimizes a contest of sailors. Contests of boats favor radical spending, radical rules bending and often unbalanced results.
Bill

We just has the Congressional Cup in Long Beach. It is the only top level match race event in North America. It uses the slowest boats of any in the year-long match racing circuit that travels the world. The sailors prefer these slow boats to every other boat on the circuit, since their slow acceleration and non-planing offwind speeds make the best match racing.

It also makes for great spectating, since the well sailed boats are always close and the trailing boat can attack on the runs.

The nature of the DOG multihulls precludes any ability for the trailing boat to attack after rounding the windward mark. The IACC designs also had this problem to some extent.

[Doug Lord]

"Match race sailing, as opposed to fleet racing, started evolving with the America's Cup races, whose foundation was layed 144 years ago, and which have been growing steadily since. The first match race to be sailed in one-design i.e. technically identical boats, was the Omega Gold Cup in Bermuda, that was first sailed in 1937 and is currently marking its 56th anniversary. The skipper who won it was Briggs Cunningham, who was also the one to win the first America's Cup in 12-metre boats."

http://www.sailing.org/sailors/854.php

=======================
EDIT: 4/19/10 See post 52 and post 69

[tspeer]

Actually, the challenger has control over the type of boat....
No, the challenger does not control the type of boat, as Michael Fay discovered in 1988. The challenger may propose the type of boat, but whether or not the defender meets it with the same type is up to mutual consent. That issue was settled by the Mercury Bay decision.

The nature of the DOG multihulls precludes any ability for the trailing boat to attack after rounding the windward mark. The IACC designs also had this problem to some extent.

I disagree. The notion that multihulls make it impossible for the trailing boat is exactly backwards. The speed of a multihull is very dependent on wind pressure. A gust can easily allow a trailing multihull to gain a lot of ground on the leader. Bot races saw differences of 600 m - 800 m overcome by the trailing boat. You can hardly say the trailing boat had no opportunity to attack.

Say Alinghi 5 had done a better job of judging the layline in race 2 and tacked earlier. They would have rounded the windward mark first. USA 17 gained 100 m per minute (for over 15 minutes!) on the reach, and there would definitely have been a lead change after the windward mark.

There were several lead changes in the 33rd AC. In race 1, USA 17 lost the start by 800 m, and there was a lead change just over 15 minutes into the windward leg. In race 2, USA 17 won the start, but A5 took the lead by virtue of being on the right side of the course for a wind shift. Then there was another lead change just below the windward mark, for two lead changes in the same leg.

In both races, classic match racing tactics were used - the dial-up in race 1's start, and the timing of USA 17's tack that drove A5 to over-stand the layline in order to avoid tacking in front of USA 17. USA tacked to cover A5 shortly after the start in race 2, minimizing the leverage between them instead of each boat sailing their race separately as had been speculated before the regatta. Judging the wind and picking the right side of the course mattered. Sailing ability and setting up the boat for the conditions mattered - as evidenced by the difference in Alinghi 5's upwind performance between race 1 and race 2.

Bottom line is we saw multiple lead changes and classic match-racing tactics in a 2-race regatta where one boat was 10% - 20% faster than the other boat. With 12 meters or IACC boats, if you had one boat that was 1% - 2% faster, you might not expect any lead changes at all. And these were the first times these boats had raced against any other boat at all! USA 17 hadn't even sailed a complete practice race before race 1. If you gave each boat a sparring partner for a couple months before the regatta, I'll bet the racing would have been even closer and more tactical.

If multihulls were designed to a more restricted rule, there wouldn't be as much difference in the speed potential of the boats. But their ability to achieve large differences in speed by playing the puffs would mean a boat is never out of contention unless it's a total horizon job. That would make for more interesting racing, not less.

[Gary Baigent]

First class analysis, Tom - and hopefully it will put to rest the ad nauseum repetition emanating from the ponderous heavy brigade about multis being not ..... blah, blah etc. etc. If anything, multihulls will be light years superior for exciting match racing once, as you say, boats are of similar platform, and training. And the public are going to be more interested in lead changes at high speed - rather than (how riveting) two overweight porkers poking occasionally past each other - and very occasionally at that, usually it is following the leader .... marvelous paint dry viewing?

[CT 249]

"Match race sailing, as opposed to fleet racing, started evolving with the America's Cup races, whose foundation was layed 144 years ago, and which have been growing steadily since. The first match race to be sailed in one-design i.e. technically identical boats, was the Omega Gold Cup in Bermuda, that was first sailed in 1937 and is currently marking its 56th anniversary. The skipper who won it was Briggs Cunningham, who was also the one to win the first America's Cup in 12-metre boats."

http://www.sailing.org/sailors/854.php


That's incorrect, by a couple of hundred years. It's well known that the first recorded yacht race, the 1 October 1661 event between Katherine and Anne, the yachts of the Duke of York and King Charles II, was a match race. It took place from Greenwich to Gravesend.

In July 1663, William Pepy's first catamaran won a match race. Incidentally, Pepy's cats were supported by the Royal Society and the King.... since cats got such heavyweight supporters early on, and the New Yorkers didn't ban them after Herreshoff re-created the type, we have plenty of evidence that the multi cause was not destroyed simply by conservatism as so often said.

Fleet racing as we know it didn't start until the Cumberland Fleet came along in 1775. Match racing was popular for many years thereafter.

The 5th and 6th races the NYYC itself held were match races, in 1847.

The USA and UK had already had a match race before the AC, in the form f the Pearl v Brenda race in Bermuda in 1849.

Before the race which began the AC took place, America's owners arranged a match with the cutter Alarm (which fell through) and the schooner Titania (which actually took place after the fleet race despite being arranged before it).

The above facts show that match racing was extremely common in the early years of the sport.

[oldsailor7]

Gary said:-"and hopefully it will put to rest the ad nauseum repetition emanating from the ponderous heavy brigade about multis being not ..... blah, blah etc. etc."

Good OnYa Gary. It's a mentality thing.

I vividly remember a colonel blimp type yacht club member saying " Every time I see a multihull I have the urge to beat it to death with a stick".

[Doug Lord]

No, the challenger does not control the type of boat, as Michael Fay discovered in 1988. The challenger may propose the type of boat, but whether or not the defender meets it with the same type is up to mutual consent. That issue was settled by the Mercury Bay decision.



I disagree. The notion that multihulls make it impossible for the trailing boat is exactly backwards. The speed of a multihull is very dependent on wind pressure. A gust can easily allow a trailing multihull to gain a lot of ground on the leader. Bot races saw differences of 600 m - 800 m overcome by the trailing boat. You can hardly say the trailing boat had no opportunity to attack.

Say Alinghi 5 had done a better job of judging the layline in race 2 and tacked earlier. They would have rounded the windward mark first. USA 17 gained 100 m per minute (for over 15 minutes!) on the reach, and there would definitely have been a lead change after the windward mark.

There were several lead changes in the 33rd AC. In race 1, USA 17 lost the start by 800 m, and there was a lead change just over 15 minutes into the windward leg. In race 2, USA 17 won the start, but A5 took the lead by virtue of being on the right side of the course for a wind shift. Then there was another lead change just below the windward mark, for two lead changes in the same leg.

In both races, classic match racing tactics were used - the dial-up in race 1's start, and the timing of USA 17's tack that drove A5 to over-stand the layline in order to avoid tacking in front of USA 17. USA tacked to cover A5 shortly after the start in race 2, minimizing the leverage between them instead of each boat sailing their race separately as had been speculated before the regatta. Judging the wind and picking the right side of the course mattered. Sailing ability and setting up the boat for the conditions mattered - as evidenced by the difference in Alinghi 5's upwind performance between race 1 and race 2.

Bottom line is we saw multiple lead changes and classic match-racing tactics in a 2-race regatta where one boat was 10% - 20% faster than the other boat. With 12 meters or IACC boats, if you had one boat that was 1% - 2% faster, you might not expect any lead changes at all. And these were the first times these boats had raced against any other boat at all! USA 17 hadn't even sailed a complete practice race before race 1. If you gave each boat a sparring partner for a couple months before the regatta, I'll bet the racing would have been even closer and more tactical.

If multihulls were designed to a more restricted rule, there wouldn't be as much difference in the speed potential of the boats. But their ability to achieve large differences in speed by playing the puffs would mean a boat is never out of contention unless it's a total horizon job. That would make for more interesting racing, not less.
============
Thanks for that Tom-the best analysis of the last Cup I've heard yet and an eloquent explanation why the Cup should be in multihulls. Very well done!

[Doug Lord]

That's incorrect, by a couple of hundred years. It's well known that the first recorded yacht race, the 1 October 1661 event between Katherine and Anne, the yachts of the Duke of York and King Charles II, was a match race. It took place from Greenwich to Gravesend.

In July 1663, William Pepy's first catamaran won a match race. Incidentally, Pepy's cats were supported by the Royal Society and the King.... since cats got such heavyweight supporters early on, and the New Yorkers didn't ban them after Herreshoff re-created the type, we have plenty of evidence that the multi cause was not destroyed simply by conservatism as so often said.

Fleet racing as we know it didn't start until the Cumberland Fleet came along in 1775. Match racing was popular for many years thereafter.

The 5th and 6th races the NYYC itself held were match races, in 1847.

The USA and UK had already had a match race before the AC, in the form f the Pearl v Brenda race in Bermuda in 1849.

Before the race which began the AC took place, America's owners arranged a match with the cutter Alarm (which fell through) and the schooner Titania (which actually took place after the fleet race despite being arranged before it).

The above facts show that match racing was extremely common in the early years of the sport.
==================
Sorry CT: you or ISAF-I'll take ISAF on this one-specifically related to the America's Cup.

"FROM THE ISAF:Match race sailing, as opposed to fleet racing, started evolving with the America's Cup races, whose foundation was layed 144 years ago, and which have been growing steadily since. The first match race to be sailed in one-design i.e. technically identical boats, was the Omega Gold Cup in Bermuda, that was first sailed in 1937 and is currently marking its 56th anniversary. The skipper who won it was Briggs Cunningham, who was also the one to win the first America's Cup in 12-metre boats."

http://www.sailing.org/sailors/854.php

[Paul B]

No, the challenger does not control the type of boat, as Michael Fay discovered in 1988. The challenger may propose the type of boat, but whether or not the defender meets it with the same type is up to mutual consent. That issue was settled by the Mercury Bay decision.

You are incorrect. The challenger does control the type of boat used. Mercury Bay challenged with a DOG boat, and were met by a DOG design. The fact that Mercury Bay did not anticipate the scope of the DOG was their downfall. However, they made the challenge with the DOG type and had to be met with the same. The defender was not able to say, "No, we wish to use 12 metres for this regatta."


I disagree. The notion that multihulls make it impossible for the trailing boat is exactly backwards. The speed of a multihull is very dependent on wind pressure. A gust can easily allow a trailing multihull to gain a lot of ground on the leader. Bot races saw differences of 600 m - 800 m overcome by the trailing boat. You can hardly say the trailing boat had no opportunity to attack.

Nice attempt at spin, but you know better. Read what I wrote. The lead boat can blanket the trailing boat upwind in both slow monos and fast multis. However, downwind the speed of these multis pulls the AWA so far forward the lead boat cannot be gassed by the trailing boat. That takes away one of the few weapons the trailing boat has in a match race.

The USA boat was perhaps more than 10% faster than the defender. That is why they gained, not because they had better pressure.


Say Alinghi 5 had done a better job of judging the layline in race 2 and tacked earlier. They would have rounded the windward mark first. USA 17 gained 100 m per minute (for over 15 minutes!) on the reach, and there would definitely have been a lead change after the windward mark.

The layline incident showed exactly why those boats were not well suited to match racing. A5 was more than 2 BL ahead at the cross, but could not lee bow or even tack ahead of the trailing boat. Those boats just can't do the most basic match race tactics.

Yes, there would have been a lead change after the windward mark, but not due to match racing tactics. The trailing boat would not have been able to gas A5. They were simply faster and would have passed due to pure speed.


In both races, classic match racing tactics were used - the dial-up in race 1's start, and the timing of USA 17's tack that drove A5 to over-stand the layline in order to avoid tacking in front of USA 17.

In both races classic match racing tactics failed miserably. If you are driven into irons for minutes by a simple dial up that proves the boat type is not suited to match racing. If you cannot tack on the leebow or in front of your competitior that proves the boat type is not suited to match racing.



I like multihulls, sportboats, TP52s, and all sorts of "fast" boats. That doesn't mean they are good for match racing. This AC was quite similar to what we've seen in the Little America's Cup for the past few decades. High tech weapons that aren't particularly good match racers, where one boat is generally much faster and the races are more of a parade than a tight match race.

[Gary Baigent]

"The USA boat was perhaps more than 10% faster than the defender. That is why they gained, not because they had better pressure." wrote Paul.

On the wind, that is horse crap Paul. Talking about the second race, not the first where the wing without headsail killed an out of balance A5 - but A5 looked actually better than BMW-O on most of that first beat, second race, and was ahead for a long time - how in **** can you say the Beemer was 10% quicker on that beat? There it was staring us in the face, A5 was faster.

[Paul B]

"On the wind, that is horse crap Paul. Talking about the second race, not the first where the wing without headsail killed an out of balance A5 - but A5 looked actually better than BMW-O on most of that first beat, second race, and was ahead for a long time - how in **** can you say the Beemer was 10% quicker on that beat? There it was staring us in the face, A5 was faster.

No, it wasn't.

A5 gained consistently by being on the correct side of a big shift and by getting the puffs first.

Whenever the boats were seeing the same conditions USA was always showing better speed. Watch the beat again.

By the way, in both races the lead distance changed dramatically after the boats tacked and came at one another. Did you notice this? I suspect the math they used to calculate that leader line didn't take the tacking angles into account correctly. I doubt A5 was ever as far ahead as we were led to believe.

Which shows the silliness of "match racing" these boats. They are so separated across the water that it was difficult to even see them both at the same time, let alone have them interact in any way.

[Gary Baigent]

I'll have to look at it again but as I remember it, the Beemer was no faster, in fact was always a little slower most of the time on that long starboard tack - and you can't say that was because of a long, long, continuing shift with pressure happily advancing A5, because that wasn't occurring for that length of time. Rarely did BMW-O outpoint or out speed A5. I noticed this particularly because I was rooting for the tri, but there it was, as I said, in yer face. What do the disappeared A5 minions have to say about that beat? Be interesting to hear their comments. Yes, they did come together fast. I'll look again.

[CT 249]

==================
Sorry CT: you or ISAF-I'll take ISAF on this one-specifically related to the America's Cup.

I'm curious, Doug, about the fact that you'll believe an ISAF press release in favour of established history.

The stuff I posted is established fact, as written about by Howard I Chappelle (curator of transportation in the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of History and Technology at the time); Pepys, a major historical figure; WP Stephen's "History of American Yachting"; Lawson's "History of the America's Cup"; Douglas Phillips-Birt, the New York Times of the 1800s, and (IIRC) Bob Fisher among many others.

The simple undeniable historical fact is that match racing was a major part of the sport of sailing in its early years, well before the America's Cup was created. Furthermore, what we now call "match racing tactics" were very much in use from about the fifth AC challenge. Once again, that is a matter of historical fact.

Tell us, Doug - was Howard I Chappelle lying when he wrote (for the Smithsonian) about Petty's cat match racing in 1663? Were Samuel Pepys (a major and much-studied historical figure) also lying??? Stephens and Lawson too? And the NY Times, and Outing magazine?

Or did ISAF get it wrong when they wrote one press release?

Either we have a tiny and simple error by a PR writer for ISAF, or we have a huge conspiracy, dating from the 1600s, in which major figures in history have been conspiring to pretend that match racing had been around for centuries before the AC.

Which alternative would any reasonable person choose? ISAF got it wrong, Doug. Match racing is an old-established form of sailboat racing and probably the oldest.

[Doug Lord]

I'm curious, Doug, about the fact that you'll believe an ISAF press release in favour of established history.

The stuff I posted is established fact, as written about by Howard I Chappelle (curator of transportation in the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of History and Technology at the time); Pepys, a major historical figure; WP Stephen's "History of American Yachting"; Lawson's "History of the America's Cup"; Douglas Phillips-Birt, the New York Times of the 1800s, and (IIRC) Bob Fisher among many others.

The simple undeniable historical fact is that match racing was a major part of the sport of sailing in its early years, well before the America's Cup was created.

Furthermore, what we now call "match racing tactics" were very much in use from about the fifth AC challenge. Once again, that is a matter of historical fact.
==================
You might say it's a matter of history-my history with your "facts". At any rate, if I were you, I'd straighten that out with the ISAF immediately.


==================
I just found this-I may be wrong:
"The first match race in the America's Cup occurred in 1870 between the U.S. defender Magic and the English challenger Cambria . Since then every race in the 29 events which have followed, as well as all of the defender and challenger trial races, have been match races."
http://www.sailing.org/sailors/856.php

[CT 249]

The point itself is of little significance, Doug. The issue is that once again you have accused someone of manufacturing falsehoods, rather than admit you may have made a (in this case minor and understandable) error. Abusing fellow posters in that way doesn't make this a place where we can reasonably discuss matters.

Information to back my claims has been given before. Further information can be found from sources as diverse as the Royal yacht Squadron's account of the match between America and the famous Robert Stephenson aboard Titania See http://www.rys.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=52

See also the Melbourne (Australian) Argue newspaper of Saturday 3 January 1852, about "the challenge match" between America and Titania.

http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4782559?searchTerm=schooner+Titania+Stephenson+America

Therefore, there is abundant proof, dating over hundreds of years and from sources from Australia to the USA to the UK, that match racing was a major part of the sport in its early days.

Either that or there's been a conspiracy, running from the 1600s and including the Smithsonian, the National Libraty of Australia, Project Gutenberg, the head of the Royal Navy, the Royal Yacht Squadron and numerous papers, magazines, books and authors, which has all been put into place to pretend that match racing was popular....

[Doug Lord]

once again you have accused someone of manufacturing falsehoods, ....

======================
That is 100% false.

[oldsailor7]

This whole thread is beside the point.
Note the date on this announcement.

Breaking News - New America's Cup Class
Thu, 5 Jul 2007 Yachting World - Matthew Sheahan
Comment on this article Details for the next America's Cup have been announced. Matthew Sheahan reports

The next America's Cup will be contested in a new design of America's Cup class boat. The new class will be 90ft LOA, draw 6.5m (21ft 4in) with a lifting keel that will reduce the draft to 4m (13ft 1in) to allow the boats access to ports.

:?: :?: :?: :?:

[CT 249]

From my few experiences, I've been unable to see whether multis are that much better or worse for match racing. In our last season in cats, we spent a lot of time effectively match racing the only serious competition we had in our class. The skipper had been runner-up in the nationals the previous year in another cat class, and second in the A Class worlds in his youth, so he was a fine sailor. When he was behind upwind, it seemed to be easier to keep him in control than if we were both in slower monos, but when one boat made an error the other made gains more quickly than in monos. At a guess, there was more likely to be a big break made in the cats - but that's just a guess.

Downwind, the passing lanes and protection issues seemed to be pretty similar in the cats. Then again, I've never bought the idea that boats you tack downwind are more tactical than those where you go deep; moving out 2 lengths to one side of the run in a tight square-running fleet requires as much skill as picking the shifts at cat or skiff type angles, in my experience.

However, even if monos were better for match racing as we know it (and they may be, IMHO) the multis seem to put more stress on other parts of the sport, and that may not be a bad thing.

Certainly some of the mono ACs were snoozefests, including '87, and some of the LACC matches were pretty good.

[tspeer]

...And the public are going to be more interested in lead changes at high speed - rather than (how riveting) two overweight porkers poking occasionally past each other...

One thing I noticed was when a helicopter is following the boat, it is hard to appreciate the speed. 30 kt looks the same as 10 kt on TV. If the boats are pitching up and down, crashing through waves like they were in Fremantle, that is much more interesting on TV than gliding along on flat water.

And with long lenses on stabilized mounts, the helicopter can get an angle where they can make it look like the boats are bow-to-bow even when they are a couple of kilometers apart.

So the experience of viewing it on TV is not at all the same as the experience of watching it with the naked eye from on the water. Fast boats are not really required to make for good TV, except for the crash-and-burn possibility.

In order to represent a country's sailing prowess, the AC needs to be a combination of technology, design, sailing, and team organization. One-design takes too much of the design aspect out of it, so it needs to be some kind of development class. But it can't be too wide open or the sailing aspect gets de-emphasized. A design rule or a box rule works well.

As for the technology, I think the AC should develop technology that has maximum potential for trickle-down to ordinary race boats. That is what will motivate sponsors to participate in the event. It also makes the public more engaged, because they can see stuff they might be able to use some day.

The wingsail on USA 17 was spectacularly photogenic, but it's a dead end as far as most sailing is concerned. The logistics are just too daunting, and the wing is not remotely suitable for offshore. USA 17's soft rig had some technology that would have been applicable to other classes, but because it was not raced, it's going to take longer for that technology to get disseminated. When a sailmaker develops a tool like North Sail's Membrain program, that technology gets used to design the sails for other classes. Scott Ferguson was supporting a Volvo 70 campaign while he was designing the rig for USA 17 - you can bet there was cross fertilization going on there.

The 12 meter era used boats that were basically high-end club boats. The boats had a life outside of the AC, and many owners could (and did) build boats that could be considered for the defense. The IACC boats were more specialized and targeted just at the AC. If the 12-meter was a club-sailor's boat, the IACC class were corporate boats. Their saving grace was the AC expanded from one regatta once in a blue moon to a much longer campaign with many events, so the IACC boats became another whole segment of the sailing scene, along with round-the-world racers, racer-cruiser yachts, dinghy sailing, etc.

What's needed for the future is basically another corporate boat in order to support the America's Cup industry. If it's a monohull, it needs to be light displacement and capable of planing - a huge sport boat. (Michael Fay's revenge?) Multihulls have definitely matured and become accepted as legitimate club racers. They are destined to become even more popular, so a multihull box rule class would be a way of developing technology that is applicable to a large and growing market.

The boats have to be readily transportable. It's not going to be acceptable to have to charter a whole ship, with the boat hanging over both sides. As corporate boats, the new ACC class will need to travel to venues all over the world to show the sponsor's flag and drum up public support. ACC boat regattas will be a continuing thing, with an intense Cup season every few years, like soccer's World Cup.

[MalSmith]

I think it may be wrong to judge the success, or not, of multihulls as a choice for the AC based on the last series. The major criticism I've heard has been due to the big gap in performace of the cat and the tri. It has to be remebered that it was the first time around for two multihulls. I think that with a clearly defined box rule and a bit of development time over a few series to bring boats closer together in performance, Multihulls could work very well for the AC in terms of spectator interest and technology development.

In his post, Tom Speer raises a good point about technology trickle down effect (relevance to mainstream sailing). I would like to see a multihull rule framed to support that idea. Another point raised is transportability. The rule could be framed to force the boats to be demountable (fit into a defined cargo volume) to reduce costs.

I would very much like to see a well thought out multihull rule for the America's Cup.

[oldsailor7]

Well said MAL. :D

[david@boatsmith]

If the AC was really about match racing even boats then the deed would specify such. The design rule is completely vague. This IMO is definately ar race that fosters development and creativity, where exactly are the edges of the envelope. If pure match racing is waht you want then there are other venues that are more aligned with your desires. Long Beach Yacht Club's Congressional Cup is one that comes to mind. The boats are dogs,with one jib and one 1 1/2 oz chute and no electronics. A very evenly maintained fleet with slow characteristics allowing for slow boring tactical bumper car boat racing. The general public has no interest in watching a boat race like this, even most sailors would fall asleep watching this. David

[Paul B]

If pure match racing is waht you want then there are other venues that are more aligned with your desires. Long Beach Yacht Club's Congressional Cup is one that comes to mind. The boats are dogs,with one jib and one 1 1/2 oz chute and no electronics. A very evenly maintained fleet with slow characteristics allowing for slow boring tactical bumper car boat racing. The general public has no interest in watching a boat race like this, even most sailors would fall asleep watching this. David

I guess you'll have to explain this to the thousands of people who line the end of Belmont Pier every year to watch the Cong Cup.

[oldsailor7]

Then I guess that there are thousands of people who love watching grass grow. :eek: