Americas Cup: whats next?

[Doug Lord]

I think this was a spectacular event-just watching these speed machines sail was a thrill! I think it is remarkable that they were as close as they were given the fact that they each started with a clean sheet of paper. Given another cycle or two racing would be as close as it ever was with leadbellies.
Please Mr. Ellison stay with multies-at least until a monofoiler beats one! Maybe leave the rules just like they are now?
What do you think?

-----------
"USA":
--first trimaran to win an Americas Cup
--first foil assisted* boat of any kind to win an Americas Cup
*foils that provide vertical lift and reduce wetted surface
--First Deed of Gift Challenger to win the Cup
Once again congratulations to BMW/ORACLE -Team USA. And that goes double for Tom Speer whose contributions to this forum are legendary!

[Zed]

It's sport in the same way drag racing is and should appeal to people on the same level IMO. If you don't get sick of the spectacle well then maybe its for you, a couple of races is enough for me!

Designers might find it more interesting than sailors!

[Guest62110524]

It's sport in the same way drag racing is and should appeal to people on the same level IMO. If you don't get sick of the spectacle well then maybe its for you, a couple of races is enough for me!

Designers might find it more interesting than sailors!

sailed since age 13 raced since then, did not watch this event at all,
wot next? who knows, at least Sir Thomas Lipton had some class about him

[jehardiman]

Whatever it is, it will be decided between the GGYC and Mascalzone Latino, or so is reported that Ellison implied that in the press confrence.

PS FWIW, I think it will be monos just based on dock space issues in the bay, unless they buy TI. Alamedia, Hunters Point, and MINSY are all pretty far from the gate.

[Dave Gudeman]

jehardiman, that was pretty cryptic. Can you elaborate? Is there some reason why they couldn't use a marina close to the gate? How much dock space do they need? And what does Texas Instruments (TI) have to do with it?

[Guest62110524]

Whatever it is, it will be decided between the GGYC and Mascalzone Latino, or so is reported that Ellison implied that in the press confrence.

PS FWIW, I think it will be monos just based on dock space issues in the bay, unless they buy TI. Alamedia, Hunters Point, and MINSY are all pretty far from the gate.

oh bugger, you mean this is goin to go back to the moon? like US of A?
God at least the world followed in Eu Jeez when you hop off the bird in US of A you get the fingureprint treatemnt for days
In Eu you flash you passport
Oh God not another decade in the ferkin wilderness please

[sorenfdk]

Designers might find it more interesting than sailors!

Maybe rig designers, but not yacht designers (at least not this one!)
The "racing" was extremely boring!

[jehardiman]

jehardiman, that was pretty cryptic. Can you elaborate? Is there some reason why they couldn't use a marina close to the gate? How much dock space do they need? And what does Texas Instruments (TI) have to do with it?

Sorry, since you are unfamiliar with San Francisco Bay and the GGYC, I will explain.

In order to build a large AC venue, you are going to need a lot of waterfront...fairly cheap...which means old industral area generaly. In downtown San Francisco, just south of the Golden Gate, there just really isn't any place of the size you would need without having to buy out multi-Billion dollar properties. Additionally, until you turn the corner off the Embarcadero, the shoreline is not protected unless you build a jetty. FWIW, I'm not sure you could get USA (US-17) into the GGYC/St Francis YC harbor, the opening is not that big. The Presido is ironbound, the GGYC too small, Fort Mason too exposed to the Gate swell, Taking over Aquatic Park would set everyone screaming, Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 39 are icons as well a being too small. That leaves the old piers 35 -3 down to the bay bridge, which are currently were all the ferries dock. This area is very high cost and hard to develop due to the protests from the property owners on the shore side of the Embarcadero who have the view (these are the same people who got the Freeway torn down after the Loma Prieta earthquake and have fought every attempt at redevelopment). So on the south side of the bay, there is really no open waterfront area large enough for development until you get well south down near old Candlestick Park and old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

On the North side of the bay the coast is either very steep or mud flats. Sausalito harbor is shallow and Tiburon is too small as well as those two areas being some of the most expensive property in the Bay area.

That leaves Treasure Island (TI) which is right square in the middle of the Bay. TI was a man-made island used for the '39 World's Fair. It was taken over by the Navy during WWII and is still controlled by them due to environmental issues. While the Navy is not adverse to development, the public wrangling and arguments have been verbose since the island was opened for development...there are billions of dollers at stake here wether it becomes a public park or an exclusive gated community.

Further from the Gate there is Richmond/Berkley/Oakland shore on the east side of the Bay. This area is characterized by mudflats extending wellout from the shore. Areas you could use are Brickyard Cove (again prime realestate), Emeryville marina (shallow), Berkley marina, (shallow), the old Kaiser Shipyard (narrow channel), and the old Alameda Naval Air Station (where alot of Mythbusters is filmed) on Alameda Island off Oakland.

Finally, way up to the north of the Bay in Vallejo is the old Mare Island Naval Shipyard (MINSY), and way down south beyond SFO is Foster City and Coyote Point. The rest of the Bay is generally shallow with mudflats extedning well away from shore with depths unsuitable for most large vessels.

[Dave Gudeman]

Sorry, since you are unfamiliar with San Francisco Bay and the GGYC, I will explain.Very interesting, thanks. Actually, I am familiar with the SF bay, which is why I was curious. I was thinking of the commercial docks at Pier 39 where the sea lions are, but I didn't realize how much space would be needed. Also there is lots of under-utilized coastline from Pier 39 down to the ballpark, but most of the unused part isn't protected and I wasn't aware of the political issues.

Another political issue would be the SFBCDC, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission which has to approve all development in the Bay. The Commission seems to be all Conservation and no Development.

I didn't think of Treasure Island, though. That's actually an interesting idea and with the ongoing political deadlock that is preventing anything from happening there, something like an Americas Cup might be able to get some leverage.

I assume that the Americas Cup has to be in the open water rather than the Bay, right? That is why you are concerned about the distance from the Gate?

[Doug Lord]

Read: http://americascupview.blogspot.com/2010/02/fastest-americas-cup-ever.html

-----------------------
From Scuttlebutt:

STANDING BY FOR 34th AMERICA'S CUP
The monster multihulls might have taken sailing to another stratosphere off
Valencia, but you can bank on a return to monohulls for the 34th America's
Cup. That was the message from victorious BMW Oracle Racing chief executive
Russell Coutts, who earmarked a return to traditional monohulls, with a boat
able to plane downwind likely to replace the now relatively sluggish Version
5 boats used during the last multi-challenger America's Cup in 2007.

"I think we should reach consensus with the rest of the America's Cup
world," Coutts said. "It would be irresponsible for one party to try and
make a decision on behalf of everyone else. You have to put a lot of thought
into these types of decisions because this is a 159-year-old trophy and we
must look after it."

Team owner Larry Ellison promised an independent organising committee
including an impartial jury and umpires, for the next multi-challenger
event, agreeing it was important that there was a level playing field for
all competitors to bring sponsors and fans back to sailing's pinnacle event.


"We're going to try and make decisions along with the rest of the America's
Cup community to do just that, so we can attract sponsorship and funding for
all of the teams that want to participate, not only BMW Oracle and Alinghi,
but also the Chinese team and the South African team and the Swedish team
and the New Zealand team," Ellison said. "If we do our job well and work
closely with them, it should be the most popular America's Cup, the 34th
America's Cup."

When and where America's Cup 34 is sailed remains a moot point. Newport,
Rhode Island seems the frontrunner among a list of potential host cities
that includes Valencia, San Diego and San Francisco, the home of the Golden
Gate Yacht Club under whose flag Oracle races. A 2013 event looks most
likely too with 2011 too soon and 2012 clashing with the London Olympics. --
Full story:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/3332101/Return-to-monohulls-likely-Coutts

[jehardiman]

Another political issue would be the SFBCDC, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission which has to approve all development in the Bay. The Commission seems to be all Conservation and no Development.



Ah yes, I was not going to mention the BCDC, who in the late '80's declared all sailboats to be trash and fill and therfore under thier direct control...:rolleyes:

I also heard someone mention Lisbon, so it may come down to the city the offers the most, and that most likely will not be SF.

Edit, the the DoG requires an ocean course "free of headlands" so off the south approach would be the obvious choice.

[Doug Lord]

Here are some monohulll ideas various people have come up with that would be fast, very fast-and possibly good AC candidates if designed for that purpose.

Ideas anyone?

feauring Vlad Murnikov,"sailingkid"(dl), Julian Bethwaite, Sean Langman, Guy Whitehouse/Jo Richards, the DSS guys and others:

[RHough]

Edit, the the DoG requires an ocean course "free of headlands" so off the south approach would be the obvious choice.

Not quite correct. That requirement can be changed by mutual consent. It is not cast in stone.

The Cup could be held inside the Bay with the consent of both parties.

R

[Paul B]

The Cup could be held inside the Bay with the consent of both parties.

R

I've done a bit of sailing on the Bay over the years. Due to the tides it can be a very one-sided course, where a boat behind is not going to have any chance to compete. This is especially true in the only area of the bay that is deep enough for the big monohulls.

Things are better down in the Berkeley Circle area, but it is too shallow for the next generation AC monos.

So, maybe it will have to be multis again.

Regardless, they will have to think about shipping lanes. Wouldn't want another "Secret Love" type protest deciding the AC.

[Doug Lord]

Fom Scuttlebutt:

MANY QUESTIONS REMAIN ON CUP FUTURE
(February 15, 2010) - Golden Gate Yacht Club's America's Cup victory was the
culmination of a partnership with software mogul Larry Ellison that began
when Norbert Bajurin was elected commodore of GGYC 10 years ago and was
flabbergasted to learn that the small organization was saddled with debts
totaling $450,000.

That was quickly remedied when GGYC agreed to sponsor software mogul Larry
Elllison's first America's Cup bid, and Ellison enrolled more than 100 of
his BMW-Oracle team members as club members. Ellison also hired Russell
Coutts away from the Alinghi team after Coutts was fired by Swiss
billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli.

Coutts, who has won the America's Cup four times for his home country,
Switzerland and the U.S, said today he had changed his mind about multihulls
and now thinks they might be a good idea for the next cup. "Only a couple of
months ago, I was pretty strong that it should return to a monohull, but the
racing was pretty spectacular, and maybe we should give multihulls
consideration," he said.
Coutts said he also likes the idea of changing the rules to require that a
specified number of the crew be from the country fielding the boat. In this
cup, the only Americans on USA 17 were tactician John Kostecki and Ellison
-- and Bertarelli was the only Swiss national on Alinghi. USA-17's helmsman
was Australian James Spithill, 30, the youngest cup boat driver ever. --
Detroit Free Press, full story: http://tinyurl.com/y8resup

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gavin Brady, skipper of Mascalzone Latino interveiwed about the next cup. They are the new Challenger of Record:
http://valenciasailing.blogspot.com/2010/02/gavin-brady-talks-to-valencia-sailing.html

+++++++++
See this: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/bernard-smith-dies-31524.html

[RHough]

I've done a bit of sailing on the Bay over the years. Due to the tides it can be a very one-sided course, where a boat behind is not going to have any chance to compete. This is especially true in the only area of the bay that is deep enough for the big monohulls.

Things are better down in the Berkeley Circle area, but it is too shallow for the next generation AC monos.

So, maybe it will have to be multis again.

Regardless, they will have to think about shipping lanes. Wouldn't want another "Secret Love" type protest deciding the AC.

I too spent a decade or two sailing in the Bay. I did not mean to imply racing inside the bay would be good. Only that it is not prohibited by the Deed.

As a mental exercise I looked at the City Front area from the viewpoint of a PRO trying to set good courses ... it is a challenge. To be tactically fair each leg has to be skewed for current ... and that is far from a constant.

I came to the conclusion that inside the Bay would be a bad choice for racing but a great choice for entertainment.

R

[Zed]

I came to the conclusion that inside the Bay would be a bad choice for racing but a great choice for entertainment.

Considering the money going into these events and the need for sponsorship the entertainment factor will probably gain precedence.

[Paul B]

I too spent a decade or two sailing in the Bay. I did not mean to imply racing inside the bay would be good. Only that it is not prohibited by the Deed.

As a mental exercise I looked at the City Front area from the viewpoint of a PRO trying to set good courses ... it is a challenge. To be tactically fair each leg has to be skewed for current ... and that is far from a constant.

I came to the conclusion that inside the Bay would be a bad choice for racing but a great choice for entertainment.

R

We did a J24 regatta there once during the max flood of the year. J24s didn't have the pace to even cross the start line.

The plan was to be well above the line with a minute to go and reach (on Starboard tack) toward a spot well above the leeward pin. All the while you were being swept down the bay toward the line. If you timed it right you would dip the line just before the gun, harden up with your pace and round the pin, then crack off and reach toward the slacker water along the shoreline.

No one below you could stop you, because they couldn't get up to the line. If you missed you wouldn't be able to get up to the pin and it would take forever to to get back to a position where you could make it. The fleet was way spread out by the time everyone started. The first boats to hit the slack water were gone.

So in similar circumstances the match racers would work to be first around the pin, and the boat behind would never be able to get in the game at all. It would make for a pretty boring match race.

[RHough]

We did a J24 regatta there once during the max flood of the year. J24s didn't have the pace to even cross the start line.

The plan was to be well above the line with a minute to go and reach (on Starboard tack) toward a spot well above the leeward pin. All the while you were being swept down the bay toward the line. If you timed it right you would dip the line just before the gun, harden up with your pace and round the pin, then crack off and reach toward the slacker water along the shoreline.

No one below you could stop you, because they couldn't get up to the line. If you missed you wouldn't be able to get up to the pin and it would take forever to to get back to a position where you could make it. The fleet was way spread out by the time everyone started. The first boats to hit the slack water were gone.

So in similar circumstances the match racers would work to be first around the pin, and the boat behind would never be able to get in the game at all. It would make for a pretty boring match race.

Ain't that the truth!

I raced in the IOR "B" fleet in the waning years of the rule. The starts of StFYC or GGYC were classic in a flood. 100's of tons of boats going for the line on Starboard, the shore side boat screaming for water, the whole front row tacking to port and sailing out until the port end of the row sailed out of the eddy and got peeled by the flood. Then back to starboard and into the beach to repeat the process.

It was big fun but no way good racing as far as a fair weather leg.

Were you there for the J24 masters where they swamped a boat and the last anyone saw of it was 2 feet of mast riding the ebb out the gate?

How many times did you misjudge the ebb and fight through Raccoon Straights only to come even with a boat that sailed all the way around Angel Island?

Why the hell did they only send us to Southampton when the washing machine off AI was full on and more times than not the fast way was having to gybe in that crap?

Great days and great memories ... but a Cup Venue inside? I don't think so.

R

[jehardiman]

Could you just see it. From a GGYC clubhouse start, up to Blackhaller, out to Harding, down to #2, back up to Blackhaller, down to Blossom, back up to finish...all on a flood tide....That's a course were 25 feet one way or the other on some of the tide lines can be a 5 knot speed difference.

[Paul B]

How many times did you misjudge the ebb and fight through Raccoon Straights only to come even with a boat that sailed all the way around Angel Island?
R

I was on a 50+ foot IMS boat when we hit a standing wave near the end of Raccoon Straights. The tideline built a wall of water probably 4 feet high. Our bow to the mast was completely submerged.

I wonder what would happen if a 90 foot AC Cat would hit that at 22 knots?

[Paul B]

Could you just see it. From a GGYC clubhouse start, up to Blackhaller, out to Harding, down to #2, back up to Blackhaller, down to Blossom, back up to finish...all on a flood tide....That's a course were 25 feet one way or the other on some of the tide lines can be a 5 knot speed difference.

In a big flood one boat width off of the breakwall at the Aquatic Park would send someone backward so quickly it was amazing.

I know they have raced the older AC boats there. Did they sail the City Front?

[jehardiman]

I know they have raced the older AC boats there. Did they sail the City Front?

I know Blackhaller and 'The Geek" sailed the City Front a couple of times, can't recall a race for just the 12's though.

[Paul B]

I know Blackhaller and 'The Geek" sailed the City Front a couple of times, can't recall a race for just the 12's though.

Not 12s, ACC boats.

[jehardiman]

Not 12s, ACC boats.

IACC boats on the City Front? LOL.

[Paul B]

IACC boats on the City Front? LOL.

Some guy in SF bought 2 or 3 of the older generation boats and was match racing them on the bay. Then a few years ago Larry had a couple of his boats there and the four boats were used for some match racing with a bunch of the AC teams participating.

I can only imagine they sailed the City Front, but I don't know for sure.


It seems that Alinghi and BMW-O did a match race with their ACC boats in the bay as well.

http://www.yachtingworld.com/news/412311/acc-boats-prepare-for-moet-cup

[jehardiman]

2003 Moet Cup was in the center between the seperation lanes, but ok, I didn't recall that.

More photos of that...http://www.islander36.org/moetcup/moetcup.html

[peterraymond]

The best AC cup viewing was in Freemantle. There was wind, the boats were bashing through the waves and the crew was working hard. More recently the races have been sailed at venues with lighter winds and that's what the boats were then designed to handle. This time around I think the boats could have handled more, but neither team was too interested in taking a chance and Alinghi wanted the wind to be a light as possible. Too bad for them that the winds were never light and steady at the same time.

If the notice of race specifies the wind range for racing ahead of time and the organizers find someplace with some decent wind, the boats will be designed for that. After all, the VOR boats seem to handle some stout conditions.

I watched the press conferences and I got the impression that Larry E wanted SF and the discussion of other places was maybe just the first shot in his bargaining with the city. I suppose there are limits, but money is going to be a big part of picking the location.

What I really hope happens probably won't. In the bad old days several American teams would compete to face a lone challenger. In the recent challenges there has only been one defender. I think the best would be a defender series, maybe the BMW cup and then the Louis Vuitton series for the challengers. I'm guessing that that is most likely to happen in the USA.

This wouldn't guarantee good cup races, but does provide a little more action leading up to the cup.

I would not want to continue with the current design rules for the next cup. It's supposed to be match racing and for that you need maneuvering. Yes there was some before each start and there were tactics on the windward leg of the second race, but nothing like we have seen in the past. Of course spectators love crashes and these boats could produce some spectacular ones.

Peter Raymond

[Doug Lord]

The best AC cup viewing was in Freemantle. There was wind, the boats were bashing through the waves and the crew was working hard. More recently the races have been sailed at venues with lighter winds and that's what the boats were then designed to handle. This time around I think the boats could have handled more, but neither team was too interested in taking a chance and Alinghi wanted the wind to be a light as possible. Too bad for them that the winds were never light and steady at the same time.

If the notice of race specifies the wind range for racing ahead of time and the organizers find someplace with some decent wind, the boats will be designed for that. After all, the VOR boats seem to handle some stout conditions.

I watched the press conferences and I got the impression that Larry E wanted SF and the discussion of other places was maybe just the first shot in his bargaining with the city. I suppose there are limits, but money is going to be a big part of picking the location.

What I really hope happens probably won't. In the bad old days several American teams would compete to face a lone challenger. In the recent challenges there has only been one defender. I think the best would be a defender series, maybe the BMW cup and then the Louis Vuitton series for the challengers. I'm guessing that that is most likely to happen in the USA.

This wouldn't guarantee good cup races, but does provide a little more action leading up to the cup.

I would not want to continue with the current design rules for the next cup. It's supposed to be match racing and for that you need maneuvering. Yes there was some before each start and there were tactics on the windward leg of the second race, but nothing like we have seen in the past. Of course spectators love crashes and these boats could produce some spectacular ones.

Peter Raymond
=================
Just out of curiosity,where does that come from?

[RHough]

I would not want to continue with the current design rules for the next cup. It's supposed to be match racing and for that you need maneuvering.
Peter Raymond

First the Deed says nothing about match racing.

Second for match racing you need boats of nearly equal ability. Speed and maneuverability both factor.

12's were good match racers
ACC's were good match racers

A race between a 12 and a ACC would NOT be a good match race.

Modern Multi's turn as well as Mono's

If you put a watch on the tacks and gybes USA-17 made you will find they are very nearly as fast as the boats in AC32. If you clock them from 10 knots to 10 knots they are much faster changing direction ... or would be if they ever dropped to 10 knots during a tack.

The AC is first a design contest. The races very rarely produce boats close enough in performance that "match racing" ever plays a part in the outcome.

R

[wet feet]

My understanding is that the description of a match race originated when owners wagered that they believed their boat to be faster than the other fellow's boat.The race was held to determine the accuracy of their belief by means of a match.In this sense the recent event was a return to this usage rather than the more usual contest between two very similar boats seeking to gain an advantage by tactical means.The future of the event should not really lie with the 12 metre type of boat as they were of an outmoded style of boat well before the last regatta they featured in and the requirement to build to Lloyds scantlings was probably a good thing considering the near 80% ballast ratio they tended toward.It would be healthy for any new type to be capable of sailing in 20 knot winds and ideally without requiring the use of an engine to move ballast.

[Zed]

Modern Multi's turn as well as Mono'

Give me a break! Did you watch those things?

[RHough]

Give me a break! Did you watch those things?

Yes I did, and with a stopwatch to time the tacks and gybes. One of the boats was a cow, the other tacks and gybes from speed to speed in about the same time as a ACC V5 boat. The higher speeds make the tack or gyble cover more water, but the times are very good.

You cannot draw conclusions after looking at Alinghi, the boat is a pig.

Boats like the x40's turn very well and match race regularly I'm told.

I'd bet that if you put Ed Baird in one x40 and Jimmy Spithill in another, you would see some match racing **** that would curl your hair.

I'd also wager that no only could the x40 tag a ACC V5 out in a prestart, they can sail better VMG both up and down the course.

What have you been looking at to think that multi's don't turn?

:)

[Gary Baigent]

The dyed in wool (a dirty brown stain) dies hard - and the Mr. Plod-type lead miners feel very threatened at the moment because, lets face it, BMW-O was just outstanding, outstanding, and A5 looked pretty damned good beating too, so it's difficult for them to accept that even a monster like BMW-O tacks fast for her length and they keep repeating ad nauseum the same old flatulence: not enough tacks, slow to tack, need to be one design, need to sail in 35 ks and so on (all an emphasis to show how macho macho the computer chair poster is). However an invitation to sail on one of these monsters would rapidly change all that ... and turn them into gibbering heaps. Definitely there needs to be some changes in AC made (no stinkers) but I like the sound of the new class ... Xtreme 90's ... or maybe 80's, but they have to be big - because that is what Americas Cup has historically been; not RC44's or Melges 32's and the like.

[Chris Ostlind]

Agreed, Gary.

I hear these arguments and I think... What would these dudes say if IDEC and Sodeb'O had been wheeled out to the start as AC boats and they had at it in 35 knots with 6 meter swells? None of the committee boats would be present due to seasickness. TV helicopters wouldn't be flying unless they were Coast Guard rescue helos and all you'd get would be on board video with the decks and tramps awash.

Still, I have a feeling that there'd be something to bitch about even then by the "that's just drag racing" crowd and the "they don't have tacking duels" thumb suckers. It's a tough pill to swallow that all of the monohulls of previously comfy thoughts have now been rendered obsolete in the face of 3 times wind speed UPHILL.

It's a sad day in Leadville. Mighty Mono has struck out.

[peterraymond]

Two assumptions I made were challenged and I have to admit, I was making assumptions.

The first was the requirement for match racing. I think this is what the DOG specifies, that is one boat from each club. Even when the NYYC was twisting the intent of fair competition into a pretzel, I don't think they ever went as far as sailing multiple boats. Although there was one challenge when they at least talked about picking the defender on a race by race basis.

The second was the comment on turning. Tri's are reputed to turn better, but in my limited experience, long skinny hulls are harder to turn. Maybe it's weight dependent as well. That is, a light long boat will still turn well and have rocket acceleration.

I did watch the races and there were, for whatever reason, fewer turns in the prestart. They took basically one go at each other and then started. You could maybe adjust this to work fine though. More space and more time should do it.

I only see two more problems. The first is just that the boats take up a huge amount of space. Where in the world could you park them all? Well, maybe floating docks. Maybe several U-shaped docks that fit one boat each. All the docks would be anchored so that they turn into the wind to keep the wings feathered. An interesting picture, but practical?

Or enclosed floating dry docks. Slide a boat in, close the doors and lift it out of the water. OK, I'm getting a little carried away here.

Cost is the other question. I think 70' multi's overall might be acceptable. In theory, forces scale with drag. Lighter boats have less drag, so require less strength. Engineering costs are independent of size pretty much, but a multi-hull should mean less material cost. On the other hand, the wing was not cheap. I heard it took 150,000 man hours to make it. Is that possible?

Peter Raymond

[Gary Baigent]

Well, there were some (amusing) complaints about the difficulty of keeping up in just 10 knots of wind - and what did BMW-O do upwind, 22 knots at one stage, and 32-33 downwind or was it more? - in 10 or so knots. Holy ****. No wonder that frightens the mice .... and the mice are always complaining in the cathedral. So if a couple of Irens designs were making say 16-18ks to windward in 30 ks wind and sea, the moaning on the leadmine bar would be deafening. Probably call the multihullers anti-semantic. Whoa, that was uncalled for.

[Zed]

The dyed in wool (a dirty brown stain) dies hard - and the Mr. Plod-type lead miners feel very threatened at the moment because, lets face it, BMW-O was just outstanding, outstanding, and A5 looked pretty damned good beating too, so it's difficult for them to accept that even a monster like BMW-O tacks fast for her length and they keep repeating ad nauseum the same old flatulence: not enough tacks, slow to tack, need to be one design, need to sail in 35 ks and so on (all an emphasis to show how macho macho the computer chair poster is). However an invitation to sail on one of these monsters would rapidly change all that ... and turn them into gibbering heaps. Definitely there needs to be some changes in AC made (no stinkers) but I like the sound of the new class ... Xtreme 90's ... or maybe 80's, but they have to be big - because that is what Americas Cup has historically been; not RC44's or Melges 32's and the like.

Pull your head in! I own, sail and race multi's... jeez talk about assume a whole bunch of crap.

[Gary Baigent]

"Pull your head in! I own, sail and race multi's... jeez talk about assume a whole bunch of crap."

Why in fornication do you think my post was aimed at you Zed? Jeez, talk about hyper sensitivity. Well, maybe I had you half in mind - but was just talking generally. And you're wrong about monster multis tacking.

[Zed]

It was a pathetic general spray of a post! Talk about hairy chested BS!

We are talking about big boats that ran from very mild conditions here and put on a sad race... no excitement really, aside from the sheer scale of the things the race's where a yawn. "Gibbering heaps".... LOL... yeah only if the breeze pushed 15 knots and the damn things threatened to break!

Jeez if you want a pro multi race you need to chuck this freak show over board and build a real event!

[Doug Lord]

From "Foilers", posted on SA by "coxcreek" aka Gary Baigent(foiler owner and designer):
"First of all, there were some incredible records established. When I was a kid, the record of VMG to windward was some 10.8 kts (if my memory’s correct) established in 1937 by the (super) J-Class Ranger –and this was deemed an unbeatable maximum! Today, USA did 15 knots, which is unheard of (C-Class cats do between 12 and 13). Then there is this upwind/downwind 40 mille course thrashed in some 2h 30min, at an average of 16kts as the bird fly, and probably 22 kts on the bottom: it doesn’t look much compared to some 24h oceanic runs downwind, but this was done in a 7-kts whisper of a breeze. In other words the boats were constantly sailing at three times the speed of the wind -hard to believe even when you see it.

Beyond these amazing feats, today’s race is a turning point in America’s Cup and in yachting history. The Cup was designed as a design competition, a test of design skills, as it had been during this legendary race of August 22, 1851. Well, such races are condemned now. Spectators may remember that today a trimaran vanquished a catamaran, but this is wrong: hulls and yacht architecture had nothing to do here. What happened today is that a rigid foil triumphed over a soft rig. In the future, the platform design –the very root of the America’s Cup!- will become secondary, a side issue compared to the problems of designing the “engine” (the rig and (the foils). The hull designer, once the star of the show, will be reduced to the rôle of subcontractor (as is already the case in superyacht design)". …
===============

"Well said!" doesn't say enough about those insightful comments!

[ancient kayaker]

... It's a sad day in Leadville. Mighty Mono has struck out.

Don't be so sure, some maniac is probably scaling up a Moth foiler as we write :)

[Guest62110524]

most who post in this thread are or have been racing men
I enjoyed the last Vuitten and subsequent AC, But Nouveau riche and their parasitic lawyers have turned me off, Never watched the races but did admire the engineering of the builds themselves

[Gary Baigent]

Doug, that was Daniel Charles' quote, not mine - posted from Fred Monsonnec's Foilers site. But full agreement with what he says.
Zed, if the racing pissed you off so much, what the fargo truck are you posting here for? Perhaps repetition makes it real.

[Chris Ostlind]

Don't be so sure, some maniac is probably scaling up a Moth foiler as we write :)


I don't doubt that something like that is being scribbled; probably by lots of talented dudes and dudesses in art schools the world over. The trick will be how to make it all work. Haven't seen any signs of that... not even close.

Will it get to the AC someday? Who really knows? The most out there designs to yet make an appearance apparently bother some folks so much that the palpable scent of fear is in the air and its causing outlandish comments by the truckload. ;-)

It looks like the Carny's are running the circus.

[peterraymond]

We appreciate how incredible the performance of these machines was and we really understand what it takes to travel the speeds they do. However, we are not really the target audience. The best show is the contest between two boats fighting each other for every advantage and fighting the waves and the wind for speed.

That show was missing. The boats are rockets, but it was all too calm. Where was the show? A good show is a VOR surfing the Southern Ocean waves looking like a dinghy at 25 knots. A great show is solid water over the foredeck, all while sweating the next crossing and maneuvering for clean air.

Maybe financial success depends on demographics, population centers and product placement. The show and the competition needs speed, but more it needs a challenging venue and hard fought competition you can see happening in front of you.

Yes, this sounds like advertising copy. Give me a minute and I'll calm down.

Peter Raymond

[Guest62110524]

Doug, that was Daniel Charles' quote, not mine - posted from Fred Monsonnec's Foilers site. But full agreement with what he says.
Zed, if the racing pissed you off so much, what the fargo truck are you posting here for? Perhaps repetition makes it real.

oh the answer to that is easy, he is pissed the global crisis thread is kaput, as the crisis has passed? Eh Zed:)

[Zed]

Zed, if the racing pissed you off so much, what the fargo truck are you posting here for? Perhaps repetition makes it real.

Pissed me off? LOL jeezus no. That don't mean I need to pretended that the race was something it wasn't. You are the one that took the general spray and the monohull guys. Jeez if i took a spray at the average multi ***** we could have fun couldn't we?

I do wish that they would fix the AC but given who won.... I doubt that will happen, my prediction is more of the same, but still lets wait and see.

Whoosh...

Over, sorry dude that was about the entre', sadly. Much more poo coming our way and gov is doing its level best to make it worse. If we are lucky things will hold together to around 2012... if not this could be another entertaining year. Anyway... you really don't want to talk about that, have a beer and faggit.

[Guest62110524]

Pissed me off? LOL jeezus no. That don't mean I need to pretended that the race was something is wasn't.

Whoosh...

Over, sorry dude that was about the entre', sadly. Much more poo coming our way and gov is doing its level best to make it worse. If we are lucky things will hold together to around 2012... if not this could be another entertaining year. Anyway... you really don't want to talk about that, have a beer and faggit.

Zakkly what knew you would say, I,m abt ahead now, I am going to wait til June and out

[Leo Lazauskas]

Anyway... you really don't want to talk about that, have a beer and faggit.

I'll just have plain chips with the beer, Zed. But it's your shout so I guess you can choose your own nibbles.

Leo.

[Zed]

JD chaser's...

Gravy on the chips?

You lot do that doncha?

OR , my good man, do you mean crisps?

AC, what now....?

1. Law suit and a new race.
2. Gentleman's agreement on a suitable format.
3. Hell with the boats we will just do this in court!
4. We will all race our boat of choice around a standard course in our own country and virtualize the race on the interweb thingy.
5. All the sailors will have a piss up in Vegas last man standing phones the result in --> cheap, no boats required and lawyers can't hold their liquor.
6. We race cane toads instead.

Any others ideas?

[Gary Baigent]

What are you drinking Zed, that Foster's expletive? - what about Coopers? - that doesn't screw your brain so much.

[Zed]

Fish live in Coopers... and there is a mean mother of a hang over in the bottom of every bottle.

Shiraz... pls, with some age on it.

Come on... give us some idea's, how they gunna fix this race... and don't start with the what's wrong with it stuff!

[capt vimes]

JD chaser's...

Gravy on the chips?

You lot do that doncha?

OR , my good man, do you mean crisps?

AC, what now....?

1. Law suit and a new race.
2. Gentleman's agreement on a suitable format.
3. Hell with the boats we will just do this in court!
4. We will all race our boat of choice around a standard course in our own country and virtualize the race on the interweb thingy.
5. All the sailors will have a piss up in Vegas last man standing phones the result in --> cheap, no boats required and lawyers can't hold their liquor.
6. We race cane toads instead.

Any others ideas?

lol :D
/signed

but i doubt that cane-toad racing will ever become popular... at least outside Oz...
you just wanna get rid of your pest in fashion... :)

[booster]

JD chaser's...

Gravy on the chips?

You lot do that doncha?

OR , my good man, do you mean crisps?

AC, what now....?

1. Law suit and a new race.
2. Gentleman's agreement on a suitable format.
3. Hell with the boats we will just do this in court!
4. We will all race our boat of choice around a standard course in our own country and virtualize the race on the interweb thingy.
5. All the sailors will have a piss up in Vegas last man standing phones the result in --> cheap, no boats required and lawyers can't hold their liquor.
6. We race cane toads instead.

Any others ideas?

Good thinking!
He he, interesting to see the high-tech "cane toads" involved.
Regards,
Booster

[CT 249]

The dyed in wool (a dirty brown stain) dies hard - and the Mr. Plod-type lead miners feel very threatened at the moment because, lets face it, BMW-O was just outstanding, outstanding, and A5 looked pretty damned good beating too, so it's difficult for them to accept that even a monster like BMW-O tacks fast for her length and they keep repeating ad nauseum the same old flatulence: not enough tacks, slow to tack, need to be one design, need to sail in 35 ks and so on (all an emphasis to show how macho macho the computer chair poster is). However an invitation to sail on one of these monsters would rapidly change all that ... and turn them into gibbering heaps. Definitely there needs to be some changes in AC made (no stinkers) but I like the sound of the new class ... Xtreme 90's ... or maybe 80's, but they have to be big - because that is what Americas Cup has historically been; not RC44's or Melges 32's and the like.

Well, that post illustrates the sort of thing that can make it hard to integrate two disciplines of the sport.

The stereotypical mono sailors that are referred to in that post mentioned 'technical" points (tacking speed, tightness of rules, wind limits etc) for preferring one discipline in one event. Surely they have the right to have their own concept of what that event is about.

For their sins, they are belittled, insulted, called cowards, psycholanalyzed...

Surely the integration that some people here want more of will only come around when people are respected, even when they have different tastes in our sport and different visions of its future.

The fact that there's no one discipline is better can be illustrated in many ways. The foiler Moth is a fantastic craft, but in recent years it has been no more popular than the ancient 1912-designed International 12 gaffer (which is going for International status once more). The guys who were fastest in the Tasar race last weekend also do well in sportsboats and got 4th in a cat worlds, yet they love the Tasar. The tri owner who used to run our biggest offshore multi event sails original Windsurfers. The national champ in that class was fought out by guys who love Lasers, Tornadoes, leadmines, canters, and kites.

Those people can love and appreciate each discipline for being different in wonderful ways without abusing those who don't share their tastes. It's just called respect.

If people from one discipline abuse those from another* because they value different things in our sport, it's no wonder the disciplines don't always get along.



* yes, plenty of mono sailors don't know the strengths of a cat. Well, many cat sailors don't know the strengths of a windsurfer, and many mono sailors don't know the strengths of a windsurfer.

[Gary Baigent]

CT, It's not that I dismiss other nautical designs, (for fargo truck's sake) it's just that there has been an imbalanced whinge from stain dyed monohullers that the AC has to return to what they selfishly think AC racing should be about, eg. the boring and stuck DVD, won't tack, gutless bastards won't sail in tsunami like I can, could be sailed in Optimists, etc.etc. Respect doesn't come into it. Everyone knows there are wonderful skills portrayed by sailors in all class types. However there are some spoiled, vociferous, older brats sailing monohulls out there who are used to having their own way and they totalitarian-like demand the AC return to their dogmatic viewpoints. Hopefully common sense will prevail, times have changed .... but I'm not holding breath.

[Zed]

CT, It's not that I dismiss other nautical designs, (for fargo truck's sake) it's just that there has been an imbalanced whinge from stain dyed monohullers that the AC has to return to what they selfishly think AC racing should be about, eg. the boring and stuck DVD, won't tack, gutless bastards won't sail in tsunami like I can, could be sailed in Optimists, etc.etc. Respect doesn't come into it. Everyone knows there are wonderful skills portrayed by sailors in all class types. However there are some spoiled, vociferous, older brats sailing monohulls out there who are used to having their own way and they totalitarian-like demand the AC return to their dogmatic viewpoints. Hopefully common sense will prevail, times have changed .... but I'm not holding breath.

Edit: You know what... faggit... sheesh!

[Chris Ostlind]

Before the edit: ...and these things couldn't sail in a mild breeze for Christ sake!




Geez, I guess I'm going to have to recompute everything I know. I was apparently operating under the mistaken impression that three times wind speed in ten knots of wind, UPWIND, was considerably more than a mild breeze... and that 30 plus knots of apparent on a reach was something akin.

Oh, well, back to the drawing board of life... ;-(

[CT 249]

CT, It's not that I dismiss other nautical designs, (for fargo truck's sake)

It sometimes seems like you are.

it's just that there has been an imbalanced whinge

but who can claim the high ground on being balanced? How can you know that the pro-multi crowd are any more balanced than the pro-mono crowd?

Look at the disagreement RHough and I have over whether the DoG should be read - why is his view more balanced than mine? Neither of us have definitive evidence, we are only drawing implications.


from stain dyed monohullers that the AC has to return to what they selfishly



The use of terms like "selfish" is a classic example of what I'm ranting about. One can be against multis in the Cup for entirely selfLESS reasons.

One does not have to be "selfish" to feel that a certain event should remain in the type that it was historically raced in.

One does not have to be "selfish" to feel that a certain major event should be raced in the type of boat that most sailors sail.

One does not have to be "selfish" to state that one prefers to watch certain types of craft.

One does not have to be "selfish" when one points out that most other major sporting events use equipment that has its performance drastically reduced by rules, just as the AC monos are.

The fact that you impute dishonourable motives into reasonable viewpoints is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

think AC racing should be about, eg. the boring and stuck DVD, won't tack,

That sort of stuff comes from the "other side" too; monohulls or slow boats are boring, there is no tactics unless you have to sail high angles downwind, faster boats need faster reactions, etc.

The most stuck DVD in sailing, IMHO, is the 'fast boats are better and the future' one, which fails to recognise that these days it's the fast boats that have often lost more market share than the slow ones. We used to regularly get 200-cat fleets - they are gone now.


gutless bastards won't sail in tsunami like I can,

From all accounts, there was certainly one side at the last AC trying to sail just in light winds. But comments that Cup boats are too fragile have been said since a decade or so before the J Class, at least. And to some extent, it may have been a reaction to the fact that the DOG boats were set up for light winds and therefore they went even better than they would have if they were more all-rounders. Yes, a tough 90 foot multi would still have been incredibly quick last week, but it wouldn't have been quite as quick as DoGzilla.

Sure, the IACC monos were light-weather craft - AND THEY COPPED LOTS OF ABUSE FROM IT. When One Australia sank it became an object of amazement and scorn from Seahorse to the TV news. There's a difference between abusing light wind boats (whether mono or multi) as some people may have been doing, and abusing multis per se.

could be sailed in Optimists, etc.etc. Respect doesn't come into it.

Yeah, that's the problem - respect doesn't seem to come into it when considering people who happen to like older monos.
Everyone knows there are wonderful skills portrayed by sailors in all class types. However there are some spoiled, vociferous, older brats sailing monohulls out there who are used to having their own way and they totalitarian-like demand the AC return to their dogmatic viewpoints.

Why are their statements that an event traditionally sailed in monos should stay that way any more "totalitarian" and "dogmatic" than the wish that the Texel organisers have that their cat event should stay as a cat event; that the Tour de France organisers have that their event should stay in conventional bikes; that the national offshore multi champs should stay in multis; or that the A Class should stay off foils?.

Again your very terms seem to be loaded and derogatory to others who simply have different views.

Hopefully common sense will prevail, times have changed ...

Yeah, times have changed.

I picked up an old Modern Boating the other day, from 1972. The catamaran column said that the Victorian Yachting Council census revealed that 1/3 of boats being sailed in clubs were cats.

These days, the cat sailors are vastly outnumbered by the leadmine sailors. The biggest cat race around here once got over 300 entries - these days there's as few as 14. I don't like that - the main trophy used to be the memorial for my dad, a cat pioneer who died on that course, possibly in that race, so I have feelings for the event.

However, the historical figures point that the multi fleet is NOT growing strongly, if at all, over the long term. That is despite the fact that multi sailors (or ex-multi sailors) have often had major positions of power in sailing here (running the national sailing federation, committee of the CYCA, publisher of the leading sailing magazine, ad manager of the leading boating magazine, etc etc)

Similarly, it's hard to see that multis are taking over offshore, when one looks at entry numbers.

Windsurfers have suffered the same thing - we used to get 600 to some races, now we get 60. Meanwhile, the numbers in many slow-boat classes (Dragons, Lasers, Toppers, Optis, IRC cruiser/racers, etc) are looking very strong.

Times have changed, but they may have changed AWAY from fast craft and maybe we should learn from that instead of continually ignoring the fact.

I am NOT saying that this is a good thing. I am pointing out that it is the historical truth.

Personally, my gut feeling is that the vehemence and fury that some multi sailors use when they attack mono sailors is a large part of the reason that multis aren't doing to well. Windsurfers have done the same thing - we adopted a tone of superiority over boat sailors for years and failed to see our own flaws, and it really bit us hard.

Personally, I'd agree that times have changed, accept that they have changed towards slower boats, and try to understand why instead of sneering at their proponents. That's a lot of the reason that I've recently switched from sailing development-class boards, Int Canoes and F16 type cats to sailing slower one designs - and I'm still loving my sailing.



. but I'm not holding breath.

There are also spoiled, vociferous brats sailing multis who abuse mono sailors. And there are reasonable, intelligent people sailing monos and multis who pick up on the abuse and perpetuate it. I have a good mate who sails tris and often abuses leadmines and says he cannot understand why people sail them. Is he a spoiled vociferous brat?

While either side insults and attacks the other; while they stereotype their points as symptoms of mental illness or solidified thinking, the sailing world will remain a lesser place than it could be if the points of view of other people were respected.

I'm fairly sure that if you look at these last few threads, almost all (perhaps all) of the personal abuse will have come from just one side. Luckily, there are a lot of more reasonable people on that side...it's just a pity they are drowned out by the personal, unreasoned abuse of anyone who dares to have a different view on our sport.

[Zed]

Geez, I guess I'm going to have to recompute everything I know. I was apparently operating under the mistaken impression that three times wind speed in ten knots of wind, UPWIND, was considerably more than a mild breeze... and that 30 plus knots of apparent on a reach was something akin.

Oh, well, back to the drawing board of life... ;-(

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Jeez Chris if these things get "good" enough they will only be able to sail in less than 5 knots of breeze! What the hell has apparent wind got to do with sea state and a boats ability to sail to windward in any given condition? 30 Knots apparent is NOT 30 knots over the sea, what a chalk and cheese comparison! And what? Can't these genius's de-power their rigs uphill? I mean really what a load of tripe!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you actually do that much sailing Chris? Do you get the difference between what is going on upwind and on a reach? How do you even begin to make such an inane comparison?

[Doug Lord]

From Scuttlebutt,2/18/10 :

ELLISON AIMS TO STEER AMERICA'S CUP TO THE BAY AREA
Fresh off the America's Cup victory, Larry Ellison - who is the Bay Area's
wealthiest individual with an estimated $27 billion fortune, according to
Forbes - discussed hosting the next America's Cup in San Francisco Bay.

* Is San Francisco a feasible site for the America's Cup?

LARRY ELLISON: Absolutely. We match raced [Switzerland-based rival sailing
team] Alinghi in San Francisco Bay in the Moet Cup [in 2003]. It was a
spectacular regatta because people could watch from office buildings. The
boats are big enough that you can see the entire race. We had hundreds of
thousands of people watching this race-it was probably the most watched
sailboat race ever. And we beat them.
* To hold the Cup in San Francisco you would probably need a lot of space,
though.

LARRY ELLISON: Well, that's the thing. I intend to talk to Gavin Newsom, the
mayor of San Francisco, and we'll see if there's room on the waterfront to
do this. Maybe we can get out to Treasure Island. We want to develop a
sailing village like they have in New Zealand and like they had in Valencia
[in Spain, where the America's Cup was just held.] We want teams from all
over the world to come here.
* The America's Cup isn't as popular in the U.S. as it once was. Would
holding the race in San Francisco be a way to change that?

LARRY ELLISON: If we have the America's Cup here in San Francisco, it will
allow many more people to watch it. But we also have to do a better job of
televising it. We can make sailing much more understandable and much more
exciting by putting cameras on the boats.

These boats twist and groan and the sounds are a very important aspect for
gaining an appreciation of the sport and how much stress we are putting on
these boats.Complete interview: http://tinyurl.com/yen2a3g
Photos from Moet Cup: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/photos/10/0209/

[Gary Baigent]

Little do you know Zed, that the little that you know .... is very little.

[Gary Baigent]

CT, stop being a crazed Utopian. You know damned well that all this conflict between classes and types, is tribal ... and never the twain shall meet.

[Zed]

Little do you know Zed, that the little that you know .... is very little.

Another girly swipe... without saying anything. :rolleyes:

BTW Gazza, a tsunami is a wave and nothing to do with wind, just thought I slip that in seeing as we are going for swipes here...AGAIN!

[Zed]

CT, stop being a crazed Utopian. You know damned well that all this conflict between classes and types, is tribal ... and never the twain shall meet.


Tribal technologist my favorite sort of idiot! This reminds me of the absolute stupidity that many, otherwise seemingly intelligent people, in the IT field indulge in.


Anywhoooo...

Tell me again why we should not expect AC boats to be able to handle say sub 20 knot breezes and a reasonable sea state? Why is it that they should be designed to such fine tolerances that we have to wait around for exactly the right conditions to sail them? These things are like F1 cars that will not go out in the rain! Billions of dollars and I have a boat that 'works' in 6.7 knots and a gentle .5 meter swell.... well not quite but! Imagine if they sent the F1 crowd home every time it was a touch inclement, sorry people, come back tomorrow, shut the cameras down. etc etc... What a farce that would be.

[TeddyDiver]

The omitted sentence in the Deed of Gift..
"Vessels selected to compete for this Cup must proceed under sail on their own bottoms to the port where the contest is to take place"
That's about seaworthiness :rolleyes:

[ancient kayaker]

A Tsunami is like a house, the three most important things are location, location, location. Out in the ocean you probably wouldn't notice Tsunami passing under you at the speed of a jetplane.

[peterraymond]

The latest press does make it look like Larry is really aiming a SF for the next cup. Space was the big question and he talked about Treasure Island. I can't though see a significant building project making it through the litigious US system in time for a contest on a reasonable schedule.

I think Valencia was mentioned because it could meet the schedule. Newport was also mentioned, but not with much detail. Actually not with anything about facilities that are, or could be available on any reasonable schedule.

If it ended up in Valencia, we would be stuck with boats designed for their conditions in the summer, so not a particularly exciting show. Also, if we have a full complement of teams, boat size will probably have to be limited to get them to fit. I don't think Valencia will want to rebuild and expand their facilities.

Even more questions for Newport and it always had a reputation for light wind that was well deserved.

Of the three, SF has size and current problems, obviously, but the best spectating and more wind. Larry did say they would race in the bay.

I'm prejudiced towards wind.

I personally will give the teams a break on their only sailing this cup in ridiculously light conditions. That was what they were expecting when they designed the boats, so that was what the boats could handle. If you allow a very wide range of conditions then the teams are rolling the dice in a big way and you are less likely to see close competition. If you design a stout boat it will be heavier and the only way you will win against a lighter, but otherwise equal boat, is if the lighter boat breaks. The lighter boat is betting they will win more often then they break. Limiting the conditions ahead of time to a range that is reasonable for a particular venue reduces the Russian roulette in the design process.

Maybe the race should be someplace in the trade wind belt, like the Caribbean. Great publicity for the hosting port and a great environment for the sailors. The US has the US Virgin Islands and also Puerto Rico.

Or, to indulge in fantasy, how about Haiti? It would be a way to pump at least some money into the economy. It would be too late for the relief effort, but they have a continuing need. Of course, the direct contrast between one of the poorest countries in the world and one of the couple largest examples of conspicuous consumption in the world might just sink the cup for good. Or maybe it would lead to a large infusion of money into a country that needs it from a bunch of people who have the resources to make a difference.

Haiti problems have seemed so big that they overcome all efforts to fix those problems. Maybe those same problems make running the cup there impossible. OK, a fantasy.

Peter Raymond

[RHough]

Here is a trial balloon ...

Why not use Maxis? The 90 footers in 1887 were the "Maxi" class of their day. Using boats built to the current "Maxi" class rule would make the Cup much more relevant to sailing in general.

Why should the AC use a rule that produces boats that have no other use? Between Cup events, the Maxi class provides continuity for the designers, sailors and sponsors. There is no need to hold competing events "Acts" leading up to the Cup, the Maxi schedule would take care of that. The Cup would see well developed boats and experienced teams putting on a show at a much higher level than we have seen from the AC "fleet" in past Cups.

Limit the LVC to the top 4-8 boats in the Maxi series, with the winner facing the Defender for the Cup.

Seeing the Cup winner sailing in the S-H would put and end to the trash talk about the AC being for sissies. :)

Just a thought ...

CT 249? What do you think?

[peterraymond]

S-H is Southern Hemisphere, is Southern Ocean, is the roaring 40's?

Rules would be a problem. If I knew the cup would be in Valencia and I were the defender, I'd race a boat in the maxi series I knew would lose that series and just barely make it through the tough sections under reduced sail. Then, when I got to Valencia I'd put up the big sails in my lightweight flier and clean up.

The other teams, to get selected, would actually design their boats for the Maxi series, so I'd beat them easily. Assuming of course I were insanely wealthy and I could hire the rock stars to do it all for me and I weren't wasting my time typing internet postings.

There is a nominal series in the previous AC boats now, but there is no money incentive for them to race in cold places with huge wind and waves, so they don't and their boats would take the abuse anyway.

I like the concept, but I'm not sure how to make it work.

Peter Raymond

[Chris Ostlind]

S - H is also the Sydney to Hobart race... meaning that Randy's trial proposal would be automatically limited to monohulls that can only be fielded by very rich dudes.

That is unnacceptable to me for a number of reasons.

On a strictly, screw the cost basis, I'd rather see 12 iterations of the Sodeb'O/IDEC design solution, if it's blue water cred you seek. There are already three boats sailing from that genre, one being a near exact copy of Sodeb'O that is running around down in Oman.

They are faster than any Maxi ever thought of being and can handle wind and sea states that rate in the severe category. If the complaints about the slow-to-tack Swiss cat are genuine, then those folks shouldn't try to hold their breath while a Maxi canter tries to get it around through the wind.

[bruceb]

First the "bad" The lack of a good race was a result of an unprepared defender, not directly because of the type of boats. There have been many Cup boat challengers and defenders in the past that had the same problem. At any level of racing, if you show up with an un-prepared boat and crew, no matter how advanced the technology, the outcome is usually going to be poor. One team was up to the job, the other was not. It happens in boats, cars, business and any other area that good program planing and development are important. The same issues cause failures- money was not problem for these two, so it comes down to egos and leadership. You could race 24' monohulls and the outcome would be the same. One owner was left on the dock to save weight (after spending 100 mil+ to ride on a fast boat), the other insisted on driving his boat- badly. Go figure. Lets hope San Fransisco works out, it could really be fun. B

[bruceb]

I think all sailors, designers or builders involved in yachts today will see benefits from the Cup program. Most boat building and design today has depended on "trickle down" engineering and technology from other industries- even the "latest" synthetic rigging came from the fishing industry. The low speed Reynolds numbers are suspect and the water and air flow around sailboats seem to have many different conflicting interpretations. I think that is going to change, and quickly. Both boats were "instrumented" to the extreme, and more important, the information was filtered into a usable form. The boats themselves were not really cutting edge, (foiler moths can also hit 30kts), but all the materials and designs were tested at the max- with real world quantified numbers recorded. That information gathering- specific to our needs, will be available to all of us soon. Some old "rules of thumb" and "we have always done it this way" are going to be challenged, but progress is going to happen. The information age is finally hitting the sailboat and marine industry and we have just had a front row seat.:) Lets all take a step forward into the future and enjoy it. Bruce

[Doug Lord]

Here is a trial balloon ...

Why not use Maxis? ?
===================
You've got to be kidding!
High speed multihull or monohull foilers would be far superior in many ways for the Americas Cup- and you know it...

[Chris Ostlind]

...The boats themselves were not really cutting edge, (foiler moths can also hit 30kts)...




Banque Populaire and G3 can hit speeds in the mid 40's and they aren't flying foilers, either.

I think that the two boats were as cutting edge as they could be given the time to design, build and somewhat test the potential of different configurations. More time, more wind and a bit broader design window and you'd have seen 40+ knot speeds without too much trouble.

Also, keep in mind that the wind was pretty much 10 knots and less for both races. I have never heard of a foiling Moth, as interesting as they are, doing 30 knots in a 10 knot wind.

Other than that small bit, I agree with your post and even that wasn't a disagreement... more an enhancement, if you will.

[Chris Ostlind]

High speed multihull or monohull foilers would be far superior in many ways for the Americas Cup




You had me on board, there, Doug. Right up until you uttered, monohull foiler. Then, POOF! the spirit took leave.

The next AC event is going to need to be brought together in a no BS fashion in order to resurrect the brand effectively. Putting forth a totally unknown and untested technology at the scale you are probably suggesting is not going to get it where the needs for a good, clean, no hassle race are concerned.

When someone can actually get a really big monohull foiler to actually fly and remain controllable in a match race style of situation in the conditions of, say, SF Bay in the summer... there might be space to argue the point and bring it to the table. Since nobody is even close to building such a Mars rentry vehicle at this point in time, the possibility is as moot as it can get.

Ask Larry to consider a flying gybe in which he goes right back to sea-hugger mode and a dead stop. This sends half his crew into a collection of moonwalking dudes, moving right off the boat and into the Bay. He's stuck there retrieving bodies while all the back markers pile into the same general zone with a similar problem.

A polite, No Thanks, is the anticipated answer.

[RHough]

What come next for the Cup depends completely on what the Defender and Challenger agree it will be.

Mutual Consent is the core value of the Cup.

If they decide to make the Cup more accessible to more teams, they will decide on cost effective, simple boats or use existing designs.

If they decide that the Cup needs closely matched boats to increase the possibility of good racing they will chose a very tight design rule or use the ACC rule for AC34.

If they want to see higher performance boats, they have to look at what is high performance today. That would be Maxi Rule boats or big Multi's. Or a new rule.

If they want to have many choices of location both for the match and for lead-in events, shoreside logistics must be considered. 8-12 teams in Maxi Mono's are more easily supported than the same number of Maxi Multi's. particularly if wings are allowed.

The wishes of sponsors have come to be a part of the choice too. LV is on record as having an anti-fast boat bias. No ORMA 60 types and no planing mono's.

VO is the head of the Challenger of Record ... he shares an anti-multi bias.

What the world sees as the top of Sail Racing are events that get big press world wide. In this arena Mono's dominate. The Volvo is in Mono's, the Trans-Pac, the Sydney-Hobart. The top racing handicapping systems don't include Multi's at all. IOR ... no Multi's, IMS ... no Multi's, IRC ... no Mutli's, ORR/Americap ... no Multi's.

The ORMA 60's once had 11-12 boats at their WC's ... now ... 0
The 2009 ORMA Class report to ISAF shows that only 2 ORMA 60's were paid members of the once strong ISAF class.

Open 60 mono's show 30 boats in the Class 2009 report
TP 52's show 10 boats

The Maxi Class has over 30 members and a long history.

The Cup boats on 1887 reflected what was being raced at the top level of the sport. If that is Mono's the Cup should reflect that. If it is Multi's the Cup should reflect that.

I suspect that the move will be to "get the Cup back on track" and any new rule will try to be somewhat relevant to other sailing.

This is a point I agree with Chris on. Mono's are mainstream, Multi's are not. No value judgement from me, just the observation.

Under Mutual Consent the boats will be what the guys paying the bills want to sail ... as it should be.

The bright spots for Multi's are the continuation of the X40 iShares Series and the exposure to Mutli's that the AC community has had over the last 3 years.

That the door has not been slammed on Multi's is good. People and Sailors that would never have considered Multi's are at least thinking of them as a possibility.

Trying to support a boat type that cannot support itself is not what the AC should be about. Billboard Events should support classes of boats that support our sport. 30-40 members in the Maxi class fit that bill much better than 2 French ORMA 60's.

That the ORMA60's are next to dead really kills any argument to see a mutli division in races like the S-H much less the AC.

Randy

[Chris Ostlind]

Loved the monologue, but there are a couple of things...

What's with the pinging on the ORMA 60 class? Those boats haven't been run for what, 3 years now? Most of them have been reconditioned and sold-off to private party's and the class is long since defunct. That's one item.

If the ORMA 60's were around and still being used, they all would have been dumped by now and wholly new rides built to reflect the current thinking on a high perf multi at that size. One of the French skippers (can't recall the name right now) had a new series on the table a few years back to take the place of the ORMA 60 class. The world economy put paid to that idea when something like only three, or four, sponsors stepped-up to build boats and fund teams.

The problem with the monohull solution is this: Now that the real race horses have been shown around and even the grumbling audience members have finally seen what is possible, it's going to be really tough to sell the planet on a set of much slower boats. The boats they’ll probably put forward will only be fast looking when there are no multihulls in the same water and powered-up. Pick a mono, any mono and it's a stone thud of a potato compared to even a non state-of-the-art multi... at a smaller size.

This is going to be like selling fresh faced F1 fans on the blessings of NASCAR, simply because the NASCAR ride is something that "looks like" the fan's ride at home. Perhaps we can all remember back when the late Jimmy Clark came over to drive at the Indy 500 in his dinky, rear engined, high tech F1 style car and sat on the grid next to the Offys, et. al. The thud potato crowd all snickered and told rasty jokes. The next day, Clark proceeded to teach the aw-shucks crowd a thing, or two, about real performance, speed, handling and driving skills. Cosworth engine sales quadrupled over night, as did the screaming sound of requests for Colin Chapman’s engineering skills.

Now, all of the Indy cars look like F1 rides and are essentially made the same way, with drivers who can step into an F1 machine and at least stay in the game. Oh, how Team Thud will change when you show them the bright lights of truly going fast.

My opinion... It'll be a sad, lame day if the AC goes back to the thud mode. Sadder still, if they try to sell the crowd that the new AC boats are the hottest thing available. It hasn't been true for a long time now and the recent event put paid to any notion that it can be hidden from view, just because a bunch of dudes can't see their way clear to reality.

A sad, sad day.

[RHough]

Loved the monologue, but there are a couple of things...

What's with the pinging on the ORMA 60 class? Those boats haven't been run for what, 3 years now? Most of them have been reconditioned and sold-off to private party's and the class is long since defunct. That's one item.



The fact the ORMA 60's are defunct and I can find no other large multi class to reference is exactly the point. Large multi racing looks like it is dying. The reason for that is moot.

I have made the same point about the advent of mid engine cars, the owners that raced Indy could have banned them, but they did not. They transitioned to mid engined cars over 2-3 cycles.

In contrast the top sailing classes have banned mutli's before the mono's got beaten.

Now the same people that have supported Mono's since forever have seen what a modern multi can do. The door is open. Time will tell if the exposure to faster boats will re-kindle interest. I hope it does.

The point is that until there is general interest in racing mutli's we won't see them in the Cup.

There are sailors that place value on high VMG. Many of them probably had no idea that it was possible to have VMG exceed True Wind Speed at all ... much less with a Mutli.

The mantra has been: Mutli's don't point, Mutli's don't go to windward, Multi's are only fast off the wind.

All of these myths have been very publicly debunked. Lets see what happens.

R

[Doug Lord]

The mantra has been: Mutli's don't point, Mutli's don't go to windward, Multi's are only fast off the wind.

All of these myths have been very publicly debunked. Lets see what happens.

R
--------------------------
Right. So Maxi's for the next Cup? Wrong.

[RHough]

This is a proposed format that intends to produce better "all around" boats:

There is no reason that the format for the Cup has to be all short course racing.

Best of 9 with three Ocean Races that score double.

It would impossible to win the Cup without winning at least one offshore race, we could see some decent boats. A good Offshore boat could win the Cup in 3 races with 6 points before a lightweight skimming dish could win 5 inshore races if they were scheduled properly.

The Series would be:
Inshore
Offshore
Inshore
Inshore
Offshore
Inshore
Offshore
Inshore
Inshore

It would be an end to great large fragile boats in the AC.

R

[Doug Lord]

This is a proposed format that intends to produce better "all around" boats:

There is no reason that the format for the Cup has to be all short course racing.

Best of 9 with three Ocean Races that score double.

It would impossible to win the Cup without winning at least one offshore race, we could see some decent boats. A good Offshore boat could win the Cup in 3 races with 6 points before a lightweight skimming dish could win 5 inshore races if they were scheduled properly.

The Series would be:
Inshore
Offshore
Inshore
Inshore
Offshore
Inshore
Offshore
Inshore
Inshore

It would be an end to great large fragile(dinghies) boats in the AC.

R
==========================
I like large fragile, multihull or monohull dinghies and I think they would be far better for the Cup especially after witnessing the performance of the boats last weekend.

[RHough]

==========================
I like large fragile, multihull or monohull dinghies and I think they would be far better for the Cup especially after witnessing the performance of the boats last weekend.

Fragile boats are the number one reason that many people don't think the Cup is relevant. Have you been reading the threads?

"Can't sail in breeze." is a very common comment. It was a knock on the Cup in the early 1900's, and again when they went to the ACC's and it is nearly a shout after AC33.

100 foot boats that cannot handle Optimist conditions make the AC "a joke" for most sailors.

Boats are designed for the conditions they have to race in. Rather than try to use rules like "sail there on its own bottom" that gives the Defender the edge, why not just include courses that will test the boats in a wider range of conditions?

One trick ponies have limited appeal and no use outside the Cup. The J's live on, as do the 12's. The ACC rule produced stout hulls (it was intended to) but the boats don't have a life except as excursion rides for fat tourists.

*If* the Defender and Challenger want to make the AC less of a laughing stock, they can do so with a simple change of format that requires a combination of inshore and offshore races.

Fast boats don't have to be fragile boats.

Inshore races about 2-3 hours long. Offshore races about 100 - 150 miles?

For SF a race from GGYC around the Farallones to Half Moon Bay and Return is about 90 miles. Could be pretty dramatic.

R

[ancient kayaker]

It seems to be coming down to what people believe the AC is all about. Of course, it's really all about whatever the guys with the big purses think it's all about. There's no harm in discussing alternatives, just don't let yourselves believe this issue is remotely democratic!

We already have out and out speed merchants, sailing one way in shallow water along the few beaches in the world with just the right combination of breeze and wave. Then there's l'hydroptere and things of that ilk, moth foilers, sailboarding, dinghy racing and the Volvo. Somewhere soneone is racing indoors, I have no doubt. It seems as though every niche has been well and truly filled.

Is there a gap in there somewhere that the AC could be made to fit into? Assuming the money would agree, that is.

[Doug Lord]

Fragile boats are the number one reason that many people don't think the Cup is relevant. Have you been reading the threads?

"Can't sail in breeze." is a very common comment. It was a knock on the Cup in the early 1900's, and again when they went to the ACC's and it is nearly a shout after AC33.

100 foot boats that cannot handle Optimist conditions make the AC "a joke" for most sailors.

Boats are designed for the conditions they have to race in. Rather than try to use rules like "sail there on its own bottom" that gives the Defender the edge, why not just include courses that will test the boats in a wider range of conditions?

One trick ponies have limited appeal and no use outside the Cup. The J's live on, as do the 12's. The ACC rule produced stout hulls (it was intended to) but the boats don't have a life except as excursion rides for fat tourists.

*If* the Defender and Challenger want to make the AC less of a laughing stock, they can do so with a simple change of format that requires a combination of inshore and offshore races.

Fast boats don't have to be fragile boats.

Inshore races about 2-3 hours long. Offshore races about 100 - 150 miles?

For SF a race from GGYC around the Farallones to Half Moon Bay and Return is about 90 miles. Could be pretty dramatic.

R

---------------------------
In thinking it over I don't really have a problem with your idea as long as it is accomplished in the most high tech,high performance boats available anywhere-no artificial restrictions on design except maybe length. Powered systems are ok by me because they too represent the highest level of technology in sailboats. I think the boats should be 90-100' on the waterline-big is the Americas Cup.

[sailor2]

It seems to be coming down to what people believe the AC is all about. Of course, it's really all about whatever the guys with the big purses think it's all about. There's no harm in discussing alternatives, just don't let yourselves believe this issue is remotely democratic!

We already have out and out speed merchants, sailing one way in shallow water along the few beaches in the world with just the right combination of breeze and wave. Then there's l'hydroptere and things of that ilk, moth foilers, sailboarding, dinghy racing and the Volvo. Somewhere soneone is racing indoors, I have no doubt. It seems as though every niche has been well and truly filled.

Is there a gap in there somewhere that the AC could be made to fit into? Assuming the money would agree, that is.
There are no development classes, where the design target is to optimize upwind vmg without tight restrictions vastly reducing the results.

There are monohull races against the prevailing winds on rtw course, but those are onedesigns, and there is no such class for multis. G-class is clearly not optimized for upwind sailing. There isn't even records for flat water sailing yet for upwind vmg, neither same in seaway.
Should someone else be willing to pay for it, I would like to find out, what kind of performance is really possible. Both for flat waters and in rtw route upwind.

[RHough]

Spithill "I'm hooked on Multihulls"
Talk of a 50-60 foot soft sail multi rule for the next AC during SF Cup event press conference.

Perhaps exposure to multi's has indeed changed some minds?

R

[Doug Lord]

Spithill "I'm hooked on Multihulls"
Talk of a 50-60 foot soft sail multi rule for the next AC during SF Cup event press conference.

Perhaps exposure to multi's has indeed changed some minds?

R

====================
Was it said why a soft sail as an artificial limitation?

[RHough]

====================
Was it said why a soft sail as an artificial limitation?

No details, but probably for cost and logistics. Hard sails are a huge hassle compared to soft sails when you are looking to base 8-10 teams anywhere.

R

[Doug Lord]

No details, but probably for cost and logistics. Hard sails are a huge hassle compared to soft sails when you are looking to base 8-10 teams anywhere.

R

======================
From what you've gleaned from the recent discussion do you think there is a good chance of a multihull being the next Cup boat?

[RHough]

======================
From what you've gleaned from the recent discussion do you think there is a good chance of a multihull being the next Cup boat?

It is way too early to make a guess.

I suspect that they will get a location sorted first, and spend a few months talking about possible designs with the interested teams. The choice of location will probably have effect on the final design choice.

Rather than to say that there is good chance of seeing multihulls in AC34, I'd say that the chances are much greater than I thought they were 3 months ago. It is a very hot topic and a question that gets asked repeatedly. I would have said that the chances of the next AC being in Mono's was very high, but the press seems to want to keep the topic alive and I think it is notable that no one has said they are *not* considering a mutlihull option. The major players that have offered public opinions have not spouted the "Mono's are traditional, mutli's are heresy" line at all. That alone shows more open minds than I had given them credit for.

R

[Gary Baigent]

Everyone should remember that BMW-O is 115 feet or so overall, yet her full wing rig is twice that measurement. Tell me of any craft that has those proportions. It is huge and a world first in hyper sail overpowering, tall rigs. So with the possibility of the Xtreme 70? AC design arriving, and Jimmy is very enthusiastic about multihulls with soft sails now, (and people have to listen - he's so famous) I envisage the wing masts will grow towards 50/50 mast/soft sail combinations. BMW-O showed they could lasso their monstrous rig and moor the boat in quiet nights - so a 110 foot wing mast would be simplicity itself.
A multihull class would be far more interesting and exciting than the oxymoron skiff-type leadmines with motors that are being bandied about.

[Doug Lord]

Everyone should remember that BMW-O is 115 feet or so overall, yet her full wing rig is twice that measurement. Tell me of any craft that has those proportions. It is huge and a world first in hyper sail overpowering, tall rigs. So with the possibility of the Xtreme 70? AC design arriving, and Jimmy is very enthusiastic about multihulls with soft sails now, (and people have to listen - he's so famous) I envisage the wing masts will grow towards 50/50 mast/soft sail combinations. BMW-O showed they could lasso their monstrous rig and moor the boat in quiet nights - so a 110 foot wing mast would be simplicity itself.
A multihull class would be far more interesting and exciting than the oxymoron skiff-type leadmines with motors that are being bandied about.
==========
Unless such "so-called" monohulls had hydrofoils, on-deck movable ballast and were designed to sail on just two foils as I proved to Mr. Hough some years ago-IF such a thing could be built. That boat at 60' had great numbers against an ORMA 60 with curved foils and was self-righting! An AC version wouldn't be self-righting and could be 1/3rd lighter.
But don't get me wrong-I realize that I might not see my 60 or 90' Moth this time around but it is comfort enough knowing that such technology is coming-so a multihull class this time is just fine. For God's sake lets not go back to sea hugging leadbellies!
--
Image below by NFlutter-for imagineering purposes discard the 110 degree canting keel:

[ancient kayaker]

Doug: you'd have to call it the Atlas moth ...

[Doug Lord]

Doug: you'd have to call it the Atlas moth ...
--------------
Hah! Or "Atlas Shrugged"........

[bistros]

Nice Ayn Rand reference. Miss Rand wasn't bound by a non-fiction classification.

It is not even worth bringing up the unbridgeable gap between fantasy and reality that goes on here. We just had an America's Cup where design fragility and insurance carrier concerns limited sailing conditions to such a narrow range that would make eight year old club racers in Optis ashamed. Although the performance boundaries were pushed dramatically, the resulting sailboat racing was shameful in it's narrow range.

We've seen where ridiculously extreme designs take us, and it isn't sailboat racing or sport anymore. Why don't we eliminate the risky human element entirely and go full on radio control? That way when Doug's 60-90 foot Moth crashes there is no risk to fragile humans.

To support the Disney-esque fantasy discussion, the silly cartoon company word "imagineering" is now being used in design discussions. This frees up from the nasty realities of physics, material sciences and cost. Why not go all the way and make the America's Cup a video-only special effects extravaganza like Avatar? The Doug's 60-90 foot Moth could compete on a virtual sailing venue without worry about nose dives, capsize and million dollar breakages in 10' seas. The boat could be crewed by Na'vi! You could have all the drama and romance without actually having to build and sail the boats!

There are a lot of questions regarding the future of the America's Cup that need to asked and answered. It would be nice in a design forum to limit the discussion to the possible and practical. I prefer my fantasy adventures to be accompanied by popcorn in a theatre.

--
Bill

[Doug Lord]

There are a lot of questions regarding the future of the America's Cup that need to asked and answered. It would be nice in a design forum to limit the discussion to the possible and practical. I prefer my fantasy adventures to be accompanied by popcorn in a theatre.

--
Bill

---------------------------
I think it is humorous to note this reaction to the inclusion of a technology that is yet to be fully developed into a rule whose whole purpose is(or should be) to allow the maximum development of technology! And to suggest that because the technology is not fully developed it shouldn't even be discussed on a DESIGN forum is preposterous.
Nevertheless, my previous post was in support of multihulls in the next Cup with the hopefull inclusion of more advanced technologies as time goes by.
=============
Imagineering: a fusion of imagination and engineering that helps learners visualize problem solutions using existing scientific knowledge.http://www.syberworks.com/glossary/i/i1.htm
------
Imagineering: The art or science of using imagination to intuitively make practical applications from knowledge.

Imagination and intuition are the foundations of all improvements and advancements made by humankind.

If someone had not imagined it was possible for man to fly, no one would have attempted to fly. If no one had intuitively reasoned a propeller shaped like an airfoil could be used to power aircraft, no one would have attempted it.

Imagination or intuition is the basis for all advancements and new designs. The design of all prototypes is based solely on intuition. The designer intuitively reasons or imagines the design and designs changes that result in the working prototype. Only after testing does the design cease to be intuitive or imaginative, instead becoming scientific fact. Until then it only existed in the designer's mind or imagination.

Imagination is the process by which the human intellect travels beyond the limitations of his or her senses; imagination opens doors to an abstract world that is governed by the same rules as the physical world.

The science of Imagineering is based on intuitively applying the laws of the physical world to an abstract imaginary world in an orderly and consistent manner to make predictions. These processes give scientific credibility to imagination and intuitive reasoning.
------------
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/60-20-ocean-racing-monofoiler-design-discussion-15143.html

[ancient kayaker]

... Why don't we eliminate the risky human element entirely and go full on radio control? That way when Doug's 60-90 foot Moth crashes there is no risk to fragile humans ...
Bill

So long as it doesn't crash into a boat that I'm on!

[bistros]

Just went back and re-read the Deed of Gift, and all subsequent amendments.

This was a document written by and crafted for yacht racing enthusiasts, to create a structure for an international sailboat race contest between countries. Could not find anything about it being a contest of technology and continually pushing the state of the art from previous contests.

The consortium holding the Cup has a fair amount of control in defining the boats and venue - allowing the race to reflect the times and adapt to evolving state of the art. An interesting point is that the boats have adjusted "down" at times to bring costs in line with the current economic conditions.

My read on the Deed of Gift is that the current holder of the cup uses these provisions to create a contest that favors the defense.

All things being equal, innovation and risk favor challengers, and limiting innovation and controlling risk is in the defender's favor. It is far easier to prepare for a controlled set of circumstances than it is to prepare for unknowns. This idea is well supported by Alinghi's defense failure - there was enough room in the risk-optimized design definition by SNG for GGYC/Ellison to create a challenger that outclassed them completely. The worst case outcome a defender can expect from a tight definition of the boat is a fair contest where the boat is not the difference.

I can't see GGYC allowing or even entertaining a no-holds-barred contest where a challenger can present a boat that has the potential to do to them what they did to Alinghi. By all evidence Ellison isn't that stupid.

If the Deed of Gift was intended to be the ongoing catalyst for elevating the arms race, it would have been written as such. Therefore I believe Doug's interpretation (rule is or should be a technology contest) is far off the mark.

Race series everywhere ratchet down top end performance when risk and cost get out of proportion. Making a series unaffordable to competition can kill a series and force the sponsor and advertiser dollars to go elsewhere. Alinghi did a pretty good job of sucking the sponsorship life out of the America's Cup, rendering the contest laughable in the face of other sports vying for the same attention. No broadcast TV, no television advertising dollars and little venue prestige to sell to the next location.

Clearly, the SNG formula of a high risk technology contest isn't all that sensible.

--
Bill

[CT 249]

Just went back and re-read the Deed of Gift, and all subsequent amendments.

This was a document written by and crafted for yacht racing enthusiasts, to create a structure for an international sailboat race contest between countries. Could not find anything about it being a contest of technology and continually pushing the state of the art from previous contests.


If the Deed of Gift was intended to be the ongoing catalyst for elevating the arms race, it would have been written as such. Therefore I believe Doug's interpretation (rule is or should be a technology contest) is far off the mark.

Race series everywhere ratchet down top end performance when risk and cost get out of proportion. Making a series unaffordable to competition can kill a series and force the sponsor and advertiser dollars to go elsewhere. Alinghi did a pretty good job of sucking the sponsorship life out of the America's Cup, rendering the contest laughable in the face of other sports vying for the same attention. No broadcast TV, no television advertising dollars and little venue prestige to sell to the next location.

Clearly, the SNG formula of a high risk technology contest isn't all that sensible.

--
Bill

Good stuff.

Like you, I've been looking for evidence that the AC was meant to be primarily a wide-open design contest (or a contest of national technology) rather than a contest between the best sailors in a conventional tight class. So far, there's no evidence that it was meant to be anything but a pretty standard contest in development-class boats.

Like the fixations that the Cup 'has' to be sailed in the biggest or fastest of yachts (which just isn't true) it's probably something that has evolved from over-hyped coverage in the weekend papers.

[Gary Baigent]

Larry Ellison is right now talking about multihulls around the 50 foot mark, a fleet of them racing short courses - whadyersayter that you jokers? But I'd prefer 60's, or 65's, maybe 70. like the ORMA's anyway but stripped down, and that would satisfy all the whingers here re high winds, Optimists, etc. The ORMA's were fantastic boats - which did not deserve to die. Well, they haven't, the Scandinavians have most of the old fleet - and there's one here in Auckland, the ex-Geant - which is blowing everyone away with its outasight performance.

[bistros]

Larry Ellison is right now talking about multihulls around the 50 foot mark, a fleet of them racing short courses - whadyersayter that you jokers? But I'd prefer 60's, or 65's, maybe 70. like the ORMA's anyway but stripped down, and that would satisfy all the whingers here re high winds, Optimists, etc. The ORMA's were fantastic boats - which did not deserve to die. Well, they haven't, the Scandinavians have most of the old fleet - and there's one here in Auckland, the ex-Geant - which is blowing everyone away with its outasight performance.

50 or so foot multihulls that can sail in reasonable wind and waves have got my approval (not that it is worth anything). The ORMAs were great.

My preference is for something that can make a sympathetic connection, however tenuous with the people watching them. Watching 50' multihulls is something that you could imagine as possible - most people can afford a F18, and imagination (or recreational chemicals) can bridge the gap. Watching BMW-O and Alinghi in the current iteration was an unimaginable leap for me. Knowing the price tags and cubic dollar hoses necessary to keep them running made them unobtainium to me.

Much as I liked the wing sail, it's need for full time 24x7 baby-sitting is a bit of a downer.

--
Bill

[Doug Lord]

If we're talking about the Americas Cup the boats should be this big, multihulls and or foilers and the essence of sailing technology for our time:

[peterraymond]

I started following the America's cup as a kid of course and lived around 100 or so miles down the coast from Newport. In 1970 I was helping sail a boat from Maine to Connecticut and we spent a night in Newport harbor while the 12 meters were there for the 1970 cup. After mooring our boat we went sailing in the dinghy and that memory shows how much things some have changed, although other things haven't changed much at all.

In that cup the boats were left in the water and we sailed right up to the slip where they were tied up. I guess we could have sailed slightly closer and reached over and touched one as we went by. Certainly no one was keeping us away from the boats. This has certainly changed. Kind of like seeing the pictures from the same era of a couple guys in blue jeans and no shirts working on an F1 car that was sitting on stands on the grass next to a lorry.

The level of expenditure, the size of the teams and the uniforms have all changed since then, but even then Americans tended to interpret the cup as some sort of symbol of sailing, technological and national superiority, whether any part of that was true or not. But, we were particularly proud of the fact that our boats were faster, like the schooner that won the cup originally. Or favorite AC quote goes something like "Your majesty, there is no second". You can quote that to us all day and we never get tired of it. We also liked the fact that the best sails were American and all that. It was conceit on our part, but but it was easy for us to ignore the tactics we tended to use to extend that winning streak.

I think though, that from the very first defense, having the fastest boat was the aim, so this contest has always been about speed and innovation. Sure we were proud of our sailors, but we expected the boats to get faster and faster, challenge by challenge. Not necessarily about the fastest possible boat, since the contest did move from J boats to the 12's, but it did assume the very best designers and the highest technology. Even for the 12's, there was more computer modeling of AC boats than for US nuclear submarines.

I don't think the next AC has to allow the highest performance boats, just the most advanced and best developed of the type that will generate the most interest among the target demographics, which can be assumed to pretty much be the Louis Vuitton customer.

Peter Raymond

[Doug Lord]

"In a conversation with ABC News yesterday, Ellison talked about fast, exciting boats racing short course regattas for the America's Cup. To almost everyone's surprise, he actually said, "Let's say we have 60 foot multihulls rocketing up the weather mark, it would be wildly exciting, we'd have cameras everywhere...I think it would be a wonderful spectator sport."

This is not a new concept - in fact it is eerily similar to something that has been popping in and out of our collective consciousness for the past 2 years; Russell Coutts' 'World Sailing League'. Remember that the Coutts concept had new boats that "are at the forefront of technology. The 70-foot catamarans will combine speed, maneuverability and the ability to sail close to shore for optimum spectator viewing."

We've said it - mostly in jest - a few times over the past couple of years, but is Russell Coutts so far ahead of the rest of us that the entire mess - the Deed of Gift match, the acrimony, the Valencia debacle - was his plan all along? If so, he is a scarier chess player than even Tom Ehman..."
---------------
59' trimaran going very fast:

[peterraymond]

Ha! Look at that sail plan and compare it to BMW-O. See how much lower the aspect ratio is? That is because it needs lots of power and the associated drag is less important. That only happens when the hydro-dynamic drag goes up.

Of course I'm completely ignoring design wind speed and point of sail, but compared to a C-class, A-class or BMW-O, the sail plan L/D looks low.

[Doug Lord]

Ha! Look at that sail plan and compare it to BMW-O. See how much lower the aspect ratio is? That is because it needs lots of power and the associated drag is less important. That only happens when the hydro-dynamic drag goes up.

Of course I'm completely ignoring design wind speed and point of sail, but compared to a C-class, A-class or BMW-O, the sail plan L/D looks low.
-----------------------
What you're looking at is the fastest sailboat on the planet in its high speed configuration.....


pix Maquarie-low aspect speed rig

[sailor2]

Just went back and re-read the Deed of Gift, and all subsequent amendments.

This was a document written by and crafted for yacht racing enthusiasts, to create a structure for an international sailboat race contest between countries. Could not find anything about it being a contest of technology and continually pushing the state of the art from previous contests.

The consortium holding the Cup has a fair amount of control in defining the boats and venue -

Clearly, the SNG formula of a high risk technology contest isn't all that sensible.

Bill
Clearly the Deed of Gift gives a right for the challenger to choose what ever kind of boat they wish to use within some simple limits, and the defender has no say to prevent that should they not like the type of boat the challenger has chosen.
Your assertion that SNG had some high risk formula makes no sense at all, they simply had no say on the matter after the court correctly ruled GGYC as the legal challenger.

The consortium holding the Cup has no amount of control in defining the boats at all according to the deed. The challenger has that right.

There is nothing in the deed of gift preventing the match from being a contest of technology and continually pushing the state of the art from previous contests, should the challenger so require.

The deed even specificly states that all kinds of sliding keels are always allowed and the defender has no right to prevent such innovations of sailing technology, which was considered as innovative tech at the time it was written, to be used. It was clearly written so, that should the british have won, the americans could have used those sliding keels that were usually not found on that size of boats in european waters, and that the new defenders could not have been able to prevent that by their club rules.

The intention of allowing new innovations, regardless of if the defender wants it, is clearly stated in the deed.

[sailor2]

Like you, I've been looking for evidence that the AC was meant to be primarily a wide-open design contest (or a contest of national technology) rather than a contest between the best sailors in a conventional tight class. So far, there's no evidence that it was meant to be anything but a pretty standard contest in development-class boats.
What do you think is the difference between:
1) contest in development-class boats.
2) a wide-open design contest of national sailing technology

Considering that only max lwl, max beam and max beam on load waterline is used to define that development-class boat and nothing else according to the deed of gift ?

[ancient kayaker]

In the original race when America crossed the finishing line she was being overhauled by the cutter Aurora, less than 1/3 of her displacement. Although it should also be noted that America was delayed at the start by anchor problems, nonetheless one wonders how the history of the cup would have evolved if the British boat had won, or if further races would have even been held.

[CT 249]

What do you think is the difference between:
1) contest in development-class boats.
2) a wide-open design contest of national sailing technology

Considering that only max lwl, max beam and max beam on load waterline is used to define that development-class boat and nothing else according to the deed of gift ?

Because (1) as Schuyler said (in interviews with the NY Times etc) that the Deed's defaults were, in fact, defaults. They were NOT the normal governing rules of the Cup designs.

The third Deed of Gift's default provisions have been used only twice in 140 years. They were not designed to be the normal rules governing the racing.

(2) Even the Deed of Gift's default provisions say that if mutual agreement cannot be found, "then the challenging party shall have the right to contest for the Cup in one trial, sailed over the usual course of the Annual Regatta of the club holding the Cup, subject to its rules and sailing regulations."

So at the time that was written, that would have meant the "default DoG" match would have been sailed on the normal NYYC regatta course, under the normal rules, which included a rating and/or class system. The club's rules did NOT just allow open slather with no other definitions.

3) Because the DoG's default provisions were just that (defaults, never used for some 110 years or so) the Cup was actually NEVER raced in boats only restricted by the DoG until the 1988 challenge. The Cup was raced in boats that were more or less big (although not oversize) versions of 'normal' yachts.

The normal rules of US and UK big-boat sailing normally applied, NOT the DoG privisions.

For example, when George L Schuyler was asked about the NYYC to rule on the time allowance system used in the Beavor Webb challenges (Genesta and Galatea) shortly after he had signed off on the third DoG, he decreed "" in a race for the America's Cup, whatever terms may be mutually agreed upon in other respects, the time allowance should be made according to the rules of the club in possession."

Notice that he was (1) clearly speaking of TIME ALLOWANCES, not of yachts ruled only by the DoG restrictions and (2) he said that the time allowance had to be the club's rules - not some special set of rules just for AC racing, but the club rules. That underlines that the creators of the Cup thought of it as a race for the typical (albiet large) yacht of their day and allowing the normal developments made under any club's normal rating or class rule, not for some unusual creatures built to wide-open rules.

By the way, if you want to talk of the DoG, can you show me where it says that it's a contest of national sailing techology? Building, yes, but where are the other nationality restrictions to the found in DoG 3?

[sailor2]

By the way, if you want to talk of the DoG, can you show me where it says that it's a contest of national sailing techology? Building, yes, but where are the other nationality restrictions to the found in DoG 3?
You seem to mix up what is in the current DofG and what was there in the past. The present version clearly states no time allowances is to be used. As a result, the beter boat will likely win, not the beter sailors. to be otherwise, it would have to be raced in onedesigns or under time allowances, and it's never been raced in onedesigns.

Where have I claimed there to being any other nationality restrictions than constructed in the country ?
Hint: you won't find such claim made by me, because I don't believe there beeing any other ...

When the rules do not allow restricting sailing tech without mutual consent, it's clear it is about sailing tech if either club wants it to be so. No need to write it down, when it's so obvious conclusion. Of course under mutual consent, it doesn't have to be about sailing tech, but it has been from the beginning of the current DofG at least to some extent due to there being no time allowances.

[CT 249]

I did get the second D of G mixed up with the 3rd in one respect (time allowance), and for that I apologise - I was working from 1887 NY Times articles so I could try to get an authentic feel of the times. However, far from freeing up technology, the 3rd DoG (like the second one) appears to specifically allow for any defending club to impose almost any restrictions on America's Cup sailing technology it feels like.

This never really came up because the history of the Cup shows that in 30 challenges, 28 were sailed under mutual consent time allowances or class rules. That's 28 votes to 2 that the Cup is not about DoG boats with no time allowances, but about boats that race under class rules or time allowances. Commodore Gerry, of the team that worked on Dog 3 with Schuyler, pointed out to the NY Times (Oct 29 1887) that the default provisions on the races would only apply if mutual agreement could not be found, "something that had never yet happened in the history of the races" and something that did not in fact happen until 1988.

And the 3rd DoG's default provisions appear to allow for MANY restrictions to be placed on design. It states that "In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup. All such races shall be on ocean courses * * * [These ocean courses] shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift".

This seems to allow for VERY tight restrictions if a defending club wanted to impose them. If, for example, the RYS had won in the 1800s, any further challenges would have been run under 'rules and sailing regulations' as far as they imposed limits on displacement, rig, class rules, number of crew, materials, etc. The RYS could have 'rules and sailing regulations' that imposed minimum displacement, maximum sail areas, bans on winches, spinnakers, topsails, anything but timber construction, pro crews, instruments, sloops, schooners - anything they wanted to ban.

There doesn't seem to be anything to stop a "hip pocket challenger" club that wins the AC in the future from changing its 'rules and sailing regulations' to state that any boat between 44 to 115 feet LWL that races in its events must be (say) a ferro-cement motorsailer with 18 running jacuzzis, or a strict One Design, or an IRC canting maxi, or an ORMA 60. That seems like it would be binding on any challenger, as they must race under the defending clubs 'rules and sailing regulations' and the DoG allows for very few exceptions.

If the DoG was designed to allow almost all developments in sailing technology, why does it specifically allow the defending club's rules and regulations (which may ban such developments) to govern everything related to design, apart from centreboards and some very broad restrictions on size?

The DoG authors were concerned enough about centreboarders to specifically say that they cannot be restricted - why then did they not say that technology or design could not be restricted?

The fact that the DoG SPECIFICALLY stated that the DoG matches must be sailed under club rules seems to underline that the authors contemplated that even DoG racing would be in boats of a similar type to the ones normally raced under those rules, and that it was perfectly reasonable for any holding club to impose almost any restrictions it wanted to on the Cup.


BTW, about your point about sliding keels - they were not new tech when the DoG was created. They had long been a feature of American yachting. To quote the famous 19th century yachting historian W P Stephens "Through nearly thirty years, up to 1880, the keel yacht of moderate size was so rare about New York as to be notable as an exception to the universal rule of shoal-draft centre-board."

I think it was in the NY Times of the 1800s that Schuyler said that the rule requiring sliding keels to be allowed was put in so that the normal American boat of the day, which had a CB, could still race even if the British won the Cup. At the time, the British rules normally banned sliding keels; therefore if the Brits won the Cup, the normal US centreboarder would be banned from being a Challenger.

In other words, the rule about sliding keels was not about allowing new sailing technology, because sliding keels were old (British) technology - it was about ensuring that "normal" large yachts of the standard US racing type could be used in the Cup.

You asked me whether I thought the Cup was "a wide-open design contest of national sailing technology" - I pointed out that there was nothing to say that it was meant to be about any national sailing technology apart from construction. So my reply is simply that there was nothing in the DoG to show that the Cup was supposed to be a contest of national sailing technology (apart from building). The restrictions on design were brought in years later by the NYYC.

[sailor2]

BTW, about your point about sliding keels - they were not new tech when the DoG was created. They had long been a feature of American yachting. To quote the famous 19th century yachting historian W P Stephens "Through nearly thirty years, up to 1880, the keel yacht of moderate size was so rare about New York as to be notable as an exception to the universal rule of shoal-draft centre-board."

I think it was in the NY Times of the 1800s that Schuyler said that the rule requiring sliding keels to be allowed was put in so that the normal American boat of the day, which had a CB, could still race even if the British won the Cup. At the time, the British rules normally banned sliding keels; therefore if the Brits won the Cup, the normal US centreboarder would be banned from being a Challenger.

In other words, the rule about sliding keels was not about allowing new sailing technology, because sliding keels were old (British) technology - it was about ensuring that "normal" large yachts of the standard US racing type could be used in the Cup.
I think you need to read again what I wrote about sliding keels, you clearly missunderstood what I said.

This is pretty much what I actually said :
Sliding keels were new tech for the British for that size boats, not for the Americans.
Thus the rule about sliding keels was about ensuring that normal large yachts of the standard US racing type could be used in the Cup.

As for the rest of your post, lets just say I disagree with you about your claim the defenders club rules can prevent any deed legal challenging boat from racing for the cup due to the text in the deed :" be subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift " by having some club rules in place beforehand
AND based on observations of court documents from GGYC vs SNG & the other court case from around 1988.

Since we have both made up our mind on that legal issue that as such has nothing to do with boatdesign, I see no reason to continue debating that issue in this forum, and since it's been debated to death in SAAC already, I'm not interested in continuing that kind of debate in there neither.

[Doug Lord]

From Scuttlebutt tonight:

WING DEEMED IMPRACTICAL FOR FUTURE COMPETITION
No two people have defined solid wing sail systems as have Americans Dave
Hubbard and Duncan MacLane, who together developed the Stars and Stripes'
1988 wing sail system, and have a long history of wings in the C Class for
the Little America's Cup. So when Dave and Duncan got involved in the 33rd
America's Cup, speculation heightened as to whether a wing would be used.
Here now is a brief report from Dave about his experience:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"My involvement with the BMW Oracle Racing team started in September 2008
when the team's design coordinator Mike Drummond invited me to design a wing
for them. Duncan MacLane was also approached at the same time, but he was
offered a more favorable opportunity with Alinghi. As it turned out, Alinghi
decided not to go with a wing as it was thought to be too impractical.
Duncan stayed on giving the sailing team sailing and tactical coaching.

The BMW Oracle Racing's design and engineering team is awesome. There is a
great depth in all aspects of aero, hydrodynamics, and all the analytical
tools. My contribution was hands on practical empirical experience with
wings going back to the early days in 60's in C Class, and with Stars and
Stripes in 1988. It was a serendipitous melding solving the problem from
opposite ends. After the Oracle wing was built and sailed I drew a
comparison overlay drawing of it and a scaled up (about 2:1) version of S&S
'88. The two outlines were amazingly close.

I would agree with Alinghi that wings are impractical. And I think we all
would agree (possibly even including Oracle team owner Larry Ellison) that
wings are effective tools that make a boat go faster, but that they should
not be used in future America's Cup competition."
-----------

Say it ain't so!

[ancient kayaker]

Color me confused ...

[Sailmb]

I totally disagree that the Cup could not be held in the bay.
First is area. There is plenty of area that could be developed down by PacBell Park as well as TI. Yes it will be expensive but no more then Valencia. These syndicates spend plenty & since they really will only be leasing the area & leaving a developed section of waterfront, there probably will not be a huge outcry. Also we are talking about a sailing center & not industry, so things should be a lot easier. I admit in CA it wont be easy but with the budget problems in CA, it would go through.
Second, that area is plenty protected. Anyone that sails the bay knows that once you round the ferry pier & get past where the cruise ships dock, the water is flat & winds are light.
Third, the distance! How far from the syndicate docks were the race course in San Diego? How far did the boats have to go from the docks in Valencia? Hell, how about the trip from Newport out into Rhode Island sound? There is no place in the Bay, including Oakland or Alameda that aren’t closer then all these other locations.
Forth is a problem of shipping. With the right plan, it can be done. I wrote all the rules & regulations for the 95 America’s Cup in San Diego including the In-the-Bay race during the World Championships in 94. It came out great & San Diego Bay is a hell of a lot smaller the SF Bay. It would take planning & coordination but it can be done.
(PS: The day after the Aircraft Carrier incident, we had a lot of cooperation from the Navy)
The real & only problem is finding an exciting boat that can race in the Bay & not have to do 40 laps to get a 2-3 hour race. There are plenty of boats out there that would make great racing. We just have to make sure the egos of all the millionaires don’t force 90 footers on us. What’s wrong with 50 feet & 2 laps?
SF Bay has some of the best wind in the world with incredible areas for spectators. You wont need a 1000 power pair of binoculars to see the boats 5 miles off the coast. I grew up in Newport, sailed all over the world but SF Bay has some of the best sailing anywhere. If I had my wish, I’d see it jump from SF to Perth and back every time.

[Distorted Humor]

The Americas Cup that cought most people attention was the Aussie defense, and I think that it IS possible to catch that type of attention again. My humble ideas would be.

New class,

*Mono-Hull for the reason that having 20+ multi-hulls in a port is a logistical issue, mono-hulls do not share this issue.
*Size close to 12 meters class, but with modern technology.
*have design rules so that the post cup boats can be converted to IRC boats so they have a post-cup life.
*limit to two boats per team
*Cost-containment
*crew size of say, 12, of which, all but three must have a passport of the nation that the yacht club is located on.
*put away postponement flag, unless it is too shifty. so if there is 27 knots of wind, we have racing. if we have 8 knots of wind, we have racing, design accordingly.
*With these rules, hopefully you could have 10+ challangers and 3+ defending boats with both the challanger and defenders having trials to see who is the defender and challanger.

[Distorted Humor]

The Americas Cup that cought most people attention was the Aussie defense, and I think that it IS possible to catch that type of attention again. My humble ideas would be.

New class,

*Mono-Hull for the reason that having 20+ multi-hulls in a port is a logistical issue, mono-hulls do not share this issue.
*Size close to 12 meters class, but with modern technology.
*have design rules so that the post cup boats can be converted to IRC boats so they have a post-cup life.
*limit to two boats per team
*Cost-containment
*crew size of say, 12, of which, all but three must have a passport of the nation that the yacht club is located on.
*put away postponement flag, unless it is too shifty. so if there is 27 knots of wind, we have racing. if we have 8 knots of wind, we have racing, design accordingly.
*With these rules, hopefully you could have 10+ challangers and 3+ defending boats with both the challanger and defenders having trials to see who is the defender and challanger.

[jehardiman]

You know, based upon the TV popularity of poker, the present trend of crapshoot environmental design , and the big money being thrown around. I propose that the next Americas Cup not be done in boats at all.

TV freindly America's Cup Rules

Required: Std 52 card deck, Cribbage board.

1) Defender and Challanger both ante up $100M with the Defender selected host venue. Of this $150M goes to charity and $50M to the host venue. This sets the best 2 out of 3 "Match". The Challanger picks the Day to start the first "Race", the Defender picks the strating Time.

2) On the appointed day(s) set by the Challanger, the two syndicates show up for the "Race". The board, with red and black pegs, and deck are provided by the venue. The Defender gets all the red cards, the Challanger all the black. If there is any abnormality in the deck at this time, the syndicate Lawyers will have a WWF Cage Match to decide the outcome.

3) Each syndicate secretly choses 1 card from thier 26, this is the "Boat".

4) Each secretly discards 5 cards from thier remaining 25 cards (NOTE: Swiss Rules: the Defender gets to choose which 5 the Challanger discards).

5) A coin is tossed and the toss winner takes the remaining 40 cards and shuffles them, the toss loser cuts the deck no more than 5 times, and the deck placed face down at the end of the board. This is the "Swell". When the Swell is placed, both sides reveil thier Boat.

6) The top two cards are pulled off the Swell and turned face up. This is the "Puff"

7) Each syndicate sums the value (face cards are 10, all other thier spots) of the Puff with their Boat. The syndicate closest to 18 pegs 7 holes with the peg of thier Boat color first, if both are closest, then both peg 7 at the same time. The one further from 18 pegs 7 minus the difference between the two hands, but not less than 1, with the peg of their Boat color after the other syndicate. If the sum of the Puff and Boat is over 26, that Boat is assesd to have broken and the syndicate cannot further peg for the rest of the Swell.

8) After both syndicates have pegged, the Puff is discarded and the next two top cards are drawn. Play procededs per (7).

9) First Syndicate to 121st hole is the race winner. If neither syndicate reaches 121 before the Swell is depleted then the Race is "Over Time Limit" and does not count for the Match. If both sides happen to peg 121 simlatniously per (7), then the Race is a "Draw" and does not count in the Match

10) Races will occur every other day after the first at the venue until the conditions of the Match are completed.

[Doug Lord]

From Scuttlebutt 3055:

quoting Ellison:

" I kind of like monohulls. All my racing experience is on monohulls. But if
what the kids want to watch is multihulls because it's more exciting, we'll
go multihulls. We've got to make this a great sport from the point of view
of the participant, especially the kid who's just getting into the sport,
and from the point of view of the viewer on television."

[CT 249]

Overwhelmingly, kids who are into sailing are into slower/medium speed craft, and especially slow simple boats. Even now that the multis have been in the Youth Worlds for a few years, they attract far fewer young sailors than the slower monos. The current kid's board is (according to calcs and experience here) slower in normal winds than the original Windsurfer, but it's still popular.

Once again, there is an INVERSE correlation between high speed and high popularity. Pure speed just doesn't sell to the typical person.

[Paul B]

Once again, there is an INVERSE correlation between high speed and high popularity.

Well, for the AC you don't need high popularity in the sense of many participants. The pros will sail whatever they get paid to sail.

I have to say the most exciting sailing I have ever watched on TV was the old 18 footer match racing. We didn't get it here in the USA, I could only catch it while overseas.

I would even be interested in seeing a format like the old Laser Slalom course off StFYC. Not match racing as we know it, but it had a lot more boathandling and was fun to watch.

Who knows what Larry has planned. He does say some things that are not very realistic:

"he does want to alter the competition's design rules -- a prerogative of the winner -- so that it would take as little as $3 million to mount a campaign. That way national teams that have abandoned America's Cup racing, like Sweden and South Africa, would probably return."

Sure bet, a two or three year campaign for US$3MM? You couldn't do a TP program for that, let alone something like the AC.

[CT 249]

Sure, you're right about the pros of course. It's just that there's no real basis for the oft-heard claim that "kids need fast boats to lure them into sailing".

The most exciting sailing I've seen is surf slalom or wave competition on windsurfers, but people like the chief designer for the biggest sailmaker and the CEO of the biggest board maker are now looking back and saying that the emphasis on high performance like that is what stuffed the sport. I just don't wanna see boat sailing go down the same plughole.

[Doug Lord]

Sure, you're right about the pros of course. It's just that there's no real basis for the oft-heard claim that "kids need fast boats to lure them into sailing".
The most exciting sailing I've seen is surf slalom or wave competition on windsurfers, but people like the chief designer for the biggest sailmaker and the CEO of the biggest board maker are now looking back and saying that the emphasis on high performance like that is what stuffed the sport. I just don't wanna see boat sailing go down the same plughole.
=======================
Larry didn't say that. He said: " But if
what the kids want to watch is multihulls because it's more exciting, we'll
go multihulls." In my opinion its MUCH more exciting to WATCH multihulls than it is to watch leadbellies. This last Cup was thrilling just seeing the boats under sail flying a hull or two-a whole new dimension to watching the Americas Cup and one that will add to the popularity of the Cup for TV.

[booster]

Sure, you're right about the pros of course. It's just that there's no real basis for the oft-heard claim that "kids need fast boats to lure them into sailing".

The most exciting sailing I've seen is surf slalom or wave competition on windsurfers, but people like the chief designer for the biggest sailmaker and the CEO of the biggest board maker are now looking back and saying that the emphasis on high performance like that is what stuffed the sport. I just don't wanna see boat sailing go down the same plughole.

I agree!
Regarding correlation one can have participating factors, positive or negative. Thus, Doug can, for instance, have -0.999998 for kids and CT249 can, for instance, have +1.0 for kids.
Regards,
Booster

[ancient kayaker]

... Who knows what Larry has planned. He does say some things that are not very realistic:

"he does want to alter the competition's design rules -- a prerogative of the winner -- so that it would take as little as $3 million to mount a campaign. That way national teams that have abandoned America's Cup racing, like Sweden and South Africa, would probably return." ...

so, altering the AC's rules is a prerogative of the winner eh! At last, my chance to make an impact in the boating World. We'll hold the competition in my local pond. By the time the challengers have figured out how to get under the bridges, around the sunken tree, past the shallows where the herons teach their nestling how to fish and around the fish hatchery, and have grounded a couple of times going past the island ...

Oh wait. You gotta win under their rules first, right? I knew there was a catch ...

[Paul B]

=======================
This last Cup was thrilling just seeing the boats under sail flying a hull or two-a whole new dimension to watching the Americas Cup and one that will add to the popularity of the Cup for TV.

I convinced quite a few non-sailors to take a look at the great technology in play at the last cup. The actual races could not hold the attention of even one of them. While I watched the races on replay I was fast forwarding through a lot of it myself.

There was nothing interesting at all to the general public when it came to watching those boats sail in the races. After the pre-start, seeing the boats sail for 5 minutes was more than enough for virtually every non-sailor I know.

Most racing sailors I know weren't any more interested than the non-sailors. It was simply a video of two boats sailing along by themselves, not an exciting match race in any way.

[bistros]

I convinced quite a few non-sailors to take a look at the great technology in play at the last cup. The actual races could not hold the attention of even one of them. While I watched the races on replay I was fast forwarding through a lot of it myself.

There was nothing interesting at all to the general public when it came to watching those boats sail in the races. After the pre-start, seeing the boats sail for 5 minutes was more than enough for virtually every non-sailor I know.

Most racing sailors I know weren't any more interested than the non-sailors. It was simply a video of two boats sailing along by themselves, not an exciting match race in any way.

Oh come on, Paul. How could watching two very different boats costing hundreds of millions of dollars toddle around alone in 3-7 knots of breeze not get the general public excited? Especially when you get to watch it on the Internet in a tiny window at bad resolution? Complete with "buffering" delays!

Perhaps it is that they can't see the investment of money. Here's an idea, why not put a final layer of cash on top of the all the carbon used? That way, the general public could get a hint of the spending done by two poorly behaved boy-children to satisfy their egos. That's it! Vacuum bag cash into all the layups! Maybe each lawyer used in negotiations should have to be a deck hand on the boats, so the participants minimize their squabbling to keep the decks clear.

There has got to be a special place in hell for people who would spend this kind of money on a non-event ego-stroking like this. Ellison sounds lately like he's rethinking the spending a little for the next round.

--
Bill

[Paul B]

Oh come on, Paul. How could watching two very different boats costing hundreds of millions of dollars toddle around alone in 3-7 knots of breeze not get the general public excited? Especially when you get to watch it on the Internet in a tiny window at bad resolution? Complete with "buffering" delays!
--
Bill

My computer didn't have any buffering delays. Maybe you need a better connection. Also, my screen isn't so tiny on one of my monitors.

Most of the people I told to watch are interested in technology stuff and understand wings and things. Most of these folks are engineers and like things like F1 and LeMans type sportscars. Two of them were very interested in the wing, as they know something about an industry where wings are used and the American wing dwarfed the projects they have worked on.

There was plenty of wind for the boats to sail fully powered up. They were flying hulls. So the amount of wind didn't seem to be a factor.

The amount of money spent was not an issue. F1 teams spend far more.

What was an issue was no matter how interested these people were in things like carbon construction, wing details, etc watching the "races" was worse than watching Golf. At least in a golf telecast something significant to the leaderboard happens every 5 minutes or so.

F1 racing is almost as bad as AC racing, but every once in a while something does happen. Someone goes for a pass, someone goes off, a tire shreds and takes bodywork with it, a motor goes Poof, a pit stop goes very wrong, etc.


I wonder how much Ellison has spent since the end of the last race? I'll wager it is quite a chunk of the amount he has suggested for an entry level team to have as a budget for their entire program.

[bistros]

My computer didn't have any buffering delays. Maybe you need a better connection. Also, my screen isn't so tiny on one of my monitors.

Most of the people I told to watch are interested in technology stuff and understand wings and things. Most of these folks are engineers and like things like F1 and LeMans type sportscars. Two of them were very interested in the wing, as they know something about an industry where wings are used and the American wing dwarfed the projects they have worked on.

There was plenty of wind for the boats to sail fully powered up. They were flying hulls. So the amount of wind didn't seem to be a factor.

The amount of money spent was not an issue. F1 teams spend far more.

What was an issue was no matter how interested these people were in things like carbon construction, wing details, etc watching the "races" was worse than watching Golf. At least in a golf telecast something significant to the leaderboard happens every 5 minutes or so.

F1 racing is almost as bad as AC racing, but every once in a while something does happen. Someone goes for a pass, someone goes off, a tire shreds and takes bodywork with it, a motor goes Poof, a pit stop goes very wrong, etc.


I wonder how much Ellison has spent since the end of the last race? I'll wager it is quite a chunk of the amount he has suggested for an entry level team to have as a budget for their entire program.

Yes, they were fully powered up, and yes the technical performance was amazing no doubt. The problem is that it was cold, clinical and lacked any excitement, danger and drama. The best and only moment was the match racing confrontation on the start line.

I agree with your assessment entirely - but comparing the atrophying sport of yacht racing to F1 is not really fair. F1 brings the national pride, the petrochemical industry, sports car manufacturers, engine manufacturers, control systems developers, tire manufacturers etc. all to one highly visible worldwide display case. It isn't fair to compare budgets. The eventual consumer impact of Formula One is amazing, although delayed by a few years. The eventual consumer impact of the America's Cup is non-existent.

I think the budget of the past AC was astounding in proportion to the resultant (lack of) economic impact.

--
Bill

[Paul B]

The eventual consumer impact of Formula One is amazing, although delayed by a few years. The eventual consumer impact of the America's Cup is non-existent.

I think the budget of the past AC was astounding in proportion to the resultant (lack of) economic impact.

--
Bill

Not many who watch sport are concerned about the economic impact/trickle down.

There is no trickle down from the NBA, NFL, or Aussie Rules Football to the general public. Yet people watch these sports.

There is no trickle down from NASCAR racing. There was once a NASCAR Driver named Dick Trickle.

The clubs the PGA pros use have little to do with the technology used by weekend golfers. Yet people watch the PGA every weekend.

It is possible that funding from this last cup has allowed some technology to move toward the general public. Wind measurement, head's up display, construction methods, design tools, etc.

However, the success of a sporting event is not measured by how much technology trickle down comes out of it.

[Doug Lord]

Fine bunch of "engineers" that didn't enjoy seeing the two fastest America's Cup boats in the history of the event sailing at close to thirty knots "with alarms going off all over the place". Remarkable configuration changes on USA with a 10 degree plus change in rake from jib to no jib. The first use of lifting hydrofoils in the history of the Americas Cup. The first use of powered movable ballast ever in a Cup. Designed right on the edge with 200' rigs
and technology never seen before the engineers I know watched with enthusiasm and apprehension-it was extraordinarily exciting if you had even a remote clue what you were looking at.
I think Ellison is right on target going for fast boats that can have an excitement not matched by leadbellies in any conditions-except maybe Perth.
Thats the real answer: extraordinarily fast boats sailing in conditions like Perth.
I hope speed and the fastest boats possible are a fixture in future Cups along with challenging conditions.

[Paul B]

-it was extraordinarily exciting if you had even a remote clue what you were looking at.


No, watching boats sail along by themselves for an hour or so is not exciting for any sane person.

I'm willing to bet I have more information about the "technology" used than The Lord does, so more than a "remote clue", and I did not find it exciting. Neither did the designers or racers that I know, who also have more than a "remote clue".

[Gary Baigent]

Jeez Paul, I can watch fast multihulls like BMW-O and A5 for hours, same thing watching the foils of my own boat slide through the water - also the same for the superb filming that came from G3. Have to say your engineering friends sound a pretty cold, boring and dull lot.

[Paul B]

Have to say your engineering friends sound a pretty cold, boring and dull lot.

Apparently my yacht designer friends and yacht racing friends as well!

[Doug Lord]

Apparently my yacht designer friends and yacht racing friends as well!
=========
Exactly!

[bistros]

From a technology perspective the AC just past was spectacular. From a sailboat racing perspective it was underwhelming. Just depends on which perspective you are talking about.

Most sporting events are about the economic impact - if not direct then by association. BMW and Oracle paid one hell of a lot of money to be associated with the event and the attendant visibility and exposure gained. Since there was no TV, no ESPN-level newsworthy coverage and no real excitement (other than the technology triumph) it just didn't raise a pulse.

Every stadium in North America gets millions for the naming rights - so some corporate entity can gain exposure and prestige being associated with the professional sports teams housed within. Same with all marquee sporting events. Ernesto Bertarelli and his Alinghi team were very unusual in not getting the corporate value from their expenditures.

As a sailboat racing enthusiast, the extreme technology used in this AC was divisive and contentious. I disagree with replacing grinders with diesel engines. I also think there is a point where computer-optimized sailing ceases to be about the sailor and starts to be more about the technology. I love my Velocitek, but where do we stop? To me, once the line is crossed it ceases to be sailing and becomes power boat racing.

--
Bill

[Doug Lord]

To me, once the line is crossed it ceases to be sailing and becomes power boat racing.

--
Bill

---------------------
I've heard a lot of ridiculous comments about the last Cup but to call the racing between these two extraordinary sailboats "power boat racing" is without a doubt the most preposterous comment of them all!

[Paul B]

=========
Exactly!

That's right, the people I know with some expertise in these matters did not think the racing was great, regardless of "alarms going off all over the place". Of course, if you actually watched the races you would know we did not hear these alarms during the race. Just how does an alarm going off actually make a good yacht race?

Some of us race on boats where we change the rake of the mast often. Gee, how does raking a mast make an exciting yacht race?

Ditto the other "techo-weenie" drivel. If one boat is 5% or 10% faster than the other boat in a match race it is not an "exciting" race.

[ancient kayaker]

People watch car racing, downhill skiing and other such for several reasons. Sure there's national pride, appreciation of technology, awe at the human ability, but the apparent and visible speed is the biggest thrill of all.

Yachts can be exciting, the Volvo race certainly is, and the way it is presented on TV it can hold the viewer's interest despite the fact that the yachts are usually miles from each other. You get to see them battling through monster waves, meet the guys, see strange places, hear the inside story (maybe) and see the technology make it or break.

Problem with the AC is most of that is not visible, unless you are physically present to appreciate the scale of these things. Seeing a couple of incredibly large boats plow majestically through almost calm seas, on and on, just doesn't convey much of an impression on a TV screen. The size, technology, human effort is all there but it doesn't come through on the screen. They're just so big that everything else is overwhelmed by their scale, the waves and the people are so small as to be almost invisible, the speed is not apparent and the ending is inevitable after the first few seconds.

It's about as exciting as seeing the pyramids on TV. How big are they? Well imagine that! Lord, it made me yawn just writing about it. Now power boat racing IS spectacular!

[Paul B]

the speed is not apparent and the ending is inevitable after the first few seconds.

I think you have summed it up very nicely with these two points.


Now power boat racing IS spectacular!

For the same reason NASCAR is exciting. At any moment someone just might end up upside-down.

[bistros]

---------------------
I've heard a lot of ridiculous comments about the last Cup but to call the racing between these two extraordinary sailboats "power boat racing" is without a doubt the most preposterous comment of them all!

Doug:

Can either of these boats be raced without a diesel engine running to provide hydraulic power?

That aside my comment was trying to make the point that somewhere there is a line. I did not offer an opinion as to whether or not these particular boats crossed it.

[Paul B]

Can either of these boats be raced without a diesel engine running to provide hydraulic power?


Yes. The USA boat was originally configured and sailed using grinders. When they changed to the wing it would have made it even easier to use manpower.

[idkfa]

Excitement? The IACC rig groaning, as she powered up her stride, after lying on her other side, would make even a non-sailer Dick Trickle....

[bistros]

Yes. The USA boat was originally configured and sailed using grinders. When they changed to the wing it would have made it even easier to use manpower.

Agreed, but listening to the interviews with the design team and people on board quickly made us aware that maneuvering speed, speed of adjustments and response to the many data collection / interpretation systems was dramatically better with the powered system versus the manual labor. I don't know if there was any major difference in overall weight of grinders versus engine and fuel - although it would be nice to know.

Would the difference have been enough to affect the outcome of the series? I certainly would not offer an opinion, but suffice it to say they drank the powered Kool Aid instead of just saying no.

Given the result and then thinking how the commentary applied to what we saw happening, a lot of the rock steady, powered-up sailing with the boat fully flying on the leeward ama was probably enabled and helped by the powered systems. Precise and fast response to conditions is aided by precise and fast mechanical systems.

Then again, perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think so.

--
Bill

[peterraymond]

As a sailor I like the tactics and particularly the start. As an engineer I like the technology, but if you want viewers, you need spectacle.

Spectacle may not be exactly the word I'm looking for, but it will have to do and that's what brings in the viewers. I think you get it from close racing with a lot of maneuvers, lots of wind and waves and even from the obvious money, the big boats and the team uniforms. Like F1, all the effort and all the attention are part of the show.

Speaking of F1, I don't think the budgets are all that far off. In each case 100M seemed to be about the starting point for a serious effort, although I did hear that Ferrari had 700-800 people working on their effort and one or more of the teams have two wind tunnels because they can't get all their testing done in just one. Maybe the difference is that for F1 it's a budget per year and the budgets are perhaps double, while for the AC it's for a 3 year campaign.

[Doug Lord]

A top sailors view:
"What a fantastic race. I'd like to congratulate Alinghi for bouncing back and really coming out swinging. That was one hell of a boat race. It was on the whole time and I enjoyed every minute of it."James Spithill,April 2010 Sailing World

[Paul B]

A top sailors view:
"What a fantastic race. I'd like to congratulate Alinghi for bouncing back and really coming out swinging. That was one hell of a boat race. It was on the whole time and I enjoyed every minute of it."James Spithill,April 2010 Sailing World

I remember when John Wooden's UCLA teams would crush opponents by 30 points he would always say things in the post game interviews like, "They were really tough tonight. We couldn't let up for one second against those guys."

Regardless of what Spithill said, that race was over BEFORE the starting gun went off. With a pre-start penalty and a 5% to 10% speed disadvantage Alinghi was not going to compete in that race, even with the good tactics of catching a nice shift on the first beat. They lost by 5.5 minutes going away.

Try again.

[Chris Ostlind]

Manual trimming as fast and as accurately as an SUV full of actuators.... not on your life.

Once the Pandora's Box is opened to having a full time engine to do the work with hydraulics, it would be serious competitive suicide to have opted for a manual system. The guy who chooses to not run an engine in that game is praying for a total hydraulic, and/or, engine breakdown on board the other guy's boat.

And for the record, I agree with Bill; that it turned it into a power boat event that just happened to have sails on board. I've felt that way since the advent of canting keels and the total need for an engine just to make it work.

Total and utter BS for sailboats and without doubt, the end of an era.

[Doug Lord]

I remember when John Wooden's UCLA teams would crush opponents by 30 points he would always say things in the post game interviews like, "They were really tough tonight. We couldn't let up for one second against those guys."

Regardless of what Spithill said, that race was over BEFORE the starting gun went off. With a pre-start penalty and a 5% to 10% speed disadvantage Alinghi was not going to compete in that race, even with the good tactics of catching a nice shift on the first beat. They lost by 5.5 minutes going away.

Try again.
================
My apologies "Paul B"-of course you know better than the skipper of USA. What could I have been thinking-tsk tsk......



A top sailors view:
"What a fantastic race. I'd like to congratulate Alinghi for bouncing back and really coming out swinging. That was one hell of a boat race. It was on the whole time and I enjoyed every minute of it."James Spithill,April 2010 Sailing World

[Doug Lord]

And for the record, I agree with Bill; that it turned it into a power boat event that just happened to have sails on board.

====================
The incredible and profound silliness of calling these two magnificent sailing machines powerboats is just stunning:
(pix from Alinghi and BMW sites)

[ancient kayaker]

Manual trimming as fast and as accurately as an SUV full of actuators.... not on your life.

Once the Pandora's Box is opened to having a full time engine to do the work with hydraulics, it would be serious competitive suicide to have opted for a manual system. The guy who chooses to not run an engine in that game is praying for a total hydraulic, and/or, engine breakdown onboard the other guy's boat.

And for the record, I agree with Bill; that it turned it into a power boat event that just happened to have sails on board. I've felt that way since the advent of canting keels and the total need for an engine just to make it work.

Total and utter BS for sailboats and without doubt, the end of an era.

Good point Chris. Perhaps we can look forward to the day when there's a bank of computers running the whole thing with just an obligatory "skipper" on deck relaxing in his chair watching the whole thing on TV because the views better than on the water. By then we'll be predicting the day when the whole thing is run in virtual reality to ensure utterly fair conditions, and the boats don't even have to avoid one another because they don't even exist. Once it's a video game, millions of people can compete for the cup. wow. Talk about participation! Sounds great, eh?

[CT 249]

Well, I watched the whole of R1 (which finished at about 2.30 am here) and found the performance of the boats fascinating. However, I'll also watch Laser races with equal (if not greater) interest, whereas Laser racing bores many people.

The point is, Doug, that the fact that some of us fans find something fascinating does not mean that the general public will give a damn. Just like woolspinning, bog swimming and pigeon racing, the fact that there are fanatics who will watch does not mean that the general public will watch.

Yes, I know that Larry was not talking directly about getting kids into sailing, but I assume that was one of his underlying meanings. Kids aren't the target markets for Oracle or BMW so one assumes that he wasn't trying to get them to watch it to increase the sponsorship value.

A Kayaker, yes of course you are right and speed is the fascination for many spectator sports. But some major spectator sports, like golf, soccer or the Tour de France, are pretty slow most of the time. Nor do they offer much chance of anyone spreading themselves across the landscape.

You make a very good point about the size of the boats making them look slower. Just one more reason to go to 65-80 footers, perhaps.

By the way, in Australia at any rate, power boat racing seems to be much less popular than it was. We used to get hundreds of entries to the world's biggest waterski race as well, now it's dead. Just more evidence that simple speed isn't enough.

Doug, about the Spithill comment. You are mocking Paul because (according to you) he claims to know better than the AC skipper. Yet you have also said that you know more about Moth foiler operation than the former world champ.

Which is it to be? Do you agree that a champion skipper knows more than an onlooker (in which case Spithill and Bora are right) or do you claim that an informed onlooker knows more than the champion skipper?

You can't have it both ways just because that suits you. BTW I can recall James seeming to get pretty excited and upbeat about Etchell racing way back when we used to race him. Maybe he's just an upbeat sort of guy?

[Paul B]

================
My apologies "Paul B"-of course you know better than the skipper of USA. What could I have been thinking-tsk tsk......

Well, unlike some others, I tend to make my conclusions based on data and observation, not on what someone says.

The fact, based on data and observation, is the Alinghi boat was not competitive with the USA boat in either race.

Neither race was "one hell of a boat race".

[Doug Lord]

Yet you have also said that you know more about Moth foiler operation than the former world champ.


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

[bistros]

================
......

Doug Lord quoting Doug Lord quoting Sailing World quoting James Spithill - this is thread bloat rendered into an art form.

The United States Federal Department of Redundancy Department of the Americas (Federal Branch) could use help.

[CT 249]

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

You said, here on BDF "My sins against
Mr. Gulari were to ask him a few questions, to point out that his assertion that the standard Moth configuration was a canard was incorrect, and to point out that a dual strut foiler CAN sail with veel heel."

As you have said to Bora;

"First you say that a conventional configuration Moth is a canard-and brag about convincing Julian Bethwaite of this. When I point out your error you sort of apologize.

Is this what you find so annoying? Does the fact that I was right on two clear cut issues and you were dead flat wrong annoy you?"

and

"Sorry to interupt your laughing Bora. But the gap has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the phenomenon I'm trying to get you to understand. You really should do the experiment I described earlier. Make the gap any size at all just so the two pieces are parallel and don't touch when the "flap" is moved.It will open your mind,Mr. Ambassador. You don't even have to tell anybody you did it....."

and, in a thread about Bladerider techology;

"As to BS-you are the expert-characterizing everything I've said or done as BS-and you want "even a little picture"-?? You're funny...
__
Simple mechanics? And what did I say, Mr. Ambassador Bora?
I've got a few simple mechanics questions for you since you are the Bladerider Ambassador-and remember this answer is very important to any foiler: Is the mainfoil flap hinge on the Bladerider a solid state full span hinge? If so what are the charateristics of the hinge movement around zero degrees under load-does the movement have a "bump"? Have you tested it with the wand mechanism disconnected on dry land? Under an 80% load? Huh? Do you even know what I'm talking about? Go for it Mr.Ambassador...."

So you said to Bora that he was "dead flat wrong", you asked "do you even know what I'm talking about?", you "point out his error" and you say he doesn't understand a hinge. That doesn't seem like the words of someone who regards the former world champ as an unimpeachable source. So since you don't regard a world champion in Moths as a font on knowledge about Moths, how can you expect others to regard Spithill as a 100% true font of knowledge about the AC??

I'm NOT (repeat 10,000 times) saying that James was lying, just that when he said "it was on the whole time" he may not have meant that they were seriously threatened. And didn't Tom report that the US team was throttled back in race 2? Surely a remark by Tom on this point, while (from his own account) second-hand, is more accurate that what you reckon Spithill was implying.

And if you are going to say that some world champs are wrong, you cannot get annoyed when someone else points out that the word of another world champ may not be complete evidence for a case you are trying to make.

[Doug Lord]

And if you are going to say that some world champs are wrong, you cannot get annoyed when someone else points out that the word of another world champ may not be complete evidence for a case you are trying to make.

=========================
Asking a world champ questions about the Moth is not saying I know more about the operation of the Moth than he does. Pointing out to the world champion that the Moth is NOT a cannard configuration is not saying I know more about the operation of the Moth-only that in this particular case he did not know the configuration of the Moth. (A statement he sorta apologized for).
Regarding the hinge he did not know what I was referring to. I just happened to have an Ilett Moth main foil that I had extensively tested and it was found to have a tendency to stick when under heavy load due, it turns out, to the flap hinge.
I have never tried to tell Bora or anyone else anything about the "operation of the Moth"; I have, however, pointed out the mistake he made in mischaracterizing the Moth configuration from a design perspective. And I did point out what I found on the actual Moth foil that I studied-a mechanical observation that I asked the Ambassador a question about and was ridiculed for the question. In the development of the Rave, binding of the flap hinge was a problem that occurred under load and had to be dealt with-I asked if that was also true on a Bladerider and if anyone had ever tested it.
Again, I NEVER EVER made the statement that "I know more about Moth foiler operation than the former World Champ".That comment of yours was 100% false!

Your original quote:

Yet you have also said that you know more about Moth foiler operation than the former world champ.

==========================
Spithill's comment about the race stands as his own and a prettty informed one at that.

[Chris Ostlind]

So, that's it, Doug?... The whole world is either all black, or it's all white. There's no potential, whatsoever, for a vast sea of intuitive, nuanced driven grey, anywhere to be found?

Spithill is a guy who only looks to be complex by your implied type of understanding. He has great, black tools as a skipper and he only makes comments that are so specifically mounted to rails, that there is no interpretive variance on the landscape... This is how you see it?

I say that the gentleman is precisely that... a gentleman. I further say that he is endowed with a particular way of keeping himself from overstating the obvious as a function of his sportsmanship.

Paul mentioned John Wooden. When I was in school at UCLA, Wooden would give regular spoken seminars on campus, even though he was out of the coaching game at that point. I attended these sessions with zeal, as Wooden was then and remains now, the undisputed master of his realm in basketball.

Within these speeches, he would frequently refer to the level of sportsmanship that allowed one to speak of one's achievements while not denigrating the opponent. It is this type of comment stream that is apparently coming from Spithill in the referenced quote. If there's anything that a coach truly dislikes, it is having a smack talking quote from himself, his staff, or his team, plastered on the opponent's locker room bulletin board, serving as opponent inspiration for the next time they meet.

I'm wondering why you don't see that as a part of Spithill's personality?

[Doug Lord]

From Sailing World,April 2010:

"It was a captivating 10-mile drag race-perhaps the first soft-water sailing event worthy of that moniker-and one of the most enduring images from the 33rd match in Valencia,Spain, in February. After a disheartening performance in Race 1, Alinghi's soft-sail catamaran was showing itself to be every bit the upwind match for BMW Oracle Racing's wing-sailed trimaran. In 8 to 10 knots of breeze, both boats' VMG up the course was higher than the speed of the wind blowing down it."

" It wasn't simply the wing.......It was also the team's willingness to completely rebuild the trimaran-very little remained of the original boat-and to test out every possible idea, no matter how crazy. A secretion system designed to reduce skin friction was tested, but not used in the race. However, the idea of using helium to help the center hull lift out of the water was."

Wow! that is simply amazing! If that actually worked ,which apparently it did, then it would help enormously with the boat flying a hull steadily thruout both races-vs the up and down of Alinghi.

UPDATE: this is fact and is one of the most exciting, incredible developments in design and construction of high speed sailboats that I have run into in my 50+ years of studying design and sailing. Monumental is not too strong a word!!

[Chris Ostlind]

However, the idea of using helium to help the center hull lift out of the water was."[/I][/COLOR]

Wow! that is simply amazing! If that actually worked ,which apparently it did, then it would help enormously with the boat flying a hull steadily thruout both races-vs the up and down of Alinghi.




I'm just a lowly artist and not an engineer guy who is cosmically empowered with the ability to use numbers and lists. Perhaps you could run through the physical needs of the BMWO tri when it comes to having enough helium on board to be able to "aid" in the lifting of the boat. You pick the figure that constitutes enough gas to get the job done.

If you can... also indicate how the helium would be contained so as not to experience loss of gas during the course of a race and how that containment vessel figures into the overall static weight of the boat beyond the racing trim as designed?

The funny and ironic part of all this is: If there were such a system in place and if it actually worked as you apparently believe from a magazine article... you have to realize that the use of the gas within a boat virtually negates the need to have lifting foils installed. I would go so far as to say that the “boat” could be engineered to just barely touch the water, thereby making the full transition away from watercraft, to full-on airborne vessels. Similarly, there’s no more need for racing boats with sails, cause we already have an engine on board

Whooops... there goes the neighborhood with a pile of low-tech solutions to modern sailing performance. ;-)

[Doug Lord]

From Sailing World,April 2010:

"It was a captivating 10-mile drag race-perhaps the first soft-water sailing event worthy of that moniker-and one of the most enduring images from the 33rd match in Valencia,Spain, in February. After a disheartening performance in Race 1, Alinghi's soft-sail catamaran was showing itself to be every bit the upwind match for BMW Oracle Racing's wing-sailed trimaran. In 8 to 10 knots of breeze, both boats' VMG up the course was higher than the speed of the wind blowing down it."

" It wasn't simply the wing.......It was also the team's willingness to completely rebuild the trimaran-very little remained of the original boat-and to test out every possible idea, no matter how crazy. A secretion system designed to reduce skin friction was tested, but not used in the race. However, the idea of using helium to help the center hull lift out of the water was."

Wow! that is simply amazing! If that actually worked ,which apparently it did, then it would help enormously with the boat flying a hull steadily thruout both races-vs the up and down of Alinghi.

UPDATE: this is fact and is one of the most exciting, incredible developments in design and construction of high speed sailboats that I have run into in my 50+ years of studying design and sailing. Monumental is not too strong a word!!
================

I have found out that the use of helium for the purpose stated above on USA is a fact and not an April Fools joke, printing error, or any other kind of mistake.

[Chris Ostlind]

You still have not shown us how much weight it would have lifted (if any) how the added structure played into the so-called net gain of the boat's performance and how they kept the helium from escaping. All of these issues are far more important than the use of red color and large font would suggest.

I'm looking forward to the day when all the crew members are equipped with negative weight back packs, so that there's absolutely no weight on board that is not countered with a floating, helium filled balloon creaking about on their backs as they go through their tasks. Mind you, it will have to be substantial and that will give fits to the dude in the sewer.

[tspeer]

Can either of these boats be raced without a diesel engine running to provide hydraulic power?...

Until RRS 49-54 were waived by the SNG Notice of Race, USA 17 sailed for months with manual power alone using the soft sail rig. The loads to control the soft rig were much higher than the forces required to control the wing.

Although the wing came along after the conversion to powered hydraulics, it could have been controlled by manual power. Dave Hubbard designed the control system to be quite similar in concept to the controls on his C-class catamaran designs. So the wing would have been eminently suited to manual control.

Also prior to conversion to engine power, manual power was used to hydraulically adjust the shroud lengths to cant the rig.

It is true that after the boat was converted to engine power and the grinders were given their pink slips, USA 17 needed the engine to operate. But it's not true that the boat could not have been raced without engine power. And it was BMW Oracle Racing's preference that the boats use only manual power. But that wasn't the rule set that governed the regatta.

[bistros]

Until RRS 49-54 were waived by the SNG Notice of Race, USA 17 sailed for months with manual power alone using the soft sail rig. The loads to control the soft rig were much higher than the forces required to control the wing.

Although the wing came along after the conversion to powered hydraulics, it could have been controlled by manual power. Dave Hubbard designed the control system to be quite similar in concept to the controls on his C-class catamaran designs. So the wing would have been eminently suited to manual control.

Also prior to conversion to engine power, manual power was used to hydraulically adjust the shroud lengths to cant the rig.

It is true that after the boat was converted to engine power and the grinders were given their pink slips, USA 17 needed the engine to operate. But it's not true that the boat could not have been raced without engine power. And it was BMW Oracle Racing's preference that the boats use only manual power. But that wasn't the rule set that governed the regatta.

Tom:

I certainly appreciate your answer. As I previously posted:

Agreed (this was in response to Paul B.'s post), but listening to the interviews with the design team and people on board quickly made us aware that maneuvering speed, speed of adjustments and response to the many data collection / interpretation systems was dramatically better with the powered system versus the manual labor. I don't know if there was any major difference in overall weight of grinders versus engine and fuel - although it would be nice to know.

Would the difference have been enough to affect the outcome of the series? I certainly would not offer an opinion, but suffice it to say they drank the powered Kool Aid instead of just saying no.

Given the result and then thinking how the commentary applied to what we saw happening, a lot of the rock steady, powered-up sailing with the boat fully flying on the leeward ama was probably enabled and helped by the powered systems. Precise and fast response to conditions is aided by precise and fast mechanical systems.

Then again, perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think so.

--
Bill

I would not presume to have any right to even discuss these issues with you. It is wonderful to have someone with facts and hands-on experience present. Thanks.

--
Bill

[Doug Lord]

================

I have found out that the use of helium for the purpose stated above on USA is a fact and not an April Fools joke, printing error, or any other kind of mistake.
==============
The helium was in the hulls. See: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/usa-technical-details-helium-used-32082.html#post354170 From a "whats next?" standpoint it will be interesting to see what an analysis of this system turns up. It could lead to race boats designed with more volume -for more lift. Interesting to ponder the possibilities.......

[peterraymond]

Since we are talking about "America's Cup: what's next?", does anyone hope that there are engines powering the rig next time? I didn't think so.

I'm guessing that Alinghi made that rule in part to disrupt the BOR campaign. Or, maybe they knew that BOR would have to use a BMW engine, while Alinghi could use a lighter snowmobile engine.

I know this is a thread about what we would like to see next in the AC, not a new ideas thread, but tilting the rig was mentioned and that reminded me of something I had been thinking about.

If you run the two shrouds through blocks on the deck and connect them together you let one shroud out as you tighten the other. The connection on the mast follows a circular arc, while the connection between the two shrouds wants to follow an elliptical arc. The result will be that as you pull the mast to windward the leeward shroud will go slack. that's better than the other way around and might be OK on some boats. On boats where slack is not OK, you still have the option of something like a barber-haul to take that slack out.

For tipping the mast I see two options. If you ease the mast to leeward just before a tack and cleat it there, then on the other tack it will already be in the right position. In theory this may not be a perfect idea since, from conservation of energy, the manual labor this saves is taken from the wind and is no longer available to drive the boat forward. Similar to the way roll tacking puts energy into the boat.

Alternately, connecting the shrouds together on the boat at a windward sheeting traveler car would let you pull/winch on just one line after a tack to shift the mast. I suspect that, to save weight, you could do the whole thing with the traveler car and leave out the actual traveler.

I'm sure someone has thought of this before, so I wonder if anyone has comments from experience?

[Doug Lord]

I know this is a thread about what we would like to see next in the AC, not a new ideas thread, but tilting the rig was mentioned and that reminded me of something I had been thinking about.



=================
Actually, this is a thread about new(or old) ideas that might wind up in a future AC....

[BobBill]

Chicago!

Crash Dive racing in hard northern chop off Navy Pier. Mono's only invited. Last boat sailing wins.

Long live pot-hole Daly.

[Doug Lord]

From Sailing World,April 2010:

"It was a captivating 10-mile drag race-perhaps the first soft-water sailing event worthy of that moniker-and one of the most enduring images from the 33rd match in Valencia,Spain, in February. After a disheartening performance in Race 1, Alinghi's soft-sail catamaran was showing itself to be every bit the upwind match for BMW Oracle Racing's wing-sailed trimaran. In 8 to 10 knots of breeze, both boats' VMG up the course was higher than the speed of the wind blowing down it."

" It wasn't simply the wing.......It was also the team's willingness to completely rebuild the trimaran-very little remained of the original boat-and to test out every possible idea, no matter how crazy. A secretion system designed to reduce skin friction was tested, but not used in the race. However, the idea of using helium to help the center hull lift out of the water was."

Wow! that is simply amazing! If that actually worked ,which apparently it did, then it would help enormously with the boat flying a hull steadily thruout both races-vs the up and down of Alinghi.

UPDATE: this is fact and is one of the most exciting, incredible developments in design and construction of high speed sailboats that I have run into in my 50+ years of studying design and sailing. Monumental is not too strong a word!!

==============
Helium confirmed(again)! http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/usa-technical-details-helium-used-32082-5.html#post357528 post 69

[Chris Ostlind]

"the sky is rising. The Sky is Rising"

- Chicken Little

[booster]

Doug&Chris
Helium seems like fun. Funny voices aboard as well. However, inhale some Argon at the start to get the right Basso profundo=The lowest male bass voice that emphasizes the low, rich tessitura.
Regards,
Booster

[Chris Ostlind]

...However, inhale some Argon at the start...



Boost, it sounds like you have a connected understanding of the Argon potential. Please expound on same so that we can all get in the game... ;-)

[bistros]

Boost, it sounds like you have a connected understanding of the Argon potential. Please expound on same so that we can all get in the game... ;-)

You guys are getting all "Jason and the Golden Fleece" on me. Argonauts.

Given the apparent volume(s) of the contained areas in the hull(s), the actual lift (reducing displacement) can not be all that huge. It seems a statistically insignificant weight reduction and probably not enough to dramatically affect the steady state flying of a hull. It would be interesting to know real numbers and not hype.

I just don't know how anyone can get hyped (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4) and claim huge benefits without knowing the data to support it. Perhaps this is like religion, where the fanatically faithful take the literal words they are told as the truth without question.

--
Bill

[Doug Lord]

It would really help to read the available information: the helium was enough to raise the boat 3-4mm and was necessary for the boat to measure in.
Confirmed, so far, by three sources.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/usa-technical-details-helium-used-32082-5.html post 69

[Paul B]

It would really help to read the available information: the helium was enough to raise the boat 3-4mm and was necessary for the boat to measure in.
Confirmed, so far, by three sources.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/usa-technical-details-helium-used-32082-5.html post 69

You have no idea what confirmed means.

Heard from a source on SA who in turn heard from the illustrous "Stingray" that Stingray had talked to Tim Smythe of Core Builders who is reported to have said that there was no helium used.......

[Doug Lord]

You have no idea what confirmed means.
=============
"stingray"-as I said in the part you didn't quote- is 100% trumped by my sources whose credentials are far better than anyone he quoted.
The boat used helium for measurement purposes-live with it.......

[Chris Ostlind]

What, exactly, has been confirmed?

I don't think you know the answer to that one and yet, here you are, still acting as if the goofiness is the story of the new millenium when it comes to sail boats.

So you say... one guy confirms righting moment. So you say, one guy simply confirms. So you say, another guy simply confirms. Nowhere in there is the tiniest bit of evidence that the helium was actually used for anything of merit when it comes to actually sailing the boat.

Come on, Doug, get some real journalistic chops going here and dig out the factual story. Blabbing this crap around as if it is substantive is the hallmark of the idiots who run the pulp rag, The National Enquirer, which is chock full of innuendo and gossip.

When you get someone to actually put their name on the precise story you have been tossing about and they have the cred to back it up with actual facts, you might have something to talk about. Until then, this nonsense is as functionally connected as the toothless, bearded wino guy in the middle of the desert who says that aliens put a probe in his fanny to see what he was eating.

Making earth-shaking pronouncements about the significance of such a poorly supported minor incident regarding helium is pretty funny under these circumstances. I had no idea that you were a comedy writer in your "spare" time.

[Doug Lord]

You don't know what you're talking about-read the other thread-a great deal of detail has been provided by more than one unimpeachable source. Believe it.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/usa-technical-details-helium-used-32082.html posts 5, 12 , 19, 69

[Paul B]

=============
my sources whose credentials are far better than anyone he quoted.
The boat used helium for measurement purposes-live with it.......

Wow. One of your "sources" is Craig (a friend of mine), who is not part of the USA team, who received info from someone who works at Sailing World, who is not part of the USA team.

You have no idea if the guy from SW ever saw the mechanism at all, or if he was told about it by some other person who heard it from someone else...

On the other hand, someone else has a supposed direct denial from someone on the team.

But of course in your mind third hand info from people not on the team is more reliable than second hand info supposedly from someone on the team.

If I thought Pete Melvin would be able to answer the question, and I'm sure he will not be open to that, I would ask him about this Friday night when I see him.

In the meantime I will wait for actual confirmation from someone on the team before I believe any of it.

[Doug Lord]

In the meantime I will wait for actual confirmation from someone on the team before I believe any of it.


================
Off you go on another space trip! Just read the information: my #1 source was part of the Team and provided the most accurate detail.

[Paul B]

================
Off you go on another space trip! Just read the information: my #1 source was part of the Team and provided the most accurate detail.

Actually, your first source quoted on this board was a magazine article, and it doesn't mention measurement at all.

I look forward to your "Team source" going public with the info. I'll settle for anyone on the Team going public with details.

If this proves to be a hoax it would not be the first time you claimed something on this bulletin board that was later shown to be incorrect.

[bistros]

Wow! that is simply amazing! If that actually worked ,which apparently it did, then it would help enormously with the boat flying a hull steadily thruout both races-vs the up and down of Alinghi.

UPDATE: this is fact and is one of the most exciting, incredible developments in design and construction of high speed sailboats that I have run into in my 50+ years of studying design and sailing. Monumental is not too strong a word!!

This is the hype I'm talking about, not fiddling with rules measurement. Lifting a hull a couple millimeters for a waterline length measurement has little to no relation to flying a hull steadily.

Exciting, amazing, incredible, monumental? Doesn't look like it. Weaseling through a rules check with no significant effect on sailing performance? Probably.

--
Bill

[Doug Lord]

This is the hype I'm talking about, not fiddling with rules measurement. Lifting a hull a couple millimeters for a waterline length measurement has little to no relation to flying a hull steadily.

Exciting, amazing, incredible, monumental? Doesn't look like it. Weaseling through a rules check with no significant effect on sailing performance? Probably.

--
Bill
-----------------------
Regardless what the main purpose of the helium was it is a monumental achievement to make it work where its presence is required to prevent disqualification of an Americas Cup Challenger. That means it has to work-and not dissipate- over a long period of time-and do so repeatedly. The engineering required to pull this off is pretty astounding.
There is another thing: the original article mentioned that it made it easier to fly a hull. If you do the calculations you can see that RM would be reduced about 2%-substantial on a raceboat where every detail counts.
The security required to prevent the plan from being exposed was sure effective.

[Chris Ostlind]

There's that hyperbole driven term, Monumental, again. Perhaps you should take the time to study the source and usage of the term before tossing it about?

This hypothetical helium thing is not, in any way, shape, or form, Monumental. If there is something that is monumental in sailing, it would be the lowly beer can.

More pounds of beer cans are put to use each year by sailors than the total amount of helium in pounds ever produced globally. Do I know that for a fact...? Nope, but I have it from good sources and I believe them.

Behold the Monumental Beer Can, the most significant element in sailing in the last 50 years!!!!!

[Paul B]

-----------------------
That means it has to work-and not dissipate- over a long period of time-and do so repeatedly.

Less than half a day is "a long period of time"?


The engineering required to pull this off is pretty astounding.

No, it isn't. It seems maybe you don't know what engineering is.


There is another thing: the original article mentioned that it made it easier to fly a hull. If you do the calculations you can see that RM would be reduced about 2%-substantial on a raceboat where every detail counts.


It has been mentioned that in the second race the boat needed more RM, not less.

[bistros]

-----------------------
Regardless what the main purpose of the helium was it is a monumental achievement to make it work where its presence is required to prevent disqualification of an Americas Cup Challenger. That means it has to work-and not dissipate- over a long period of time-and do so repeatedly. The engineering required to pull this off is pretty astounding.

First of all, my statement is not "regardless" of the main purpose - it is directed at discussing the main purpose.

Making a gas-tight enclosure using modern composites, especially on a vacuum bagged surface isn't a monumental achievement - it better well be able to hold vacuum, or the shop building it isn't worth using. Not monumental, not astounding. Just meeting specifications for the application.



There is another thing: the original article mentioned that it made it easier to fly a hull. If you do the calculations you can see that RM would be reduced about 2%-substantial on a raceboat where every detail counts.

How did you arrive at 2%? This fractional improvement may be technically relevant, but in a boat that won easily by more than 2% each race it was not significant to the design execution.

The security required to prevent the plan from being exposed was sure effective.

The effectiveness of the cloak and dagger nonsense is not relevant to the discussion at all.

--
Bill

[MalSmith]

UPDATE: this is fact and is one of the most exciting, incredible developments in design and construction of high speed sailboats that I have run into in my 50+ years of studying design and sailing. Monumental is not too strong a word!!



Hardly. Displacing air with helium saves about 1.1kg/m^3. Even if you could fill the entire main hull with helium, which you can't, you would be lucky to save 200kg on a boat weighing 24,000 kg. And at what cost?

[ancient kayaker]

Given that Helium is a limited natural resource that cannot be created with any technology likely to emerge in the foreseeable future and the saving if any was likely to be a second or two at best and Helium has vital life-saving applications in diving and... ah what the heck.

[Doug Lord]

Hardly. Displacing air with helium saves about 1.1kg/m^3. Even if you could fill the entire main hull with helium, which you can't, you would be lucky to save 200kg on a boat weighing 24,000 kg. And at what cost?

=========================
The rationale I've been given is that the helium raised the boat 3-4mm which was required for measurement. My figures show that if helium was used in all three hulls, as one source says, then the lift would be closer to 500lb.
However, using helium to make the difference between measuring in and not measuring in in an America's Cup Challenger is significant any way you look at it.

[bistros]

=========================
The rationale I've been given is that the helium raised the boat 3-4mm which was required for measurement. My figures show that if helium was used in all three hulls, as one source says, then the lift would be closer to 500lb.
However, using helium to make the difference between measuring in and not measuring in in an America's Cup Challenger is significant any way you look at it.

The really significant issue is that the design team obviously very narrowly missed it's target of meeting rule compliance without the need for minute corrective measures. 200 kilos on a 24,000 kilo design is less than a 1% deviation - using numbers quoted here.

From all appearances, the Helium was a "Hail Mary" rules compliance issue, not a major design feature. We're talking about less than a quarter inch of waterline height here.

Given Ernesto's predilection for legal playground fights, I understand why the Helium was used. Certainly doesn't appear to boat performance tuning.

--
Bill

[Paul B]

200 kilos on a 24,000 kilo design is less than a 1% deviation - using numbers quoted here.

I assume you are making a point here about using numbers/facts without full vetting. Of course the boat did not weigh 24,000 kg.


Given Ernesto's predilection for legal playground fights, I understand why the Helium was used. Certainly doesn't appear to boat performance tuning.
--
Bill

It was not Ernesto's, but Larry's predilection for legal playground fights that caused the problems this last time around.

[MalSmith]

I assume you are making a point here about using numbers/facts without full vetting. Of course the boat did not weigh 24,000 kg.


My mistake. I found another source that says 16,000 kg. However, the actual figures are not that important. The order of magnitude is.

[Doug Lord]

(informed??)Speculation from SA:

"As for the rumors about that new Cup class, it appears that Stan Honey got pretty close to the most prominent talk in his Clean interview the other day - the latest talk is of ultra-light 70-foot monohull skiffs for the next Cup and insiders tell us this is the front-running idea at the moment. BMW won't confirm any of this of course, and whether these AC Skiffs would get their power from extreme versions of existing canting technology, massive wings with trapezes, sliding on-deck ballast or something else, we just don't know. We do know that Ellison is committed to boats that can get close to shore, and that the concept includes BMW/Oracle building at least four one-design versions of the AC Skiffs and transporting them around the world for a pile of LVT events for at least a year before any racing or testing would start with challenger-designed and built boats.

While our personal preference still runs towards multihulls, it's hard to argue with giant versions of an 18-foot skiff tearing through big wind venues at breakneck speed. The International America's Cup Skiff Class? We'll take it."

[Doug Lord]

Hardly anything was announced except: (from Scuttlebutt) "The boats to be used are a matter of discussion between the defender and various potential challengers, though design work is being done on both a monohull and a multihull by Bruce Nelson and Peter Melvin due to be released by September 30. "
-------------
Why Bruce Nelson-why not Julian Bethwaite?? Or Vlad Murnikov? Has Nelson ever designed a no holds barred monohull like this:

[Gary Baigent]

Because those two designs portrayed are still fantasies flying (slowly) over the undiscovered Planets Ogg and Magog - and maybe because Bruce Nelson has designed some fast Transpac designs, who knows, but more importantly, one is reality and the others are dreams. Anyway, as has been questioned, "What boat types are going to be racing AC in 50 years time?" ... and it certainly isn't going to be ballasted porcines ..... so perhaps we should start now with those damned catermeringues and trimeringues!

[Doug Lord]

Because those two designs portrayed are still fantasies flying (slowly) over the undiscovered Planets Ogg and Magog - and maybe because Bruce Nelson has designed some fast Transpac designs, who knows, but more importantly, one is reality and the others are dreams. Anyway, as has been questioned, "What boat types are going to be racing AC in 50 years time?" ... and it certainly isn't going to be ballasted porcines ..... so perhaps we should start now with those damned catermeringues and trimeringues!
==============
Really?! Isn't Mr. Nelsons contribution still a fantasy? Huh? Still haven't caught up to the modern world where monohulls are faster than multihulls, have you? Well, at least from about 11' to 19'......

[Paul B]

Why Bruce Nelson-why not Julian Bethwaite?? Or Vlad Murnikov? Has Nelson ever designed a no holds barred monohull like this:

Have Julian or Vlad ever had a boat like that built and proven to be fast? Ever done a full design for a boat like that? No and No.

Why not Nelson? He and his right hand Greg Stewart are smart guys. They participate in the work groups for all the current design rules (including the AC).

Nelson has been working on AC boats from the 12 meters, through the USA Cat, and into the IACC era. He is known by the players and it seems respected enough to be asked to pen a prelim design to a proposed rule.

N/M has done REAL winning boats in everything from IOR to MORC to IMS, winning things like the One Ton North Americans in both the 27.5 raters and the 30.55 raters, the MORC Internationals Overall, selection to the USA Admiral's Cup Team, Transpac, etc. They designed the fastest of the first generation TP52s, and it is still winning races.

They have done other "fast" non-rule boats like the Sierra 26, the GP33, and even back in 1980 Bruce penned a design for the first generation PYRA 40 rule.

Bruce is a degreed NA who can do the sums on a project like this. So why would the keepers of the cup go to someone who has no expereince or expertise in this arena? It isn't like this boat will be required to sail in the cup. It is a design excercise, based on the proposed rule the keepers want to explore.

[sorenfdk]

Please excuse Doug Lord. It is obvious that he doesn't know much about real-world yacht design (or designers for that matter!).
Also, it seems that he has forgotten that we're talking match-racing here. None of these flights of fantasy seems to be ideal choices...

[booster]

Because those two designs portrayed are still fantasies flying (slowly) over the undiscovered Planets Ogg and Magog - and maybe because Bruce Nelson has designed some fast Transpac designs, who knows, but more importantly, one is reality and the others are dreams. Anyway, as has been questioned, "What boat types are going to be racing AC in 50 years time?" ... and it certainly isn't going to be ballasted porcines ..... so perhaps we should start now with those damned catermeringues and trimeringues!

Ogg and Magog, well, don't forget Grendel and his mother in Beowulf. A nice crew for Doug in his super-challanger. If Doug adopts the latest technology from the automotive industry with air-bags, anti-sliding, shock-absorbers, anti-spin, active this and that, and checks the HIC (Head Injury Criteria) for every possible load-case he might still prevail. However, Grendel and his mother...
Regards,
Booster

[CT 249]

Because those two designs portrayed are still fantasies flying (slowly) over the undiscovered Planets Ogg and Magog - and maybe because Bruce Nelson has designed some fast Transpac designs, who knows, but more importantly, one is reality and the others are dreams. Anyway, as has been questioned, "What boat types are going to be racing AC in 50 years time?" ... and it certainly isn't going to be ballasted porcines ..... so perhaps we should start now with those damned catermeringues and trimeringues!

Actually, on the evidence it probably IS going to be monohulls in the AC in 50 years time. There's very little evidence that the sailboat-racing world is moving towards multis. Looking at fleet numbers around the world seems to underline that overall, they are not gaining significant strength.

Sure, in some places multi fleets are growing; Auckland, perhaps, is doing well. On the other hand, in places like Sydney Harbour you'll find hundreds of racing monos and not a single racing multi - a dramatic contrast to earlier times when there were several fleets of big and small multis.

I recently came across a 1960s Modern Boating (Oz) mag that mentioned that 30% of the racing boats in Victoria were cats - these days the proportion is a tiny fraction of that. Same in other areas - at some times, either the biggest or second-biggest fleet in Australia used to be found in a beach cat race on Botany Bay - nowadays that race attracts less than 5% of the entries it once had.

The same lines about how we'd all be sailing multis in a few decades time could have been (and IIRC, were) said by Rudy Choy or Arthur Piver, and were later said by Lock Crowther and others. They got it wrong. 50 to 20 years after they said it, multis are still a minority. That's not a good thing, but shouldn't the continuing appeal of monos to a vast number of highly intelligent, knowledgeable and open-minded people, be recognised???

This is NOT attacking multis, because exactly the same thing could be said about other forms of sailing, like windsurfing or the UK skiff types, which also seemed to be taking over but soon crashed in popularity. It's just pointing out that there is little if any evidence that multis will take over - just as you don't see recumbent bikes in the Tour de France, you don't see jet cars or turbos in F1 racing, you don't see people just doing freestyle in the Olympic pool, and you don't see people using their hands in the soccer World Cup. All those things would make those sports more 'efficient', and none of those things are done.

[Doug Lord]

It is a design excercise, based on the proposed rule the keepers want to explore.

===============
A few years ago when Paul Cayard and Russell Coutts wanted the maximum monohull ocean racer possible-who did they go to? Bethwaite.
Pete Melvin is known for his out of the box thinking in multies-why not select a designer like Bethwaite for the monohull side instead of the same old same old? Like you said it is a design excercise and deserves someone who is known
for completely out of the box thinking.....

Morrelli and Melvins "commission"(from Sail-World) :

Morrelli & Melvin embraces the challenge of developing a rule that meets the following requirements:

· It should produce dynamic and close racing

· It should use advanced, efficient and cost-effective technologies

· It should be distinctive and epitomize the pinnacle of the sport

· It should be able to race in any venue in winds from 5-35 knots.

[DrCraze]

If only we could bank roll Fiji into winning the title. Then we could get some proas out there:D

[dskira]

(informed??)Speculation from SA:

"As for the rumors about that new Cup class, it appears that Stan Honey got pretty close to the most prominent talk in his Clean interview the other day - the latest talk is of ultra-light 70-foot monohull skiffs for the next Cup and insiders tell us this is the front-running idea at the moment. BMW won't confirm any of this of course, and whether these AC Skiffs would get their power from extreme versions of existing canting technology, massive wings with trapezes, sliding on-deck ballast or something else, we just don't know. We do know that Ellison is committed to boats that can get close to shore, and that the concept includes BMW/Oracle building at least four one-design versions of the AC Skiffs and transporting them around the world for a pile of LVT events for at least a year before any racing or testing would start with challenger-designed and built boats.

While our personal preference still runs towards multihulls, it's hard to argue with giant versions of an 18-foot skiff tearing through big wind venues at breakneck speed. The International America's Cup Skiff Class? We'll take it."

Why they bother with sails, it is not anymore the America's cup anyway.
So they can put a couple 20,000 hp gas turbine up their ass, it will be faster and cheaper.
Well even with that they will have the need to have their lawyer on speed dial. :P
Daniel

[Paul B]

===============
A few years ago when Paul Cayard and Russell Coutts wanted the maximum monohull ocean racer possible-who did they go to? Bethwaite.

Neiher Cayard nor Coutts has ever has an ocean racer designed by Bethwaite. As far as I know, the biggest boat Bethwaite has ever designed (or partnered in the design) is an 8m sportboat. The "radical" ideas in that excercise proved to be less than advertised.

In fact, the boat you keep posting pics of wasn't even drawn by Bethwaite.


Pete Melvin is known for his out of the box thinking in multies-

Pete is a pragmatic designer. Like Nelson, he is well known to the AC folks and has been involved in multiple Cup Campaigns.

If they wanted something out of the box in multis why didn't they go to the guys who built the SYZ foiling cat?

What you don't seem to realize is the defenders have proposed rules already in mind. The design offices working on the proposals are working within a pre-established framework.



The AC is a match racing regatta. Good match racing requires boats that have certain characteristics that might be different than boats designed for high top speeds. This is the same type of differece you see in other types of racing. Quarter horses aren't good for the Derby, F1 cars would not do well in the Baja 1000, etc.

I doubt you will get this, since you know so little of the AC that you previously posted on this thread that the idea of the AC as a match race was a "recent" thing.

[Doug Lord]

Neiher Cayard nor Coutts has ever has an ocean racer designed by Bethwaite. As far as I know, the biggest boat Bethwaite has ever designed (or partnered in the design) is an 8m sportboat. The "radical" ideas in that excercise proved to be less than advertised.

In fact, the boat you keep posting pics of wasn't even drawn by Bethwaite.


----------------------------
Another example of you not knowing what you're talking about:

Thanks again to Julian Bethwaite for the comments and information posted here:
-----------
One of my inspirations -that has bolstered my own work on this project- is the Bethwaite/Billoch collaboration on the concept of Pterodactyl-which was conceived of to use on-deck movable ballast. Here is the original SA article: http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe...teradactyl.htm
--------------
What wasn't known then was what Julian says about it here. I asked him to comment on the Trapwing which he did in a PM that I'm publishing here with his permission. He reveals who was behind the Pterodactyl project:

"A few years back these pages graced a thing called the Pterodactyl, it was a big double proa that Russel Coutts and Paul Cayard asked me to do as the ultimate circuit boat. Among other things its nice to see the OMR*go that route, but Russel was big on having 3 tonne of lead on tracks moving from side to side, inside the wing beams. I thought moving water through 200mm diameter pipes would be better, but the concept has merit. *Ocean Multihull Rule: it is the predominant rating rule used in Asia (and
Australia) it seems for handicap racing in this part of the world.(dl)

Pterodactyl:

[Paul B]

----------------------------
Another example of you not knowing what you're talking about:

Thanks again to Julian Bethwaite for the comments and information posted here:
-----------
One of my inspirations -that has bolstered my own work on this project- is the Bethwaite/Billoch collaboration on the concept of Pterodactyl-which was conceived of to use on-deck movable ballast. Here is the original SA article: http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe...teradactyl.htm
--------------
What wasn't known then was what Julian says about it here. I asked him to comment on the Trapwing which he did in a PM that I'm publishing here with his permission. He reveals who was behind the Pterodactyl project:

[I]"A few years back these pages graced a thing called the Pterodactyl, it was a big double proa that Russel Coutts and Paul Cayard asked me to do as the ultimate [COLOR="Red"]circuit boat.

As everyone who reads this board knows, I know exactly what I am talking about. You, on the other hand, are the laughing stock of internet sailing sites.

The quote you just posted proves my statement, doesn't it? Niether Coutts nor Cayard have ever had an ocean racer designed by Bethwaite. Since Coutts is in charge of the current AC projects I guess he must have had a good reason to go with Nelson and not the guy he supposedly went to for his ocean racer.

Again, the boat you keep posting pictures of was not drawn by Bethwaite.

Also, it is not even a fully designed project, just a sketch from 6 or 7 years ago. You are the only person on the planet who seems to think it is real.

By the way, a proa is not a monohull.

[Doug Lord]

Great summary by Kimball Livingston: http://kimballlivingston.com/?p=2995

[Paul B]

------------
Not according to one of the most respected designers ever to grace this forum, Paul Riccelli-and many others.

You post a lot of dopey stuff, but this might be the funniest thing you've ever posted.

[dskira]

He designed indeed a very nice trailer. I like the tool box.
Daniel

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/sailboats/42917d1273213293-americas-cup-whats-next-sierra-26-2.jpg

[Doug Lord]

He designed indeed a very nice trailer. I like the tool box.
Daniel


--------------------
Yeah, nice trailer! You know I like Mr. Nelson. This boat was once called "26 Sierra" and was one of the lightest 26 footers ever produced. There is a picture somewhere with two men lifting the hull above their head. Great composite design.
It just seems to me that there are people around that might be able to do more with a hunk of lead than drag it around in a fixed position.
Did I say "Nice trailer"?

http://christianlanctot.com/sierra26.html

[ancient kayaker]

------------
Not according to one of the most respected designers ever to grace this forum, Paul Riccelli-and many others.

Since Paul is not here to read your claim and agree or disagree I think it is inappropriate to speak for him.

[Doug Lord]

You know there are at least three kinds of match racing:
1) racing between equal boats where the sailors skill is paramount,
2) racing between more or less equal boats designed to a rule
3) racing between two boats where there is little or no attempt within the framework of the rule to make the boats equal.

The AC in recent times has been sailed as per 2 or 3. There have been some good "match races" but in total damn few. Too many instances of one boat way out in front staying there.
Some so-called(or self-called) experts claim that multihulls can't be in the Cup because there won't be close enough racing. Hogwash!
These same experts claim that there can't be really fast monohulls(foilers etc)
in the Cup for the same reason.
These people reach for a "return to Cup racing" that never was by pontificating about things they have no clue about. They demand leadbellies
(grass growers) because in the 21st Century anything faster would not be "match racing". Hogwash!(#2)
It was quite evident to me even in the last Cup that the spectacular racing evident there(even under Rule 3 above) would, after a couple more iterations of the Cup to that wild rule, become much closer due to common sense and mans ability to learn. And that kind of racing would be the best ever.
This is the America's Cup-technology and design should be the priority and match racing will take care of itself after these new boats have had time to develop-IF they are given that time.
Old wives tales that fast boats cannot have a "match race" should be laid to rest.

[Doug Lord]

Since Paul is not here to read your claim and agree or disagree I think it is inappropriate to speak for him.

---------------------
I was speaking of first hand knowledge of Pauls opinion of this individual based on a thread I read. I was not speaking for Paul-simply relating information I read. However, I think the post was wrong(but not the content) and will remove it. It was a reaction to the personal BS directed my way by this same individual.
I apologise for playing that game.

[Paul B]

He designed indeed a very nice trailer. I like the tool box.
Daniel


I would bet the trailer was designed (and probably built) by Jim Betts.

Credit where it is due. Jim is pretty handy with a welding rig.


"Tool Box" is storage for rolled sails, boom, pole, etc. Common on sportboat trailers.

[Paul B]

---------------------
I was speaking of first hand knowledge of Pauls opinion of this individual based on a thread I read.

Oh my, it keeps getting funnier. People can't believe this is for real.

[Paul B]

This is the America's Cup-technology and design should be the priority and match racing will take care of itself after these new boats have had time to develop-IF they are given that time.
Old wives tales that fast boats cannot have a "match race" should be laid to rest.

Perhaps people who don't seem to understand the tactical aspect of match racing should refrain from commenting on what boats are suitable for match racing events.

[dskira]

I would bet the trailer was designed (and probably built) by Jim Betts.

Credit where it is due. Jim is pretty handy with a welding rig.


"Tool Box" is storage for rolled sails, boom, pole, etc. Common on sportboat trailers.

I was just kidding :P
Daniel

[CT 249]

You know there are at least three kinds of match racing:
1) racing between equal boats where the sailors skill is paramount,
2) racing between more or less equal boats designed to a rule
3) racing between two boats where there is little or no attempt within the framework of the rule to make the boats equal.

The AC in recent times has been sailed as per 2 or 3. There have been some good "match races" but in total damn few. Too many instances of one boat way out in front staying there.
Some so-called(or self-called) experts claim that multihulls can't be in the Cup because there won't be close enough racing. Hogwash!
These same experts claim that there can't be really fast monohulls(foilers etc)
in the Cup for the same reason.
These people reach for a "return to Cup racing" that never was by pontificating about things they have no clue about. They demand leadbellies
(grass growers) because in the 21st Century anything faster would not be "match racing". Hogwash!(#2)
It was quite evident to me even in the last Cup that the spectacular racing evident there(even under Rule 3 above) would, after a couple more iterations of the Cup to that wild rule, become much closer due to common sense and mans ability to learn. And that kind of racing would be the best ever.
This is the America's Cup-technology and design should be the priority and match racing will take care of itself after these new boats have had time to develop-IF they are given that time.
Old wives tales that fast boats cannot have a "match race" should be laid to rest.

What are you describing when you speak of a sort of "cup racing that never was"?

[Doug Lord]

What are you describing when you speak of a sort of "cup racing that never was"?
============
The implication by many writers that a return to leadbellies(under match racing type 2 or 3 above) would guarantee close "match racing". It would not.

[CT 249]

On a slightly different tack; I was thinking today about the conventional wisdom that says that when you bring in a new class, the racing will initially be open but that it will get closer in subsequent events.

This is an accepted and commonsense belief. However, one wonders whether it may in fact also be false.

Let's look at the Cup history, ignoring the first multi-challenger events, in eras. We see the following trend.

The NYYC club rating era

1885 2-0
1886 2-0 (margins up to 29 min 9 sec)
1887 2-0

The L x SA rating years

1893 3-0 (one race won by 40s after a lead change)
1895 3-0 (marred by DNS and protest)
1899 3-0
1901 3-0 (one race won by 41 s)
1903 3-0 (the challenger called "far inferior" to Reliance)

The Universal Rule rating challenge

1920 3-2 (defender lost 1 race with DNF)

The J Class era

1930 4-0
1934 4-2 (a very close series won on tactics)
1937 4-0 (Ranger took two wins by over 17 minutes)

The 12 Metre era

1958 4-0
1962 4-1 (defender won R5 by 26 sec, closest to that time)
1964 4-0 (margins of 5+min, 20min, 6 1/2 min and almost 16 min)
1967 4-0
1970 4-1 (2 defender wins by less than 2 min, one win by protest)
1974 4-0 (only one finish within 1 min)
1977 4-0 (closest margin 1.5 mins)
1980 4-1 (close series)
1983 4-3
1987 4-0

The IACC era

1992 4-1
1995 5-0
2000 5-0
2007 5-2

So.....

In the first era, the closest match was the middle of the 3.

In the second era, the closest match was the first one, and the final was a walkover.

The third era, the one with only one match, was one of the closest of them all.

The fourth era (the Js) saw very close racing in the middle of the three matches and ended with a massive victory to Ranger.

The fifth era (the 12s) had 10 matches. The challengers won races in the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th.

The latest era saw some close racing in the first and last, with whitewashes in between.

Apart from the latest era, every era has ended in a dramatically one-sided event, just at the time when conventional wisdom says that the class should be matured and racing should be at its closest.

Looking at it overall, there's little to demonstrate that racing does actually become closer. And thinking of it in a wider context shows something similar. The breakthrough boats often come in mature classes. The 12 Metre class was about 60 years old when the breakthrough Intrepid was created, and coming up to 80 at the time of Australia II. The 18 Foot Skiff class was about 35 years old at the time of Aberdare, 60 years old when Taipan arrived, and 80 years old when wings and assys arrived. The IOR rule had been around for a few years when Ganbare arrived. The CCA rule was decades old when Finnisterre was launched. The Moth class was about 75 years old when the foiler arrived.

So DO classes actually converge in performance as they age, or is it only a faint trend or even a sailor's myth? In that case, how does it affect the choice of an AC class?

[jehardiman]

So DO classes actually converge in performance as they age, or is it only a faint trend or even a sailor's myth? In that case, how does it affect the choice of an AC class?

Yes and no. Naval Architecture is inherantly a conserative discipline. No one wants to be too far off the mean line in any given single design step, but given long enough a new "sweet spot" will be found.

Let's look at what happens as a set of open design class rules age. At first, there is a broad seperation of parameters because there is not enough data to show design trends that win. After a few cycles, designs tend to converge to look like previous winners because owners/buyers want a boat that has a chance of winning. Then, from that stable design point, there is an exploring of the design space and the introduction of new materials trying to find loopholes and performance increases. The first design to find and fall down the rabbit hole is considered "revolutionary" and carries the class to a whole new design space and the process repeats itself...if the class survives the revolution. Many owners realize that having a open design class is, for the owner, somewhat of a crapshoot financialy so they go over to one design if they feel they don't have wherewithall to compete, especiall if the new design space is extreamly costly compared to the existing costs.

[idkfa]

On that note, I think the IACC still has more to give....

Increased displacement was rewarded with increased sail area; if the variables are tweaked to reduce this a bit, then we will see lighter hulls, ie. Not all at the max disp of 24,000Kg...

Then the racing will open up, with conditions affecting the outcomes more. And this won't Orphan the entire fleet and test data collected.

Some sort of design rule is the way to go; IACC is as good as any that seeks to relate all the parameters. A box rule is a crippled rule and a designer's cop out.

[Doug Lord]

From Scuttlebutt:

Designers Focus On New America's Cup Class

A significant step was taken towards creating the next America's Cup boat when 19 designers met in Valencia. Central to the deliberations was whether to develop a monohull or a multihull for the 34th America's Cup.

The conference was held at the home base of BMW ORACLE Racing during its successful 33rd America's Cup campaign. "The teams want a new boat; the fans deserve one too," commented Russell Coutts, four time winner of the America's Cup. "It will not be a 'defender's boat'. It will be the product of genuine discussion and dialogue," Coutts added.

The Valencia meetings were chaired by BMW ORACLE Racing's design coordinator, Ian Burns.

Around the table was a 'who's who' of yacht design: 10 nationalities were represented, with winning records in every level rating class from Quarter Tonners to TP52s as well as the Volvo Ocean Race, Jules Verne Trophy, classic races such as the Fastnet and Sydney-Hobart and, the America's Cup.

Structural and performance experts also attended as did those with experience of creating rules for the ACC, Whitbread 60 and Volvo 70 classes.

Two different multihulls (20m and 25m LOA) were discussed as was one monohull (up to 27m LOA). The new concepts were conceived by eminent designers Bruce Nelson and Morelli/Melvin, creators of previous America's Cup winning yachts. Besides their expertise, Nelson and Morelli/Melvin were chosen because they are unaligned with either BMW ORACLE Racing or the Challenger of Record, Club Nautico di Roma/Mascalzone Latino.

The World Sailing Teams Association has been asked if it would manage the rule drafting. Non-aligned experts will be used to ensure fairness to all teams.

The rule-writers will report back to all teams equally and frequently. And teams will have the chance to review the new rule before it is finalized.

Publication of the new class rule will be no later than 30th September.
-- Tim Jeffery for the Golden Gate Yacht Club, http://www.ggyc.org

[captainsideburn]

hmm,
wouldn't it be interesting if the choice was open to multihull 20m or monohull 27m

[Stephen Ditmore]

I want to give my quick 2cents on "box rules." Fine to constrain overall boat length to a specific value (with an allowance for sprits). Fine to constrain sail area, or to specify a few critical sail dimensions. Draft & freeboard, OK. But not beam & displacement. Specify min. scantlings; specify a min. righting moment at 90 deg. and test the boats for compliance. For monohulls (if that's the way they decide to go) have a no hollows in the hull rule (which would effectively prohibit wings or racks that widen the deck beyond the width of the hull, as well as multihulls).

With those constraints, let each designer decide how heavy to make the boat, and how wide. Something should be left to designers in order that the America's Cup Class of the future is a true development class.

And oh yeah -- wing sails. Whether they sail multis or monos, let wing sails compete!

[Doug Lord]

I want to give my quick 2cents on "box rules." Fine to constrain overall boat length to a specific value (with an allowance for sprits). Fine to constrain sail area, or to specify a few critical sail dimensions. Draft & freeboard, OK. But not beam & displacement. Specify min. scantlings; specify a min. righting moment at 90 deg. and test the boats for compliance. For monohulls (if that's the way they decide to go) have a no hollows in the hull rule (which would effectively prohibit wings or racks that widen the deck beyond the width of the hull, as well as multihulls).

With those constraints, let each designer decide how heavy to make the boat, and how wide. Something should be left to designers in order that the America's Cup Class of the future is a true development class.

And oh yeah -- wing sails. Whether they sail multis or monos, let wing sails compete!
----------------------------------
I'm not sure about that ,Stephen. Why hamstring designers from using the most modern technology in monohulls? If turned loose designers could right now produce a monohull that would beat a multi around a course. Boy, would I like to see that! Barring that, lets have no holds barred multi's.....

[Stephen Ditmore]

I wouldn't (and don't where the IACC is concerned) have a problem with the no hollows rule. There are some of us who still think close tactical match racing, including tacking duels, should remain what the America's Cup is all about. It shouldn't be a drag race, and that's what it would become with hiking racks.

But lets say they go for multis or extreme monos. How would you propose to keep the match racing close & tactical? I'm not trying to be rhetorical - I'm genuinely interested if people have ideas re: how this could be done.

[Doug Lord]

I wouldn't (and don't where the IACC is concerned) have a problem with the no hollows rule. There are some of us who still think close tactical match racing, including tacking duels, should remain what the America's Cup is all about. It shouldn't be a drag race, and that's what it would become with hiking racks.

But lets say they go for multis or extreme monos. How would you propose to keep the match racing close & tactical? I'm not trying to be rhetorical - I'm genuinely interested if people have ideas re: how this could be done.
================
In the monohull Cup races I have watched close racing has been few and far between. Good when it was close, though. And good at Perth.
I think fast boats can race closely as designers focus in on the rule but I don't think there is any PROVEN way to guarantee close racing all the time except maybe to have very short races and more of them.
This " close racing" thing has been used for years to keep AC boats less technically advanced than the most advanced boats sailing and that is a shame. Lets try it the other way for a change and ,at least, the excitement level will go up....

[Paul B]

But lets say they go for multis or extreme monos. How would you propose to keep the match racing close & tactical? I'm not trying to be rhetorical - I'm genuinely interested if people have ideas re: how this could be done.

The problem is most people who advocate for "faster" boats do not understand match racing tactics.

The faster the boat, the better the acceleration, the more difficult it is to control someone in pre-start. If you can put the bow down and accelerate you can escape a tail much easier than in downspeed boats.

The faster the boat, the better the acceleration, the more difficult it is to lee bow someone. If you can't leebow effectively the post tack boat has little chance to defend their side of the course.

Having a large difference in upwind vs downwind speed is an issue. If the trailing boat arrives at the windward mark 2 BL behind the leader they can attack downwind in conventional boats. In planing boats the boat arriving at the windard mark first would then accelerate to say 1.5 to 2 times the speed of the trailing boat, so by the time the trailing boat is around and rolling they are now 3 or 4 BL behind, and have less effective attacking presence.

If the boats sail at high angles of attack offwind while planing, or vastly exceed the TWS, then the training boat cannot blanket the leading boat downwind. In fact, in extreme cases (like the latest AC) the leading boat actually gasses the trailing boat.

One of the leading match racers in the world recently talked about the boats used on the world match racing circuit. He mentioned using small planing boats at one of the stops. His comment was it was nice to spend a week learning to sail that particular model of boat, but it wasn't very good match racing.

The Catalina 37 used in the Congressional Cup is probably the slowest, least responsive boat used on the world match racing circuit. It is also the favorite boat among the sailors.

[Stephen Ditmore]

So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I think I'd like to see them stick with fixed ballast monohulls for the moment - but with rules not unlike (an inshore version of) the Class40 or IMOCA 60 rules (with a little more sail area restriction).

[Doug Lord]

From SA-Randy Reynolds on match racing:

Noticed the emails about match racing in multihulls. We were (and still are) match racing multihulls here in Long Beach on a regular basis. Last year, hired by Pete Melvin of MM Design, Reynolds Design was contracted (two identical R33's Turbo's with crew) to race against and race with, the match racing champs that Pete put together to help the BMW Oracle Team...the racing was very close and exciting.

The starts were so exciting we had bow-sprites going over the heads of the afterguard of the other boat and very fast tacking and jibing at high speeds that broke rudders on the first day. We learned that match racing multihulls requires overly strong rudders because you would be doing 18 knots then slam the rudder over to avoid or get position on your opponent. We reinforced the rudders and solved the problem the next day but no doubt BMW Oracle learned much about the incredible loads that are generated in pre-start match racing maneuvers in large fast multihulls.

The weather legs were always close with the downwind legs even closer, with passing the lead boat not a hard task. After the first day we re-wrote the match racing books and created new ones for multihulls after we proved there is no safe position due to the acceleration of the R33's in 15 knots of wind. We raced over 20 races and all were very close with one boat usually only 10 seconds ahead of the other boat in a 20 minute windward / leeward course.

There is no doubt in my mind that match racing in multihulls could be very successful as long as the course was correct. In this years AC you had a 20 mile weather leg with boats only being 27 seconds apart. If they could have agreed to a best 5 out of 9 series on a 2-3 mile course like the 32nd AC, the racing would have been very exciting with lead changes, close contacts and overall a more exciting venue. Add to the element more wind like you have in SF (14 knots to 25 knots) then you will really have some action Fast Sailing!
Randy Reynolds

[Stephen Ditmore]

Interesting, Doug. BTW how's Dr. Sam Bradfield doing? Is he still designing boats? What does he think of the latest BMW/Oracle?

[Stephen Ditmore]

On that note, I think the IACC still has more to give....

Increased displacement was rewarded with increased sail area; if the variables are tweaked to reduce this a bit, then we will see lighter hulls, ie. Not all at the max disp of 24,000Kg...

Then the racing will open up, with conditions affecting the outcomes more. And this won't Orphan the entire fleet and test data collected.

Some sort of design rule is the way to go; IACC is as good as any that seeks to relate all the parameters. A box rule is a crippled rule and a designer's cop out.

I do and I don't agree. The problem with rules like the TP52 / GP 42 etc. is that they restrict displacement & beam to specific ranges. IACC does this too.

As far as the IACC rule permiting tradeoffs, the constants by which displacement & length are multiplied have proven to be wrong for boats with 80% ballast/displacement ratios and much deeper keels than the 12s, so the boats all bunch at the long & heavy end of what the rule allows, then go narrow since they don't really need the additional stability that more beam would give them. The "tradeoff" question becomes how big a penalty to incur as designers push into the length penalty zone.

The tradeoff thing is unnecessary. Just let the designers decide how heavy to make the boats, and how wide, without penalty, so long as they achieve a minimum righting moment at 90 degrees while still meeting structural (scantling) requirements. Designers could be allowed to trade length against sail area, or not.

[Doug Lord]

This is a quote from Martin Fischer-top multi designer- ( here: http://catsailingnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/cs-interview-martin-fischer.html )

CS- The next Cup should be held again in Multihulls? (Today 6 May, Oracle announced that Multis are one of the options)
MF:YES, that would the right choice in my opinion. The America’s Cup is the pinnacle of our sport, and the boats it is sailed in should reflect that. Big multihulls are far more spectacular than any monohull, and I am sure it would help to open the America’s Cup and sailing in general to a much wider audience.


PS Stephen, Dr. Sam is working on the 18' all carbon Osprey and consulting on a project in Hawaii....We haven't talked about the AC but I imagine he's for fast boats,preferably with foils......

[CT 249]

With respect to Martin and Randy, they're not exactly unbiased sources.

Martin's claim that big multis are more spectacular than a big mono, for example, deserves scrutiny. Yes, multis go faster and fly a hull, but is that more spectacular than the wavemaking and heeling of a big mono? I honestly do not know, but who can claim to have an unbiased opinion?

Secondly, why would faster boats open up the AC and sailing to a much wider audience? There are many indications that increasing speed does NOT increase popularity. Look at the class Martin often designs to, the F18 - it's heavier and slower than the F18HT yet much more popular. The Hobie 16 is even slower, yet much more popular still. And all the cats are less popular than slower monohulls.

If speed created popularity, then multis and windsurfers would be more popular than dinghies and keelboats. They are not, therefore it is obvious that in sailing (as in most other sports) increasing pure speed does not increase popularity.

And even when looking at the public who do not sail, there is no evidence that faster and more spectacular craft create more participation. Windsurfing is the classic example - it's down to 12% as popular (or less) than it was when boards were heavier, longer and had much lower peak speeds. Similarly, in UK dinghy sailing the dinghy boom peaked just when the speed of the average popular boat reached its zenith. From that point on, the number of sailors declined. If speed created popularity, then why did popularity decline as soon as speed had reached its high-water mark?

We've just had a huge publicity boost for sailing her in Oz, courtesy of a teenage girl who went around the world in a '60s leadmine at an average speed of about 5 knots. The coverage was incomparably greater than any record-breaking circumnavigation over the last few decades; they were lucky to get a paragraph whereas Jessica was front-page news.

[Doug Lord]

With respect to Martin and Randy, they're not exactly unbiased sources.

Martin's claim that big multis are more spectacular than a big mono, for example, deserves scrutiny. Yes, multis go faster and fly a hull, but is that more spectacular than the wavemaking and heeling of a big mono? I honestly do not know, but who can claim to have an unbiased opinion?

Secondly, why would faster boats open up the AC and sailing to a much wider audience? There are many indications that increasing speed does NOT increase popularity. Look at the class Martin often designs to, the F18 - it's heavier and slower than the F18HT yet much more popular. The Hobie 16 is even slower, yet much more popular still. And all the cats are less popular than slower monohulls.

If speed created popularity, then multis and windsurfers would be more popular than dinghies and keelboats. They are not, therefore it is obvious that in sailing (as in most other sports) increasing pure speed does not increase popularity.
==============================
Why should they be unbiased? They are advocates who believe that they have good reasons for their positions. They believe they DO know the answer-and I believe they do ,too.
The speed and "diceyness" of a fast boat as shown on video can be several orders of magnitude more exciting than grass growing traditional leadbellies.
Modern monohulls-even those not using the latest technology can provide an overwhelmingly exciting visual experience-as can multies given the right conditions. Speed,shown on video, is much more exciting than the lack of speed-see the Volvo video on this page and some of the multi videos under "Multihulls".
----
PS I saw a thing you did on SA espousing your theory of the popularity of multihulls. I did some research and found that you way underestimated multihull participation in the US. I'll post it sometime.

[CT 249]

So if you have done the analysis already and know I got it so wrong, why not post it now?

I assume you are talking about the fact that I took issue with the claim that 25% of sailors in the USA sail multis. Note that a multi rep to US Sailing (John Williams) and others have PUBLICLY stated that the 25% claim is incorrect and some have said that it was only created by class reps inflating a Sailing World survey. Also note that the numbers of class members can easily be examined on the survey results on the US Sailing website, where we see for example that the biggest cat class (Hobie, all types) had 1009 members at the last survey, compared to 1693 in the Lightning, 1050 in Catalina 30s, 1816 in Thistles, 2400 in Optis, 1515 in Flying Scots, 1506 in Sunfish, 1655 in J/24s, and 2400 in J/24s. Therefore, even just in the classes mustering over 1000 members, multis are outnumbered 14 to 1. Given that there are many more monohull associations, there's no way that the 14/1 mono advantage in the major classes is greatly altered in the smaller classes (and in the monos, 'smaller' can mean the 800-member 420s, the 650 member Etchells, the 592 member J/105s, the 506 member Techno 293 boards, the 500-member Daysailers and many others that vastly outnumber the other multi classes such as the Corsair 28 (175 members) or F18s (55 members). Even a small mono class like the International Canoes has more members than the F18s.

And let's not even get into the mono leadmines, like the 20,000 that had PHRF certificates that same year according to http://www.sailmagazine.com/SectarianDivide or http://www.windchecklis.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=447:owners-group-to-boost-irc-racing-on-western-long-island-sound&catid=85:racing&Itemid=416

Note that the cat fleets in the US are not very big, judging from the number who turn up for titles (which to me seems a reasonable measure, and one that is not likely to be harsh on cats). The list below shows the US nationals fleet sizes for 2009 (right hand column) and 2008 (where found) in the left hand column.

A Class 28 42
Shark 11
Wave 17 13
F 16 23
F 18 38 28
Seaspray 19
Nacra F17 11
Nacra F20 11
Hobie 14 35 12
Hobie 16 56 54
Hobie 17 21 20
Hobie 16 Y 6 8
Hobie 16W 3 8
Hobie 20 33 25
Hobie Tiger 12 15
Hobie 18 9 18

I can't find figures for any other class on Catamaran Sailor or other searches. As far as I can see, the F18HT, Isotope, other Nacras and Prindles etc no longer run nationals. So, averaged over the last couple of years there's 320 cats doing nationals and 418 sailors.

For comparison, the Opti and C420 together attracted over 600 sailors to the nationals last year, so those two classes alone seem to outnumber cats comfortably. Then there's the three most popular big dinghies (FS, Lightning and Thistle) which between them attract an average of some 600 sailors to their nationals as well. So just five dinghy classes (out of dozens) attract about three times as many as pretty much all of the cat classes, and we haven't even looked at Lasers, Sunfish and scows yet.

And the OD yachts attract huge numbers. Over the last three years the J/105s alone got some 370 sailors on average to their nationals - so one yacht class alone is getting about as many sailors as the cats are. The 2009 Benny 36.7s (only one I have figures fore) attracted 250 more sailors; the Tartan 10s average about 190. And that's not counting the 210s, Etchells, Stars, Six Metres, Atlantics, Catalina 30s (about 150 sailors) Melges (160 sailors), yada yada yada.

If we add in other big boats, the position doesn't improve - for example, there's claimed to be 1600 Farriers WORLDWIDE which is great (they are fantastic boats IMHO) but that pales in comparison with the (edited) 20,000 or so yachts that have paid up for annual PHRF certificates. Do the numbers in the big boat races and you see that in something like Ensenada, multis are outnumbered by over 40 to 1.

Look, I'm not saying this to be anti cat. By the measure I use, the cats are much stronger than windsurfers, which is what I sail about half the time, so I'm not biased towards this system to hurt cats. Why would I be biased against cats? My dad and mum sailed cats, my wife's a cat sailor and so were the kids and so am I. But it's hard to ignore the numbers, and in sailing racing those numbers indicate that the vast majority of people sail monos, especially ballasted monos (which, to further dispel any claims that I'm anti-cat, are a type I haven't raced myself in years). And sure, some people say a lot of cat sailors are just into cruising - but in that case we also have to count the thousands who just drift around on windsurfers, or those who sail the thousands of Macgregors monos, Catalinas, Sunfish, Snarks, Hunters, Morgans, and other cruising monos.


PS - according to this SA thread (http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=108712) the Madcat regatta, which MAY get 70 boats, is the biggest small cat regatta in the USA.

Now, if that is true and assuming most of those cats are doublehanders, that means maybe 120 sailors in the biggest COMBINED CLASS cat regatta, compared to 370 sailors in the biggest OD class (ie SINGLE OD class)in monos, or the 212 mono entries in the Newport-Ensenada (there were only 5 multis) which ranged from maxis to down to 28 footers and therefore probably attracted about 2000 mono sailors.

So there seems to be little doubt that the claim that multi sailors made up 25% of sailors in the US was overblown, which is what I said.

[water addict]

Mono, multi, or whatever...
The most exciting driver is wind. Pick a windy venue. Watching any sailing in 3-10 knots of wind is boring for anybody, sailor or not.

The most exciting Cup was the Aussie Freemantle Dr. Much more so than the last multihull race.

Wind, waves, straining crew, straining boats in close quarters. That makes exciting racing and exciting watching. In the US, my vote is Hawaii. Race time would be prime time tv in the contiguous 48. Spectacular scenery, warm sunny weather, at least we could sail vicariously through the tv....

[ancient kayaker]

... I took issue with the claim that 25% of sailors in the USA sail multis ... there seems to be little doubt that the claim that multi sailors made up 25% of sailors in the US was overblown, which is what I said.

Cats are unusual in my experience, which is limited to Canadian lakes, marinas and the odd sailing club. I have only seen one actually sailing once, and I was crew on that one. They are rare enough in marinas, a handful at most. I caught a ride once on a monster tri sailing out of Marseille but it motored the whole distance. It was outnumbered a hundred to one by monos, but it's mostly a fishing port (North side of the fort) so that's not so surprising. As far as live sightings are concerned, I've probably seen more tall ships than cats.

[Doug Lord]

Cats are seen racing here more frequently than monos including Windsurfers. There is a lot more catamaran racing/beachcat sailing going on than is generally acknowledged especially in the South.

[CT 249]

I have no idea how much cat sailing is 'generally acknowledged', but your just saying 'cats are seen racing here (wherever 'here' is - Cocoa Beach, E Florida, Florida, SE USA, USA, NA, the Americas, wherever) more frequently than monos' is not exactly "research" that proves that I "way underestimated multihull participation in the US", as you promised to post.

The biggest cat regatta in Florida (and one of the biggest in the USA) is the Tradewinds regatta, isn't it? I think the most recent one attracted about 109 sailors - that's fewer sailors than Key West had boats (155 yachts did that regatta), and the average yacht in KW probably had 8 or 9 crew - so the leadmine sailors outnumbered the cat sailors by 12 to 1. The Calema windsurfing regatta attracted more sailors than Tradewinds (by a very small margin).

Again, this is NOT saying that cat regattas SHOULD be small, or that cats are not fantastic boats, or that it's not a pity that there aren't more cats. It's just outlining that cat sailing IS a small sector of the sport of sail racing, and that surely that an indication that it is NOT better at attracting non-sailors than slower disciplines of the sport.

[Doug Lord]

I have no idea how much cat sailing is 'generally acknowledged', but your just saying 'cats are seen racing here (wherever 'here' is - Cocoa Beach, E Florida, Florida, SE USA, USA, NA, the Americas, wherever) more frequently than monos' is not exactly "research" that proves that I "way underestimated multihull participation in the US", as you promised to post.



---------------------------
You're 100% right-that was not my research-it was my observation. I will post the research when I can.

[Doug Lord]

Check this out-from The Daily Sail:

1 minute 15 apart
Vendee-St Petersburg trimarans reach the finish line

Monday May 24th 2010, Author: James Boyd, Location: none selected
This morning, after seven a half days at sea the two frontrunners in the Vendee-St Petersburg race crossed the finish line separated by just 1 minute 15 seconds!

Having swapped the lead throughout the race, at 0531 GMT this morning, it was Crêpes Whaou! 3 sailed by skipper Franck-Yves Escoffier skipper and his crew, Loïc Escoffier and Antoine Koch, that claimed first place in a time to sail from St Gilles Croix de Vie to St Petersburg, Russia of 7 days 19 hours 31minutes and 49 seconds.

[ancient kayaker]

Doug: is that the result or the first boat over the line with some judging and handicaps yet to be applied? By the way, who said there were no close multihull race finishes? I don't remember that.

[Doug Lord]

A Class 28 42
Shark 11
Wave 17 13
F 16 23
F 18 38 28
Seaspray 19
Nacra F17 11
Nacra F20 11
Hobie 14 35 12
Hobie 16 56 54
Hobie 17 21 20
Hobie 16 Y 6 8
Hobie 16W 3 8
Hobie 20 33 25
Hobie Tiger 12 15
Hobie 18 9 18

I can't find figures for any other class on Catamaran Sailor or other searches. As far as I can see, the F18HT, Isotope, other Nacras and Prindles etc no longer run nationals. So, averaged over the last couple of years there's 320 cats doing nationals and 418 sailors.



=============================
On SA you said:

"Adding up the sailors who attended the nationals in the top 23 classes, we find that there were;

932 in doublehanded dinghies (Snipe, V15 etc; 112 in skiff types)
900 in keelboats (Js. Stars etc)
850 in three-handed dinghies (Lightnings etc and counting the C Scow at 2.5 crew because they can drop one at times)
372 in singlehanded dinghies
106 in cats"
----------------
The 106 figure is what caught my eye-completely absurd.
Your new figures are better but I came up with 500+ cat sailors. The NACRA "Nationals", as best I can tell was in Ft. Walton with something like 40 boats and 80 sailors.
One thing I suspect ,but can't prove yet, is that cats race a lot more frequently and different venues. The local cat fleet here(about 20 boats of different types) seems to race every couple of weeks.
I'm still working on this and will post more when I get a chance to put it all together.
Suffice it to say that I'm convinced that beachcat participation is probably underestimated.

[Doug Lord]

Doug: is that the result or the first boat over the line with some judging and handicaps yet to be applied? By the way, who said there were no close multihull race finishes? I don't remember that.
====================
Terry, as best I can tell that was boat on boat-no handicaps. I've read in numerous places where its been said that match racing in multihulls is no good because they don't stay close. Read Randy Reynolds comments on the previous page if you haven't already.... post 234

[ancient kayaker]

For both multihulls and momohulls, I would expect finishes to get closer over time after a new class boat is introduced, especially if it becomes popular, as the quality of boat and crew evens out.

That would not be the case for the AC especially now when the boats can be wildly different. Even in the days when it was virtually a class boat race, the relatively long time between contests allowed for significant technological advances, which were carefully kept secret from the opposition, and crews and skippers were sometimes mismatched as far as their knowledge of the course was concerned. I suspect some of the boats were too new at race time to be properly tuned and perhaps the skipper did not always have enough time to understand how to get the best out of the boat.

I am not sure the AC should become just another class boat event: it is unique in more ways than the obscene amount of money involved and should surely remain so.