No Interest in the AC?

[powerabout]

RHP
lol
yes your right,
Even using boats with assy kites is a joke as whoever goes around the top mark first has won.

[RHP]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

Now that's an idea that could work!
I would have no problems in finding 2-3 crews on short notice (it's friday night...).

I would fly from Brazil to be part of your crew. I volunteer to be chief bottler opener.

[jehardiman]

My take is that the race will not even be as close as the NZ mono/ Stars & Stripes cat matchup....


one of them is going to break.


The AC was never about better sailing, and really people, the AC has just become a circus in the last three decades. The boats right now have as little to do with general sailing as Space Ship One has to do with general aviation. Actually that's not right, SS1 has more relevence.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by jehardiman

The AC was never about better sailing, and really people, the AC has just become a circus in the last three decades. The boats right now have as little to do with general sailing as Space Ship One has to do with general aviation. Actually that's not right, SS1 has more relevence.

The reason the AC exists at all was the intent to foster improvement in sailing vessel design.

That ideal was gone by 1900. The Cup became a contest for the fastest racing vessels with little regard for seaworthiness.

What the Cup was never about is who has the better sailors. Sailors (and Skippers) were hired help from the beginning.

The post WWII era is what many people think the Cup is all about ... nothing could be farther from the truth.

It was intended as a Design competition, the race was incidental.

Hence my original question. I find it odd that there is little interest on a design forum.

R

[powerabout]

Good point RH
I enjoy the cups for the development in all the areas, hull, mast, rigging, sails rope, etc etc which all flow down to the average Joe.
Wait till you see the wind tool BMW has, comes from another industry but it will wake up a few companies
I love the match racing but that only works if the boats are the same.

[Doug Lord]

The current boats ,despite the legal wrangling, represent the highest level of modern sailboat design. There have never been any boats anywhere at any time that come remotely close to the technological level of the Cat and the Tri in an Americas Cup. And like Mr. Hough says that is the essence of the Americas Cup.

[jehardiman]

Originally Posted by RHough

The reason the AC exists at all was the intent to foster improvement in sailing vessel design.

Actually, it was for the fostering of relationships between yacht clubs (read the power brokers) of different nations; see the deed of the cup. http://www.a3.org/ac2000_DeedofGift.html

The whole race concept was not originally about design or fairness and suffered early and lately because of that. The Idea of it fostering design improvement was only a miniscule thing attached to the 12 meter class era, and as soon as Ben Lexcan killed that idea, it was back to the barely disguised underhandedness of the likes of Stevens (who hoped to gull the wagering English with the first America), Ashbury, Sopwith, and even Bertarelli and Ellison.

[jehardiman]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

The current boats ,despite the legal wrangling, represent the highest level of modern sailboat design. There have never been any boats anywhere at any time that come remotely close to the technological level of the Cat and the Tri in an Americas Cup. And like Mr. Hough says that is the essence of the Americas Cup.

While they are very high in tech level, I doubt they "represent the highest level of modern sailboat design". Their sole purpose is to only surpass the other boat in the narrow court decided conditions of sailing. From my point of view this, and other shortcomings they have, render them quirks (like Cascade) of no real relevence. Compare that to Dorade, the Pearson Triton or Williwaw

[RHough]

Originally Posted by jehardiman

Actually, it was for the fostering of relationships between yacht clubs (read the power brokers) of different nations; see the deed of the cup. http://www.a3.org/ac2000_DeedofGift.html

The whole race concept was not originally about design or fairness and suffered early and lately because of that. The Idea of it fostering design improvement was only a miniscule thing attached to the 12 meter class era, and as soon as Ben Lexcan killed that idea, it was back to the barely disguised underhandedness of the likes of Stevens (who hoped to gull the wagering English with the first America), Ashbury, Sopwith, and even Bertarelli and Ellison.

I am intimately familiar with all three versions of the Deed of Gift.

America sailed to Europe to prove that US designs were the equal of or superior to those in England. America's hull shape and sails were shown to be superior. The Cup was gifted to the NYYC to allow the USA to continue to show the world that the US could build the best vessels. How anyone can deny that competition for the Cup did not foster better design until the 12 Meter Era is a surprise.

Early on (Read Lawson's History if you haven't), it became obvious that the cost of building unlimited 90ft LWL vessels was prohibitive. Nothing has changed. The two vessels we hope to see racing on Monday are as extreme as Reliance was in her day. The adoption of the Universal Rule and the J Class were cost cutting measures as was the change to little boats in 1956.

I beg to differ that the 12's fostered design innovation compared to the open 90ft rule. All the 12's gave us is shoal draft production boats with "winged keels" that look and function much like mushroom anchors when taking the ground.

The International Rule has no more relevance to boats that are sailed today than the monster multi's do. Even for a 300 D/L cruising boat, no one wraps an International Rule hull around it, although several 12's served well as cruisers.

The IACC rule from 1991 - 2007 saw some nice rig development, but the boats were too fast for 12 Meter style "Match Racing" and too slow to be considered cutting edge design.

When you give a designer a clean sheet of paper, a rule that says 90 feet LWL, 22 feet maximum draft, and an unlimited budget, you don't get a 12 Meter or a J Class ... you get a fast boat ... just as you did in the late 1800's.

Rather than have the rich guys spend $$$ to find .005 knots of extra speed, we have rich guys looking to break 40 knots in course racing boats. I think it is about time for the Cup to return to the absurdity that made it great to begin with!

Randy

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by jehardiman

Their sole purpose is to only surpass the other boat in the narrow court decided conditions of sailing.

==================
In order to be assured of doing that in a contest where 99% anything goes
don't you thing the designers would have to utilize the "highest level of modern sailboat design"?
I think the catamaran may surprise a few with really high performance but I'm hoping the tri wins....

pix by Giles Martin-Raget:

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by RHough

I am intimately familiar with all three versions of the Deed of Gift.

America sailed to Europe to prove that US designs were the equal of or superior to those in England. America's hull shape and sails were shown to be superior. The Cup was gifted to the NYYC to allow the USA to continue to show the world that the US could build the best vessels. How anyone can deny that competition for the Cup did not foster better design until the 12 Meter Era is a surprise.

Early on (Read Lawson's History if you haven't), it became obvious that the cost of building unlimited 90ft LWL vessels was prohibitive. Nothing has changed. The two vessels we hope to see racing on Monday are as extreme as Reliance was in her day. The adoption of the Universal Rule and the J Class were cost cutting measures as was the change to little boats in 1956.



The early challenges were very different to the current one. The early challengers were normally pretty typical big boats, yachts that raced regular regattas and could (and did) do major ocean races like the Round Britain or Trans-Atlantic. From the first challenge they were sailed under a measurement rule (initially the Tonnage rule) and time allowances. From 1881 they were rated under a rating rule that measured SA and LWL and penalised LWLs over 85'.

The first challenger, Ashbury, issued his challenge while his yacht was transiting the Suez Canal on a cruise. He was inspired by beating the US schooner Sappho (a later defender) in a normal Round-The-Island race in the UK. Cambria then raced across the Atlantic before being beaten in the AC. And Cambria was, in many ways, pretty typical of the early challengers, which were dual-purpose boats that were normal big boats of their time.

Reliance was significantly more conservative than many of the smaller yachts racing in her time, and much closer to a normal yacht of her day than the current multis are to the normal yacht of our day. The syndicate manager Iselin asked Herreshoff to make something more radical, but (as confirmed by a Herreshoff letter on the Mystic Seaport archive) the Wizard of Bristol created something more conservative.

Reliance was designed to the Seawanhaka L x SA rule, which had long been used in other classes. She was therefore a rating boat (albiet to a loose rule) like most other yachts of the day - the current multis are not built to a rating rule, OD rule or box rule and are therefore pretty unusual.

Furthermore, there are two boats in each match, and the challengers were normally not that far different (if at all) from the usual British "Big Class" class racers. Valkyrie, for example, was a near sister to Britannia and shorter and less radical than Satanita, another Big Class yacht of her day. Vigilant, the 1893 defender, went to the UK where she sailed the normal "Big Class" regattas. Navahoe, an unsuccessful candidate for an AC defence, did the same thing.

I beg to differ that the 12's fostered design innovation compared to the open 90ft rule. All the 12's gave us is shoal draft production boats with "winged keels" that look and function much like mushroom anchors when taking the ground.

And a fair bit of rig development and technology - I seem to recall Bruce Farr describing his boat's fractional rigs as being "12 metre type".

The International Rule has no more relevance to boats that are sailed today than the monster multi's do. Even for a 300 D/L cruising boat, no one wraps an International Rule hull around it, although several 12's served well as cruisers.

The IR rule was pretty relevant. There was still a small class of 12 Metres racing in the UK after the WW2. Vim, fitted with an engine, was still racing before the 12m Class was brought into the Cup, and I assume there were many others still racing in the US. Other smaller Metre-type boats were still being used for major races in Australia, Europe and the UK.

For many years before and during the early part of the 12 Metre era of the AC, Twelves were regularly used as "mainstream" offshore racers. American Eagle won the SORC, Annapolis-Newport and Fastnet line honours and a Hobart; Gretel was an offshore regular for years and almost won a Hobart; Endless Summer (Dame Pattie) and Newsboy (Heritage??) did west-coast offshore racing; Gretel II did club inshore racing in Sydney; Sceptre did normal racing around Scotland, etc etc etc. Famous offshore boats like Bloodhound (Fastnet winner), Kurrewa (multiple Hobart line honours) and Kahurangi and Scout (mainstays of the Auckland fleet) were all cruising versions of 12 and 6 Metres. Later 12s are still racing under IRC in 'normal' events.

The 12s, like the British AC challengers of an earlier era, fitted quite well into the mainstream of the most popular races of their day. The current crop do not.



The IACC rule from 1991 - 2007 saw some nice rig development, but the boats were too fast for 12 Meter style "Match Racing" and too slow to be considered cutting edge design.

When you give a designer a clean sheet of paper, a rule that says 90 feet LWL, 22 feet maximum draft, and an unlimited budget, you don't get a 12 Meter or a J Class ... you get a fast boat ... just as you did in the late 1800's.

No, late 1800s AC boats like Sappho, Cambria, Genesta (1885) and Galatea (1885) were pretty conservative and all or most of the boats of the day were designed to a rating rule. Genesta was a successful offshore racer, NOT an inshore racing machine. Galatea was her owners' live-aboard home for 23 years after the Cup. I seem to recall seeing a pic of her, in AC trim, with a piano and potted plants aboard. Sappho sailed the Atlantic to do the normal UK races. Cambria cruised to Egypt and won a Trans Atlantic race.

There was NO clean sheet of paper - there was a rating rule. And, of vital importance to the challengers, there was the requirement to sail the Atlantic on your own bottom. That alone meant that the boats were very different to all-out inshore racers.

Sorry, but I don't think anyone will race the current AC boats across the Atlantic or around England or cruise them through the Med, nor will EB and LE and their wives live aboard them for years after the AC.

In other words, there is a world of difference between the challengers of the late 1800s and the current boats. Many of the AC boats of the 1800s were NOT clean-sheet extreme racers, but rating-rule driven offshore racer/cruisers.




Rather than have the rich guys spend $$$ to find .005 knots of extra speed, we have rich guys looking to break 40 knots in course racing boats. I think it is about time for the Cup to return to the absurdity that made it great to begin with!

Randy

Actually, the Cup did not start in absurdity, but with fairly normal racing among boats that were, while large, pretty normal for their day. Almost all of them fitted into the normal mainstream yachting scene of their time.

Even America was, for her day and place, conservative when compared to Steven's other yacht, Maria.

The AC has always been representative of the big, high tech end of the monohull keelboat mainstream, with a short and small diversion for part of the 12 Metre era - but even then the boats could easily move into the mainstream. And most of the calls for a new class in the middle of the 12 Metre era were suggestions that the AC be moved to CCA/IOR maxis, which were very mainstream.

The current boats are a complete departure from the AC tradition, apart from one mismatch we often try to forget.

[jehardiman]

Originally Posted by RHough

America's hull shape and sails were shown to be superior.

I doubt most Englishmen said that after the race with the whole course sailed issue.

How anyone can deny that competition for the Cup did not foster better design until the 12 Meter Era is a surprise.

Perhaps in the rest of the world, but not in america. The fact that the US could reach into a deep stable and pull out many boats that could beat the challangers with ease shows that the Cup was not the driving force in american superiority

Early on (Read Lawson's History if you haven't), it became obvious that the cost of building unlimited 90ft LWL vessels was prohibitive. Nothing has changed. The two vessels we hope to see racing on Monday are as extreme as Reliance was in her day. The adoption of the Universal Rule and the J Class were cost cutting measures as was the change to little boats in 1956.

J's were not a cost cutting measure but rather an attempt to stifle accuzations of cheating and lead to the most blatent attempt to "buy" the Cup until NZ showed up.

I beg to differ that the 12's fostered design innovation compared to the open 90ft rule. All the 12's gave us is shoal draft production boats with "winged keels" that look and function much like mushroom anchors when taking the ground.

So you concur that AC design has never really been about technical excellence. What the 12's did was to drive analyitical technollogy rather than physical development. Without that stage setting, I doubt we would see the plethora syndicates that think any designer with a CFD & FEA program is capiable of building a viable contender.

The International Rule has no more relevance to boats that are sailed today than the monster multi's do. Even for a 300 D/L cruising boat, no one wraps an International Rule hull around it, although several 12's served well as cruisers.

The IACC rule from 1991 - 2007 saw some nice rig development, but the boats were too fast for 12 Meter style "Match Racing" and too slow to be considered cutting edge design.

No, they were just poor boats because the rule forced them to be too extreem and illrelevent, just like sandbaggers 100 years previously. In that way, the 12's were better for sailing overall.

When you give a designer a clean sheet of paper, a rule that says 90 feet LWL, 22 feet maximum draft, and an unlimited budget, you don't get a 12 Meter or a J Class ... you get a fast boat ... just as you did in the late 1800's.

Ok, given the limited environmental envelope they were designed to, the IACC's may have been fast in the conditions of the race, but they would never have been able to cross oceans as their progenetors did. In that evaluation, the IACC boats were clearly "limited" and inferior technicly to their "unlimited" ancestors.

Rather than have the rich guys spend $$$ to find .005 knots of extra speed, we have rich guys looking to break 40 knots in course racing boats. I think it is about time for the Cup to return to the absurdity that made it great to begin with!

Randy

I say the money spend developing the tools to improve a useful design is better seeing how much safety factory we can cut out of pier queens who's raceable locations are severely limited.

[jehardiman]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

==================
In order to be assured of doing that in a contest where 99% anything goes
don't you thing the designers would have to utilize the "highest level of modern sailboat design"?

Maybe, maybe not. Is an F1 car the "highest level of modern automotive design"? It doesn't have a spare, can't handle driveways or speed bumps, won't run on 95e, and you can't dock your i-Pod. Give me a Aston Martin DB9, a far better example of great automotive design. These boats are one trick ponies that wouldn't last a typical summer weekend on San Francisco Bay (hell, not even in November). Is that the "highest level of modern sailboat design"?

[Zed]

Well kinda... the bleeding edge trails down, the DB9 is probably a better car for what has been learned in F1.

AC innovation was a sure route to the courtroom in days gone by! Especially if it looked like working!

[TTS]

Well, it does not matter in which version of history and development you choose to believe today because in 33 hours we will see these beasts on the starting line. Time to get excited about which ever boat and team you like or support. I for one believe that the trimaran USA-17 will be faster around the course. I also think that they have not been showing their true low wind speed, sandbagging it in winds under 5 knots.