No Interest in the AC?

[powerabout]

I heard the masts are 150+ foot high just so they wont lose sight of each other on the course.
lol

[powerabout]

Originally Posted by jehardiman

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"?

They run Euro pump gas with a small margin to mix it differently but only with components already in the pump gas
Same octane

[Doug Lord]

In addition to the locations posted in post #34, BMW/Oracle will carry the race live: http://bmworacleracing.com/en/index.html?track.refer= approx 4AM eastern Monday morning.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by CT 249

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.

...

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.

Here we agree. 90 footers were relatively common "big boats" for racing and cruising. The Cup used "mainstream" for the day yachts.

They were also a reflection of the limits of construction and materials of the time. They were the fast ocean able cruiser/racers of their day.

Fast forward to today. Look at boats like the Gunboat 90. This is what a modern fast cruiser looks like. By the time modern construction methods allowed lightweight racing boats to be designed and built, Multi-hulls had been excluded from mainstream racing for almost 100 years.

I agree that the AC should have some relevance to sailing in general and not be sailed in vessels that have no use outside Cup competition. Prior to the IACC era all the design rules could produce seaworthy boats. The J's and 12's that went cruising are evidence of this.

The problem I see is that when the result is based on an inshore race for offshore boats, winning the Cup requires you to build an inshore racer. Big mono-hulls no longer rule as trans-ocean racers as they did in 1850-1900. Today the ocean courses are ruled by multi-hulls. From this perspective, the big multi's in AC33 are only lightweight versions of the vessel types that have proved to be the fastest for racing across oceans ... just as Cup boats at the turn of the century were lightweight versions of the boats that were fastest across oceans.

The Mono-hull guys have decided that using power assisted systems is okay for sailing races, they are still dead slow compared to manually sailed multi's.

90 feet LWL ... what is the fastest boat you can build? In 1900 if was a ballasted mono, in 2000 it was an un-ballasted multi. The current boats are representations of what wins ocean races, just as the boats from 1850-1900 were.

I'd like the Deed to have some scantling rules but it does not. I'd like to see sound, seaworthy vessels (no matter what the configuration) sailing for the Cup, but that will only happen by mutual consent.

If we agree that the AC has traditionally reflected fast ocean vessels, how can anyone say that big multi's in the AC are not part of that tradition?

With equal time and resources spent in development, and with no mono-hull restriction, how would the Whitbread have evolved? Would Swan 65's have been replaced with W60's? or would it be more likely that the Whitbread would have been dominated by ORMA 60's?

In my opinion multi's being able to challenge for the top prizes in sailing is long overdue. The AC used to reflect the same vessel types that set passage records, when mono's stopped being competitive in that case is when the AC should have stayed with tradition and fostered development of what everyone knows is the fast passage solution.

In the context of fast passage making, by what logic are multi's excluded? Why should they be excluded from the AC? Big multi's are "fairly normal racing boats" today.

Randy

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by RHough

Here we agree. 90 footers were relatively common "big boats" for racing and cruising. The Cup used "mainstream" for the day yachts.

They were also a reflection of the limits of construction and materials of the time. They were the fast ocean able cruiser/racers of their day.

Fast forward to today. Look at boats like the Gunboat 90. This is what a modern fast cruiser looks like.

They are also extremely rare, even compared to other big boats. Therefore they are not mainstream boats, which (as you said) is where the Cup yachts come from.
By the time modern construction methods allowed lightweight racing boats to be designed and built, Multi-hulls had been excluded from mainstream racing for almost 100 years.

And in all that time, why hadn't they been able to develop their own big-boat match racing challenge if they wanted to?

The mere fact that one type of sporting equipment is not allowed to compete with other types of sporting equipment is not some form of conspiracy-driven exclusion. It's what happens in sport, it's what MAKES a sport. As an example, cars have been 'excluded' from mainstream motorbike racing for 100 years, but the moto GP hasn't been opened up to F1 cars. You can't bowl with a bent arm in cricket or just throw your legs in front of the ball to protect your stumps despite the fact that those changes would get more people out and score more runs, because the whole essence of a sport is that it is played to rules that are not changed just to make the end result (whether scoring runs or finishing a race) easier.

I agree that the AC should have some relevance to sailing in general and not be sailed in vessels that have no use outside Cup competition. Prior to the IACC era all the design rules could produce seaworthy boats. The J's and 12's that went cruising are evidence of this.

The problem I see is that when the result is based on an inshore race for offshore boats, winning the Cup requires you to build an inshore racer. Big mono-hulls no longer rule as trans-ocean racers as they did in 1850-1900. Today the ocean courses are ruled by multi-hulls.

Errr, no. Multis are a tiny minority in offshore racing. In the Fastnet this year, the multi class had dwindled to about 3 boats from a fleet of about 300. In Australia, some 200+ monos do major offshore races, and about 20 or fewer multis. In the USA's biggest races, multis are a tiny minority.

Offshore multis are great, but they are a minute proportion of the offshore racing world - so why do they suddenly get into the big races that they did not help to create? And since the boats in this AC are not offshore boats any more than the IACC class, this isn't relevant. If the IACC class was an anomaly, why reinforce the anomaly?


From this perspective, the big multi's in AC33 are only lightweight versions of the vessel types that have proved to be the fastest for racing across oceans ... just as Cup boats at the turn of the century were lightweight versions of the boats that were fastest across oceans.

I think you'll find that your facts are wrong.

From quite early on, the AC boats probably lost their place as "fastest across oceans" to the big schooners like Atlantic and Westward. For example, Westward (although much smaller than Atlantic) could beat the UK Big boats (including the cup challenger types) even around short courses in the right conditions. On an ocean course, the big schooners were highly likely to have been faster than the Js and big cutters. And of course the 12s were regularly slower around an ocean course than the contemporary maxis like Bolero, Kialoa II, etc.

The AC boats were, for many years, boats that COULD race with the mainstream, but for much, perhaps most, of the time they were NOT the fastest of their day in all conditions or across oceans. Nor were the winning AC boats light - in many classes the trend was towards heavier, more powerful yachts within the rules.


The Mono-hull guys have decided that using power assisted systems is okay for sailing races, they are still dead slow compared to manually sailed multi's.

90 feet LWL ... what is the fastest boat you can build? In 1900 if was a ballasted mono

I have no idea where you get the strange idea that the AC was about 'the fastest boat for 90 ft LWL'. From the very first challenge, this was an event run under rating rules. Sorry, but your history is wrong and your conclusions therefore suspect at best.

, in 2000 it was an un-ballasted multi. The current boats are representations of what wins ocean races, just as the boats from 1850-1900 were.

Which multi won the major US offshore race, the Bermuda? Which won the biggest offshore race in the Med? Which won the biggest offshore race in Australia?

Multis don't normally win the major races, and the current multis are not representative of what wins offshore races - even those open to multis.


I'd like the Deed to have some scantling rules but it does not. I'd like to see sound, seaworthy vessels (no matter what the configuration) sailing for the Cup, but that will only happen by mutual consent.

If we agree that the AC has traditionally reflected fast ocean vessels, how can anyone say that big multi's in the AC are not part of that tradition?

Because (a) these aren't ocean vessels and (b) it's traditionally been big MONOHULL ocean vessels - just like the Little America's Cup was for cats, just like the F1 races are for cars not bikes, just like the Tour de France is for 'mainstream' bicycles to UCI rules and not streamlined recumbent tricycles.

That's the way sport goes - you create an event for a certain type of gear and you develop that type of gear. You don't normally radically change the type of gear or rules that is allowed.

You don't get the soccer world cup being taken over by rugby players just because it's faster to score points if you run holding the ball. You don't get Formula boards or foiling monos or skiffs in the Little America's Cup or Texel. You don't get guys with laser sights and guided missiles entering the world target-shooter's world championship on the pretext that weapons have developed that way. The major events stick with the sort of 'equipment' they were created for.

With equal time and resources spent in development, and with no mono-hull restriction, how would the Whitbread have evolved? Would Swan 65's have been replaced with W60's? or would it be more likely that the Whitbread would have been dominated by ORMA 60's?

That's about as relevant as asking how the Indy or the Monaco Grand Prix would have developed if they allowed rocket powered 8 wheelers instead of F and Indy cars. How would the Olympic backstroke have evolved if they'd allowed people to do freestyle? How would the A Class cat class have evolved if they'd allowed foilers? How would the Moths have evolved if they'd allowed windsurfers?

It's not really relevant - the event is for certain type of gear and/or under certain restrictive rules. That's the way almost all sports are played.

The multis have had plenty of time and opportunity to evolve their own Around the World race - in fact off the top of my head I think there was more prize money in the multi RTW races than the mono ones. And yet they have died out....

Most people know how fast multis can go, and they still mostly prefer monos. Multis are fantastic, but most people prefer other stuff. Despite all the talk, multis aren't really growing (if at all). Let's live with it, and respect the fact that most people prefer a Beneteau to a Gunboat, a LAser to a Hobie, a J/24 to a Farrier, and it's monos that they are interested in.

Ultimate speed just doesn't rate that highly with most sailors, which is why the Laser worlds titles are RESTRICTED to 1400+ sailors, and the Moth worlds attract about 40.

It would be fantastic if the multis went out and got their own high-profile inshore racing series - they can go out and make their own, just like the Skiffs did, just like the windsurfers did, just like motorcycles did, instead of trying to crash the car-driver's train.

In my opinion multi's being able to challenge for the top prizes in sailing is long overdue. The AC used to reflect the same vessel types that set passage records,

From about 1890, the AC challengers were pretty much outmoded as passage record-makers by the schooners, which were often much larger craft.
when mono's stopped being competitive in that case is when the AC should have stayed with tradition and fostered development of what everyone knows is the fast passage solution.

In the context of fast passage making, by what logic are multi's excluded? Why should they be excluded from the AC? Big multi's are "fairly normal racing boats" today.

Randy

No, big multis are a tiny minority - great boats, but very uncommon. Despite all the talk, they are not growing much, if at all, as racing boats. Look at the Fastnet - the multi fleet is dwindling. Look at the death of the 60' tri circuit, the death of the F40s, the death of the old F1 maxi multis, the death of The Race.

And the underlying logic is very simple. Sporting events, by definition, exclude some types of equipment and allow others. How much variation and development is allowed is determined by the entrants and organisers, but it's rarely as much as a change from mono to multi.

Almost any sporting contest in the world could be made faster by changing the rules to allow new technology, but most people think that allowing in unrestricted technological changes is a bizarre idea. Swimming just banned the skin suits and it has gold medals for strokes that are slower than freestyle, cycle racing bans recumbents, Red Bull air racing is done in piston engines instead of supersonic jets, F1 is heavily restricted (the second-fastest race ever was over 35 years ago), golf clubs and balls are subject to performance-restricting regulations, etc etc etc.

You could go on for years, listing the way that other sports restrict possible 'advances' - that is, as has been said, the very essence of what sport is about. Hell, the Olympic marathon was inspired by a messenger bringing news of a military victory, and it has stayed as a footrace despite the fact that these days such news would be radioed through. By your definition, the first modern marathon race would have been a competition between telegraph operators. :-)

Almost no one, whether they sail Snipes,Sunfish, Tornado, 60' tri, Hobie, foiler Moth, Formula board or Skiff, cares mainly for ultimate speed. We know what goes fastest, it's MAcquarie Innovation, a speed board, a kite or a 60' foiling tri.

Most sailors, even in high performance classes, are interested in speed AS COMPARED TO COMPARABLE CRAFT. You don't get a Tornado sailor or Moth sailor giving up their craft because they can't come close to the speed of a kite. In the same way, the fact that big multis are quicker than big monos is largely irrelevant. A Formula 1 car is quicker than a racing bike, but that doesn't worry Valentino Rossi. The women's streamlined recumbent HPV record is way quicker than Lance Armstrong can go on his Tour de France bike, but he's not staying up all night feeling that he's missing out. The Olympic butterfly medallist isn't slashing his wrists because the freestylers go quicker. Like compares to like.

This has always been a mono race, and that's the way it should stay. If multis want their own big race, it would be great if they would go out and make one. To take a major event away from the monohullers who make up the vast majority of sailors would make it almost irrelevant to most of those in the sport. Exactly why a small minority has the right to take over a classic event is a mystery to most of us.

We've been forming clubs for multis, building multis, living on multis and sailing multis for 3 generations in my family. They are fantastic boats, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to take over existing events for other types of craft, any more than Skiffs or foilers or windsurfers should be allowed to walk into major multi events, or cars should be allowed to enter motorbike races.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by CT 249

And the underlying logic is very simple. Sporting events, by definition, exclude some types of equipment and allow others. How much variation and development is allowed is determined by the entrants and organisers, but it's rarely as much as a change from mono to multi.

The "rule"

90 feet LWL
22 ft draft

The "rule" allows multi's. The rule also allows mutual consent.

When it suits you, you say that AC boats should be a reflection of mainstream fast cruisers or cruiser racers, then when I point out that there are more and more multis that fit that description you bring up multi-hull not being racing as much.

Do the races you mentioned welcome multihulls?

I know that our local annual regatta does welcome boats of all types, the cruising multi's are a growing fleet, the mono fleet is pretty stable.

You don't like the question about multi's being allowed to compete in the Whitbread ... that's fine ... that race has evolved to motor-sailing ... about as relevant to sailing as asking how the Indy or the Monaco Grand Prix would have developed if they allowed rocket powered 8 wheelers instead of F and Indy cars.

What you seem to miss is that the AC rule allows Multi's, this is in stark contrast to much of what you posted in reply.

You are getting paranoid I think. Did I mention any conspiracy?

All I can say is that if you walk a marina here, you see more newish mutli's out sailing than newish monos. We are welcoming and nurturing them to join in our local racing.

I guess just that because they didn't build the event, we should tell them to go start their own?

Randy

[powerabout]

Its a match race not a drag race so cats are OUT!!
( there is one class of cats match racing and most yachtys have never even heard of it...is there a class in your country?
There's your answer)

A cruising yacht is the worst compromise of a boat ever thats why we have IRC so the 4kts sh1tboxes can race.

People want to see high tech race.
People who know cars follow NASCAR people who know nothing follow F1
Billionaires dont by cats..they buy mono's, production cats are ugly like a VOLVO car, mono's are more pleasing to the eye, just look at re sale and what custom builders are building...


Yachting is a very difficult sport for spectators, a match race in similar boats is as good as it gets if the yachts are doing 30kts it will look like 2 boats out sailing and the percentages in speed difference become huge when you go faster so the race is over before they even hit the water as soon as we all know who has the faster boat.

re production designs to keep cost down...
I could imagine the AC being run in similar hulls but with foils, mast and deck etc. all free to fit the rules.
Hull decided by mutual consent...could be a production design.... that might help connect the average sailor?

[RHough]

Originally Posted by powerabout

Its a match race not a drag race so cats are OUT!!
( there is one class of cats match racing and most yachtys have never even heard of it...is there a class in your country?
There's your answer)

A cruising yacht is the worst compromise of a boat ever thats why we have IRC so the 4kts sh1tboxes can race.

People want to see high tech race.
People who know cars follow NASCAR people who know nothing follow F1
Billionaires dont by cats..they buy mono's, production cats are ugly like a VOLVO car, mono's are more pleasing to the eye, just look at re sale and what custom builders are building...


Yachting is a very difficult sport for spectators, a match race in similar boats is as good as it gets if the yachts are doing 30kts it will look like 2 boats out sailing and the percentages in speed difference become huge when you go faster so the race is over before they even hit the water as soon as we all know who has the faster boat.

re production designs to keep cost down...
I could imagine the AC being run in similar hulls but with foils, mast and deck etc. all free to fit the rules.
Hull decided by mutual consent...could be a production design.... that might help connect the average sailor?

The AC was never intended to be a "Match Race". "Match Racing" evolved from the 12's ... in "Match Racing" it is all about tactics and sailors with a tiny bit of design freedom under a tight rule.

The Cup was:

New York, July 8, 1857 To the Secretary of the New York Yacht Club.
Sir,
The undersigned members of the New York Yacht Club, and late owners of the schooner yacht America, beg leave through you to present to the Club the Cup won by the America at the Regatta of the Royal Yacht Squadron at Cowes, England, August 22, 1851. This Cup was offered as a prize to be sailed for by yachts of all nations without regard to difference of tonnage, going round the Isle of Wight, the usual course for the Annual Regatta of the Royal Yacht Squadron, and was won by the America, beating eight cutters and seven schooner yachts which started in the race. This Cup is offered to the New York Yacht Club, subject to the following conditions:
Any organized Yacht Club of any foreign country shall always be entitled, through any one or more of its members, to claim the right of sailing a match for this Cup with any yacht or other vessel of not less than 30 or more than 300 tons, measured by the Custom House rule of the country to which the vessel belongs. The parties desiring to sail for the Cup may make any match with the Yacht Club in possession of the same that may be determined upon by mutual consent; but in case of disagreement as to terms, the match shall be sailed over the usual course for the Annual Regatta of the Yacht Club in possession of the Cup, and subject to its Rules and Sailing Regulations—the challenging party being bound to give six months' notice in writing, fixing the day they wish to start. This notice to embrace the length, Custom House measurement, rig and name of the vessel.
It is to be distinctly understood that the Cup is to be the property of the Club, and not of the members thereof, or owners of the vessels winning it in a match; and that the condition of keeping it open to be sailed for by Yacht Clubs of all foreign countries, upon the terms above laid down, shall forever attach to it, thus making it perpetually a Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries.

30 to 300 tons, any vessel. Does that sound like a "Match Race" to anyone?

In 1887 it was changed from 30-300 tons to 65-90 ft LWL for single masts and 85-115 ft LWL for vessels of more than one mast. Still very far from a "Match Race".

The Cup *can* be a "Match Race" under mutual consent, but the basic rule does not even hint that the vessels should match in order to provide good racing.

Given either the basic tonnage rule or the revised LWL limits, what would you design and build to win the Cup?

It is the wide open design rule *and* the ability to agree to other terms that makes the Cup different. There is no mono-hull requirement, there never was.

In 1857 there were no multi's that could win. By 1970 there were. In one of the few events that allows design freedom it is amazing to hear claims that the Cup should be limited to mono-hulls and slow ones at that.

Larry is thinking of a new monohull rule that will produce boats that are capable of 30+ knot speeds. Ernesto has said that they are considering a rule that will allow more affordable multi's so several clubs can afford to challenge.

Neither is suggesting a return to heavy displacement monos and "Match Racing" as we have come to understand it from the 12 Meter years.

There are many "Match Racing" series. Why are they not the premier events for sailing?

I tend to agree with CT 249 about forcing multi's into existing events. I agree 100% that I enjoy racing against boats of similar type and speed. I also find it interesting to see what conditions favour what types. I think we are sailors first and we don't need to keep any type of boat from coming out to play.

I also think that that the owners of big, expensive boats, don't really want to be first to finish badly enough to change from traditional boats. How do they reconcile allowing powered systems boats but not multi-hulls? Powered ballast systems and powered decks are every bit as far removed from the mainstream as multi's are. One type is allowed to set new records previously held by traditional sailboats, the other type is not. Why is that?

R

[Doug Lord]

Now, that would be great!

[powerabout]

RHough Yes fair enough what you have said.
Re the power though, the 80 to 100' race mono's all have full power everything now ashave large cruising boats for 20 years, it s allowed under IRC now to race with it.
Match racing not main stream, your right, I thinks you need to look at yacht racing and for many events its a rich guy sinking money in and driving his boat for some, all or most of the race and for most races a hot crew and fast boat will allow him to do that IRC thing.
A rich guy at the helm of a match race boat is going nowhere.
A rich guy cant do much in any other sport..drive his F1..no, his horse...no. He can lift the trophy in sailing and say 'I did it'
Where is the sponsor going, with the arse out of his pants hot young sailor crowd who couldnt tell you what year Dom Perignon you should be drinking OR with the guy driving the Rolls Royce with plenty of hanger on ers?

I know RC wants to have planning mono's ( I believe one of the disagreements he had with EB) but for me it will just become a drag race to the top mark and you have a winner as with assy's you cant pass a boat in front of you and if you run sym kites downwind you will be way slower.
You may as well have them tethered at the start line cut the rope and wait for the top mark and get the gun if speed becomes the main issue and not the match racing?
They will end up racing Moths?

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by powerabout

RHough Yes fair enough what you have said.
Re the power though, the 80 to 100' race mono's all have full power everything now ashave large cruising boats for 20 years, it s allowed under IRC now to race with it.
Match racing not main stream, your right, I thinks you need to look at yacht racing and for many events its a rich guy sinking money in and driving his boat for some, all or most of the race and for most races a hot crew and fast boat will allow him to do that IRC thing.
A rich guy at the helm of a match race boat is going nowhere.
A rich guy cant do much in any other sport..drive his F1..no, his horse...no. He can lift the trophy in sailing and say 'I did it'
Where is the sponsor going, with the arse out of his pants hot young sailor crowd who couldnt tell you what year Dom Perignon you should be drinking OR with the guy driving the Rolls Royce with plenty of hanger on ers?

I know RC wants to have planning mono's ( I believe one of the disagreements he had with EB) but for me it will just become a drag race to the top mark and you have a winner as with assy's you cant pass a boat in front of you and if you run sym kites downwind you will be way slower.
You may as well have them tethered at the start line cut the rope and wait for the top mark and get the gun if speed becomes the main issue and not the match racing?
They will end up racing Moths?

=====================
Yeah-60'Moths or so... See more here in post#11-what Coutts wanted according to Julian Bethwaite: Design Challenge: Trapwing-"on-deck" ballast-12'-22'

[powerabout]

Nice thread Doug..you could be on the right track there.
Must be time to build a one man version and do some testing

[RHough]

Originally Posted by powerabout

RHough Yes fair enough what you have said.
Re the power though, the 80 to 100' race mono's all have full power everything now ashave large cruising boats for 20 years, it s allowed under IRC now to race with it.
Match racing not main stream, your right, I thinks you need to look at yacht racing and for many events its a rich guy sinking money in and driving his boat for some, all or most of the race and for most races a hot crew and fast boat will allow him to do that IRC thing.

My dad exposed me to the Cup at the beginning of the 12 Meter Era. I was 4 in 1956. I learned to sail pretty late at age 10 and the first names I remember are Gretel and Dame Pattie. Cup sailors were my heroes.

My dad also exposed me to early cruising trimarans ... Piver's Lodestar was one of his dream machines.

I didn't give much thought to why multi's and monos didn't race against each other, since all the sailing I did was One Design. Stars didn't race against Scows, or Lightnings, so it was not remarkable that Cougar Cats raced in a separate class too.

I came to learn more about rules and tactics since that was the focus of the AC. I had little knowledge of Cup history other than it was old and named not for America as in USA but for the Yacht America that won the Cup.

1987 in Perth was a highlight for me. The new rule IACC's never got my attention as the close racing I had come to equate with the AC was gone. None the less, I was able to cross "going to the AC" off my bucket list after going to Valencia for AC32.

The outrageous rules for AC33 prompted me to look much more closely at the rules and history of the Cup. It also caused me to lose respect for those that were competing for the AC.

I've now been sailing and racing for over 45 years. I happen to race a 4KSB and enjoy it. I've also enjoyed racing every boat I've ever sailed on. There was some small satisfaction sailing a 24 foot trimaran with a crew of 3 (average age 60+) boat for boat against 40-50 foot monos with 7-10 crew aboard. I also know which boat I would rather cruise on for a week.

The AC is the one trophy that was designed to be adaptable to the times and wants of those that compete for it. I have mixed emotions about it's popularity and the idea that the common perception is that the AC is sailed for in fast boats.

At one time, the USAC roadsters were more than competitive with F1 cars of the day. People resisted rear engine cars at Indianapolis, but after a few years, front engine cars were no longer competitive and the Indy didn't die, it continued with new technology. What design rule that does not specify hull type produces a ballasted monohull as the dominate design? The big gains in sailing performance came with the ability to build lighter boats. At some point it became possible to build competitive multi-hulls. Under Area Rules like the A, B, C, and D classes, can monos' compete with other types? Under a LOA rule? Under a LWL rule? Under a displacement rule? Why do designs that are slow for their length, slow for their weight, and slow for their sail area continue to be the choice for new racing boats? When ballasted mono's cannot be competitive under a rule that allows other vessel types to compete, why didn't the owners give up hauling lead around and go with the faster types?

I don't find the argument about not letting motorcycles into the Tour de France persuasive, they allow boats that require stored energy to race.

If motor racing can adapt to the change from front engine cars to rear engine cars, why does sailing have such a hard time going from mono's to multi's?

Certainly, there are racing classes for sedans that are front engine, rear wheel drive and it took some time for front wheel drive cars to become competitive. We now see a mixture of front and rear wheel drive cars in many classes at the club level. Shouldn't we see a mixture of monos and multis in club level sailing classes? At the top of motorsport internationally, we don't see either front engines or front wheel drive, the winning combination is mid engine and rear wheel drive. Shouldn't we expect to see mutli-hulls in the AC? Shouldn't we have expected to see battles between monos and multis in the top levels of sail racing?

It does not make sense to me. Just because mid-engine, rear wheel drive cars are far from the layout of mini-vans and the majority of road cars, they are the dominate type on the race course. Just because multi-hulls are not the dominate type for everyday sailing and cruising, why should the AC reflect that? Sports car racing is not reflective of what is in the parking lot at WalMart, why should the AC be reflective of the dock queens at most marinas?

I'm not on a particular crusade here, just looking at the two sports. It seems odd to me that while there are many parallels between sports car racing at the club level and sail racing at the club level. One mostly amateur sport embraces better performing types and the other one does not. There is no "We should not allow front wheel drive cars into our local street drags, they did nothing to build the event. They are free to start their own club and have their own races." attitude that I am aware of. In local automobile racing, all racers seem to be made welcome. New cars are fit into existing classes. Effort is made to set weight limits and modification limits so the cars can race together. Why no PHRF or IRC type rating system that allows multi-hull cruiser/racers to sail against mono-hull cruiser/racers? If car clubs can figure out rules that let Honda Civics, MR2's, and Miatas race together instead of splitting them into Front Engine/Front Drive, Mid Engine/Rear Drive, and Front Engine/ Rear Drive, sail racing should be able to do the same.

I for one am happy that we get to see what can be done with a 90 foot LWL and 22 foot draft. There is more than enough data to rate 30, 40, 50, and 60 foot multi's to allow them to race with mono's. Either under a measurement handicapping system that uses VPP's or an observed performance handicap system like PHRF or Portsmouth. Even IRC is subjective enough to try to rate ULDB's against heavy displacement 4KSB's, they could include multi's if they wanted to.

Is the resistance due to people not wanting to be reminded that the boats they sail should be in vintage or cruising classes, and not the headliners they once were? The cars guys didn't let that happen, why should we?

Randy

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by RHough

The "rule"

90 feet LWL
22 ft draft
Schuyler was quite explicit in interviews with the NY Times - the DoG was there only if mutual consent could not be found. All previous challenges have been made under rating systems. Mutual consent has always been found until this challenge.

To imply that Schuyler and others did not assume that races would normally be run under rating rules is incorrect - they were always run under rating or class rules, through Schuyler's time and after. Look, for example, at the fact that Schuyler specifically referred to rating rules when he rules on the "Thistle" measurement issue.

The "rule" allows multi's. The rule also allows mutual consent.


The early DoG may well have excluded multis because they would probably not have measured under the tonnage rule as required, for a start.

The Deed of Gift most probably doesn't specifically ban multis because when the DoG was created, there was no such thing as a western multihull over 45 feet LWL that could compete. Not many rules ban things that the rule creators think impossible.

As has been pointed out time and time again, many class rules have failed to initially ban things that no one foresaw at the time. Moth rules didn't ban cats or windsurfers, A Class rules didn't ban foilers, F1 rules didjn't ban fan cars or turbochargers or rocket cars, etc etc etc.

Surely you cannot say that every rule has to specifically ban every possible type of future design that could be developed, even if no one alive at the time thinks such a design could be developed, and even if no such device was in fact developed until about 80 years in the future?

In fact, the first Deed did not prevent steam yachts from racing, "steam-yachts being nearly unknown at the time of its making" according to an old OUting mag report. It was not until the second DoG came around that steamers were banned.

According to your theory, because the original DoG did not prevent steamers, which later became more popular, the Cup should probably now be raced by full-on powerboats. After all, if they go faster and they weren't specifically disallowed at first they must be allowed, right?

Why bother about arguing how multis should be allowed to race in the AC, when it should (under the same argument) probably be fought out by 60' powerboats with multiple turbochargers or rocket engines?

The fact that there was no restriction on steamers until they became popular and practical just seems to underline that the reason they didn't ban big ocean-crossing multis is just because they could not envisage them.


When it suits you, you say that AC boats should be a reflection of mainstream fast cruisers or cruiser racers, then when I point out that there are more and more multis that fit that description you bring up multi-hull not being racing as much.'



MAINSTREAM

Definition;

main current of thought or behaviour: the ideas, actions, and values that are most widely accepted by a group or society, e.g. in politics, fashion, or music


MAINSTREAM:

adjective

Definition:

reflecting norm: reflecting the most widely accepted views or tastes of a nation or culture and therefore not exceptional, extreme, or avant-garde
The scandal, previously ignored by the mainstream media, is now on the front pages."


Big multis make up a small percentage of yachts; therefore the big multis are NOT "the main current of thought or behaviour in the sport". The big multis do not 'reflect the most widely accepted views or tastes' in sailing culture. They are a minority, and such a small minority as to be exceptional.

You have NOT 'pointed out' that more and more multis fit the description of mainstream boats. You asserted it, with no proof. The fact is, for example, that they make up some 1% of boats in the major English ocean race, and probably less than 1% of offshore racers in Australia. The proportions seem roughly similar in most other places.

Therefore, by the simple definition of the plain english, big multis are not mainstream. The small minority is not the mainstream. It's really not hard.


Do the races you mentioned welcome multihulls?

A minority of them, and multis make up a tiny minority of entries.

The fact that most offshore races are not for multis just underlines that they are not mainstream.
I know that our local annual regatta does welcome boats of all types, the cruising multi's are a growing fleet, the mono fleet is pretty stable.

That's fine, but that's one tiny corner of the world. In my tiny corner of the world, Sydney Harbour, the cruiser/racer multi fleet is long dead. Nationally, the fleet is not really growing AFAIK.


You don't like the question about multi's being allowed to compete in the Whitbread ... that's fine ... that race has evolved to motor-sailing ...

I don't like motorsailing, and would point out that the fleet is smaller than it was when the boats were mainstream.
about as relevant to sailing as asking how the Indy or the Monaco Grand Prix would have developed if they allowed rocket powered 8 wheelers instead of F and Indy cars.

What you seem to miss is that the AC rule allows Multi's, this is in stark contrast to much of what you posted in reply.

The DoG initially allowed multis in the same way it initially allowed steamers, powerboats or nuclear submarines. That is, multis that could race for the Cup did not exist and were not foreseen and therefore no one bothered to put rules against them.

To say it yet again, the fact that the drafters of a rule do not specifically ban everything does not mean that they intend to allow in developments that they cannot foresee as being practical. The Moth rule allowed multis and windsurfers, A Class cat rules allowed foilers, F1 car rules allowed fan cars and 6 wheelers.... Yet all have been banned once they become possible contenders.



You are getting paranoid I think. Did I mention any conspiracy?

[i]If you want to have a discussion, have a discussion. Don't throw around insults.

Many other people have sneered, belittled and ridiculed mono sailors for trying to keep races just for monos, just like every other sport keeps restrictions on gear used in some events. Many have alluded to the fact that they believe that mono sailors are in some sort of conspiracy, and that is what I was referring to.

I was merely pointing out that mono sailors are merely trying to keep an event for their equipment as an event for their equipment, just like cat sailors have done, just like windsurfer sailors have done, just like bike racers have done, just like sportscar racers have done (we all know the restrictive rules on sportscar races that effectively keep out much faster vehicles), just like golfers and cricketers and runners and air racers and all other sportspeople have done.

BTW I haven't raced a ballasted mono for about three years, so I have nothing to be paranoid about. I am normally sailing gear with a peak speed faster than most racing cats, but that doesn't mean I have to argue that those cat classes should be opened up to faster equipment. Let's all hope the cat sailors keep on having fun in the events that are historically for their type of craft, just like the leadmine sailors should be able to.

I]

All I can say is that if you walk a marina here, you see more newish mutli's out sailing than newish monos. We are welcoming and nurturing them to join in our local racing.

I guess just that because they didn't build the event, we should tell them to go start their own?

Randy

No, if you want to let them in, great. That doesn't mean that they have to be allowed into every other event.

Multis don't allow monos, kites or boards into most of the big multi events, why should they demand special treatment?

I guess that just kites should be allowed into the A Class titles too?
I guess that steamships should have been allowed into the AC?
I guess that

If you allow every type into every race, you can lose the degree of commonality of gear, tactics, spirit, personality, handling and other facets that make a sport event. How much commonality any particular event allows can vary, but to just imply that every event has to allow in the most 'efficient' possible gear is compeletely against the rules of most sports.

I notice you continue to ignore the fact that almost all sports (perhaps all sports, certainly the sportscars that you refer to) have rules that restrict the gear - why are you so against it in sailing?

[rayaldridge]

I notice you continue to ignore the fact that almost all sports (perhaps all sports) have rules that restrict the gear - why are you so against it in sailing?

Because the line chosen is so obviously arbitrary, and results in the exclusion of the fastest boats.

It is perfectly reasonable to keep power boats out of sail races. It is less obviously reasonable to exclude certain sailboats because they are somewhat different from the traditional entry. This isn't match racing or class racing. It's ocean racing. If 25 foot monos are allowed to compete in the same race as 90 foot maxi yachts, it seems disengenuous to claim that allowing multis would result in too much diversity in the entries.

Consider the Dakar rally. This is actually not a bad analogy for an ocean race. And there are cars, motorcycles and trucks competing. The result is that the race is more interesting to more people, and so I think it would be if multis were encouraged to race in the major ocean races.