No Interest in the AC?

[RHough]

Originally Posted by CT 249

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

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?

I am only trying to point out that the AC does not and IMO never intended to exclude any vessel type. The second deed added the requirement of propelled by sails only and left the 30-300 ton any vessel intact.

I think I pointed out that I enjoy all types of boats. We only differ over the idea of exclusion rather than inclusion of all types. You seem to want to make if forever impossible for multi-hull sailors to become part of the mainstream. I don't understand your aversion. I only suggest that a one hull limit is artificial compared to a sail area, or tonnage, or length restriction. You come across as anti-multihull.

Your assertion that: "The early DoG may well have excluded multis because they would probably not have measured under the tonnage rule as required, for a start." is odd ... considering that tonnage certs are issued for more than one hull type. USA-17's certificate lists her at 45 gross tons IIRC.

I also don't understand why sports like auto racing have adapted and managed to include diverse designs whilst sailing has not. Fin keels and spade rudders did not ruin sailing, they made older full keel designs less competitive. Handicapping systems attempt to keep the older designs competitive and out racing. The same construction materials and methods that allow light displacement mono hulls also allow multihulls do be competitive. One is welcome the other not. I don't see why that should be.

Observed performance handicapping works very well. There is no reason that I can think of not to have mixed fleets so the system can evaluate all types of vessels.

It has been my experience that cruising multihull sailors have much in common with cruising monohull sailors. They mix quite well on the water and in social settings. It is in the racing community that I see a rift and neither side doing much about it.

We don't agree, that is no reason to bring up examples that are not allowed under the controlling document of the AC.

Golf has managed to allow carbon shafts and new club designs. Many sports allow the equipment to evolve and improve.

What is so wrong with allowing any vessel that meets a Category 1 standard to enter Category 1 races? It may be that none will wish to enter. That is fine. I see a difference between lack of interest and lack of opportunity. I also think that the lack of opportunity can be the cause of lack of interest.

If dad and his friends want to race the family cruiser, they are almost forced to buy a mono. Mom might be happier with a multi but that kills any chance of weekend racing for dad. I see that as a failure of the sailing community to adapt and change with the times.

You keep saying that races like the S-H have always been monohull races and they should remain so. It is very much a private club.

At one time Yacht Clubs did not allow women to become members. Now women commodores are common, mainstream if you will.

Do you also advocate that clubs deny membership to owners of multihulls? Let them form their own club ... Most clubs I know of have to change and adapt to keep the membership up. Excluding power boats and multi's is a luxury than most clubs cannot afford.

You point out: "I don't like motorsailing, and would point out that the fleet is smaller than it was when the boats were mainstream."

Fine, would the number of people enjoying our sport be larger if multis were included and had been included from the beginning?

You are quite correct that it was not until the second deed that the requirement of propelled by sails only was added.

How can you say this? "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."

At the time the 1887 deed was written catamarans were known and had been more than competitive. They did not become popular and practical until later, but to think that the writers of the Deed could not envisage them becoming so is selling the authors short IMO.

I welcome diversity, you seem to want to exclude it and keep it from ever having a chance.

I think we can agree to disagree. I place a very high value on inclusion of anyone that wants to come out and play. I think exclusion has harmed our sport.

Seeing multi's in the AC is a welcome change for me. I hope that after seeing big multi's in the Cup, that the press will ask why they are not included in other races. IMO the public assumes that top level racers chose fast vehicles. I think they will wonder about the exclusion of multis from major events.

When the establishment is violently against change, that is a good indication to me that the change is probably worth considering. You react like I wish to replace monos with multis and that I somehow want to prevent you from racing the sort of boat you like to sail. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I want to see more sailors in more boats out on the water. I want the bar to sell more beer after the races not less. I don't see how allowing multis to enter more events harms those that chose to sail monos. I do see that exclusion from events is an attempt to keep a sub-group of sailors out of a snobby private club. I think the club needs more boats and more sailors not less and it is a mistake not to try to include any boat that wants to participate. After all, we share many if not most of the same values. We sail. That is what matters to me, not what we sail.

R

[RHough]

Originally Posted by rayaldridge

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.

Very well put.

No one is suggesting banning monos. All that is being suggested is opening the doors to allow more sailors to race the boats they prefer. IMO the spectrum of sailboats includes multi-hulls ... why exclude any?

How is the exclusion of any minority any different from the exclusion of another minority? I suppose people are still free to join private clubs that exclude minorities, I don't choose to belong to such clubs. Most people I know do not find it reasonable to exclude a minority based on sex, race, or religion. I see a parallel in the exclusion of minority vessel types from ocean racing events.

At the risk of starting a political debate ... at one time Blacks were banned from Major League Baseball, they had their own leagues. Now teams are made up of players based on merit, not race. Why is this not so in ocean racing? We can handicap a 30 foot LWL 300 D/L mono and allow it to compete with a canting keel maxi so the results reflect the merits of the sailors, why can't we include multi-hulls so the results reflect the merits of the sailors?

Within the range of boats that race offshore or in coastal waters there exists a huge range of relative performance. Including mutli-hulls changes that not one little bit. Most single number handicap systems create a situation where conditions favour different types on different courses. Adding multi's to the mix would change nothing.

I just don't understand the aversion to include more sailors, even if they don't sail the type of boat I chose to sail.

R

[powerabout]

Rhough
I'm not sure where you find cats excluded, I ve never read an NOR that said so?
In asia they have classes and they race just like mono's do in classes?
Most are floating houses so they dont race very well and do not manoeuver at low speed that is one reason they are kept away from mono's
If you have 3 boats+ everybody will give you a class..why wouldnt they?

[RHough]

Originally Posted by powerabout

Rhough
I'm not sure where you find cats excluded, I ve never read an NOR that said so?
In asia they have classes and they race just like mono's do in classes?
Most are floating houses so they dont race very well and do not manoeuver at low speed that is one reason they are kept away from mono's
If you have 3 boats+ everybody will give you a class..why wouldnt they?

That is exactly the point. Why won't they?

The floating house class includes monos as well as multi's. We find they can race the same courses and we are working on a handicap system to score all the floating houses together. We want to have classes by similar performance rather than by hull type. A J160 is a performance cruiser and is rated as an ULDB, course times between higher performance multi-hull cruisers are comparable. Why not let them race together indeed.

R

[SAShruby]

Originally Posted by powerabout

People who know cars follow NASCAR people who know nothing follow F1

Dude, you're boat designer? Then this is the most stupid statement I ever heard.

I'm sorry but I couldn't resist to make a comment.

[yipster]

no racing today, maybe friday?
http://www.americascup.com/en/actual...-today-19-1754

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by yipster

no racing today, maybe friday?

I've just read this news: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...XropwD9DPC3SG0
Quote: "Alinghi skipper Brad Butterworth said late last week that insurance liabilities will force racing to be called off if the wind exceeds 15 knots or waves are more than 3 feet."

So, talking about high-tech (and about progress) - I can't help thinking that the old monos would start the race with winds up to 27 kts while these multihull spaceships will have to wait 'till the sea is flat and wind is just a gentle breeze... Or they might just break apart. Or did I miss the sense of Butterworth's words...?

[RHough]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

I've just read this news: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...XropwD9DPC3SG0
Quote: "Alinghi skipper Brad Butterworth said late last week that insurance liabilities will force racing to be called off if the wind exceeds 15 knots or waves are more than 3 feet."

So, talking about high-tech - I can't help thinking that the old mono's would start the race with winds up to 27 kts while these multihull spaceships will have to wait 'till the sea is flat and wind is just a gentle breeze... Or they might just break apart. Or did I maybe miss the sense of Butterworth's words?

I agree ... instead of being a showcase for what multi's can do the defending team has built a boat that cannot sail in even mild conditions.

This is not true of all multis, but the impression will be that it is.

A great opportunity missed.

R

[jehardiman]

Originally Posted by RHough

I agree ... instead of being a showcase for what multi's can do the defending team has built a boat that cannot sail in even mild conditions.

This is not true of all multis, but the impression will be that it is.

A great opportunity missed.

R

Multi-hull vessels exploit one small corner of the power-stability envelope, and the faster the vessel, the smaller the corner. And so, like all other vessels, are found lacking when out of thier short sighted design envelope. There is no "fastest" vessel, only those vessels which are faster than others in a given condition. Unlike the original America or even a 12M, I doubt either of therse two vessels (or an IACC mono) could make it from Sandy Hook to the Lizard with thier crews and racing sails aboard. This shortcomming robs this farce of relevance to sailing design. If I recall correctly, neither of these two boats even have names.....

As for the impression that multis are fragile, that is a true impression. As I have pointed out in several threads over the last few years based on real performance, multi-hull ocean racers are twice as likely to break as thier monohull counterparts. What is more, when in conditions where they break, multihulls are not even as fast as similiar monohulls. See the recently finished Transat Jacques Vabre: Capsize Structural difficulties are just something that comes with the design tradeoffs. As I have said before, there is no one "best" hullform.

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by RHough

I agree ... instead of being a showcase for what multi's can do the defending team has built a boat that cannot sail in even mild conditions.

This is not true of all multis, but the impression will be that it is.

A great opportunity missed.

R

-----------------------
Sadly true......Designing America's Cup boats close to the edge is almost always done-more so in "modern times" it seems. But designing so close to the edge that the boats can't be sailed is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with multihull technology-it has everything to do with those that allow these kinds of artificial limitations.

[Alik]

Unfortunately AC has come down to lake level.

And this will effect all sailboat industry, by inspiring non-seaworthy designs with reverse bows, limited functionality and reliability.
What kind of progress is reached by lowering the requirements? This time I do not follow these events, no real interest...

[RHP]

15 knots max permitted wind speed........ yawn yawn.

[Chris Ostlind]

Originally Posted by jehardiman

As for the impression that multis are fragile, that is a true impression. As I have pointed out in several threads over the last few years based on real performance, multi-hull ocean racers are twice as likely to break as thier monohull counterparts.

So, you included stats from the most recent Vendee Globe in that calculation, did you? This breaking thing wanders all over the place out there, my friend, or have you so quickly forgotten just how many of the canting keel machines tossed their masts, their canting hinge systems, etc., while they were learning to keep it all together with a brand new set of structural limits?

I believe that one look at the above mentioned Vendee Globe event for monohull racing machines will show that a huge number of starters never saw the finish line. Some of those that did trickle over had to seek repairs along the way in order to do so. This doesn't speak too reassuringly to the notion that multis are flimsy comparatively.

Originally Posted by jehardiman

What is more, when in conditions where they break, multihulls are not even as fast as similiar monohulls.

You are getting this notion from where, exactly? Have you taken the time to look at the 24 hour speed distance records now on file with the WSSRC? Unfortunately, what isn't shown in the record listing is just where and in what overall conditions that record was set.

For example: the 24 hour record for solo sailed multihulls far exceeds the record for monos. Interestingly enough, Coville set his record in the Southern Ocean in very testing conditions. In fact, in the previous 24 hour period, he also broke the then existing record and then broke it again the very next day. An original record that was his already, by the way.

Stick the fastest solo crewed monohull out there on that same pair of days and Coville would have left it behind, well over the horizon.

The same speed distance disparity exists for fully crewed vessels when one looks at the mono-vs-multi speed distance records. It's not even close enough to consider threatening. The one and only chance that the mono community had to even challenge the hairy numbers of the multihulls was when that over-pimped Speedboat set forth from New York under Virgin colors and promptly broke itself right out of a record attempt. She now sits on a quay somewhere, with nobody interested in running her expense sheet.

Yep, they are durable as all get out in similar conditions where records might be set.

Originally Posted by jehardiman

Structural difficulties are just something that comes with the design tradeoffs. As I have said before, there is no one "best" hullform.

A fairly obvious observation, is it not? Unfortunately, it comes with a very biased point of view attached.

Those tradeoffs you mention apply to all racing vessels, monos and multis... if they really are out there racing and not just tooling around hoping for that one big burp in the stat sheet, allowing a total slow-poke to win... simply because everyone else that year broke.

They're racing, not hauling coal in a shoebox of monster proportions. Racing gear of all kinds will break on a regular basis if the racing design and skipper are really pushing the limits.

There's going to be an interesting Rue du Rhum this year, come October. The two biggest, fastest solo sailed, serious blue water trimarans, IDEC and Sodeb'O, are going to be on the start line with a whole host of other fast machines, as they burn the course from Europe to the Caribbean. I'm not sure about Banque Populaire, or Groupama 3 for that event, but just having Joyon and Coville in the same race, pretty much guarantees that there will be fireworks.

Should be interesting and I hope it puts an end to the BS about fragile multihulls and those oh-so-durable racing monos.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by jehardiman

Multi-hull vessels exploit one small corner of the power-stability envelope, and the faster the vessel, the smaller the corner. And so, like all other vessels, are found lacking when out of thier short sighted design envelope. There is no "fastest" vessel, only those vessels which are faster than others in a given condition. Unlike the original America or even a 12M, I doubt either of therse two vessels (or an IACC mono) could make it from Sandy Hook to the Lizard with thier crews and racing sails aboard. This shortcomming robs this farce of relevance to sailing design. If I recall correctly, neither of these two boats even have names.....

As for the impression that multis are fragile, that is a true impression. As I have pointed out in several threads over the last few years based on real performance, multi-hull ocean racers are twice as likely to break as thier monohull counterparts. What is more, when in conditions where they break, multihulls are not even as fast as similiar monohulls. See the recently finished Transat Jacques Vabre: Capsize Structural difficulties are just something that comes with the design tradeoffs. As I have said before, there is no one "best" hullform.

I agree there is no one "best" hullform.

I suspect that if you ignored hullform and looked at ocean racing vessels under D/L 50 that multi's are not more fragile than similar monos. If it turns out that the likelihood of breakage is related to D/L then the conclusion would be that ultra light displacement boats are more fragile than moderate displacement boats.

Getting to the finish is (or should be) the first priority. Many ocean racing monos can be described as being built "to exploit one small corner of the power-stability envelope, and the faster the vessel, the smaller the corner."

Until sea state becomes the speed equalizer, better light air performance wins races. The trend in ocean racers has been to maximize speed in light conditions. W60's and Code 0 sails are a mono-hull example. Those boats started coming apart in the rough stuff too. IIRC

Have you looked at comparative safety of modedrate/heavy monos and mosderate/heavy multi's? There should be enough years of data to compare the types. Didn't a mixed fleet of cruisers get caught in heavy conditions a few years back? Was there anything to suggest that the hull type was deciding factor in survival?

Most of what I've read is far from objective. The authors set out to "prove" an opinion, not to reach a conclusion based on any scientific method. It is mostly the "Mono's sink vs Multi's break or capsize" arguments rehashed.

It may well be that a multi-hull type cannot be built light enough to have an advantage in light conditions and still race in heavy conditions. One way to see how that will work out is to have the two types racing against each other.

Without getting into the debate of whether or not AC boats should be able to cross oceans (I agree they should), we have to look at what are considered "normal" AC match conditions. That would be up to F5 for sure and possibly F6. The IACC boats were a disgrace with wind wave limits just over F4.

For "normal" sail racing to F6, I think Multi's are a viable choice. In F4-5 they are probably unmatched by modern mono's in the 44-90 LWL range.

What we see in this AC is the defender that cannot race in more than the lower limit of F4. That is not a representative picture of the hull type. Hobie 16's can and do race in F6 ... as do Optimist Dinghies.

BTW SNG's boat is "Alinghi 5", GGYC's boat is "USA"

The battling billionaires have succeeded in turning the AC into a joke starting in 1988 with the Cat vs DoG match.

Sad, we could have seen some interesting racing ... we still might ... but the damage is done.

R

[Paul B]

All I know for sure about the 2010 AC is I have had 2 nights this week with about 3 hours sleep each, with no racing seen at all.

The next AC race I watch will be on replay.