America's Cup

I support this idea.

 

Hi Randy,

I always like your posts - they are so damn hard to argue with! I really have to put on my thinking shoes (thinking shoes - maybe that's my problem!)

1/ It goes to follow that the better that any handicap rule reflects physics the fairer the racing. Whether that can be acheived ...

But it is the only way it can be acheived!

2/ So you agree that restricted classes are type forming at least during design-stable periods - stable design with small increments of improvement for long periods then there is a breakthrough. Then again stable with small increments.

Which counters your earlier point that a formula rule like ACC Rule or similar is the only way to provide close racing whereas with restricted classes you will get a too wide range of performance for there to be good racing.

During design-stable periods the racing will be close - great! When there is a breakthrough - great! Because the breakthrough reflects understanding something about the real world rather than just being a manipulation of a man-made rule.

For example 90% of Australia 2's increase in performance was a result of using the wings to get the ballast lower - more stability - more speed. The breakthrough was purely a way of acheiving a lower CG without infringing the 12 metre rule - ingenious solution - but no gain at all for sailing in general - no flow ons into other classes - because the classes that can put their ballast in a bulb had been doing it anyhow.

Using restricted classes means that the improvements sought will reflect physics and be broadly applicable. Not like sailing a class like ACC that is so hide-bound that the most important area for speed improvement is fairing up the hull/keel juncture.

As I keep saying - we deserve more than that.

3/ So if you are agreeing with me that a restricted class is stable for longer and shorter periods, then the racing will be close enough to make match racing a viable means of winning the Americas Cup.

I can see why you are saying a breakthrough boat is terrible for matchracing - I agree completely - but the Americas Cup has also been about gaining design breakthroughs - otherwise they would be racing One Designs.

My point is that the occasional year when one boat is significantly faster is a fair price to pay for the designs to reflect the real world rather than reflecting a sweet spot in someones kludged together formula - many classes will be able to benefit from the improvement.

The year after that - it will be even racing again - as the breakthrough boat will provide the basis for the design programmes of all teams.

I would argue that this was the original purpose of the Cup - each country representing its Design, Manufacture and Sailing efforts on the water.

The fewer restrictions on the class the less type forming the rule - which is why I was arguing for:
A length rule - to limit expense.
A type rule - some restrictions to keep the America's cup as a keelboat race

And very little else. I agree that restricted class rules are type-forming to an extent. The more restrictions - the more type-forming. That's why I am arguing for fewer restrictions.

4/ I am going to make the point of the very first post. That Peter Oosanen sees that the biggest area for improvement for performance is reducing drag in the hull/keel juncture.

In a restricted class the battle is always with more gross performance improvements. It is not that they won't bother with hull/keel junctures - it's just that they become so relatively unimportant that they won't be mentioned except in passing.

It is fine for there to be a 1 percent speed improvement as you say - but I also think it is OK for there to be the occasional 5% speed improvement.

Where they become a main route for performance improvement only shows that the class design has stagnated and is no longer the (expensive) search for excellence that the America's Cup has been historically. Maybe it still is in terms of Structures and getting accurate CFD, but pure sailing performance is almost forgotten.

5/ Lets see that supercomputer time and effort put to good use to follow up potential real speed increases in terms of the REAL WORLD rather than to beat a formula that someone made up 15 years ago and will be no longer relevant to anyone but yachting historians in another 15.

The real world is always relevant A gain there is a real gain.

Take Moths, 18ft Skiffs and A classes. The design in each of these has resulted in striking boats that display REAL breakthroughs, but also very even racing at the top level - a paradox, but true - and no supercomputers involved at all - just people who going sailing a lot and look at the problem of going fast in a broad way.

In fact I don't think a supercomputer would help much with their overall development. Because they are about the Physics of sailing there is a whole world of possibilities as we have seen with the above classes. There are unexpected developments. Computers, by their nature will always be about taking a certain situation and optimising a solution - they will never be useful for thinking up completely novel solutions in the first place.

(when the Revolution comes the supercomputers will be first ones up against the wall!).
___________________________

So I support a restricted class with minimum restrictions so as to be type forming in a minimum way.

A simple restriction of length to limit expense
A couple of rules to prevent crew weight becoming too important to righting moment - to keep the AC as a keel boat race.
No restriction on sail area or configuration
Rules to prevent changing the configuration for different weather conditions.

There will be times when someone comes up with a breakthrough boat and match racing will be irrelevant.

There will be times where match racing will win the cup - as we have seen from the restricted classes above there are quite long periods where the boats are all quite similar.

With no restriction on sail area there will be premiums put on boat handling skills so the racing will become much more interesting to watch rather than the current almost completely predictable procession of events around the course.

And if a boat wins by speed - it is PHYSICS speaking - real, lovely, gross PHYSICS - and the lessons learned will hold for all time - rather than having to be thrown out when the rule is changed.

PHEW!

Michael Storer

 

Well, there have been some breakthroughs in (I)ACC design.
America3 was much narrower than the previous boats of her class, and that has been a trait of all the following boats.
NZL-60(now FRA-60) introduced the knuckle bow that is now commonplace on all the ACC designs.

 

IMO the 12 Metre rule provided some of the best Cup racing in history. The match in Freemantle was great. The final outcome was a blow-out but the combination of the LV Cup, Defender Trials, and the Match was a wonderful event.

To put a few things into the proper time-line:

1983 the Cup was lost.
IOR was the ocean racing rule of the day.
VPP's and CFD were rocket science.
The 12's designed for the 1987 match in Freemantle were the first to use CFD and VPP's during the design process.
1987 the greatest number of teams competed for the AC.
1988 the miss-match, proving that in an open design contest, a hacked together 60 foot Catamaran can make a 90 foot LWL skiff / super-maxi look silly.
1988 before the miss-match there were another record number of teams that wanted to compete for the AC in 12 metres.
1988-1992 the IACC rule replaces the 12 Metre rule.

IACC boats have been computer designed and optimized from the start of the rule.

The IACC is a rule in infancy. There have only been 4 matches sailed under the rule. The selection process and cup races have provided great drama. Boats folding in half and sinking. Great leaps forward in rig design.

The fact that the last match was extremely hard fought in the LV cup and saw NZ outfox themselves with the HULA proves that there is still plenty of room for progress and or error within the rule.

One of the things that is being studied is the possibility of tuning the hull flex for better performance. Rather than make the hull heavier in an attempt to make it flex free, it may be faster to let it flex in places and put the weight in the keel.

The IACC rule has been around for only 14 years, after 70 years improvements were still found in 12 Metre boats. Do we really need to change anything at all? We have not even reached the first stagnation level in the class.

If the 2007 race sees poor sailing and too few boats to make for a great event, then a re-think to get the involvement back up to 1991 levels might be in order.

The VO has shown that big boats fleet racing close enough to shore for spectating can be exciting. There is no reason that IACC boats could not put on as good or better show.

 

I like the completely open idea. But while cats and tris are fast, they make for lousy match racing because they tack too slowly. The last thing we want is a drag race. This may be the best argument for a size limit too. Match racing suffers when you can't just throw a leebow on someone. Also, multis are too wide and lacking in momentum for tight squeezes at the marks.

I agree.

Plus, top talent comes from anywhere and everywhere. Let's not limit anyone's opportunities.

Well, there's charm in this idea too...

--

 

I agree to a point, but a modern boat capable of surfing or planing is a lot more exiting to watch; and apparent wind/wave sailing can be just as important to good match racing as the standard tactical stuff. Grabbing a wave to surf past an opponent, for example.

--

 

The problem with apparent wind sailing and planing hulls are that they go through transitions.

If the entire course kept the boats in displacement mode, all is well.

If the entire course has wind/wave conditions that allow planing, all is well.

It is the in-between conditions that allow high speeds on one part of the course and not others that would make the races a crap-shoot. The boat that was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time would grab a huge lead and the race would be over. On boats that are fast enough to always sail apparent wind, the boat that finds the highest wind speed wins. Higher wind speed overrides tactics and playing shifts.

Keeping the boats in displacement mode is a great equalizer.

 

But don't you think playing gusts and waves is just like playing shifts, especially for world-class sailors? Don't you think the race is already about being in the right place at the right time? ACC crews are already scouting for gusts however they can, and the team that does the best job finding wind often wins. It already makes a difference. Why not let that difference to grow to where it's clearly visible to spectators, to make the race more exciting?

This is true. The best racing I've experienced has been in slow boats, not fast ones. But which would you rather watch -- Lido 14s or I14s?

I used to be in your camp on this one, but now I'm changing my mind.

 

This is a tough one, in a fleet racing situation and a 5-7 race regatta, there is no question that the more kinetic boats put on a better show.

What I see as a problem is that one lucky call can turn into a lead that no amount of great sailing could overcome. If one boat got lucky and planed/surfed to a 20 length lead, then there were no planing conditions for the rest of the race, it would be a bore to watch. The leader would have to sink the boat to loose if the remainder of the race was in displacement mode.

I think VO70's = great TV racing and AC = Limited audience. It's the difference between hockey and curling.

 

RHough:
"...The IACC rule has been around for only 14 years, after 70 years improvements were still found in 12 Metre boats. Do we really need to change anything at all? We have not even reached the first stagnation level in the class..."


From Peter van Oossanen's paper:

"...The purpose of these Rules changes ( version 5.0) has not been to increase the level of performance, as has been publicized.....The Rule has been changed to prevent the development of designs...When it is realized that these recent Rules changes were, in effect, dictated by the present holder of the Cup and the present Challenger of Record, this can be understood. They, least of all, want to be confronted by a design from another camp with another balance in performance between light and heavy conditions..."


Maybe we have already reached stagnation?

 

This is just standard B.S. that happens during every defense.

The Defender tries for rules that favour them, and the Challenger tries for rules that favour them. Here we see the Defender and Challenger teaming up to limit the chances of being taken by surprise and trying to insure that Alinghi and Oracle/BMW will face off in the final.

It might also be that the rule change killed an idea that Mr Oossanen had up his sleeve. The article was full of words and little substance. Many people thought that nothing new would be seen in 12 Metres ... then Intrepid and Australia II blew them away.

As long as there are multiple teams competing for the Cup it will be fine. Politics and fighting about rules are part and parcel of the AC. I hope no one tells these boys how silly they look spending all that money and going to court over a sailboat race!

 

Sailing apparatii

The main problem I have with the present breed of America's Cuppers is that they are not real boats. They are use once/throw away toys.

The old 12's had their faults. They were archaic, heavy, and very slow for their cost. But there are still a lot of them sailing around. Some are over two generations old. And some have even had cruising accomodations added.

If the IACC is fourteen years old, how many examples of the older boats are still sailing?

If in fact there are none, let me say this:

If the rich can afford to throw this much money around pointlessly, perhaps they have too much of it.

Maybe we can make them make their future boats out of paper. Enron stock reciepts, perhaps?

Bob

 

Most of them are still able to sail. Bill Koch has made a couple into a giant art piece. Another art piece was made of the Mermaid boat.

There was a series racing them in SF Bay a couple of years ago. Three are in San Diego doing charters and corporate events. Two are in Auckland doing day charters. A couple more are doing charters elsewhere.

I can't imagine why you would make the comments you have. What modern 12s are useful as anything but day charter boats? Not many.

 

Agree, Cup boats have never been expected to do more than one thing, after that they get scrapped. Been like that since forever.

 

I guess that answers my question.

If they can be used for anything at all (rather than expensive art fixtures) that's good enough for me.

I was under the impression that there was a lot of breakage in this new class as well as very short life spans.

Bob