America's Cup Disaster

Well, I'll stand by my belief that since the IR's weren't challenged by either side at the time, they were considered valid and enforceable. Both sides at least made a pretense of abiding by them, which I would say gives them all the legitimacy needed.

So did the Aussies break the rules? I don't know. It's more than a little late to sort that out now; especially since it seems to be a case of "he said, she said." And as I've said before: if there isn't a statute of limitations, there should be.....

 

laurin-chance-davidson

Well Boston,
Some whining here, he he. Arvid Laurin of Sweden designed the 5.5 Olympic champion Complex II for Britton Chance Sr. Chance Jr got inspired by this boat. Chance Jr made credit to Bergström-Ridder (of Sweden) in his later work. Laurie Davidson got advice from Chance Jr according to Gary B's book "The light Brigade". Here we see the obvious. True evidence that Sweden contributed to the NZ victory in America's cup. Morover, Davidson is a common Swedish surname and Auckland was built by Scandinavians.
Regards,
Booster

 

I don't know what they are banging on about, Chris. Under the current monarchical set-up, any win by Australia or New Zealand is (technically) a win for the U.K.

Leo.

 

Brilliant! Does that include cricket?

Seriously, I think all this possible subterfuge has been part of the America's Cup since day one. In some ways, this last running of the event was a truly magnificent 'classic' example of the Cup that would be readily recognised by the protagonists of 100 years ago: Obscenely wealthy individuals, massive egos, totally remote from 'the people', more action in the courts than on the water, etc, etc.

 

This Thread is Far Off Course

I believe the original question or idea Bistros proposed had something to do with the idea that the AC been stomped upon so badly by Bertie that it has likely lost its luster for the future.

The lack of coverage an indicator? So goes the sport?

Design, court decisions and new boats etc are moot, if no one gives a rat's rear.

 

Actually BobBill, my original premise was that the designs of the two boats were so narrowly defined that the folks that proposed the America's Cup would be shocked at America's Cup boats that could not race in the same range of conditions as eight year olds sailing Optis.

Although well deserved justice was delivered to the Swiss Miss, this wasn't really racing except for the first upwind leg of the second race. It appears as if SNG were ready to avoid racing the second race due to unfavorable conditions as well - at eight knots breeze!

As a display of what could be accomplished in flat water with little breeze, the contest did provide good theatre. Three times windspeed is an awesome accomplishment - I've done it in a DN Iceboat, but didn't expect it from a 90 LWL displacement hull.

I do think that the America's Cup needs re-definition to become relevant again:

• Is it a nation to nation contest of techology/spending?
• Is it a nation to nation contest of sailors/match racing?
• Is it some combination of both?
• Is it a contest to be re-defined by the winners every time?
• Is it a legal battle in which sailboat racing emerges briefly?

I'm not a student of America's Cup history (nor Ben Lexcen's keel design origins), but I find that the sport of sailing benefited little for all the money spent. No new little kids are going to be attracted to the sport, no national level pride was raised and the only ones who emerged happy were lawyers, who get paid win or lose.

I'd love to see the Deed of Gift re-defined to become a clear contest, with clear objectives and I would like to see the sport of sailing benefiting directly as a result of the new, clear contest. For every dollar spent by the Defender and Challenger of record, I'd like to see a dollar go out to junior training and providing access to sailing for those that can't afford boats.

--
Bill

 

What He Said

What Bill said +++1

 

This is the mind set that I think has ruined the event. In the AII case the defender drew up the rules. The teams that sailed apparently agreed to those rules. They did not ask them to be changed. Corinthian gentlemen should be expected to honor their agreements.

On the other hand, it wasn't quite a Corinthian gentleman's mindset on the defender's part to add in the rule in the first place. It was an obvious ploy to tilt the competition in their favor.

 

AC has Lost the Idea of Spirit

I agree with Paul B also. Bertie went off on his own, disregarding spirit of the DOG and so on, and the other guy said "no!" Which I believe we are all relieved that he did; but the whole legal thing really took away any fine patina the event had gained over the years, leaving its crass framework bared and wanting.

Truly sad for younger sailors who might now prefer another activity that offers quicker self gratification...not unlike government, I must add.

 

AC design

I thought there were some interesting lessons on the comparative design of the two boats and this is BoatDesign.net. This particular tread seems focused on non-design questions. Should I start a new thread?

Peter Raymond

 

I'm not so sure everyone was relieved that Larry did what he did.

Before he started the litigation there were about 8 teams signed on, ready and willing to sail under the Alinghi setup.

So the strife that BMW-O started by not joining what basically all other players were in agreement to led to what we ended up with.

A lot of the designers and sailors who were dropped from their lucrative contracts by the teams who had to sit this one out and not relieved that Larry did what he did.

 

AC Prtracted

I goofed, and you offer a good point.

I had been referring only to the fact he stood up to Bertie's games. I had forgotten about the other stuff. Still, in a warped sense, everyone now has a better idea of limits, I trust!

 

no there are several good threads that cover what you have suggested or at least to some degree

we have just politely kept our wrangling over non design issues to this one

cheers
B

 

-----------------------------------
Sure, there are these* threads but neither one is specifically about design-I intended the first one to be but didn't word it "correctly"-and the other was more about the race though it was intended to be about design as well. If you do-be sure to state that your thread is specifically about design and not venue, legal issues, history or personalities. You'll find that very few threads under "sailboats" actually discuss the nuts and bolts of state of the art modern design for whatever reason. Being specific, as the thread starter, should should give it a chance.....

* http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/americas-cup-whats-next-31489.html

* http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/americas-cup-2010-race-thread-31452.html

 

Let's try here. That's what I intended the thread to be about.

Alinghi is a very tightly focused package - and this focus made it usable in a very narrow set of conditions. BMW-O was a slightly more generalized package and it's window of operation was somewhat wider.

Here some topics for discussion as I see:

1. Trimaran versus catamaran
2. Monohull versus multihull
3. Power assisted/engines versus manual power only
4. Wing versus soft sail
5. Water ballast versus righting moment from crew & effective width
6. Broad seakeeping ability versus designing for one sea state
7. Venue specific design versus non-specific i.e. "Lake Boats"
8. Design for small range of wind versus "sail in what comes"
9. Racing boats versus racing crews - technology or match racing
10. Money caps on spending
11. Material limitations - is unobtainium desired?

Just some ideas...

--
Bill