Americas Cup: whats next?

Larry and ABC-front from the front page SA:

"In a conversation with ABC News yesterday, Ellison talked about fast, exciting boats racing short course regattas for the America's Cup. To almost everyone's surprise, he actually said, "Let's say we have 60 foot multihulls rocketing up the weather mark, it would be wildly exciting, we'd have cameras everywhere...I think it would be a wonderful spectator sport."

This is not a new concept - in fact it is eerily similar to something that has been popping in and out of our collective consciousness for the past 2 years; Russell Coutts' 'World Sailing League'. Remember that the Coutts concept had new boats that "are at the forefront of technology. The 70-foot catamarans will combine speed, maneuverability and the ability to sail close to shore for optimum spectator viewing."

We've said it - mostly in jest - a few times over the past couple of years, but is Russell Coutts so far ahead of the rest of us that the entire mess - the Deed of Gift match, the acrimony, the Valencia debacle - was his plan all along? If so, he is a scarier chess player than even Tom Ehman..."
---------------
59' trimaran going very fast:

 

Low tech

Ha! Look at that sail plan and compare it to BMW-O. See how much lower the aspect ratio is? That is because it needs lots of power and the associated drag is less important. That only happens when the hydro-dynamic drag goes up.

Of course I'm completely ignoring design wind speed and point of sail, but compared to a C-class, A-class or BMW-O, the sail plan L/D looks low.

 

-----------------------
What you're looking at is the fastest sailboat on the planet in its high speed configuration.....


pix Maquarie-low aspect speed rig

 

Clearly the Deed of Gift gives a right for the challenger to choose what ever kind of boat they wish to use within some simple limits, and the defender has no say to prevent that should they not like the type of boat the challenger has chosen.
Your assertion that SNG had some high risk formula makes no sense at all, they simply had no say on the matter after the court correctly ruled GGYC as the legal challenger.

The consortium holding the Cup has no amount of control in defining the boats at all according to the deed. The challenger has that right.

There is nothing in the deed of gift preventing the match from being a contest of technology and continually pushing the state of the art from previous contests, should the challenger so require.

The deed even specificly states that all kinds of sliding keels are always allowed and the defender has no right to prevent such innovations of sailing technology, which was considered as innovative tech at the time it was written, to be used. It was clearly written so, that should the british have won, the americans could have used those sliding keels that were usually not found on that size of boats in european waters, and that the new defenders could not have been able to prevent that by their club rules.

The intention of allowing new innovations, regardless of if the defender wants it, is clearly stated in the deed.

 

What do you think is the difference between:
1) contest in development-class boats.
2) a wide-open design contest of national sailing technology

Considering that only max lwl, max beam and max beam on load waterline is used to define that development-class boat and nothing else according to the deed of gift ?

 

In the original race when America crossed the finishing line she was being overhauled by the cutter Aurora, less than 1/3 of her displacement. Although it should also be noted that America was delayed at the start by anchor problems, nonetheless one wonders how the history of the cup would have evolved if the British boat had won, or if further races would have even been held.

 

Because (1) as Schuyler said (in interviews with the NY Times etc) that the Deed's defaults were, in fact, defaults. They were NOT the normal governing rules of the Cup designs.

The third Deed of Gift's default provisions have been used only twice in 140 years. They were not designed to be the normal rules governing the racing.

(2) Even the Deed of Gift's default provisions say that if mutual agreement cannot be found, "then the challenging party shall have the right to contest for the Cup in one trial, sailed over the usual course of the Annual Regatta of the club holding the Cup, subject to its rules and sailing regulations."

So at the time that was written, that would have meant the "default DoG" match would have been sailed on the normal NYYC regatta course, under the normal rules, which included a rating and/or class system. The club's rules did NOT just allow open slather with no other definitions.

3) Because the DoG's default provisions were just that (defaults, never used for some 110 years or so) the Cup was actually NEVER raced in boats only restricted by the DoG until the 1988 challenge. The Cup was raced in boats that were more or less big (although not oversize) versions of 'normal' yachts.

The normal rules of US and UK big-boat sailing normally applied, NOT the DoG privisions.

For example, when George L Schuyler was asked about the NYYC to rule on the time allowance system used in the Beavor Webb challenges (Genesta and Galatea) shortly after he had signed off on the third DoG, he decreed "" in a race for the America's Cup, whatever terms may be mutually agreed upon in other respects, the time allowance should be made according to the rules of the club in possession."

Notice that he was (1) clearly speaking of TIME ALLOWANCES, not of yachts ruled only by the DoG restrictions and (2) he said that the time allowance had to be the club's rules - not some special set of rules just for AC racing, but the club rules. That underlines that the creators of the Cup thought of it as a race for the typical (albiet large) yacht of their day and allowing the normal developments made under any club's normal rating or class rule, not for some unusual creatures built to wide-open rules.

By the way, if you want to talk of the DoG, can you show me where it says that it's a contest of national sailing techology? Building, yes, but where are the other nationality restrictions to the found in DoG 3?

 

You seem to mix up what is in the current DofG and what was there in the past. The present version clearly states no time allowances is to be used. As a result, the beter boat will likely win, not the beter sailors. to be otherwise, it would have to be raced in onedesigns or under time allowances, and it's never been raced in onedesigns.

Where have I claimed there to being any other nationality restrictions than constructed in the country ?
Hint: you won't find such claim made by me, because I don't believe there beeing any other ...

When the rules do not allow restricting sailing tech without mutual consent, it's clear it is about sailing tech if either club wants it to be so. No need to write it down, when it's so obvious conclusion. Of course under mutual consent, it doesn't have to be about sailing tech, but it has been from the beginning of the current DofG at least to some extent due to there being no time allowances.

 

I did get the second D of G mixed up with the 3rd in one respect (time allowance), and for that I apologise - I was working from 1887 NY Times articles so I could try to get an authentic feel of the times. However, far from freeing up technology, the 3rd DoG (like the second one) appears to specifically allow for any defending club to impose almost any restrictions on America's Cup sailing technology it feels like.

This never really came up because the history of the Cup shows that in 30 challenges, 28 were sailed under mutual consent time allowances or class rules. That's 28 votes to 2 that the Cup is not about DoG boats with no time allowances, but about boats that race under class rules or time allowances. Commodore Gerry, of the team that worked on Dog 3 with Schuyler, pointed out to the NY Times (Oct 29 1887) that the default provisions on the races would only apply if mutual agreement could not be found, "something that had never yet happened in the history of the races" and something that did not in fact happen until 1988.

And the 3rd DoG's default provisions appear to allow for MANY restrictions to be placed on design. It states that "In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup. All such races shall be on ocean courses * * * [These ocean courses] shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift".

This seems to allow for VERY tight restrictions if a defending club wanted to impose them. If, for example, the RYS had won in the 1800s, any further challenges would have been run under 'rules and sailing regulations' as far as they imposed limits on displacement, rig, class rules, number of crew, materials, etc. The RYS could have 'rules and sailing regulations' that imposed minimum displacement, maximum sail areas, bans on winches, spinnakers, topsails, anything but timber construction, pro crews, instruments, sloops, schooners - anything they wanted to ban.

There doesn't seem to be anything to stop a "hip pocket challenger" club that wins the AC in the future from changing its 'rules and sailing regulations' to state that any boat between 44 to 115 feet LWL that races in its events must be (say) a ferro-cement motorsailer with 18 running jacuzzis, or a strict One Design, or an IRC canting maxi, or an ORMA 60. That seems like it would be binding on any challenger, as they must race under the defending clubs 'rules and sailing regulations' and the DoG allows for very few exceptions.

If the DoG was designed to allow almost all developments in sailing technology, why does it specifically allow the defending club's rules and regulations (which may ban such developments) to govern everything related to design, apart from centreboards and some very broad restrictions on size?

The DoG authors were concerned enough about centreboarders to specifically say that they cannot be restricted - why then did they not say that technology or design could not be restricted?

The fact that the DoG SPECIFICALLY stated that the DoG matches must be sailed under club rules seems to underline that the authors contemplated that even DoG racing would be in boats of a similar type to the ones normally raced under those rules, and that it was perfectly reasonable for any holding club to impose almost any restrictions it wanted to on the Cup.


BTW, about your point about sliding keels - they were not new tech when the DoG was created. They had long been a feature of American yachting. To quote the famous 19th century yachting historian W P Stephens "Through nearly thirty years, up to 1880, the keel yacht of moderate size was so rare about New York as to be notable as an exception to the universal rule of shoal-draft centre-board."

I think it was in the NY Times of the 1800s that Schuyler said that the rule requiring sliding keels to be allowed was put in so that the normal American boat of the day, which had a CB, could still race even if the British won the Cup. At the time, the British rules normally banned sliding keels; therefore if the Brits won the Cup, the normal US centreboarder would be banned from being a Challenger.

In other words, the rule about sliding keels was not about allowing new sailing technology, because sliding keels were old (British) technology - it was about ensuring that "normal" large yachts of the standard US racing type could be used in the Cup.

You asked me whether I thought the Cup was "a wide-open design contest of national sailing technology" - I pointed out that there was nothing to say that it was meant to be about any national sailing technology apart from construction. So my reply is simply that there was nothing in the DoG to show that the Cup was supposed to be a contest of national sailing technology (apart from building). The restrictions on design were brought in years later by the NYYC.

 

I think you need to read again what I wrote about sliding keels, you clearly missunderstood what I said.

This is pretty much what I actually said :
Sliding keels were new tech for the British for that size boats, not for the Americans.
Thus the rule about sliding keels was about ensuring that normal large yachts of the standard US racing type could be used in the Cup.

As for the rest of your post, lets just say I disagree with you about your claim the defenders club rules can prevent any deed legal challenging boat from racing for the cup due to the text in the deed :" be subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift " by having some club rules in place beforehand
AND based on observations of court documents from GGYC vs SNG & the other court case from around 1988.

Since we have both made up our mind on that legal issue that as such has nothing to do with boatdesign, I see no reason to continue debating that issue in this forum, and since it's been debated to death in SAAC already, I'm not interested in continuing that kind of debate in there neither.

 

No more wings in AC?

From Scuttlebutt tonight:

WING DEEMED IMPRACTICAL FOR FUTURE COMPETITION
No two people have defined solid wing sail systems as have Americans Dave
Hubbard and Duncan MacLane, who together developed the Stars and Stripes'
1988 wing sail system, and have a long history of wings in the C Class for
the Little America's Cup. So when Dave and Duncan got involved in the 33rd
America's Cup, speculation heightened as to whether a wing would be used.
Here now is a brief report from Dave about his experience:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"My involvement with the BMW Oracle Racing team started in September 2008
when the team's design coordinator Mike Drummond invited me to design a wing
for them. Duncan MacLane was also approached at the same time, but he was
offered a more favorable opportunity with Alinghi. As it turned out, Alinghi
decided not to go with a wing as it was thought to be too impractical.
Duncan stayed on giving the sailing team sailing and tactical coaching.

The BMW Oracle Racing's design and engineering team is awesome. There is a
great depth in all aspects of aero, hydrodynamics, and all the analytical
tools. My contribution was hands on practical empirical experience with
wings going back to the early days in 60's in C Class, and with Stars and
Stripes in 1988. It was a serendipitous melding solving the problem from
opposite ends. After the Oracle wing was built and sailed I drew a
comparison overlay drawing of it and a scaled up (about 2:1) version of S&S
'88. The two outlines were amazingly close.

I would agree with Alinghi that wings are impractical. And I think we all
would agree (possibly even including Oracle team owner Larry Ellison) that
wings are effective tools that make a boat go faster, but that they should
not be used in future America's Cup competition."
-----------

Say it ain't so!

 

Color me confused ...

 

It could be done.

I totally disagree that the Cup could not be held in the bay.
First is area. There is plenty of area that could be developed down by PacBell Park as well as TI. Yes it will be expensive but no more then Valencia. These syndicates spend plenty & since they really will only be leasing the area & leaving a developed section of waterfront, there probably will not be a huge outcry. Also we are talking about a sailing center & not industry, so things should be a lot easier. I admit in CA it wont be easy but with the budget problems in CA, it would go through.
Second, that area is plenty protected. Anyone that sails the bay knows that once you round the ferry pier & get past where the cruise ships dock, the water is flat & winds are light.
Third, the distance! How far from the syndicate docks were the race course in San Diego? How far did the boats have to go from the docks in Valencia? Hell, how about the trip from Newport out into Rhode Island sound? There is no place in the Bay, including Oakland or Alameda that aren’t closer then all these other locations.
Forth is a problem of shipping. With the right plan, it can be done. I wrote all the rules & regulations for the 95 America’s Cup in San Diego including the In-the-Bay race during the World Championships in 94. It came out great & San Diego Bay is a hell of a lot smaller the SF Bay. It would take planning & coordination but it can be done.
(PS: The day after the Aircraft Carrier incident, we had a lot of cooperation from the Navy)
The real & only problem is finding an exciting boat that can race in the Bay & not have to do 40 laps to get a 2-3 hour race. There are plenty of boats out there that would make great racing. We just have to make sure the egos of all the millionaires don’t force 90 footers on us. What’s wrong with 50 feet & 2 laps?
SF Bay has some of the best wind in the world with incredible areas for spectators. You wont need a 1000 power pair of binoculars to see the boats 5 miles off the coast. I grew up in Newport, sailed all over the world but SF Bay has some of the best sailing anywhere. If I had my wish, I’d see it jump from SF to Perth and back every time.

 

The Americas Cup that cought most people attention was the Aussie defense, and I think that it IS possible to catch that type of attention again. My humble ideas would be.

New class,

*Mono-Hull for the reason that having 20+ multi-hulls in a port is a logistical issue, mono-hulls do not share this issue.
*Size close to 12 meters class, but with modern technology.
*have design rules so that the post cup boats can be converted to IRC boats so they have a post-cup life.
*limit to two boats per team
*Cost-containment
*crew size of say, 12, of which, all but three must have a passport of the nation that the yacht club is located on.
*put away postponement flag, unless it is too shifty. so if there is 27 knots of wind, we have racing. if we have 8 knots of wind, we have racing, design accordingly.
*With these rules, hopefully you could have 10+ challangers and 3+ defending boats with both the challanger and defenders having trials to see who is the defender and challanger.

 

The Americas Cup that cought most people attention was the Aussie defense, and I think that it IS possible to catch that type of attention again. My humble ideas would be.

New class,

*Mono-Hull for the reason that having 20+ multi-hulls in a port is a logistical issue, mono-hulls do not share this issue.
*Size close to 12 meters class, but with modern technology.
*have design rules so that the post cup boats can be converted to IRC boats so they have a post-cup life.
*limit to two boats per team
*Cost-containment
*crew size of say, 12, of which, all but three must have a passport of the nation that the yacht club is located on.
*put away postponement flag, unless it is too shifty. so if there is 27 knots of wind, we have racing. if we have 8 knots of wind, we have racing, design accordingly.
*With these rules, hopefully you could have 10+ challangers and 3+ defending boats with both the challanger and defenders having trials to see who is the defender and challanger.