34th America's Cup: multihulls!

34th AC

=====================
Does that mean that anyone's opinion who is neither a participant nor invested heavily in the technology should be given significant weight? I'm seriously interested in how you draw the line..... Should "significant weight" mean that the most experienced people involved with AC 72 technology as designers, builders and crew should have their opinion valued somewhat more lightly than those not so involved?

 

Great post, Earl. While some psych science is rubbery, there's also a lot of pretty hard data on the effect of cognitive biases, and the way such factors alter thinking has major effects.

Ignoring controversial issues about the direction of the AC, what this discussion points out is that making predictions, as many Oracle 'insiders' did about this AC, is fraught with danger because of the psychological issues Earl mentioned. Whatever one thinks about the current AC, the failure of so many forecasts gives us a good insight into the problems of predictions.

With three of seven wings and two of five platforms having suffered major damage or destruction before racing has even started according to Richard Gladwell, Sir Kieth's prognosis is looking pretty accurate.

You could say Sir Kieth's foresight is more accurate than the predictions of the people who said things like this;

"Limits on the numbers of boats, sails and equipment will also bring down costs for the competitors." (Coutts). He was wrong.

"We expect more (new) teams in the multihull format that we would have in monohulls" (Coutts). He was wrong again.

The AC72 rule will "come up with something that could fly a hull in five or six knots, but also race effectively in 28." (Pete Melvin). The limit is now 23 knots, max.

"Crucial to the new boat is its ability to be raced hard in light and strong winds, a necessary development to do away with the frustrating delays of racing because of not enough wind or too much.” Melvin. There will now be delays due to too much wind.

"The AC 72 is to be capable of competing in winds of 5 to 30". It isn't.

"They've told us (costs would be) $10 million to $15 million a year, with some of that coming from revenue sharing." -- Dave Perkins in the Toronto Star. They were wrong.

Later it was said "the cost of mounting a viable challenge in the new class of 72-foot wing-powered catamarans is upwards of $100m."

"The writers of the AC72 rule took some steps (but clearly not enough) to try and make sure that the new breed of America’s Cup catamarans wouldn’t fly." (Daily Sail)

The writers of the new rule failed in that attempt.

“There are a number of features in the Rule that discourage flying, but clearly that didn’t quite work,” muses leading America’s Cup engineer Dirk Kramers, now part of Oracle Team USA’s Design. From the Daily Sail, confirming that the AC72 did not work out the way it was meant to.

"Once they (the AC72s) were built, the teams would switch to the larger boats for the remaining ACWS events."

It didn't happen; "When it became clear that most of the dozen or so teams who had expressed interest and who were involved in the early AC45 rounds of the ACWS could not meet the various “put up or drop out” deadlines for entry fees and/or committing to build their AC72s, the plan was changed to use the smaller AC45s for all the preliminary ACWS rounds"

We were told that the AC World Series would be be financially viable and sailed in many locations. Neither was true.

"The larger picture is that the America’s Cup World Series, which had been planned to give America’s Cup franchises continuity between Cups and create a self-sustaining sports property, doesn’t make commercial sense in its current form. ACEA CEO Stephen Barclay admitted as much in the new statement"... Sailing Biz.com.

So anyone criticising Sir Kieth for his doubts about the safety of the AC72s will have to explain why those who supposedly had a better vantage point got so many of their own predictions wrong, and how major incidents to two boats and one death has not supported Mills' claims.

 

Windsurfers have been doing slalom in a figure of 8 around two buoys since the mid '80s. The speed record for a production slalom board is around 45 knots, so closing speeds in racing are pretty high. Obviously a board can stop and turn much faster than an AC72, but while that can allow you to get out of trouble it can also lead to trouble developing very quickly. Despite these issues, we haven't seen major crashes as far as I can recall. So perhaps increasing closing speeds may not make collisions more likely; in boards were we are regularly hitting 30 knots I find there's actually more time to react that in Lasers where the speeds are slower but the fleet is closer. I'm largely leaving multis out of the comparison only because I'm not as experienced in multis as I am in dinghies and boards, but like you I've never found high speed small cats to be particularly scary because of the 40 knot closing speeds.

On the other hand, I've seen more damaging crashes in cat races than in dinghy races. So maybe while higher speeds don't necessarily lead to more crashes, they could make them worse?

 

34th AC

A few thoughts on the typical CT anti-technology rant:

 

isn't amazing what hind sight can create, based upon assumptions.

 

Sure, hindsight is 20/20 vision as the cliche goes.

But shouldn't we use the benefit of hindsight to examine where predictions have gone wrong in the past, so we can make better predictions in the future?

 

I'm not anti-technology, I'm for a strong and popular sport and for realistic and objective assessment of the role of technology in it.

You claimed that it was 'pure speculation' that the change in boats lead to a reduction in entries and then said that the reduction was down to economic issues. There are three points to be made in reply; one is that previous ACs sailed in recessions have seen much stronger fields. The AC sailed just after the '80s recession had something like 11 syndicates. There has never been a collapse in entry numbers like the current one (apart from the DoG matches). When previous recessions have not caused a collapse in numbers it seems very speculative to blame the current collapse in numbers on this recession.

Secondly, the fact that there was an unforeseen (by Coutts and many others) economic collapse is just another example of the problem of not looking at the downside, of failing to allow that predictions (such as the claims of continued economic boomtimes) could be wrong.

Thirdly, to blame low AC entries on the recession ignores the fact that the high-dollar but more conservative end of the sport is doing well, to look at the J Class, classic yachts, Wally 100 fixed keelers, etc. There's lots of money around in big boats at the moment, it's just not going to the AC.

Re "so what" about the change in wind limits.

The "so what" is pretty simple - it proves that proponents of the new boats were wrong in their claims, that's what. It is therefore another example of a failure to accurately foresee the results of technological change, which is the point that a bunch of us were making.

It is illogical to say that Melvin was right when he said that it was "crucial" that the new boats could be "raced hard in light and strong winds, a necessary development" and also to say that it doesn't matter if they cannot be sailed in strong winds. If it was "crucial" then the boats are wrong. If it wasn't crucial then one of those pushing the new class was incorrect in what he believed to be "crucial".

Either way, one of the gurus pushing the new class got it wrong, which is an example of the problems some of us were talking about.

Re the fact that potential challengers were being told that costs would be $10 million to $15 million a year" and now it is said that "the cost of mounting a viable challenge in the new class of 72-foot wing-powered catamarans is upwards of $100m."

You replied "so what-anybody with a brain could have anticipated cost overuns with this kind of brand new technology.'

So if "anybody with a brain" could have anticipated such cost over-runs, why didn't Coutts and those behind the AC do so? And if increased costs are not important then why do you blame the recession for the fall in entries?

Oh, and it's rather unusual for someone to just go "so what" when faced with a cost increase of 50% or more..... what do you expect sponsors to do when teams ask for tens of millions dollars more?

Re the fact that the rules to prevent full foiling didn't work, and the fact that the intention to run a worldwide series with AC72s didn't work.

To reply "so what" again ignores the point - the organisers of the AC tried to ensure that boats did not fully fly and promised that the AC72s would race in earlier events. They did not achieve either aim.

Those issues are just more examples of the fact that predictions of future of the AC were wrong, which is the whole point that some of us are making.

When claims such as these are repeatedly made and are repeatedly wrong then surely it is reasonable to draw a lesson from the fact. The point we are making is that the business of making predictions is full of pitfalls but that by understanding that fact and the reasons why, we can make better predictions. You don't make better predictions by failing to understand the ones that went wrong.

 

Gawd, Tweedledum and Tweedledee righteously preaching their 30/30 Winchester hindsight and CT rabbiting on - how about you boring turkeys asking the guys at the coal face,
the AC72 crews,
the guys that are actually sailing these foilers,
or the video shooters on the bank,
what they think?

 

So you'd rather ignore it when those running the sport's marquee event get so many of their predictions wrong, Gary? It's funny when you go to such lengths to abuse some of the sailing 'establishment' and then complain when others address what happens when a billionaire and his employees get it wrong.

By the way, someone insults just about any poster who dares to disagree with them can hardly take the high ground when it comes to being boring..... Could you try to be less predictable and actually discuss things logically rather than just slagging off others?

And the fact that equipment in the marquee event is fun for the tiny minority who use it does not mean that other issues can be ignored. Some of the high performance gear I've used was wonderful to sail, but it made that section of the sport appear so difficult, complex and innaccesible that popularity crashed and development dried up.

 

There are a number of sports with inherent unforeseen risk. One such is car rallying. While the cars appear to be going hellishingly fast the drivers are very relaxed and driving within themselves. To finish first, first you have to finish.

So, much will depend on the attitude of the helmsman. How much risk is he prepared to take? By race day they will have pretty good feel for the boat and conditions and will know how to minimise risk. Should one boat turn out to be a little slower there lays the risk. The faster boat and crew will not need to push the envelope too far.

An important factor is the number of crew all of which have families, no doubt. I have the feeling the skippers will be told to stay within sensible boundaries. No one benefits from an accident. A number of positions off the boats are on the line. Who knows, maybe a deal has already been struck and the result decided. Ha!

m

 

John Bertrand commenting earlier said that he was in close contact with several people crewing in this event. He said they were not happy with the boats and that they could not control them safely at speed in stronger weather conditions.

I posted earlier that in light of those comments the crews would be very happy with the wind speed reduction because the craft didn't suit the bays conditions.

It's a simple and easy to grasp principle, these boats as foilers are not suitable for unrestricted operation on the bay. That's called observation not hindsight. All this talk of hindsight is more smoke and mirrors.

And as CT said your rudeness is over the top.
maybe we should ask the mod to change your username to vituperative Baigent.

 

Get real and HTFU MJ, Bertrand would have been talking to Oracle (a guess through Aussie involvement with O) - and everyone knows that they are only in semi-control of that boat - yet ETNZ and LR are foiling perfectly fine, thanks.

 

======================
Who is the "us" you claim to be speaking for?

 

It means that a decent respect for the views of informed skeptics is a prerequisite for success when dealing with potentially (or in this case, demonstrably) lethal technology. Good program managers tend to drift off during the part of the design review where the enthusiasts explain why a given approach is going to work and wake up when the "red team" or "murder board" enumerates what's wrong with it. That's how you learn what needs to be fixed without killing somebody in the process.

Put another way, the question "what could possibly go wrong?" gets answered by a prepared list. That's called Hazard Analysis, and it is a fundamental first step in risk reduction. The fact that this project is doing their hazard analysis at such a late date, and attempting component-level solutions (helmets, strobes, wind limits, boat mods) to what is inherently a systems-level problem is very worrisome.

Earl

 

Good point. The problem with brand-new technology is that the boundary between inherent (acceptable) and unnecessary (unacceptable) risk is poorly understood. Since there is no experience in actual racing with these boats, any assertion about risk is inherently speculative. The only leading indicators we have are those given by the behavior of the program management, and to date those are not terribly reassuring. The three lagging indicators (pitchpole, structural failure, helmsman overboard) aren't exactly confidence-building either.

Earl