34th America's Cup: multihulls!

Winge winge winge, if you find it so boring why bother watch? Why bother comment on something that you obviously dont give a stuff about? I'm pretty sure most of us don't care if you don't like these boat or the races

I'm with Doug, Phil, and Gary. I find these boats amazing and could watch them for hours. Foiling gybes - no probs, upwind foiling - yep we can do that too

Breakages happen in all racing, that's sailing, not much point condemning the whole series because of it. I've not owned a single boat that hasn't broken at some point in a race, SHlT does happen I personally cant wait for the Americas Cup races, Kiwis vs Oracle will be much closer racing for the purists out there, with the win going to ETNZ obviously What? Biased? ME?

 

I have quoted it all because I find it a very interesting post, with some very good points. I tend to agree with most of things in the above quote, apart the following:

1) IMO, this is not a Black Swan case. Foiling sailboats and powerboats have been around for very, very long time and hence cannot be considered as new and revolutionary technology - though AC72 foilers do indeed introduce some new stuff to the knowledge database, as Doug will emphasize.

2) I disagree with the final phrase: "I'd wouldn't expect to benefit at all from a close race anytime during my lifetime." If I interpret it correctly, it wants to say that when all the boats become similar by the rule, there is no possibility for a breakthrough event for the science of boat design.
IMO, when all the major items become identical between the competitors, the victory is decided by the details. And the details require a lots of quality expertise and tools. Hence, a close race can bring some significant advance to more peripheral scientific fields related to boat design and building. Think of the optimization through CFD, and how many benefits the boat design, the fluid dynamics and the CFD have enjoyed from that apparently small item in the priority list. Or think about materials science.

Apart these two observations, I find Phil's points very valid.

Cheers

 

I've lowered my expectations.
All I want to see now is an event where two boats finish.

 

Stepping back a little further from the situation, I find this an example of how American domination philosophy applies to sport. Mr. Ellison, as defender has carefully tried to create perfect conditions for winning based on his strengths and financial depth. It is almost a direct repeat of Cold War strategy - outspend, out research, out inventory. Purchase the best team, platform and everything money can buy.

It must truly frost his secret garden that despite stacking the deck in his favour, ETNZ still appears to be capable of winning - without the same budget, inventory and entitlement. Kind of like Afghanistan where an foreign financed guerilla warfare team has been able to frustrate American might without directly engaging in the head to head spending battles expected by the Americans.

There is no denying the benefits of the technological fallout of this America's Cup. There is no crucible better at forcing theory to become practice than use in competition. Much of the world economy today is built on the products that came as the result of DARPA and the Cold War.

To me however, the real contest will be to see if ETNZ's focused and precise guerilla effort can defeat the overwhelming shock and awe dominance of Oracle's defence. Will this battle be won in the parts shed based on who can afford to replace inventory longer, or will it be won in spite of it?

--
CutOnce

 

^^^

Heard an allegation a while ago, from a well known multihull achiever, that some people had been paid to not join other AC teams. Not very sporting, if true.

But if anything frosts Larry's garden at the moment, it must be these shenanigans with weights in the AC45's, and the team now being subject to these Gross Misconduct and 'Dalton Clause' Protocol Article 60 investigations.

...

Don't know what Pierre at VSail is thinking of, but he tweeted this yesterday, promising an 'editorial' on Thursday... maybe it was an attempt at humor since it included a photo of ETNZ doing their submarine act:

 

The author of the quote was quickly asked whether he was confusing you with Knaggs, and replied he was 'Quite sure' that it was this (other?) G. Baigent.

So you are perhaps being far too modest, again!

 

If inoculating the AC's boat rule with wording intended to impede foiling turns out to produce more significant advancements than if they had purposely encouraged foiling, that suggests a Black Swan is in the area (the caps are because N.T. coined it that way to distinguish his BS from the previous sort). Science has advanced when somebody said "Gee, that's odd ..." Technology has advanced when somebody said "What just happened." Science tends to reward original ideas that can be readily reproduced. Tech tends to reward originality that is hard to reproduce. The racing rule, probably by accident, forced teams to choose among some otherwise damned unlikely combinations. The intent might have been to create racing that would have caused even Leo to swoon, but that isn't what has happened.

 

Given that they have had a long time to prepare, and given that they are
supposed to be top professionals, why have they dished up such junk
that can't cope with the conditions in SF Bay even after lowering the wind limits?
It's an embarrassment when other boats crewed by schmucks are zipping
around the bay in higher winds.

I'll get a touch of the vapours if there are no more breakdowns or if there is
a "race" where the boats are less than 300m apart at the finish.
Very doubtful at this stage.

 

I think things are going precisely as hoped for by the Defender. The Challenger teams are quickly burning through their parts inventories campaigning against each other, exposing their weaknesses and capabilities. It is becoming pretty apparent that a slightly slower but reliable boat that finishes races may beat a faster boat that flirts with disaster and unreliability.

Perhaps this has been a strategy all along. I doubt there is any interest from the Defenders in showcasing a majority of close finishes, bet they'd be happy winning by default through a Challenger's failure to get their boat on the water or to the finish line.

--
CutOnce

 

Conner did that in Perth, he gambled that it was rough so built a boat to suit that, caused issues in the defender rounds but made it through as we all know so clearly was the right decision.

 

34th AC

Decent story about decent people who help run the Cup course:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-caen/a-cup-of-caen-building-th_b_3780691.html

 

This is the crux. They still haven't a clue what to prepare for. There is the functionality of the machines on the one hand. Clearly they can perform at a level that will destroy themselves. Then there is the capability of the crew, and a large area of risk where the crew's actions can end a race when operating well within ostensibly safe and proper bounds. It's still a guessing game. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, either.

Cut Once used the metaphor "stacking the deck". That implies asymmetrical foreknowledge of events and a single path to the future. Oracle is as clueless as the others in that regard. Although I like the pun on Oracle, just as I like the Kiwis being re-imagined as black swans. The race's rules turned out to be rather Delphic. That is the exact opposite to stacking the deck. The advantage is found in the ability to exploit multiple interpretations. People who stack the deck can count on getting caught. Delphic advantages are sustainable for as long as you are allowed to keep talking.

 

For those who look longingly back to the old days when boats were tough -

I am sure the boats could be built much stronger - but then they would be heavier and slower so they are built to a narrow margin. We will all benefit from the real life load data obtained without large margins of error.

Back to the point

In 1983 the Aussies were fighting it out in the first race - Aus 2 ducked Liberty's stern on the last run and the steering gave way. Lost that race. Later Aus 2 had a headboard fail and a crewmember had to go up the mast and stitch it on - lost that race however the innovative design, fab sails and great crew won the regatta. Failures have always been there - witness the TNZ defender blowing out kites and having deck failures against Coutts and Alinghi or the ulimate - One Australia in 95 sinking like the proverbial stone after massive hull failure.

Nothing new here - just tougher racing and crews pushing harder on boats no one has every sailed before. The best sailors and the best designers and the best builders - we could not do better.

cheers

Phil

 

By the way, who thinks they have an accurate idea of how little these boats weigh? Hmmm.

Damn it, it reminds me that Ken Read gave a weight figure yesterday during the broadcast and I was wondering how informed it was; but now I can't remember what he said!

 

There a lot of merit to your thoughts. Oracle DID get to pick the venue, did define the basic configurations and box for the boats and did so with an eye towards expensive, high-ante contests. To me that is a significant part of the deck. On top of this there was a lot of uncertainty.