34th America's Cup: multihulls!

And I also think it is wrong to reduce this discussion to a clash between "old" and "new" ones, "practical" and "non-practical". It makes no sense. Racing is a different animal from charter cruising or cargo transporting. It will just side-track this discussion to a point where no useful conclusions will be possible.

What does make sense is to talk about aspects of safety, controllability and seakeeping of these machines. Or about the economical soundness of the current AC format. I propose to get the discussion back to these issues.

Cheers

 

I have to disagree. Don't forget that he wrote it (actually, cited it from Yachting World) in his book about seaworthiness, and hence it does make sense. A purely racing machine is clearly not a seaworthy vessel, and the multi-winged cat in that picture was a good example of that fact. Just like F1 cars would break apart after 500 km on the ordinary bumpy roads.

If the book were about speed record-breaking sailboats, I am pretty sure his wordings would also have been different.

Cheers

 

I watch because it's pushing the limits. Otherwise I'd rather be outside.

 

Practical must address the purpose of subject, that being sailing and requires context. So practical, in terms of sailing must address something that can be done for those sailing/sailors. So is it something that can be done by everyone who sails, or just a small select few, owing to money/interest etc. Since just about anything can be done, but how “practical” to the average sailor is it?

I love to eat chocolate, but is it practical to eat chocolate all day every day simply because I enjoy it? Or slick tyres on an F1 car are very practical indeed, but how practical are those on everyday cars especially when it rains? A masthead float is very practical in extending the range of positive stability, but how often is it done?..and so on. Thus it requires context.

So, practical in the sense that just about anyone can or could do “it”, but elect not to, for whatever reasons, and not related to cost/time/interest as such. Rather than, just because it’s done by a small select few, it is so and must be adopted as carte blanche even when “used” outside those limits simply just to become accepted as “practical”.

 

This is about ideology then whether the AC should be about everyday average sailors?
I watch because it's pushing the limits. It's putting sailors and technology together with all the money and engineering and elite sailors that can come together to push the limits.

 

AH, my friend, I think you are are also making a mistake of mixing requirements of everyday boating and those relative to racing. Racing has always been an extremization of ordinary activities (be it running, driving, sailing or hot-dog eating) and, as such, racing often uses it's own extreme means, tools or vehicles.

What does make sense, imo, is talk about boundaries which should be imposed in order to prevent racing from becoming a suicide game, either physically, or economically. Hence, things described by my post #1396.

(gosh, 1396 posts in this thread?? )

Cheers

 

Any more than an F1 car being suitable for everyday use. That's the crux of it...thus, you need to read the rules of the AC and understand its philosophy and spirit of intent...and juxtapose it with the average everyday sailor.

Good luck

 

Agreed. But that can only be addressed once it is "understood" that the practical aspect is very different, and thus addressed as such. And not in the context of every day boating.

One needs clear definitions to understand debates. Once this aspect is understood by all, then there should be no further consideration/link between everyday boating and racing. Then the content of the discussion revolves around THAT definition and any other is ignored as not applicable to the context. But never easy to do in an open free for all forum.

 

I saw some footage of Clifton Flasher; the boat was clever, original and impressively fast and the low, multiple, vertical venetian blind rig worked very well in strong winds.
Nigel Irens, and what has he done since then?
I guess, if the above quote is Marchaj's referring to CF, then the two Vestas Sail Rockets would have received the same silly, blathering nonsense.

 

They would, and with a reason. They are not seaworthy.

 

It's personal subjectivity what you want the AC to be. Those would be silly if the goal was the most seaworthy boat or one that could haul some cargo or something "practical".

 

Clifton Flasher was designed for the sheltered comfort of Portland Harbor, where it performed best that year, with a speed not bettered except by the D-Class Crossbow the following year.

Who ever intended to go out to sea in any of those boats?

What a shame Marchaj didn't at the same time launch a tirade about Bermuda Fitted Dinghies... As we'd then have the perfect riposte to MikeJohns, who brought this up (in post 1365).

 

While I agree that there may be nothing "practical" about the AC, there IS not much subjective about what the AC HAS been.

While the reality has been much obscured by people who believe press release BS, the facts about what the Cup has been historically are pretty clear. And much of what people say it's been about is simply historically incorrect.

This is significant in that many people rely on BS when they say "the AC should be about X because it's always been about X".

Personally, I think that there can be a "practical" aspect to the AC if it develops things that help develop the sport as a whole.

 

If you watch it because it's pushing the limits then you may not have watched too many ACs!

That depends, of course, on how you define pushing the limits. But there's very few breakthroughs of technique and technology that have been created in the AC, when one accounts for how long it has been going on.

 

WOO-Hoo!!!!

Has this thread ever put the Cat among the Pigeons.
(please forgive the horrible Pun).