Americas Cup: whats next?

You post a lot of dopey stuff, but this might be the funniest thing you've ever posted.

 

He designed indeed a very nice trailer. I like the tool box.
Daniel

 

--------------------
Yeah, nice trailer! You know I like Mr. Nelson. This boat was once called "26 Sierra" and was one of the lightest 26 footers ever produced. There is a picture somewhere with two men lifting the hull above their head. Great composite design.
It just seems to me that there are people around that might be able to do more with a hunk of lead than drag it around in a fixed position.
Did I say "Nice trailer"?

http://christianlanctot.com/sierra26.html

 

Since Paul is not here to read your claim and agree or disagree I think it is inappropriate to speak for him.

 

Match Racing

You know there are at least three kinds of match racing:
1) racing between equal boats where the sailors skill is paramount,
2) racing between more or less equal boats designed to a rule
3) racing between two boats where there is little or no attempt within the framework of the rule to make the boats equal.

The AC in recent times has been sailed as per 2 or 3. There have been some good "match races" but in total damn few. Too many instances of one boat way out in front staying there.
Some so-called(or self-called) experts claim that multihulls can't be in the Cup because there won't be close enough racing. Hogwash!
These same experts claim that there can't be really fast monohulls(foilers etc)
in the Cup for the same reason.
These people reach for a "return to Cup racing" that never was by pontificating about things they have no clue about. They demand leadbellies
(grass growers) because in the 21st Century anything faster would not be "match racing". Hogwash!(#2)
It was quite evident to me even in the last Cup that the spectacular racing evident there(even under Rule 3 above) would, after a couple more iterations of the Cup to that wild rule, become much closer due to common sense and mans ability to learn. And that kind of racing would be the best ever.
This is the America's Cup-technology and design should be the priority and match racing will take care of itself after these new boats have had time to develop-IF they are given that time.
Old wives tales that fast boats cannot have a "match race" should be laid to rest.

 

---------------------
I was speaking of first hand knowledge of Pauls opinion of this individual based on a thread I read. I was not speaking for Paul-simply relating information I read. However, I think the post was wrong(but not the content) and will remove it. It was a reaction to the personal BS directed my way by this same individual.
I apologise for playing that game.

 

I would bet the trailer was designed (and probably built) by Jim Betts.

Credit where it is due. Jim is pretty handy with a welding rig.


"Tool Box" is storage for rolled sails, boom, pole, etc. Common on sportboat trailers.

 

Oh my, it keeps getting funnier. People can't believe this is for real.

 

Perhaps people who don't seem to understand the tactical aspect of match racing should refrain from commenting on what boats are suitable for match racing events.

 

I was just kidding
Daniel

 

What are you describing when you speak of a sort of "cup racing that never was"?

 

============
The implication by many writers that a return to leadbellies(under match racing type 2 or 3 above) would guarantee close "match racing". It would not.

 

On a slightly different tack; I was thinking today about the conventional wisdom that says that when you bring in a new class, the racing will initially be open but that it will get closer in subsequent events.

This is an accepted and commonsense belief. However, one wonders whether it may in fact also be false.

Let's look at the Cup history, ignoring the first multi-challenger events, in eras. We see the following trend.

The NYYC club rating era

1885 2-0
1886 2-0 (margins up to 29 min 9 sec)
1887 2-0

The L x SA rating years

1893 3-0 (one race won by 40s after a lead change)
1895 3-0 (marred by DNS and protest)
1899 3-0
1901 3-0 (one race won by 41 s)
1903 3-0 (the challenger called "far inferior" to Reliance)

The Universal Rule rating challenge

1920 3-2 (defender lost 1 race with DNF)

The J Class era

1930 4-0
1934 4-2 (a very close series won on tactics)
1937 4-0 (Ranger took two wins by over 17 minutes)

The 12 Metre era

1958 4-0
1962 4-1 (defender won R5 by 26 sec, closest to that time)
1964 4-0 (margins of 5+min, 20min, 6 1/2 min and almost 16 min)
1967 4-0
1970 4-1 (2 defender wins by less than 2 min, one win by protest)
1974 4-0 (only one finish within 1 min)
1977 4-0 (closest margin 1.5 mins)
1980 4-1 (close series)
1983 4-3
1987 4-0

The IACC era

1992 4-1
1995 5-0
2000 5-0
2007 5-2

So.....

In the first era, the closest match was the middle of the 3.

In the second era, the closest match was the first one, and the final was a walkover.

The third era, the one with only one match, was one of the closest of them all.

The fourth era (the Js) saw very close racing in the middle of the three matches and ended with a massive victory to Ranger.

The fifth era (the 12s) had 10 matches. The challengers won races in the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th.

The latest era saw some close racing in the first and last, with whitewashes in between.

Apart from the latest era, every era has ended in a dramatically one-sided event, just at the time when conventional wisdom says that the class should be matured and racing should be at its closest.

Looking at it overall, there's little to demonstrate that racing does actually become closer. And thinking of it in a wider context shows something similar. The breakthrough boats often come in mature classes. The 12 Metre class was about 60 years old when the breakthrough Intrepid was created, and coming up to 80 at the time of Australia II. The 18 Foot Skiff class was about 35 years old at the time of Aberdare, 60 years old when Taipan arrived, and 80 years old when wings and assys arrived. The IOR rule had been around for a few years when Ganbare arrived. The CCA rule was decades old when Finnisterre was launched. The Moth class was about 75 years old when the foiler arrived.

So DO classes actually converge in performance as they age, or is it only a faint trend or even a sailor's myth? In that case, how does it affect the choice of an AC class?

 

Yes and no. Naval Architecture is inherantly a conserative discipline. No one wants to be too far off the mean line in any given single design step, but given long enough a new "sweet spot" will be found.

Let's look at what happens as a set of open design class rules age. At first, there is a broad seperation of parameters because there is not enough data to show design trends that win. After a few cycles, designs tend to converge to look like previous winners because owners/buyers want a boat that has a chance of winning. Then, from that stable design point, there is an exploring of the design space and the introduction of new materials trying to find loopholes and performance increases. The first design to find and fall down the rabbit hole is considered "revolutionary" and carries the class to a whole new design space and the process repeats itself...if the class survives the revolution. Many owners realize that having a open design class is, for the owner, somewhat of a crapshoot financialy so they go over to one design if they feel they don't have wherewithall to compete, especiall if the new design space is extreamly costly compared to the existing costs.

 

On that note, I think the IACC still has more to give....

Increased displacement was rewarded with increased sail area; if the variables are tweaked to reduce this a bit, then we will see lighter hulls, ie. Not all at the max disp of 24,000Kg...

Then the racing will open up, with conditions affecting the outcomes more. And this won't Orphan the entire fleet and test data collected.

Some sort of design rule is the way to go; IACC is as good as any that seeks to relate all the parameters. A box rule is a crippled rule and a designer's cop out.