Breaking News - New America's Cup Class

Gary said:-"and hopefully it will put to rest the ad nauseum repetition emanating from the ponderous heavy brigade about multis being not ..... blah, blah etc. etc."

Good OnYa Gary. It's a mentality thing.

I vividly remember a colonel blimp type yacht club member saying " Every time I see a multihull I have the urge to beat it to death with a stick".

 

============
Thanks for that Tom-the best analysis of the last Cup I've heard yet and an eloquent explanation why the Cup should be in multihulls. Very well done!

 

==================
Sorry CT: you or ISAF-I'll take ISAF on this one-specifically related to the America's Cup.

 

You are incorrect. The challenger does control the type of boat used. Mercury Bay challenged with a DOG boat, and were met by a DOG design. The fact that Mercury Bay did not anticipate the scope of the DOG was their downfall. However, they made the challenge with the DOG type and had to be met with the same. The defender was not able to say, "No, we wish to use 12 metres for this regatta."

Nice attempt at spin, but you know better. Read what I wrote. The lead boat can blanket the trailing boat upwind in both slow monos and fast multis. However, downwind the speed of these multis pulls the AWA so far forward the lead boat cannot be gassed by the trailing boat. That takes away one of the few weapons the trailing boat has in a match race.

The USA boat was perhaps more than 10% faster than the defender. That is why they gained, not because they had better pressure.

The layline incident showed exactly why those boats were not well suited to match racing. A5 was more than 2 BL ahead at the cross, but could not lee bow or even tack ahead of the trailing boat. Those boats just can't do the most basic match race tactics.

Yes, there would have been a lead change after the windward mark, but not due to match racing tactics. The trailing boat would not have been able to gas A5. They were simply faster and would have passed due to pure speed.

In both races classic match racing tactics failed miserably. If you are driven into irons for minutes by a simple dial up that proves the boat type is not suited to match racing. If you cannot tack on the leebow or in front of your competitior that proves the boat type is not suited to match racing.



I like multihulls, sportboats, TP52s, and all sorts of "fast" boats. That doesn't mean they are good for match racing. This AC was quite similar to what we've seen in the Little America's Cup for the past few decades. High tech weapons that aren't particularly good match racers, where one boat is generally much faster and the races are more of a parade than a tight match race.

 

"The USA boat was perhaps more than 10% faster than the defender. That is why they gained, not because they had better pressure." wrote Paul.

On the wind, that is horse crap Paul. Talking about the second race, not the first where the wing without headsail killed an out of balance A5 - but A5 looked actually better than BMW-O on most of that first beat, second race, and was ahead for a long time - how in **** can you say the Beemer was 10% quicker on that beat? There it was staring us in the face, A5 was faster.

 

No, it wasn't.

A5 gained consistently by being on the correct side of a big shift and by getting the puffs first.

Whenever the boats were seeing the same conditions USA was always showing better speed. Watch the beat again.

By the way, in both races the lead distance changed dramatically after the boats tacked and came at one another. Did you notice this? I suspect the math they used to calculate that leader line didn't take the tacking angles into account correctly. I doubt A5 was ever as far ahead as we were led to believe.

Which shows the silliness of "match racing" these boats. They are so separated across the water that it was difficult to even see them both at the same time, let alone have them interact in any way.

 

I'll have to look at it again but as I remember it, the Beemer was no faster, in fact was always a little slower most of the time on that long starboard tack - and you can't say that was because of a long, long, continuing shift with pressure happily advancing A5, because that wasn't occurring for that length of time. Rarely did BMW-O outpoint or out speed A5. I noticed this particularly because I was rooting for the tri, but there it was, as I said, in yer face. What do the disappeared A5 minions have to say about that beat? Be interesting to hear their comments. Yes, they did come together fast. I'll look again.

 

I'm curious, Doug, about the fact that you'll believe an ISAF press release in favour of established history.

The stuff I posted is established fact, as written about by Howard I Chappelle (curator of transportation in the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of History and Technology at the time); Pepys, a major historical figure; WP Stephen's "History of American Yachting"; Lawson's "History of the America's Cup"; Douglas Phillips-Birt, the New York Times of the 1800s, and (IIRC) Bob Fisher among many others.

The simple undeniable historical fact is that match racing was a major part of the sport of sailing in its early years, well before the America's Cup was created. Furthermore, what we now call "match racing tactics" were very much in use from about the fifth AC challenge. Once again, that is a matter of historical fact.

Tell us, Doug - was Howard I Chappelle lying when he wrote (for the Smithsonian) about Petty's cat match racing in 1663? Were Samuel Pepys (a major and much-studied historical figure) also lying??? Stephens and Lawson too? And the NY Times, and Outing magazine?

Or did ISAF get it wrong when they wrote one press release?

Either we have a tiny and simple error by a PR writer for ISAF, or we have a huge conspiracy, dating from the 1600s, in which major figures in history have been conspiring to pretend that match racing had been around for centuries before the AC.

Which alternative would any reasonable person choose? ISAF got it wrong, Doug. Match racing is an old-established form of sailboat racing and probably the oldest.

 

==================
You might say it's a matter of history-my history with your "facts". At any rate, if I were you, I'd straighten that out with the ISAF immediately.


==================
I just found this-I may be wrong:
"The first match race in the America's Cup occurred in 1870 between the U.S. defender Magic and the English challenger Cambria . Since then every race in the 29 events which have followed, as well as all of the defender and challenger trial races, have been match races."
http://www.sailing.org/sailors/856.php

 

The point itself is of little significance, Doug. The issue is that once again you have accused someone of manufacturing falsehoods, rather than admit you may have made a (in this case minor and understandable) error. Abusing fellow posters in that way doesn't make this a place where we can reasonably discuss matters.

Information to back my claims has been given before. Further information can be found from sources as diverse as the Royal yacht Squadron's account of the match between America and the famous Robert Stephenson aboard Titania See http://www.rys.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=52

See also the Melbourne (Australian) Argue newspaper of Saturday 3 January 1852, about "the challenge match" between America and Titania.

http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/4782559?searchTerm=schooner Titania Stephenson America

Therefore, there is abundant proof, dating over hundreds of years and from sources from Australia to the USA to the UK, that match racing was a major part of the sport in its early days.

Either that or there's been a conspiracy, running from the 1600s and including the Smithsonian, the National Libraty of Australia, Project Gutenberg, the head of the Royal Navy, the Royal Yacht Squadron and numerous papers, magazines, books and authors, which has all been put into place to pretend that match racing was popular....

 

======================
That is 100% false.

 

This whole thread is beside the point.
Note the date on this announcement.

Breaking News - New America's Cup Class
Thu, 5 Jul 2007 Yachting World - Matthew Sheahan
Comment on this article Details for the next America's Cup have been announced. Matthew Sheahan reports

The next America's Cup will be contested in a new design of America's Cup class boat. The new class will be 90ft LOA, draw 6.5m (21ft 4in) with a lifting keel that will reduce the draft to 4m (13ft 1in) to allow the boats access to ports.

:?: :?: :?: :?:

 

From my few experiences, I've been unable to see whether multis are that much better or worse for match racing. In our last season in cats, we spent a lot of time effectively match racing the only serious competition we had in our class. The skipper had been runner-up in the nationals the previous year in another cat class, and second in the A Class worlds in his youth, so he was a fine sailor. When he was behind upwind, it seemed to be easier to keep him in control than if we were both in slower monos, but when one boat made an error the other made gains more quickly than in monos. At a guess, there was more likely to be a big break made in the cats - but that's just a guess.

Downwind, the passing lanes and protection issues seemed to be pretty similar in the cats. Then again, I've never bought the idea that boats you tack downwind are more tactical than those where you go deep; moving out 2 lengths to one side of the run in a tight square-running fleet requires as much skill as picking the shifts at cat or skiff type angles, in my experience.

However, even if monos were better for match racing as we know it (and they may be, IMHO) the multis seem to put more stress on other parts of the sport, and that may not be a bad thing.

Certainly some of the mono ACs were snoozefests, including '87, and some of the LACC matches were pretty good.

 

One thing I noticed was when a helicopter is following the boat, it is hard to appreciate the speed. 30 kt looks the same as 10 kt on TV. If the boats are pitching up and down, crashing through waves like they were in Fremantle, that is much more interesting on TV than gliding along on flat water.

And with long lenses on stabilized mounts, the helicopter can get an angle where they can make it look like the boats are bow-to-bow even when they are a couple of kilometers apart.

So the experience of viewing it on TV is not at all the same as the experience of watching it with the naked eye from on the water. Fast boats are not really required to make for good TV, except for the crash-and-burn possibility.

In order to represent a country's sailing prowess, the AC needs to be a combination of technology, design, sailing, and team organization. One-design takes too much of the design aspect out of it, so it needs to be some kind of development class. But it can't be too wide open or the sailing aspect gets de-emphasized. A design rule or a box rule works well.

As for the technology, I think the AC should develop technology that has maximum potential for trickle-down to ordinary race boats. That is what will motivate sponsors to participate in the event. It also makes the public more engaged, because they can see stuff they might be able to use some day.

The wingsail on USA 17 was spectacularly photogenic, but it's a dead end as far as most sailing is concerned. The logistics are just too daunting, and the wing is not remotely suitable for offshore. USA 17's soft rig had some technology that would have been applicable to other classes, but because it was not raced, it's going to take longer for that technology to get disseminated. When a sailmaker develops a tool like North Sail's Membrain program, that technology gets used to design the sails for other classes. Scott Ferguson was supporting a Volvo 70 campaign while he was designing the rig for USA 17 - you can bet there was cross fertilization going on there.

The 12 meter era used boats that were basically high-end club boats. The boats had a life outside of the AC, and many owners could (and did) build boats that could be considered for the defense. The IACC boats were more specialized and targeted just at the AC. If the 12-meter was a club-sailor's boat, the IACC class were corporate boats. Their saving grace was the AC expanded from one regatta once in a blue moon to a much longer campaign with many events, so the IACC boats became another whole segment of the sailing scene, along with round-the-world racers, racer-cruiser yachts, dinghy sailing, etc.

What's needed for the future is basically another corporate boat in order to support the America's Cup industry. If it's a monohull, it needs to be light displacement and capable of planing - a huge sport boat. (Michael Fay's revenge?) Multihulls have definitely matured and become accepted as legitimate club racers. They are destined to become even more popular, so a multihull box rule class would be a way of developing technology that is applicable to a large and growing market.

The boats have to be readily transportable. It's not going to be acceptable to have to charter a whole ship, with the boat hanging over both sides. As corporate boats, the new ACC class will need to travel to venues all over the world to show the sponsor's flag and drum up public support. ACC boat regattas will be a continuing thing, with an intense Cup season every few years, like soccer's World Cup.

 

I think it may be wrong to judge the success, or not, of multihulls as a choice for the AC based on the last series. The major criticism I've heard has been due to the big gap in performace of the cat and the tri. It has to be remebered that it was the first time around for two multihulls. I think that with a clearly defined box rule and a bit of development time over a few series to bring boats closer together in performance, Multihulls could work very well for the AC in terms of spectator interest and technology development.

In his post, Tom Speer raises a good point about technology trickle down effect (relevance to mainstream sailing). I would like to see a multihull rule framed to support that idea. Another point raised is transportability. The rule could be framed to force the boats to be demountable (fit into a defined cargo volume) to reduce costs.

I would very much like to see a well thought out multihull rule for the America's Cup.