time for a new ACC rule?

We have ascertained that good, spectacular match racing can be achieved in slow boats. It’s true. Yay. (Bring out the foundation 36s!)

My original point was more about this part.

The restrictions posed on the F1 rule are complex and mostly aimed at making the sport safe and keeping driver alive etc. As are the restrictions posed on open 60s and other offshore classes. I’m sure you would agree the need for safe ACC boats is not so apparent. Is it fair to say the restrictions on the ACC rule are aimed at creating an even playing field in the interests of a fair match race?

That’s fine.

The real question remains. Is ACC about the technological progression of the sport of sailing, or is about determining which country’s billionaires can win at a sailing (or anything) test. Would the racing be the same if they were still sailing Js? Those are pretty big and spectacular. Would it be the same if they weren’t allowed carbon fibre? Or what if they couldn’t use anything but canvas for sails?

I see this game as an opportunity to explore the true boundaries of technology, with massive budgets and advertising dollars and the best sailors in the world. I hate to think that’s its just a match racing regatta and that’s it. If you want to find the best match-racing skipper in the world, buy some RC44s. seriously. That’s not entirely what this is about, is it.

Your right in saying there need to be a lot of limitations, in order to give the designers some strict bounds to work within, and to encourage innovation in this way, and to create a level playing field. You don’t want to end up with horizon jobs. But I don’t see why these limitations should advertently or inadvertently affect the pace of the boats, as some are designed to do in F1. Are we not at a stage where technology has outgrown the limitations of the rule and its restrictions? (I’m not just talking about the above formula and all the other critical ones that were neglected of mention, but the pages and pages of constraints)

I understand that there are lots of people who are happy with the Americas Cup how it is. Cool. I think it’s a shame the 100 million euro budgets aren’t being used to properly develop the likes of canting keels and canting rigs, wing masts and double skin sails, canards etc. and hull shapes that are remotely relevant to contemporary yachting. (Surely trade-offs similar to the current ones could be formulated to make a CBTF yacht compete with a fixed keel yacht.) anyway this necessary development is being left up to the comparatively low budget low exposure classes like open 60s etc, and individual designers. I think new technology could easily be shoe-horned into ACC without any change whatsoever to the spectacle, or the intense match racing.

 

Even "the fair treatment of prisoners of war, hold in jails in the victors own territory or not" requires the right of defenders to present what they think, at least, it is a case.
Skull and crossbones was a common sight at the Caribbean, where Cuba belongs too. How is this place in Cuba called ? You could be a valuable member of the community there, Your Supreme One and Only Connoisseur of match racing, Your Lordship.
(In court, a High Court judge is referred to as My Lord or Your Lordship if male, or as My Lady or Your Ladyship if female.)

 

While the AC has often claimed to be about progress in sailing design, surely it's always been a pretty poor example of that. Some materials and winches have been developed in the AC but not much else considering the $$$.

It's interesting to look back at great AC boats and see what they gave us.

Intrepid? She gave the AC the separated skeg and rudder - already old news in other classes. Trim tabs - normally banned because the speed isn't worth the cost. Under-deck winches - horrible for the crew and since banned. Snubbed ends - still allowed (at aesthetic costs, perhaps).

Courageous? She gave us sailing computers.

Australia II? Nice sail panel layouts are a good thing. The winged keel isn't widely used.

S&S? Fat boats with lots of rating certificates (?). Shark skin (banned).

ACC boats? Bulb shapes that are good for massively high aspect keels carrying massive amounts of lead on skinny boats; ie ACC boats.

Obviously there were other advances, but many of the AC "advances" seem to have just been blown-up small boat ideas. Others are largely restricted to AC boats. So considering the time and money that's gone into the AC it seems pretty wasteful as a tool to develop designs.

Surely it will always be that way. Historically the big boats have NEVER lead the way because experiments cost too much. Even in offshore boats the 22s, 1/4s and 1/2s etc lead the way.

Personally I think the low development in ACC is sort of okay 'cause I can't see the point of a lot of the potential "improvements". Stick a canting keel, double-skin sail and rotating wingmast on any ballasted mono and it's still very slow in terms of speed for length or speed for cost or speed for crew or speed for hassle or speed for anything else. Do what you want, a Formula cat that costs 1/7 of the AC boat's mainsail will still probably be faster much of the time. Same with the vaunted Open 60s.......still very slow compared to an ORMA 60 so why worry about their speed?????

The other alternative is to have a rule that would make ACC boats a bit more like "normal" yachts; a bit fatter, more seaworthy, with fixed keels etc. That way the AC may be able to develop ideas that flow into "normal" sailing.

 

The first think that has to change is the maximum allowed ballast ratio. Sailing boats are meant to have a keel only to help the hull not to turn turtle, not having a hull only to help the keel not to sink !
Will a reasonable maximum ballast ratio restriction diminish the marvelously close windward capabilities of ACC boats ? I don t think so, provided some other restrictions are lifted. That is why, at the beginning of the thread, I have proposed a maximum ballast ratio of, say, 0.5, just what one can could well have on a "normal" yacht. Not a maximum displacement, just a maximum ballast ratio. Then the boats would again look, albeit remotely, to our "normal" yachts, but the most important thing is that they would again be sailing boats and not just-floating sailing mines or sailing submarines.

 

Well said. The truth is that the best teams (and probably the biggest budgets) will be sailing for the cup. No matter what rule is in place.

I think there has been much more AC technology that benefits sailing in general than we give the event credit for.

The big budgets (and big egos) have funded advances in tank testing that apply to all boats.

The computerized design tools have improved due to to AC funding. Downwind sail shapes and the twisted flow wind tunnel they are tested in are AC fall-out that applies to the mainstream. Every cruising sailor that enjoys an easy to trim A-Sail can thank AC sail development. Laminate headsails with shapes that work over wider wind ranges than the sails they replace are other benefits from AC sail development budgets.

Advances in rigging and rope apply to the mainstream. Would be have high modulus fibre sheets and halyards without the cup?

Vim developed the dip pole gybe.

The state of the art in carbon spars has been advanced at a greater rate due to the AC. Carbon masts have gone from being an option to being standard on some production boats.

As far as canting keels and CBTF go, I doubt that you will ever see either one in the AC (unless Alinghi has figured out how to do it under the rule). Canting keels in general require stored power and an engine to run, CBTF requires a huge fee to the patent vultures. Running engines and license fees don't make for better match racing.

I think the technical advances are there, they just are not as obvious as the direct progression of Vim's dip pole gybe to other racing. VPP's and the idea of sailing to polars are common knowledge, as are Wally's. VPP's are better and more accurate in part due to AC funding. The software that was developed for pre-start timing is included in mainstream on-board navigation packages (for less than $1000).

One of the benefits of the ACC rule is that the the boats from the 32nd AC will be for sale. They well become seeds for new campaigns, as Prada was for Team Shosholoza in this cup. I think their performance as a one boat team with the oldest boat in the event (#83) shows that the AC is open to teams with less than Oracle sized bank accounts. The fact that design #99 did not make the semi's shows that new boats are not always faster than older boats.

IMO a move to make the boats more main-stream would be a bad idea. The unique nature of the boats and the event are part of what makes pursuit of the cup a passion for many sailors. I have no doubt that there are as good or better sailors in other events, there are certainly faster boats on the water. I'm not sure that a rule for a contest so far out of the mainstream (How many of us have ever done any match racing?) will produce boats or features that have direct application to sailing in general. There is also no doubt in my mind that the indirect benefits are there and those benefits justify the AC as it is.

 

I’ve done some match racing.
Anyway I pretty much agree with everyone here. On the one hand ACC designers seem reluctant to go to extremes with their designs, and thus innovation is sort of capped. On the other hand, there really has been a heap of knowledge gained over the years. Most of it seems to be in fine-tuning existing designs philosophies. In this way the cup has, in the past, contributed to the sport of sailing, in refining or at least categorically proving or disproving existing ideas. Should the aim not be about this? The big $$$ as repeatedly mentioned, I think, could be spent on unproven technologies…

Having done a lot of match racing I think there is heaps of fun to be had with a canting keel, for instance. Last year at Airlie Beach Race Week (sailing a pretty conventional but surprisingly quick sportboat) we competed against the first production "sports 8" 8m canting keel sports boat. Like this but with a hydraulic winged canting keel. And a bigger rig.
Needless to say they had a bit on getting the thing around the course, and it was early days for the boat, but they came up with some interesting tactics involving keel position. One thing was that with the keel fully canted and crew weight in, they could slide sideways and carry an a-symmetrical kite deeper. And carry a bigger kite. The obvious down side to their configuration became super-apparent when they ducked another yachts stern and took their rudder off with the bulb, a meter or so to windward of the rail.

Imagine doing a dial-up with a canting keel, and having to worry about the rig, keel position etc could they manage? However you can use the keel to roll the boat around a mark if you’re under-shooting it. You can use it to roll the rig off the start to get a pump. You could potentially sail with windward heel, which would allow you to lee-bow someone from further away. You could do roll-tacks. You could sail upwind super low-grove. With CBTF you can make the boat go sideways to windward. You can get super height or super depth under kite, with potential speed losses but possible VMG gains. You can turn faster. I have a IOM with CBTF, with a 50cm fin and a 800g bulb, 55 degrees of cant (that I built before CBTF was patented, I might add) and you should see that thing turn! And stop. And go. Most manoeuvrable thing I’ve ever seen, once you get your head around the tricky controls. The added bonus is that it beats the pants off a conventional IOM. Does that not meet the intentions of the ACC class?

I reckon give them the problem: canting keels are allowed, but they must be manually powered. (Remembering that there are heaps of un-tapped sources of power available, like the strain on the side stay, or the righting moment of the hull, or the load on the keel its self, and there could be ways of storing this energy and using it to power a keel etc) (And remembering that every problem has a correct answer, with sufficient cash) I think open ended things like that SHOULD be (maybe not are) what ACC is about. In the interests of sailing!!!

and i believe a similar level match racing could be achieved. it would just look a whole lot cooler.

 

This is something that may non be allowed under any match racing rule.
Pumping is little too much for a presumably large boat, like a 24 m LOA or something, do you agree ?

 

no. how fast can a keel move from one side to the other?
the point is we dont know. its up to someone to propperly develop the technology.
as far as i know its legal as long as you do it once, you may have to alter course to windward, as if you are heeling the boat to leeward in order to assist rounding up.
anyway not the point.

 

ACC rule at 2020.

I therefore bet 100 inflationary US$ that at 2020 America s cup race at Beijing we will see:
1. Canting keels with a 15 degrees limit.
2. Rotating masts
3. Canard rudders
3. Water ballast
And that it will be an other event, called "America s cup, the One and Only Original, made in USA", sailed in proud 12 m class yachts, near a local courthouse, somewhere near the Pilgrims disembarkation area...

 

i will see your 100 inflationary dollars and raise you a further hundred given that canting keels can cant till their hearts content (the trade-off being hull shape) and that water ballast be disallowed on grounds of it being too old-school. i fully support the pilgims cup, and will donate the tropy myself. it will be a mug. with "the pilgrims cup" written on it in crayon. utilitarian.

 

I agree

 

One could imagine many ways so that the wave motion, through the keel weight moving up and down a little, could also be used to store energy for the canting mechanism.

 

i second that view on "little america's cup" C class catamarans

 

Let's define our GOAL first, then pick a design rule. Is the goal to provide good match racing, design creativity... what, exactly? I like the current AC rule; it's as close to one-design as you can get, yet still allowing for some creativity. Please, let's not come up with another IOR or IMS!