• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dzaveski

If you could choose the boat that would be used in AC racing...

141 posts in this topic

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different. Just for fun.

 

If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why. Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.

 

My choice:

Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull). Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.

 

Monohull because I like the tacking duels

 

Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter.

 

OH yeah and there would be a country rule.... To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country. No naturalize citizens. Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.

 

Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day. Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.

 

What say you!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wish list is:

 

90 ft monos or even V5s for that matter

soft sails

Upwind downwind 3 times - average 1.5 hours per race

At a location where there are ocean swells.

Upper wind limit of 20 knots Lower limit of 5 knots.

No course boundaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being very quick to judge a few outcomes with little real information to back it. Shut Up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

 

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60 foot catamarans

36 foot beam

90 foot mast with one reef point 10 feet down

gennaker halyard also 10 feet from mast head

soft sails

straight rudders (no horizontal foils on rudders)

daggerboards load from the top

 

There should also be resonable minimum weights on the platform and the rig to ensure that the boats are overdesigned and can sustain a capsize with minimal damage.

 

A formula like this would result in good racing (like in the AC 45s) but would also be reasonable in terms of cost and logistics. You'd probably see 10 to 15 teams compete and these boats could be sailed in other events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different. Just for fun.

 

If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why. Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.

 

My choice:

Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull). Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.

 

Monohull because I like the tacking duels

 

Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter.

 

OH yeah and there would be a country rule.... To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country. No naturalize citizens. Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.

 

Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day. Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.

 

What say you!

 

I'd choose an AC72 just because you're a whiny cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different. Just for fun.

 

If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why. Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.

 

My choice:

Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull). Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.

 

Monohull because I like the tacking duels

 

Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter.

 

OH yeah and there would be a country rule.... To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country. No naturalize citizens. Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.

 

Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day. Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.

 

What say you!

 

I'd choose an AC72 just because you're a whiny cunt.

Was this truly necessary ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different. Just for fun.

 

If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why. Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.

 

My choice:

Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull). Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.

 

Monohull because I like the tacking duels

 

Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter.

 

OH yeah and there would be a country rule.... To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country. No naturalize citizens. Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.

 

Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day. Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.

 

What say you!

 

I'd choose an AC72 just because you're a whiny cunt.
Was this truly necessary ?
Yes. I understand that some people don't like the AC72's. Others will complain about anything Larry/Russell do. I will show absolutely no respect to anyone who chooses to take advantage of the death of a good man in pushing this agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being very quick to judge a few outcomes with little real information to back it. Shut Up!

Such technical words.... I no understand.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

 

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

A well written and reasonable way to tell me you feel I am wrong... Love this response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

 

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

 

Great post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is simple - the AC should be sailed in V70s with the same crew contingent that races the V70s around the cans during the Volvo.

 

The V70 buoy racing was spectacular. Lots of lead changes, lots of drama, sponsors on board, tons of media coverage and completely accessible to everyone who sails any kind of boat anywhere in the world.

 

It's got the best designers, the best sails, the best crews and the best fans. And there are plenty of boats available today for trial horses.

 

By any comparison, the AC72s and this AC are shaping up to be a complete failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't do the VO70's they are now VO65's and they are one design. So, you lose the whole design contest between nations thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is simple - the AC should be sailed in V70s with the same crew contingent that races the V70s around the cans during the Volvo.

 

The V70 buoy racing was spectacular. Lots of lead changes, lots of drama, sponsors on board, tons of media coverage and completely accessible to everyone who sails any kind of boat anywhere in the world.

 

It's got the best designers, the best sails, the best crews and the best fans. And there are plenty of boats available today for trial horses.

 

By any comparison, the AC72s and this AC are shaping up to be a complete failure.

 

I think if you ask the V70 crews you'll find out that they don't like buoy racing with a boat designed for ocean passages. The boats aren't designed to be tacked/gybed as often as is necessary in a buoy race.

 

I'm with Tom... the AC was intended to be a technological contest not a one design or box rule regatta. A DoG race is the purest form of AC race and MC allows for tweaking of the rules to suit the yacht clubs. I'm not all that crazy about the LV either but I think it's necessary when you have such interest among challengers. If there's only a few challengers... so what? Let them duke it our and see who gets to face the defender. To paraphrase what I said when Larry announced the whole ACWS idea... I don't like it, if you want a worldwide series go start one, don't fuck with the AC. But since he and ACalphabet were in charge and for some reason they didn't listen to me I said "go for it and good luck, let's see what happens".

 

I attended two of the ACWS regattas (SD and SF Aug) and it was incredible. Let's see how it plays out. Besides the powers that be won't listen to anyone from ACA anymore than they did to me before the ACWS.

 

Edit... Tom is right about V65s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different. Just for fun.

 

If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why. Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.

 

My choice:

Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull). Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.

 

Monohull because I like the tacking duels

 

Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter.

 

OH yeah and there would be a country rule.... To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country. No naturalize citizens. Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.

 

Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day. Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.

 

What say you!

I'd go with your boat rule but (big change here) allow it to be 45" wide - approx on the cusp of the trimaran/cat boundary. Mono's have been done to death and it is ragingly obvious they are not on the leading edge of sailing.

 

Also make a rule they have to be able to lower the sails/wingsails (whatever) within 10mins of the end of the race without outside assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different. Just for fun.

 

If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why. Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.

 

My choice:

Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull). Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.

 

Monohull because I like the tacking duels

 

Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter.

 

OH yeah and there would be a country rule.... To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country. No naturalize citizens. Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.

 

Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day. Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.

 

What say you!

 

I'd choose an AC72 just because you're a whiny cunt.
Was this truly necessary ?
Yes. I understand that some people don't like the AC72's. Others will complain about anything Larry/Russell do. I will show absolutely no respect to anyone who chooses to take advantage of the death of a good man in pushing this agenda.

Where do you see him taking " advantage " of anyone ? He's put forth a question that everyone else in this thread has seen fit to respond to with thoughtful comments . Your choice of language further lessons the impact of your viewpoint . Please let the adults continue to discuss amongst themselves and keep your needless comments to the school yard .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick a multihull length and beam size you think is safe and manageable.

Pick minimum weight to ensure it's engineered big enough to actually be safe.

Pick a maximum rig height to further limit really dangerous arrangements.

 

Get rid of all the weird rubbish that are borderline as to whether your actually sailing like engines and computer controlled everything.

 

Leave everything else open!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

 

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

 

Yep too true, any sailor could have just as easily been trapped below decks folding sails on an old mono that broke in half and sunk, I don't understand this rush to blame the speed (or the boat). Maybe (time will tell) the engineers will have to answer for their calcs, or the builder for some error, but other than that these are awesome machines to watch, and the format is even of interest to my wife who has never watched sailing in her life. Let it go....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation.

 

ITYM ensure survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yacht-Hanuman.jpg

 

Hard to argue with that but the AC72's are much closer in spirit to the J boats than the 12 meter/IACC boats were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't do the VO70's they are now VO65's and they are one design. So, you lose the whole design contest between nations thing.

 

The whole "contest between nations" was lost quite sometime ago, it's a contest between sponsors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Strict nationality requirements - citizen of the country for 5 yrs +.

2. PIck a boat - like a Santa Cruz 70, for instance

3. 1 million dollar entry fee gets you the right to race and a hull

4. Foils, spars and sails from country of challenge, size and material limits specified

 

Boats would have a use after racing, more countries would challenge, interest would be higher.

 

Would have been a great concept back in '92 after the first DoG event, but now... that ship has sailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it has been quite a few AC cycles since it was strictly one nations designs against another. CIC is still an artifact of that original premise. I wish Oracle had included M&M in their design team. And, we know there is a lot of French talent involved in the wing design. But, Core was originally a Southern California firm that migrated to Washington to be close to the day job customers and then opened shop in New Zealand for their labor talent/price advantage.

So, if we are wishing about new boats to challenge, I'd still put my vote in for the design aspect being a "contest between nations".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yacht-Hanuman.jpg

 

Hard to argue with that but the AC72's are much closer in spirit to the J boats than the 12 meter/IACC boats were.

So true.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Strict nationality requirements - citizen of the country for 5 yrs +.

2. PIck a boat - like a Santa Cruz 70, for instance

3. 1 million dollar entry fee gets you the right to race and a hull

4. Foils, spars and sails from country of challenge, size and material limits specified

 

Boats would have a use after racing, more countries would challenge, interest would be higher.

 

Would have been a great concept back in '92 after the first DoG event, but now... that ship has sailed.

 

Man, that would be AWEFUL!!! Wow. Could not get further from the intent of the deed, and could not be any less interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 10-15 teams in a match-racign round-robin with closely-matched big-ass boats where people identified with their countries' challenge. That would suck.

 

Wait a year, do it all over again with the new defender picking the hull, old boats don't have to get mothballed because they are so critical. yeah, awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC is about cutting edge design,

pushing the envelope necessarily means danger,

but the egos provide the money and the money provides the advances in sailing.

 

There are plenty of good races, one design, nation verse nation, etc.

 

The AC is what it is and it is a great place for cutting edge development.

And we love watching them fight!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would probably help to design some sort of a reality TV type challenge for the lawyers.

Keep them out of the way of the sailors, and make some extra cash from TV rights.

The AC has traditionally been a competition in the courts as well as on the water, we need to keep the tradition alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 10-15 teams in a match-racign round-robin with closely-matched big-ass boats where people identified with their countries' challenge. That would suck.

 

Wait a year, do it all over again with the new defender picking the hull, old boats don't have to get mothballed because they are so critical. yeah, awful.

 

That is not the America's Cup. Not by the deed, not by the tradition, not by what most people want.

 

Might as well say the World Cup in Soccer should be played indoors, on a hardwood court, with a basketball shot into elevated baskets at each end of the court, with 2 or 3 points per basket. Still call it "soccer". Heck, it would be a lot more exciting than what is currently "soccer".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would choose AC72s

 

Same here. Sure, if the AC72 rule stays, they WILL change the rules about foils (replacing rules that were intended to prevent foiling with rules that will allow safer control), and they may change the wing rule as well as requirements regarding beams, or something else. But I love that these are about the baddest ass possible boats for racing around a course. As a consolation, I would be OK with a similar rule, scaled down to 60' or so (I know, I know, xLot)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

 

Sounds reasonable (50-60' option). The idea that the boats have to be able to handle wide variety of conditions, both with regard to wind and waves/swell, would likely result in significant improvement in strength, durability, and stability, and may even reduce costs. If you can't go off on an extreme for design, it may take away the incentive to go do so damned much expensive design work. I would love to see such a simple rule, wide open. The minimum weight requirement, without maximum, and without COG requirements, would make a lot of sense. Teams will reasonably want to get the COG as low as possible, improving stability and safety.

 

Still, I'm not writing off the AC72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

We have ample evidence that the AC72's can cross SF bay without a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TC BPV would not do well against an AC72 in closed course inshore racing. Hydrapoter (sp?) would be a much better choice if you also threw in an offshore qualifier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TC BPV would not do well against an AC72 in closed course inshore racing. Hydrapoter (sp?) would be a much better choice if you also threw in an offshore qualifier.

I know BPV would not do well, however a more open rule would allow cheaper boat, perhaps faster, and mainly seaworthy.

Basically a better show for TV in tougher conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

We have ample evidence that the AC72's can cross SF bay without a problem.

Yep, 2 crashes in medium conditions and work for the lawyers ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

We have ample evidence that the AC72's can cross SF bay without a problem.

Yep, 2 crashes in medium conditions and work for the lawyers ;)

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about on the legal end. Come to think of it, you don't have much of one on the sailing end either.

 

How is it that ETNZ hasn't crashed yet? Or LR? I've seen ETNZ out in what looked like a dishwasher and yet it remained upright and in one piece. Odd. Moreover, as you noted, Artemis capsized in what appeared to be moderate conditions. Supports the conclusion that something unusual happened. We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safety needs to be better addressed but the AC72 is about the baddest-ass in-shore racing boat on the planet. I want a successor.

 

Allowing for better much control of the main and rudder foils would be an excellent evolution across all aspects compared to V1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC72 box rule. Big version of C class rule.

Wing only with area limit, no soft sails.

Central pod, no tramp (final DZ style).

Vertical foils, no lifting surfaces, boards raise only (no rotation or translation around other axes), rudders 1 axis of rotation.

No weight limits.

No wind limits.

No movable ballast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC72 box rule. Big version of C class rule.

Wing only with area limit, no soft sails.

Central pod, no tramp (final DZ style).

Vertical foils, no lifting surfaces, boards raise only (no rotation or translation around other axes), rudders 1 axis of rotation.

No weight limits.

No wind limits.

No movable ballast.

 

Why no lifting foils? Why no tramp? Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would choose AC72s

 

Same here. Sure, if the AC72 rule stays, they WILL change the rules about foils (replacing rules that were intended to prevent foiling with rules that will allow safer control), and they may change the wing rule as well as requirements regarding beams, or something else. But I love that these are about the baddest ass possible boats for racing around a course. As a consolation, I would be OK with a similar rule, scaled down to 60' or so (I know, I know, xLot)

 

You guys might, but you're not paying the bills.

 

We have a pitiful three challengers and that's a direct reflection of the cost and infrastructure required to support this class.

 

Enjoy it while you can, you'll never see these boats again post AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AC72 box rule. Big version of C class rule.

Wing only with area limit, no soft sails.

Central pod, no tramp (final DZ style).

Vertical foils, no lifting surfaces, boards raise only (no rotation or translation around other axes), rudders 1 axis of rotation.

No weight limits.

No wind limits.

No movable ballast.

 

Why no lifting foils? Why no tramp? Just wondering.

Foils no lift: whilst the foilers are spectacular, I prefer "boats" to be in the water at all times.

No tramp: safety and drag. DZ showed you can get around an even wider boat without them with a small platform of the rear edge of the main beam, a central pod and a wide rear beam. Not much to get trapped under if it does turtle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Macgregor 26X. Wing sail. 250HP Mastervolt Podmaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I would choose AC72s

 

Same here. Sure, if the AC72 rule stays, they WILL change the rules about foils (replacing rules that were intended to prevent foiling with rules that will allow safer control), and they may change the wing rule as well as requirements regarding beams, or something else. But I love that these are about the baddest ass possible boats for racing around a course. As a consolation, I would be OK with a similar rule, scaled down to 60' or so (I know, I know, xLot)

 

You guys might, but you're not paying the bills.

 

We have a pitiful three challengers and that's a direct reflection of the cost and infrastructure required to support this class.

 

Enjoy it while you can, you'll never see these boats again post AC.

 

You have to remember that the AC is a Challenge Cup all you need for it to take place is 1 challenger.

That is what makes it unique.

The history is what makes it the plaything of billionaires.

Why dumb it down to get more "no hoper wanna be's" involved (AC32) and turn it into nascar.

Gimme AC33 over AC32 any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't help thinking that is what the AC should been - 15 years ago.

 

From the front page.

post-35716-0-05971200-1368495134_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't help thinking that is what the AC should been - 15 years ago.

 

From the front page.

 

Lovely boat..........................................but hardly a showcase of cutting edge tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the AC72 is about the baddest-ass in-shore racing boat on the planet. I want a successor.

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC72

 

If they had a 1 boat rule it would be a-lot more affordable and the boats would be more durable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue for the cup moving forward is COST..! Unless the COST comes down we won't have a cup in the future. The money to compete is just too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller version of the AC72. Purely because of the logistics of managing such a large Cat, and being able to right them if and when they do capsize.

 

In terms of structural safety and reducing costs. There could perhaps be a standard platform/hull package which is 'off the shelf'. This would then open up the teams to concentrate of designing their own wings/ foils etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Americas cup has always been a very wealthy persons game. That wont change.

 

This design below is well proven. But, Keep it high tech, leading edge, amazing sailing machines. lets not go back in time.

 

 

 

post-36841-0-10162300-1368498762_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

People like Herreshoff himself took decisive action to REMOVE the most radical boats from the AC. That's why he created the Universal Rule which lead to the end of the Reliance-type scow-shaped hulls. Herreshoff letters on the Mystic Seaport site confirmed that he refused Iselin's request to built a more radical giant scow - an idea that had evolved in the Seawanhaka Cup BEFORE it was proposed in the AC (just like bulb keels, spade rudders, bermudan rigs, sloop rigs and light displacement hulls were evolved in the Seawanhaka before they were in the AC....).

 

The early British AC boats like Livonia, Cambria, Genesta and Galatea were pretty standard boats of their day. They were normally met by pretty normal US boats of their day.

 

The UK challengers up to the 12 Metre era often raced as part of the mainstream "Big Class" - they were not all that different (if at all) from the rest of the Big Class cutters.

 

The hype of the AC being the bleeding edge, the biggest and fastest, just doesn't seem to fit with the historical facts. So if we are going to maintain the tradition the AC should be sailed in boats that are pretty much the "big end" of the mainstream.

 

Would it look as spectacular? Maybe not - without getting non-sailors in to ask what looks better, who knows?

 

Is looking spectacular important? Nope, not for getting TV - golf gets more viewers than skydiving, football gets more viewers than hydroplane racing, swimming at 6 knots in the Olympics gets more viewers than just about anything else in the Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

People like Herreshoff himself took decisive action to REMOVE the most radical boats from the AC. That's why he created the Universal Rule which lead to the end of the Reliance-type scow-shaped hulls. Herreshoff letters on the Mystic Seaport site confirmed that he refused Iselin's request to built a more radical giant scow - an idea that had evolved in the Seawanhaka Cup BEFORE it was proposed in the AC (just like bulb keels, spade rudders, bermudan rigs, sloop rigs and light displacement hulls were evolved in the Seawanhaka before they were in the AC....).

 

The early British AC boats like Livonia, Cambria, Genesta and Galatea were pretty standard boats of their day. They were normally met by pretty normal US boats of their day.

 

The UK challengers up to the 12 Metre era often raced as part of the mainstream "Big Class" - they were not all that different (if at all) from the rest of the Big Class cutters.

 

The hype of the AC being the bleeding edge, the biggest and fastest, just doesn't seem to fit with the historical facts. So if we are going to maintain the tradition the AC should be sailed in boats that are pretty much the "big end" of the mainstream.

 

Would it look as spectacular? Maybe not - without getting non-sailors in to ask what looks better, who knows?

 

Is looking spectacular important? Nope, not for getting TV - golf gets more viewers than skydiving, football gets more viewers than hydroplane racing, swimming at 6 knots in the Olympics gets more viewers than just about anything else in the Games.

 

 

The only issue I have with this is that it is such a wasted opportunity.

You have people with more money than they know what to do with willing to throw into sailing development, don't waste that opportunity on pulling the last zillionth percent out of the mainstream, get them to spend it on the edge where very real revolutions can be made to the sport (and other practical applications for water bourne vehicles). This doesn't necessarily have to be dangerous, it just requires enough latitude in the rules for some weird and wonderful ideas to be given a chance to be tested, the two foil system on the AC72's is a pretty good example of what can be achieved with enough money to throw at a design problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My choice would be Neo J's:

  1. 90 foot (30 meter) hulls with
  2. massively overpowered soft sails.
  3. One or 2 hulls per team,
  4. with nationality rules for designers and the key crew members.
  5. Lifted nationality rules for new country entrants like china, korea, ... to increase nations who participate.
  6. Encouragement of the "romantic" AC like PB said over the last few days
  7. Encouragement of corporate sponsored teams. Maybe build in surety of schedule so sailing teams can build their programmes around VOR, maxi series...
  8. Build 2 first generation yachts and put them on a chartered freighter to Italy over the northern summer for a same boat match racing series. Teams can own their spinakers with their own sponsors logos. (remember the world series!)
  9. Get the crew in some fashionable kit that clothing sponsors would be proud to sponsor.
  10. Build in a realistic corporate entertainment packages combining the event and teams (review F1 product)
  11. Capture more sponsors like LV, Emirates, banks, clothing, watches, design houses, national promotion agencies (ie TNZ). Some real work needs to be done to attract the sponsors to the new format.

Have a look at Fremantle. That was such a good regatta with lots of nationalities

 

I think we need to understand that if TNZ or LR win in Sept that will be the end of the AC72's. I can not see that AR would be supportive if they won. There would be even less teams who would participate next time if OR wins and chooses to keep the AC72. Imagine the extra insurance costs of running another AC72 program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

I've been trying to think of a single innovation that's come out of the AC, and at the moment, the only thing I can come up with is 3Di. But it could be argued that it's another example of AC-style development - take an innovation that's happened outside sailing/the AC (load path sails - which has been an idea around for a while - radial cuts) and throw money at it.

 

Most development in sailing, fundamentally, is the result of development in materials. And that's all paid for by other people (aerospace).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

I've been trying to think of a single innovation that's come out of the AC, and at the moment, the only thing I can come up with is 3Di. But it could be argued that it's another example of AC-style development - take an innovation that's happened outside sailing/the AC (load path sails - which has been an idea around for a while - radial cuts) and throw money at it.

 

Most development in sailing, fundamentally, is the result of development in materials. And that's all paid for by other people (aerospace).

 

Here's 3 off the top of my head:

 

Winged keel AC23

Wings on boats over 25ft AC33 (oops forgot Stars and

Stripes AC25)

Full foiling on sail boats over 25ft AC34

 

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

Steel masts

Aluminium masts

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

FRP Big boats

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Use of CFD

 

Cutting edge: tech definitely, even when constrained by really slow boat rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a simpler, less powerful cat box rule would be great. 20 meters long. 10 meters wide. 30 meter wing (or soft sail if you desire). Have at it. Tweak those dimensions if you want, but keep it round numbers, and keep it less powerful than the current rule. I don't get the idea that we should prevent people from spending money on it. I do think that if you had a simple rule, there would be room for innovation rather than just huge budgets to leave no stone unturned. And if you eliminate the rules against foiling control systems, you make it easier to innovate, rather than harder, so you reduce costs, rather than increase costs.

 

And if you make it a little smaller than the current stuff, I think you end up with more teams. Even if many of them don't have a high chance of winning. Make the summer a good summer of a lot of racing with a decent number of teams, and it becomes a decent deal for sponsors, and a decent experience for the Bs.

 

I am very much looking forward to seeing the AC72s flying around the bay this summer, but I sure wish there were more teams, and I am worried that the recent tragedy may hurt the event profoundly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

PE,

Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

Wings on big boats is innovation. Loads increase dramatically. Major new tech required build them and to control them.

Did you see EBs reaction when DZ was unveiled.

Don't think hydroptere goes around a race course. Massively different foil and control system design compared to AC72.

All genuine cutting edge tech and genuine innovation in my book.

All development (scientific achievement) stands on the shoulders of what has gone previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

PE,

Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.

 

The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

Steel masts

Aluminium masts

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

FRP Big boats

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Use of CFD

 

Cutting edge: tech definitely, even when constrained by really slow boat rules.

 

Seppings started using iron strappings in wooden hulls in 1830. By 1839, Brunel was building the SS Great Britain in wrought iron, with iron masts. So dissimlar hull materials and metal masts predate even America herself. From then on, it's just a case of choosing whichever (commercially or near commercially available) material you want to use. Was Sir T.O.M. known as an aircraft guy bringing aircraft thinking into boats, or vice versa? Another example: 505s were playing with carbon masts in the 80s

 

And iron/steel frames and alu hull plating is an engineering dead end, as all you're really building is a giant battery.

 

The first FPR 12s were the glass Kiwi boats for the 86/7 Freemantle AC. As an example as to how late a take up of tech this is, in 1985/86, Cote D'Or - a carbon/nomex maxi - did the Whitbread. For sale, FWIW.

 

CFD? Please tell me how often the word "boat" appears here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics

 

Reliance? Largest sloop, yes. Small, in ship terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think hydroptere goes around a race course. Massively different foil and control system design compared to AC72.

 

34 minutes cross the Manche/ English Channel. Different idea & systems (not constrained by rules), but definitively proof of concept. Big boats can fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60 x 60 max

40 foot min, no beam min

Human power only (no engines)

Nationality rules (crew, design and full manufacture)

 

All else open......... Bring the best you have.

 

Windward / lewards x 3 laps no boundarys and 7 race min.

 

BTW, I am only choosing 60 x 60 because I would like to see a few more countries challenging, otherwise, go big..... 110 x 90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^

PE,

Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.

 

The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

None are full wings, they are wing MASTS with soft sails.

Impressive, sure but nowhere near the level of full wings on display on Connors boat, DZ or the AC72s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wandering Geo wrote;

Here's 3 off the top of my head:

Winged keel

How many do you see these days? It was basically a way around the International Rule's limit on fin keel depth.

Wings on boats over 25'

For a start, that's proving the point that the REAL innovation comes small boats like those under 25'.

Secondly, wingsails were used on boats over 25' like Guy Delarge's 60' (approx) proa around 1981 or the Walker Wingsail tri of the '70s.

Thirdly, wingsails and wing masts were very much a small boat invention, seen on things like International Canoes in the '30s and LF Herreshoff's Suicide around the same time.

So they AC is just riding, as usual, on small boat development and arguably simply making an impractical version of it.

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

 

Full foiling on sail boats over 25ft AC34Cer

Certainly not - apart from L'Hydroptere, there was Dave Culp's Williwaw which was a full foiling tri that crossed oceans decades ago.

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

No - first foam composite boat appears to have been the (Finn-like) O Jolles built by the daughter of Lindemann, creator of Airex, in the '50s. First composite AC boat were the '87 Kiwi 12 Metres, at least 9 years behind the first foam composite offshore racers like Boomerang (2nd, '68 Hobart).

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

 

Steel masts

I think they were used in square riggers like Pamir?

Aluminium masts

????

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

Not sure - evidence? And IIRC it was a dead end due to electrolysis, anyway

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Biggest sloop by a bit - smaller than contemporary yachts in other classes. And her designer created a rule to ban such boats in favour of a more conservative, less 'leading edge' style.

Use of CFD

Evidence?

FRP big boats?

No - the Ocean 71 had done a round the world race about 14 years before the first FRP AC boat hit the water. The 73' Greybeard was also a foam/glass maxis in '72, 15 years before the first FRP AC boat.

Is the AC cutting edge? Sometimes in specific ways, but overall arguably not.

 

This AC will use a basic hull configuration developed in modern form by Prout etc 60 years ago; a mast style developed by Canoes and small cats 80-50 years ago; foils developed by big and small boats over the past 50 or 60 years; and construction methods (carbon over foam or Nomex??) developed by Parker Contenders about '70 and 505s, FDs and 18s a few years later.

 

The AC DID develop Reliance - a dead end that wasn't that much bigger than contemporary cutters and was smaller than schooners of her time. It may have developed duralimum (sp) masts, dip pole gybes and coffee grinder winches. That's nothing compared to what smaller and "mainstream" boats have done.

 

The PR about the AC being the leading edge is just PR, IMHO. And guys like Uffa Fox went into print saying the same thing, with specific examples, in the '30s. If it's any consolation, motoring writers like JK Sevewright (sp) point out the same thing about motor racing and car development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my thoughts are make sure whatever the design rule it really is a boat and can handle ocean conditions ,maybe capable pof open ocean ,not another 5 minute wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

Steel masts

Aluminium masts

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

FRP Big boats

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Use of CFD

 

Cutting edge: tech definitely, even when constrained by really slow boat rules.

 

Seppings started using iron strappings in wooden hulls in 1830. By 1839, Brunel was building the SS Great Britain in wrought iron, with iron masts. So dissimlar hull materials and metal masts predate even America herself. From then on, it's just a case of choosing whichever (commercially or near commercially available) material you want to use. Was Sir T.O.M. known as an aircraft guy bringing aircraft thinking into boats, or vice versa? Another example: 505s were playing with carbon masts in the 80s

 

And iron/steel frames and alu hull plating is an engineering dead end, as all you're really building is a giant battery.

 

The first FPR 12s were the glass Kiwi boats for the 86/7 Freemantle AC. As an example as to how late a take up of tech this is, in 1985/86, Cote D'Or - a carbon/nomex maxi - did the Whitbread. For sale, FWIW.

 

CFD? Please tell me how often the word "boat" appears here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics

 

Reliance? Largest sloop, yes. Small, in ship terms.

 

I am not trying to argue that the AC tech is completely new, what I am saying is that it is developed in the AC that to a different level that is bleeding edge.

Very little in technology is genuinely new, it builds on the advances and knowledge previously acquired.

 

Things like winged keels, duralium masts, wing sails, full foils etc certainly are based in existing technology.

If it weren't the cup would be about to be won by an aluminium boat, with a soft sail that took $100K to build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about .........

 

Powered by human power

Nationality rules

 

NO OTHER RULES.......... Bring the baddest ass boat you have.

 

Kind of like "The Race" but with the nationality rules and around the bouys racing.

 

 

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.therace.org/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dthe%2Brace%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D672

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

^

PE,

Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.

 

The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

None are full wings, they are wing MASTS with soft sails.

Impressive, sure but nowhere near the level of full wings on display on Connors boat, DZ or the AC72s

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't sure whether the query was about wing masts or wing sails.

 

Walker Wingsails were around from '86 (a proto was earlier, IIRC) but arguably unsuccessful. Solid wings started, afaik, with Austin Farrar's 1948 International Canoe wing and were of course largely developed in C Class cats like Helios, Miss Nylex, etc.

 

Yes, these examples were smaller (and it appears I was wrong about Delage's proa, which had a wing mast of about 45% chord). But the point is that the AC is NOT creating innovations, it is merely adopting innovations from small boats, and often the development inside the AC is a bit of a dead-end street as it was with Reliance, winged keel 12 Metres, heavy skinny IACCs, etc etc.

 

As a way of developing innovations for wide use in the sport the AC arguably is a massive failure considering the hype and dollars involved. Therefore arguing for a class based on some sort of history of leading edge development isn't the way to go, IMHO.

 

In reality, rather than hype, historically the AC has been about refinement of the mainstream. With racing cats (which are NOT a growing part of the sport if you look at long or medium-term trends) they are well out of the mainstream; with foilers and wing mast, even further away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wandering Geo wrote;

Here's 3 off the top of my head:

Winged keel

How many do you see these days? It was basically a way around the International Rule's limit on fin keel depth.

Wings on boats over 25'

For a start, that's proving the point that the REAL innovation comes small boats like those under 25'.

Secondly, wingsails were used on boats over 25' like Guy Delarge's 60' (approx) proa around 1981 or the Walker Wingsail tri of the '70s.

Thirdly, wingsails and wing masts were very much a small boat invention, seen on things like International Canoes in the '30s and LF Herreshoff's Suicide around the same time.

So they AC is just riding, as usual, on small boat development and arguably simply making an impractical version of it.

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

 

Full foiling on sail boats over 25ft AC34Cer

Certainly not - apart from L'Hydroptere, there was Dave Culp's Williwaw which was a full foiling tri that crossed oceans decades ago.

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

No - first foam composite boat appears to have been the (Finn-like) O Jolles built by the daughter of Lindemann, creator of Airex, in the '50s. First composite AC boat were the '87 Kiwi 12 Metres, at least 9 years behind the first foam composite offshore racers like Boomerang (2nd, '68 Hobart).

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

>>

Steel masts

I think they were used in square riggers like Pamir?

Aluminium masts

????

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

Not sure - evidence? And IIRC it was a dead end due to electrolysis, anyway

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Biggest sloop by a bit - smaller than contemporary yachts in other classes. And her designer created a rule to ban such boats in favour of a more conservative, less 'leading edge' style.

Use of CFD

Evidence?

FRP big boats?

No - the Ocean 71 had done a round the world race about 14 years before the first FRP AC boat hit the water. The 73' Greybeard was also a foam/glass maxis in '72, 15 years before the first FRP AC boat.

Is the AC cutting edge? Sometimes in specific ways, but overall arguably not.

 

This AC will use a basic hull configuration developed in modern form by Prout etc 60 years ago; a mast style developed by Canoes and small cats 80-50 years ago; foils developed by big and small boats over the past 50 or 60 years; and construction methods (carbon over foam or Nomex??) developed by Parker Contenders about '70 and 505s, FDs and 18s a few years later.

 

The AC DID develop Reliance - a dead end that wasn't that much bigger than contemporary cutters and was smaller than schooners of her time. It may have developed duralimum (sp) masts, dip pole gybes and coffee grinder winches. That's nothing compared to what smaller and "mainstream" boats have done.

 

The PR about the AC being the leading edge is just PR, IMHO. And guys like Uffa Fox went into print saying the same thing, with specific examples, in the '30s. If it's any consolation, motoring writers like JK Sevewright (sp) point out the same thing about motor racing and car development.

 

 

OK, this is starting to get a bit silly.

Let me ask a question, do you think there is any other sail boat on the planet that could beat an AC 72 or DZ or even the winged Stars and Stripes around a windward leeward race course?

Bleeding edge or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

^

PE,

Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.

 

The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

None are full wings, they are wing MASTS with soft sails.

Impressive, sure but nowhere near the level of full wings on display on Connors boat, DZ or the AC72s

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't sure whether the query was about wing masts or wing sails.

 

Walker Wingsails were around from '86 (a proto was earlier, IIRC) but arguably unsuccessful. Solid wings started, afaik, with Austin Farrar's 1948 International Canoe wing and were of course largely developed in C Class cats like Helios, Miss Nylex, etc.

 

Yes, these examples were smaller (and it appears I was wrong about Delage's proa, which had a wing mast of about 45% chord). But the point is that the AC is NOT creating innovations, it is merely adopting innovations from small boats, and often the development inside the AC is a bit of a dead-end street as it was with Reliance, winged keel 12 Metres, heavy skinny IACCs, etc etc.

 

As a way of developing innovations for wide use in the sport the AC arguably is a massive failure considering the hype and dollars involved. Therefore arguing for a class based on some sort of history of leading edge development isn't the way to go, IMHO.

 

In reality, rather than hype, historically the AC has been about refinement of the mainstream. With racing cats (which are NOT a growing part of the sport if you look at long or medium-term trends) they are well out of the mainstream; with foilers and wing mast, even further away.

 

Dunno if you have ever tried to design and build boats or other structures, but simple changes in scale can require immense advances in analysis, design and materials simply to stop the large structure failing under its own weight (think elephant sized insects, AR W1, Tacoma narrows bridge, modern skyscrapers, rail/road tunnels).

Figuring out how to get the change in scale to work is the innovation.

 

Agree, AC is not mainstream.

Who said it was?

Who wants it to be?

It is a unique event in sport.

IMHO it should not be buggered up by sailing it in run of the mill, cheap boats, so that you get a large, but mediocre turnout.

Needs to be a hi-tech plus big$$$ challenge to keep out the big noting wanna be's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different. Just for fun.

 

40 foot Opti's, crewed by bikini clad Opti mums only!

 

What could go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

^

PE,

Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.

 

The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

None are full wings, they are wing MASTS with soft sails.

Impressive, sure but nowhere near the level of full wings on display on Connors boat, DZ or the AC72s

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't sure whether the query was about wing masts or wing sails.

 

Walker Wingsails were around from '86 (a proto was earlier, IIRC) but arguably unsuccessful. Solid wings started, afaik, with Austin Farrar's 1948 International Canoe wing and were of course largely developed in C Class cats like Helios, Miss Nylex, etc.

 

Yes, these examples were smaller (and it appears I was wrong about Delage's proa, which had a wing mast of about 45% chord). But the point is that the AC is NOT creating innovations, it is merely adopting innovations from small boats, and often the development inside the AC is a bit of a dead-end street as it was with Reliance, winged keel 12 Metres, heavy skinny IACCs, etc etc.

 

As a way of developing innovations for wide use in the sport the AC arguably is a massive failure considering the hype and dollars involved. Therefore arguing for a class based on some sort of history of leading edge development isn't the way to go, IMHO.

 

In reality, rather than hype, historically the AC has been about refinement of the mainstream. With racing cats (which are NOT a growing part of the sport if you look at long or medium-term trends) they are well out of the mainstream; with foilers and wing mast, even further away.

 

Dunno if you have ever tried to design and build boats or other structures, but simple changes in scale can require immense advances in analysis, design and materials simply to stop the large structure failing under its own weight (think elephant sized insects, AR W1, Tacoma narrows bridge, modern skyscrapers, rail/road tunnels).

Figuring out how to get the change in scale to work is the innovation.

 

Agree, AC is not mainstream.

Who said it was?

Who wants it to be?

It is a unique event in sport.

IMHO it should not be buggered up by sailing it in run of the mill, cheap boats, so that you get a large, but mediocre turnout.

Needs to be a hi-tech plus big$$$ challenge to keep out the big noting wanna be's.

 

I've sailed boats up to 83' and down to 7' windsurfers, and helped build 11m multis and 7' windsurfers; so I've no vast big boat expertise but some idea of the differences in magnitude. Yes, the loads are bigger than a 40'er, but IMHO it's just a continuum of scale.

 

The 12s were, I think, the longest-serving AC class of all. The only 12 Metre regatta I did (the NYYC regatta off Newport, former home of the Cup) we had 4 AC winners on the line and I was on the bow of Weatherly. It wasn't orders of magnitude different to something like a typical contemporary boat of the time when those boats were built.

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the mainstream and the AC. Historically, the AC WAS mainstream. Reliance, the Js etc were just big versions of the mainstream yachts of their day. The Js were built to the same rule as the 25' S Boats. Reliance was built to the same linear rule as the 25' Seawanhaka Raters. The 12s were chosen as the biggest extant inshore class of their day, just 6 years after the 6 Metres AND 5.5 Metres had both been Olympic classes. A lot of the criticism of the 12s in their era centred on the fact that they were not mainstream enough at an era when offshore racing dominated.

 

The AC classes have traditionally been big versions of the mainstream grand-prix inshore classes. That does not apply with the AC72s.

 

Whether history is important is a matter of opinion (I think it is because I dislike poaching of an event by another discipline) but it is factually incorrect IMHO to try to say that historically the AC has been about major design innovations, rather than refinement of the mainstream.

 

 

Re "OK, this is starting to get a bit silly."

Why - because history is getting in the way?

Re "Let me ask a question, do you think there is any other sail boat on the planet that could beat an AC 72 or DZ or even the winged Stars and Stripes around a windward leeward race course?

Bleeding edge or not?"

Sure, there have been 3 AC series in which the fastest boats competed. There have also been about 30 in which the boats competing were not significantly faster than contemporary non-AC boats of their time, or when the AC boats were quite slow.

Why are we characterising the event by what it was like for 3 iterations and not what it was like for most of the other 30+?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image_zpsef2abf55.jpg

 

On a 40 footer, with opti mum string bikinis failing on impact against the finest gaff dacron!

 

Im excited!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Dunno if you have ever tried to design and build boats or other structures, but simple changes in scale can require immense advances in analysis, design and materials simply to stop the large structure failing under its own weight (think elephant sized insects, AR W1, Tacoma narrows bridge, modern skyscrapers, rail/road tunnels).

Figuring out how to get the change in scale to work is the innovation.

 

Agree, AC is not mainstream.

Who said it was?

Who wants it to be?

It is a unique event in sport.

IMHO it should not be buggered up by sailing it in run of the mill, cheap boats, so that you get a large, but mediocre turnout.

Needs to be a hi-tech plus big$$$ challenge to keep out the big noting wanna be's.

 

I've sailed boats up to 83' and down to 7' windsurfers, and helped build 11m multis and 7' windsurfers; so I've no vast big boat expertise but some idea of the differences in magnitude. Yes, the loads are bigger than a 40'er, but IMHO it's just a continuum of scale.

 

The 12s were, I think, the longest-serving AC class of all. The only 12 Metre regatta I did (the NYYC regatta off Newport, former home of the Cup) we had 4 AC winners on the line and I was on the bow of Weatherly. It wasn't orders of magnitude different to something like a typical contemporary boat of the time when those boats were built.

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the mainstream and the AC. Historically, the AC WAS mainstream. Reliance, the Js etc were just big versions of the mainstream yachts of their day. The Js were built to the same rule as the 25' S Boats. Reliance was built to the same linear rule as the 25' Seawanhaka Raters. The 12s were chosen as the biggest extant inshore class of their day, just 6 years after the 6 Metres AND 5.5 Metres had both been Olympic classes. A lot of the criticism of the 12s in their era centred on the fact that they were not mainstream enough at an era when offshore racing dominated.

 

The AC classes have traditionally been big versions of the mainstream grand-prix inshore classes. That does not apply with the AC72s.

 

Whether history is important is a matter of opinion (I think it is because I dislike poaching of an event by another discipline) but it is factually incorrect IMHO to try to say that historically the AC has been about major design innovations, rather than refinement of the mainstream.

 

 

Re "OK, this is starting to get a bit silly."

Why - because history is getting in the way?

Re "Let me ask a question, do you think there is any other sail boat on the planet that could beat an AC 72 or DZ or even the winged Stars and Stripes around a windward leeward race course?

Bleeding edge or not?"

Sure, there have been 3 AC series in which the fastest boats competed. There have also been about 30 in which the boats competing were not significantly faster than contemporary non-AC boats of their time, or when the AC boats were quite slow.

Why are we characterising the event by what it was like for 3 iterations and not what it was like for most of the other 30+?

OK, what about the original America? Was it the fastest sail boat around set course.

What about the Js and the boats the led up to the J's?

 

Why are you characterising the AC by relatively recent restrictive class rules intended to get more challengers involved, when the real rules produce the fastest course racing sail boats of all time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

 

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

 

Great post.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the original AC events, the yacht had to sail to the event under it's own steam, America crossed the Atlantic to race around the Island, and the J's sailed across the Atlantic to race against the US. All they need to do is to reinstate that rule, and we will have seaworthy boats - whatever size, mono or multihull, that will be safe......

 

Just my twopenneth...

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you will also have an insurmountable local advantage. As shown by the Js & their predecessors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you will also have an insurmountable local advantage. As shown by the Js & their predecessors.

Not if all boats need to conform to seaworthy scantlings. I think all of the grumbling about "own bottom" was misplaced. What ultimately loosened the NYYC's hold on the Cup was allowing a CSS to balance the DSS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you will also have an insurmountable local advantage. As shown by the Js & their predecessors.

I had already thought of that argument, half of the events are held at the current holders venue and half held at the Official challengers venue... That should mitigate home advantage....

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wandering Geo wrote;

Here's 3 off the top of my head:

Winged keel

How many do you see these days? It was basically a way around the International Rule's limit on fin keel depth.

Wings on boats over 25'

For a start, that's proving the point that the REAL innovation comes small boats like those under 25'.

Secondly, wingsails were used on boats over 25' like Guy Delarge's 60' (approx) proa around 1981 or the Walker Wingsail tri of the '70s.

Thirdly, wingsails and wing masts were very much a small boat invention, seen on things like International Canoes in the '30s and LF Herreshoff's Suicide around the same time.

So they AC is just riding, as usual, on small boat development and arguably simply making an impractical version of it.

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

 

 

 

Full foiling on sail boats over 25ft AC34Cer

Certainly not - apart from L'Hydroptere, there was Dave Culp's Williwaw which was a full foiling tri that crossed oceans decades ago.

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

No - first foam composite boat appears to have been the (Finn-like) O Jolles built by the daughter of Lindemann, creator of Airex, in the '50s. First composite AC boat were the '87 Kiwi 12 Metres, at least 9 years behind the first foam composite offshore racers like Boomerang (2nd, '68 Hobart).

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

>>

Steel masts

I think they were used in square riggers like Pamir?

 

Aluminium masts

????

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

Not sure - evidence? And IIRC it was a dead end due to electrolysis, anyway

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Biggest sloop by a bit - smaller than contemporary yachts in other classes. And her designer created a rule to ban such boats in favour of a more conservative, less 'leading edge' style.

Use of CFD

Evidence?

FRP big boats?

No - the Ocean 71 had done a round the world race about 14 years before the first FRP AC boat hit the water. The 73' Greybeard was also a foam/glass maxis in '72, 15 years before the first FRP AC boat.

 

Is the AC cutting edge? Sometimes in specific ways, but overall arguably not.

 

This AC will use a basic hull configuration developed in modern form by Prout etc 60 years ago; a mast style developed by Canoes and small cats 80-50 years ago; foils developed by big and small boats over the past 50 or 60 years; and construction methods (carbon over foam or Nomex??) developed by Parker Contenders about '70 and 505s, FDs and 18s a few years later.

 

The AC DID develop Reliance - a dead end that wasn't that much bigger than contemporary cutters and was smaller than schooners of her time. It may have developed duralimum (sp) masts, dip pole gybes and coffee grinder winches. That's nothing compared to what smaller and "mainstream" boats have done.

 

The PR about the AC being the leading edge is just PR, IMHO. And guys like Uffa Fox went into print saying the same thing, with specific examples, in the '30s. If it's any consolation, motoring writers like JK Sevewright (sp) point out the same thing about motor racing and car development.

OK, this is starting to get a bit silly.

Let me ask a question, do you think there is any other sail boat on the planet that could beat an AC 72 or DZ or even the winged Stars and Stripes around a windward leeward race course?

Bleeding edge or not?

And why should this matter ?

 

The America's Cup should be more than just the fastest boat on the planet .

 

Just because the 72 may be faster doesn't automatically mean its the best choice for the event .

 

Once we get through AC 34 and the results are in it will be interesting indeed to see what the new direction will be taken due to lessons learned . Hopefully those lessons will not cost much more than they already have but that's a lot to hope for at this stage .

 

Time will tell .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

The Deed of Gift is pretty clear in its intention.

Friendly race between nations.

Couple of limitations on dimensions and courses.

Not much else.

 

Only conclusion: Bring the fastest boat or lose!

 

Of course, the defender and challenger can water this down by mutual agreement, but at the essence is a quick boat.

 

What would you suggest as the primary boat choice criteria other than speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC72s are the best thing that has happened to yachting in a long time!

 

IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The event became corrupted by a period of encouraging fairly even boats that weren't too expensive, and there would be a long event and lots of interesting matches. This led to economic interests of the host becoming involved due to the crowds it drew.

 

It's back to what it was originally intended to be, a few mega-wealthy guys race a few unique boats, which means a short event and much smaller general interest.

 

I'd have it in much less expensive, nearly one-design boats again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, what about the original America? Was it the fastest sail boat around set course.

What about the Js and the boats the led up to the J's?

 

Why are you characterising the AC by relatively recent restrictive class rules intended to get more challengers involved, when the real rules produce the fastest course racing sail boats of all time?

 

America was NOT the fastest racing boat of her day. She was easily beaten by John Stevens' Maria in trials before she left NY. As the renowned writer/historian/leading-edge designer of the day (WP Stephens) wrote in his "History of American yachting", "that Maria won very easily was but natural" because Maria was a larger boat and an inshore racer. Lawson claimed that Maria sailed around America three times in a short period during the trials.

 

So from her very trials, America was NOT the fastest boat and NOT a radical boat.

 

Some people, including LF Herreshoff, say that she was actually quite lucky to win the race around the Wight; there were issues about the course and faster boats fouling out and going to assist others. Be that as it may, America had 13 wins in 53 races in her career (LF Herreshoff, Golden Age of Yachting) and people like Herreshoff refer to her superiority as a "myth" despite the fact that Nat held her up as a model of the type he loved to create himself.

 

WP Stephens wrote that the fleet America met was NOT representative of the best British boats, but merely of the boats owned by prominent yachtsmen who did regular races. He does believe (unlike others) that America was superior but notes "the

victory of the America had no effect whatever

on the progress of yacht design in her native

country" because most owners and designers ignored her "pilot schooner" hull and went for faster, more radical "skimming dish" centreboarders. So America was NOT "bleeding edge" herself in the USA.

 

Schuyler himself wrote that if the AC was not a test of sea-going qualities as well as speed, then it would "essentially detract" from the interest in the Cup. So an owner of America herself was NOT calling for bleeding-edge inshore boats, but for seaworthy yachts. Note that Schuyler himself referred to DoG challenge arrangements being there "in case" mutual consent could not be arrived at - he did NOT see DoG challenges as the norm!

 

The early schooners were NOT leading-edge boats, either. Nor, were the early "L x SA" rule cutters anything outstanding. For example, look at the 1893 AC boats. In UK waters, Valkyrie rated 153 - much lower than Satanita, only 1 higher than Britannia. The US defender Vigilant went to the UK after the AC and rated 169. There she was beaten over the line by Britannia (Valkyrie's near sister) 11 times out of 17 races. Vigilant was also rated slower than the Soper-designed Satanita. So the AC winner was NOT the fastest boat on the water, and neither was the challenger.

 

Britannia and Valkyrie were near sisters, which is yet another indication that the AC boats were NOT anything very different from the normal mainsteam non-AC big boats of the day. Let's not even get into the big cutter Germania, which was a bigger, faster version of Valkyrie....

 

As noted, the excesses oft he L x SA boats like Reliance were cured by Nat Herreshoff's rating rule - he of all men should have known what the AC was about and as is clear from his letters on the Mystic Seaport site, he believed that sense should rule over speed.

 

In the 1930s, the AC Challenger Shamrock V was rated equal with Astra and Candida (23 Metres), all of which were rated 1.2 seconds per mile SLOWER than Britannia. Later AC challengers were rated only about 3 seconds per mile faster than the majority of the "Big Class'. As late as 1934, the J Class era, the schooner Westward was the scratch boat in the UK Big Class, even up against the America's Cup Js.

 

As late as the 1930s there were racing schooners that could beat all the AC-type cutters in the right weather and had a higher top speed; the top speed recorded for a boat of the "America's Cup cutter" style was the 13.73 knots of Satanita, known as the fastest reacher of the Big Class, whereas in the schooners Rainbow hit 16 knots, Germania hit 15 knots, and Atlantic averaged 14.2 knots for over 24 hours. So in peak speeds, the AC boats were inferior to the schooners.

 

All of these boats were basically big and conservative versions of smaller Metre, Universal, and Linear rule boats. For lots of detail about this, see for example John Irvings 1930s book "The Racing Yacht Brittania".

 

Some idea of how the AC development leaned on info from smaller conventional class-racing boats comes from the fact that when the first post WW12 challenge was received, according to the man who would know best, "Because of

their light construction the committee decided to bar both Resolute

and Vanitie, built to defend the Cup in 19 14, from consideration as

cup-defense candidates. While these yachts were eligible under the

Racing Rules (they had been constructed prior to the adoption by

the Club of Lloyd's scantling rules), the committee deemed it for

the best interests of the sport to bar them, as the Challenger would

have to be of heavier construction to comply with Lloyd's rules. As

a result of this action, the Challenger could suffer no handicap in re-

spect to weight of hull construction."

 

That is from Harold S Vanderbilt, most successful owner of Js. So we have one of the greats of the AC pointing out that the lighter boats were PREVENTED FROM DEFENDING by the NYYC. That is hardly the stance of a club intending that the AC be raced in bleeding-edge technology.

 

The Js that were adopted for the challenge were simply one of a range of cutters and sloops under the Universal Rule that ran down to the 25'-ish "S Class", just as the Metre boats ran from 23 Metres to 5 Metres. They were NOT something unusual in basic design. See, for example, Uffa Fox's writings about how design practice in smaller Universal Rule and Metre boats, which lead the larger boats in development for reasons that Uffa explained, could be used to predict the future development of 23 Metres and Js.

 

As an example of how closely linked the AC boats were to smaller boats, Vanderbilt was so impressed by his smaller Universal Rule M Class Prestige (54' LWL) that he "suggested

that (designer Burgess) make the model of the (succcessful cup-defending J Class Enterprise) resemble that of Prestige

as nearly as possible."

 

The experience of the smaller Universal boats was used directly to ascertain the LOA of Enterprise, and choosing the correct LOA was seen by Vanderbilt as one of the two critical reasons she won the AC. "Comparative data were obtainable from ex-

isting boats only up to and including the M class 50 to 54 feet

waterline. The arguments in favor of the large boat were that in

yachts up to and including the M class, those with the maximum

waterline length and with the limit of displacement had proven to

be the fastest".

 

The facts are clear - almost all of the AC races have been under restrictive rules creating "normal" boats, because that is what people like the NYYC, Schuyler and others wanted. Those events were sailed in boats that were NOT bleeding edge, but refined and large versions of the standard inshore boats of their day.

 

It is these events that created the AC legend and made the AC what it is today, not the couple of DoG matches.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

I've been trying to think of a single innovation that's come out of the AC, and at the moment, the only thing I can come up with is 3Di. But it could be argued that it's another example of AC-style development - take an innovation that's happened outside sailing/the AC (load path sails - which has been an idea around for a while - radial cuts) and throw money at it.

 

Most development in sailing, fundamentally, is the result of development in materials. And that's all paid for by other people (aerospace).

 

Yep, and small boats are where the application of the new technology starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites