Archived

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

Editor

new rules

Recommended Posts

Anarchist Chris presents this as a new way forward for the America's Cup. What's yours?

 

The Boat:
1. 60' foiling cat out of a common symmetrical female mold. Each team can reinforce the hull for shrouds & centerboard locations as they please (goal is cost savings - Hull no longer touches water much so design is largely irrelevant).
2. Cross beams must disassemble from hulls for shipping (cost saver).
3. Mast two sections for ease of shipping (cost saver)
4. Wing mast. Contemplate a Spec spar (cost saver).
5. Standardize the centerboard bearing to a new common spec centerboard trunk/mechanism (cost saver).
6. Foils: Max four sets, possibly carbon only construction vs. Ti & carbon.
Advantages: easy shipping, build three hulls to have two and a spare in case of damage. Common centerboard trunks creates ability post event for teams to experiment and advance.

The Event:
1. Traveling roadshow to 4-6 city venues for 2 consecutive weekend events at each venue. Points from each event count to the challenger and defender selection, but not so many points can be achieved that anyone is mathematically badly handicapped before challenger finals in SF.
2. As boats are eliminated, activate fleet races for the ones that are out so those boats are still on the water - avoids one race/day problem and delivers guaranteed full summer of visibility for sponsors rather than visible until eliminated. The key to making golf interesting on TV is there are 18 holes going at once - lots more for the director to choose from. Great AC coverage in the past had the same thing, a rounding over here, a battle over there, back to another rounding, etc.
3. Finals in San Francisco - great venue for land viewing. Extend one leg to send the boats to a upwind mark 500 meters past the Gate. Iconic photo op and great viewing opportunity.
4. F1 has 4-5 other class races leading up to the big race each weekend - get the 45's out every day first, followed by the big kahuna main event each day. Absurd to drive into the city for one 35 minute race during the trials and then the day is over.

Rules Changes:
1. Nationality - 60% crew from nation of challenge
2. Eliminate or broaden course boundaries - have to be able to achieve true splits to different winds (both sides of Alcatraz would have been awesome).
3. Boat must finish with all crew members (absurd to be able to leave overboard members behind)
4. Change penalty to 100 meters if ahead and 50 meters if behind. Current two boat lengths is too painless; sailors will figure out that the risk/reward ratio favors pushing too far because the penalty is low.
5. Expand wind range and time limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a really interesting idea for a made-for-TV regatta.

 

Just not the America's Cup.

 

AC has always been, first and foremost, a design contest. Challenger builds the baddest boat they can within the agreed (or DoG) box, Defender builds the baddest boat they can, meet on the water. The sailing (and the "fairness" of the match) are almost incidental - the unique flavor of the Cup has always been in innovative technology, not corinthianism.

 

I think a regatta under those rules would be awesome to watch. Much like the Formula 40 circuit was in its day.

 

But I much prefer to have the AC still be a "cup of controversy". It's what makes it unique and interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not expensive enough. Seriously a cup program has to cost at least $50million or its not elitist enough and will lose its branding as the most elite event around. There are plently of other places to play if you dont have the budget. Keep the current open nationality rules. There are lots of Aussies and Kiwis that need jobs funded by the Northern hemisphere. I reckon a box rule based roughly on the dimensions of the AC72 but with open rules about the rig, foils and systems, but everything must be human, wind or water powered and no microprocessors at all, not even for navigation. To make it challenging it should be you can only run what you brung and you have to carry what you want to run in every race (identical spares allowed on shore or for replacement). I love the idea of sending them out past the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rules Changes:

1. Nationality - 60% crew from nation of challenge

2. Eliminate or broaden course boundaries - have to be able to achieve true splits to different winds (both sides of Alcatraz would have been awesome).

3. Boat must finish with all crew members (absurd to be able to leave overboard members behind)

4. Change penalty to 100 meters if ahead and 50 meters if behind. Current two boat lengths is too painless; sailors will figure out that the risk/reward ratio favors pushing too far because the penalty is low.

5. Expand wind range and time limit.

 

I like the natioality rule

 

Also, is very important to expand the race camp, the boundaries must be just a "recomended limit", so you can sail out of them at your own risk looking for wind.

 

Expand the lower limit and the time to finnish the race in order to let the tacticians make their work. The upper limit must be agreed by all the syndicates to have a safe event. The wind changes must be allowed.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the AC to the super rich or super sponsored. It becomes a huge spectacle that way.

The mystery and intrigue has filled these pages and many others.

There are already enough one design, 6KSB, dinky, cat, big boat and whatever regattas to satisfy the sailing masses.

 

If the water was warmer I would be quite happy sailing a Thistle or Hobie 18.

Would also help if I was 40 years younger.

 

Unkle Crusty. On my 34 foot 35 year old SB boat in Victoria BC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduce the amount of gadgets allowed!

Count down watch, mechanical or functionally equivalent compas. Basta!

Possibly a speedo and windspeed indicator and windex but really it would be better without as it would involve even more skill and judgement. But the skill aspect is only intresting if you have a nationality rule too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Chris has just described a great next generation step for the ACWS and how to make it a feeder for the LVC. But, there needs to be more open design rules when they step into the challenger and defender selection series and then the gloves come off when you get to the AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC is not supposed to be affordable. Remember, if we don't tax the rich they make jobs, like we can wash their jets and make their beds. OH and if you want a show, quit screwing around with cats when TRIMARANS hold most of the records in the world,Larry knew this to win the cup in the first place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the way to reduce the number of challengers is to make the teams that want to sail like it is a regatta compete to see which boat gets to represent The Challenging Club. The "CoR" should not change every time a new leader of the challenger pool emerges.

 

The Defender has the extra burden of hosting the event. The Defender and The Challenger *share* the responsibility of negotiating and reaching the MC terms for the match.

 

Other teams/clubs from the country that holds the Cup can't take the Cup home to their club, they have to sail for The Defender. Why should the challengers have options and incentives not available to the defender? The way it is now, challenging teams can come along for the ride and if they sail well they can get to the AC Match. If they win, they get to take the Cup back to their club with ZERO experience with the burden/responsibility/distraction of having been The Challenger.

 

People need to remember that all this little boat, many challenger BS makes it easy to challenge and win and very hard to defend. The playing field has become too challenger friendly. It is time to dial it back up to require a respectable level of investment.

 

The AC will never have F1 stature on a Minor League budget.

 

The AC rules are fine: One Defender, One Challenger, The Deed, and a metric shit ton of money and drama.

 

The AC should never get reduced to the level of just another regatta. If spending reaches the 20+ teams and $300 Million per year then you have a F1 level sport. Until that time you have a unique event for rich folk. Poor boys like me get to watch for free. How cool is that?

 

Randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Boat

I can't agree with any of these I'm afraid - a simple design rule should be introduced that states whether monohull, cat, tri + minimum & maximum LOA,LWL, Beam & leave it at that - design innovation is what the AC has always been about.

 

 

The Event

By all means create a series using the above boats BUT DO NOT tie it directly into participation of the LV/AC

 

 

Rules Changes

I agree with the 60% Nationality rule - but suggest it should state that it's applicable specifically to the boatcrew

I think the LV/AC should be sailed in open water as opposed to harbour or 'stadium' racing so the idea of course boundaries should be removed completely

I agree with the suggestion regarding number of crew starting and finishing a race

Penalties - I'd make them the same as any other type of racing - dependant on type of boat chosen of course

Time limit & Wind Range MUST be greater than we currently have - I would also like longer races and not just short reach-downwind-upwind-downwind-short reach either !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC is not supposed to be affordable. Remember, if we don't tax the rich they make jobs, like we can wash their jets and make their beds. OH and if you want a show, quit screwing around with cats when TRIMARANS hold most of the records in the world,Larry knew this to win the cup in the first place...

Oddly enough if the idea of 45-50 knot multis for course racing takes root we might see more trimaran like configurations. Someone will figure out that the load bearing central pod need not be a 'hull' but it would reduce the complexity and expense of the control systems to have them centralized. It might also become a design feature for crew survival and safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you described a thing call One Design Class boats and not the Americas Cup. you need to use the word Absurd in the same sentence as Americas cup or it would not be the Americas Cup. since when do the mega rich want to race in a fair race. they made their money the old fashion way, they cheated someone out of it. so why would they want to win fairly. There is no sport in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with most of the above. This looks a lot like Coutts' cat circuit. But America's Cup it ain't. Great practice and training and visibility though.

 

AC has always been about two egocentric billionaires or billionaire syndicates having a pissing match using the most extreme sailboats imaginable, designed to some agreed limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich guys spending a ton of money on sailboat design and construction benefits all of us. Cutting 50% of the innovation so Korea can play seems like a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some of you might forget but the boundaries around alcatraz weren't set by just the AC or Larry. what you suggest would shut the harbor down to freighter traffic. Hell even at AC park there were cruise ships that were docking on a regular basis. You can not shut down the entire bay for 4 hours to run a race for billionaires. ever other boater, shipper, would get pissed. Not that anyone here cares about any one else. Watch the background some time during the races. you had ferries, and freighters chugging along in the background.

 

A slightly smaller boat, and soft sails is the better way forward. That would free up shore crew. and Lower costs.

 

a 60% nationality on the boat crew isn't bad though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that an event fee could cover the cost of the Coast Guard , Harbor Master and Harbor Pilots to be able to escort vessels through the windward end of the course when the competitors were not in that part of the course. It's just a matter of traffic control. How motivated are we to put on a great event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one-design lovers aren't going to give up until everyone has the same fucking boat in every regatta in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the 60' length and the hull mold idea, I don't to the daggerboard mountings, but that part of the rule should be tightened-up. I think the AC45's should live on in the AC World Series, the '60's should be for the AC only. The stadium racing idea with the boundaries his excellent, should stay in place, perhaps lengthening the first leg if possible. The protocol for wind should be wider, both at the bottom and top of the range. I am not sure you can use a fully carbon rudder foil on boats that size; Titanium reinforcement? I don't really care about the nationality requirement. I don't know how that helps the sport as much or more than having an expanding pro sailor contingent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anarchist Chris presents this as a new way forward for the America's Cup. What's yours?

 

The Boat:

1. 60' foiling cat out of a common symmetrical female mold. Each team can reinforce the hull for shrouds & centerboard locations as they please (goal is cost savings - Hull no longer touches water much so design is largely irrelevant).

2. Cross beams must disassemble from hulls for shipping (cost saver).

3. Mast two sections for ease of shipping (cost saver)

4. Wing mast. Contemplate a Spec spar (cost saver).

5. Standardize the centerboard bearing to a new common spec centerboard trunk/mechanism (cost saver).

6. Foils: Max four sets, possibly carbon only construction vs. Ti & carbon.

Advantages: easy shipping, build three hulls to have two and a spare in case of damage. Common centerboard trunks creates ability post event for teams to experiment and advance.

 

The Event:

1. Traveling roadshow to 4-6 city venues for 2 consecutive weekend events at each venue. Points from each event count to the challenger and defender selection, but not so many points can be achieved that anyone is mathematically badly handicapped before challenger finals in SF.

2. As boats are eliminated, activate fleet races for the ones that are out so those boats are still on the water - avoids one race/day problem and delivers guaranteed full summer of visibility for sponsors rather than visible until eliminated. The key to making golf interesting on TV is there are 18 holes going at once - lots more for the director to choose from. Great AC coverage in the past had the same thing, a rounding over here, a battle over there, back to another rounding, etc.

3. Finals in San Francisco - great venue for land viewing. Extend one leg to send the boats to a upwind mark 500 meters past the Gate. Iconic photo op and great viewing opportunity.

4. F1 has 4-5 other class races leading up to the big race each weekend - get the 45's out every day first, followed by the big kahuna main event each day. Absurd to drive into the city for one 35 minute race during the trials and then the day is over.

 

Rules Changes:

1. Nationality - 60% crew from nation of challenge

2. Eliminate or broaden course boundaries - have to be able to achieve true splits to different winds (both sides of Alcatraz would have been awesome).

3. Boat must finish with all crew members (absurd to be able to leave overboard members behind)

4. Change penalty to 100 meters if ahead and 50 meters if behind. Current two boat lengths is too painless; sailors will figure out that the risk/reward ratio favors pushing too far because the penalty is low.

5. Expand wind range and time limit.

 

Interesting thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is simple. Continue with the 72's as the development is well underway. Scrap the wing sail and go back to a rotating wing section (controlled dimentions) and soft sails. Huge savings realized. The last thing the Ame Cup needs is to become just another regatta.....keep it expensive and elitist.....so what, that's what it always has been and is why it's still going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anarchist Chris presents this as a new way forward for the America's Cup. What's yours?

 

The Boat:

1. 60' foiling cat out of a common symmetrical female mold. Each team can reinforce the hull for shrouds & centerboard locations as they please (goal is cost savings - Hull no longer touches water much so design is largely irrelevant).

2. Cross beams must disassemble from hulls for shipping (cost saver).

3. Mast two sections for ease of shipping (cost saver)

4. Wing mast. Contemplate a Spec spar (cost saver).

5. Standardize the centerboard bearing to a new common spec centerboard trunk/mechanism (cost saver).

6. Foils: Max four sets, possibly carbon only construction vs. Ti & carbon.

Advantages: easy shipping, build three hulls to have two and a spare in case of damage. Common centerboard trunks creates ability post event for teams to experiment and advance.

 

The Event:

1. Traveling roadshow to 4-6 city venues for 2 consecutive weekend events at each venue. Points from each event count to the challenger and defender selection, but not so many points can be achieved that anyone is mathematically badly handicapped before challenger finals in SF.

2. As boats are eliminated, activate fleet races for the ones that are out so those boats are still on the water - avoids one race/day problem and delivers guaranteed full summer of visibility for sponsors rather than visible until eliminated. The key to making golf interesting on TV is there are 18 holes going at once - lots more for the director to choose from. Great AC coverage in the past had the same thing, a rounding over here, a battle over there, back to another rounding, etc.

3. Finals in San Francisco - great venue for land viewing. Extend one leg to send the boats to a upwind mark 500 meters past the Gate. Iconic photo op and great viewing opportunity.

4. F1 has 4-5 other class races leading up to the big race each weekend - get the 45's out every day first, followed by the big kahuna main event each day. Absurd to drive into the city for one 35 minute race during the trials and then the day is over.

 

Rules Changes:

1. Nationality - 60% crew from nation of challenge

2. Eliminate or broaden course boundaries - have to be able to achieve true splits to different winds (both sides of Alcatraz would have been awesome).

3. Boat must finish with all crew members (absurd to be able to leave overboard members behind)

4. Change penalty to 100 meters if ahead and 50 meters if behind. Current two boat lengths is too painless; sailors will figure out that the risk/reward ratio favors pushing too far because the penalty is low.

5. Expand wind range and time limit.

 

Interesting thoughts

In other words, make the AC essentially the TP52 circuit on steroids, instead of the ultimate technology, design and sailing challenge among the world's elite teams/clubs/nations. Which is what it has been since its inception and why it is still going.

 

And which is why the guys at my gym know all about foiling and wing sails and capsizes and comebacks and the AC and couldn't name a single other international sailing event..well they are kind of aware its part of the Olympics.

 

(And sailing 500 meters past the GG Bridge for a photo-op in foiiing catamarans is just - uhmm - a really bad idea. Just getting close worked out well for Oracle B-1 didn't it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st: Not sure changing the boat would be cheaper. In fact you could make the arguement that keeping the 72s would be cheaper. After all you have 5-6 of them, teams could buy old boats and rework them. But It wont get your around the need for so much ground crew.

 

 

2. I like the development/design contest of the Am cup. Its in every sport, look at Nascar, F1 etc there is a box rule ( all be it pretty tight) and they are forced to inovate inside the rules.

3. Affordability arguements are a joke anyway. Everyone says more nations, more teams, like the old days. Going back 100 years it was SIr Thomas Lipton racing. In equivelent terms that is like Larry Ellison racing. So nothing as really changed. Also in the past cups in NZ/Spain there were only a few teams that even had the slightest chance of winning the LV series. So basically you could argue that it was bogus too. You have 3-4 people that are super rich and are also super into sailing. They do the AM CUP. They want to make it look like the Olympics or someother event to stoke their ego, so they give their old boats to Korea, or One Austrailia, etc etc.

 

4. Nationality. It would be good to see at least more nationality on the boats. But its a competition between Yacht Clubs not Nations. So name a pro sports team that isnt stocked with the best talent, regardless of nationality. If you want to route for AMERICA, donate to an OLYMPIC Campaign!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is simple. Continue with the 72's as the development is well underway. Scrap the wing sail and go back to a rotating wing section (controlled dimentions) and soft sails. Huge savings realized. The last thing the Ame Cup needs is to become just another regatta.....keep it expensive and elitist.....so what, that's what it always has been and is why it's still going.

Agree to con tinue with the 72's but question: changing to wing mast and soft sails, wouldn't change all the design conception, loads are much more, and, will they foil if they are heavier and don't have wings? the techies turn to answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if making it less expensive is the objective, why not a Spend Cap. anything goes withing a class rule (AC72 or 65 or ...) but total campaign spend not to exceed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anarchist Chris presents this as a new way forward for the America's Cup. What's yours?

 

The Boat:

1. 60' foiling cat out of a common symmetrical female mold. Each team can reinforce the hull for shrouds & centerboard locations as they please (goal is cost savings - Hull no longer touches water much so design is largely irrelevant).

2. Cross beams must disassemble from hulls for shipping (cost saver).

3. Mast two sections for ease of shipping (cost saver)

4. Wing mast. Contemplate a Spec spar (cost saver).

5. Standardize the centerboard bearing to a new common spec centerboard trunk/mechanism (cost saver).

6. Foils: Max four sets, possibly carbon only construction vs. Ti & carbon.

Advantages: easy shipping, build three hulls to have two and a spare in case of damage. Common centerboard trunks creates ability post event for teams to experiment and advance.

 

The Event:

1. Traveling roadshow to 4-6 city venues for 2 consecutive weekend events at each venue. Points from each event count to the challenger and defender selection, but not so many points can be achieved that anyone is mathematically badly handicapped before challenger finals in SF.

2. As boats are eliminated, activate fleet races for the ones that are out so those boats are still on the water - avoids one race/day problem and delivers guaranteed full summer of visibility for sponsors rather than visible until eliminated. The key to making golf interesting on TV is there are 18 holes going at once - lots more for the director to choose from. Great AC coverage in the past had the same thing, a rounding over here, a battle over there, back to another rounding, etc.

3. Finals in San Francisco - great venue for land viewing. Extend one leg to send the boats to a upwind mark 500 meters past the Gate. Iconic photo op and great viewing opportunity.

4. F1 has 4-5 other class races leading up to the big race each weekend - get the 45's out every day first, followed by the big kahuna main event each day. Absurd to drive into the city for one 35 minute race during the trials and then the day is over.

 

Rules Changes:

1. Nationality - 60% crew from nation of challenge

2. Eliminate or broaden course boundaries - have to be able to achieve true splits to different winds (both sides of Alcatraz would have been awesome).

3. Boat must finish with all crew members (absurd to be able to leave overboard members behind)

4. Change penalty to 100 meters if ahead and 50 meters if behind. Current two boat lengths is too painless; sailors will figure out that the risk/reward ratio favors pushing too far because the penalty is low.

5. Expand wind range and time limit.

 

Interesting thoughts

In other words, make the AC essentially the TP52 circuit on steroids, instead of the ultimate technology, design and sailing challenge among the world's elite teams/clubs/nations. Which is what it has been since its inception and why it is still going.

 

And which is why the guys at my gym know all about foiling and wing sails and capsizes and comebacks and the AC and couldn't name a single other international sailing event..well they are kind of aware its part of the Olympics.

 

(And sailing 500 meters past the GG Bridge for a photo-op in foiiing catamarans is just - uhmm - a really bad idea. Just getting close worked out well for Oracle B-1 didn't it.)

But I thought Your Gym was The Sloop!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally like the rules proposed above - I think the AC 72s are history-making boats on the order of the J boats - but hey, if you really believe in them, find a backer or put a syndicate together, win the cup from LE in AC35, and make it happen. I realize 'inclusivity' is important to a lot of people, but I just don't think it applies to the AC, which has - and always will be - a rich man's game.

 

As a kid, I got to spend some time in the NYYC model room. All the boats in the history of the cup - until the 12 meters - represented the apex of sailing technology, executed on the grandest possible scale. That all went away with the 12 meters, at a time when - not coincidentally - the titans of industry and mega wealthy who financed the campaigns were mostly replaced by syndicates. But now it's back - and to me, the AC 72s are a new millenium realization of the original spirit of the cup. The fact that they are being raced at a spectacular venue like the SF where people can actually watch is just a mind blowing bonus.

 

If it were me, I'd make some minor changes to the rule in the context of foiling - allow adjustable rudder elevators, for example - that would keep most of the existing boats competitive with minor mods, and have at it. Because I don't see how it could get much better than this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thunking the requirement for crew should be dropped. I mean, was Jimmy's wheel even connected to the rudders? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Surf Sailor, very profound.

 

Foiling here to stay, and allow active control (with rules specific to that)

 

Keep the wing, it was the one part of the cup this time that isnt mentioned enough, but that is definetly part of the new look.

 

Maybe a consideration to nationality rules. But I remember the shuffle of people relocating and getting new passports anyways, how do you regulate that? And obviously the small teams suffer...

 

One idea to move forward, the 72's were great as we witnessed. Does it make sense to scale down to 60 ft to make launching for shore crew easier and safer...and scaled down would make cheaper generally?

 

Hey surfsailer, what your take on that, still big boats, maybe right size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally like the rules proposed above - I think the AC 72s are history-making boats on the order of the J boats - but hey, if you really believe in them, find a backer or put a syndicate together, win the cup from LE in AC35, and make it happen. I realize 'inclusivity' is important to a lot of people, but I just don't think it applies to the AC, which has - and always will be - a rich man's game.

 

As a kid, I got to spend some time in the NYYC model room. All the boats in the history of the cup - until the 12 meters - represented the apex of sailing technology, executed on the grandest possible scale. That all went away with the 12 meters, at a time when - not coincidentally - the titans of industry and mega wealthy who financed the campaigns were mostly replaced by syndicates. But now it's back - and to me, the AC 72s are a new millenium realization of the original spirit of the cup. The fact that they are being raced at a spectacular venue like the SF where people can actually watch is just a mind blowing bonus.

 

If it were me, I'd make some minor changes to the rule in the context of foiling - allow adjustable rudder elevators, for example - that would keep most of the existing boats competitive with minor mods, and have at it. Because I don't see how it could get much better than this.

 

 

Bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Surf Sailor, very profound.

 

Foiling here to stay, and allow active control (with rules specific to that)

 

Keep the wing, it was the one part of the cup this time that isnt mentioned enough, but that is definetly part of the new look.

 

Maybe a consideration to nationality rules. But I remember the shuffle of people relocating and getting new passports anyways, how do you regulate that? And obviously the small teams suffer...

 

One idea to move forward, the 72's were great as we witnessed. Does it make sense to scale down to 60 ft to make launching for shore crew easier and safer...and scaled down would make cheaper generally?

 

Hey surfsailer, what your take on that, still big boats, maybe right size?

 

60s would be a little cheaper, but they already have six 72s that could certainly be made viable. Why throw them in the bin? I also think that the logistics costs would be similar regardless of boat size, so the small savings in individual boat cost would not really suddenly open doors to less-funded challengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I see your point, there already exist these 6 72's...lots of talk about these beast being allot to handle, and would going to smaller size leapfrogging on what was learned from the 72's in a new class be more attractive to new challengers? And get the formula right? Are they to intimidating by the prospect of the 72's in general?

 

Anybody involved with the recent cup on the ground want to enlighten us? Did the boats get less daunting to launch and handle (shore crew) as the LV and cup came on?

 

Think of the 72's as an experiment to test out these ideas and at the very least grab the worlds attention in a big way. Larry and Russ knew that for sure. My feeling is that scaling down (but make the boat big enough to have an imposing presence) would expodentionally cut cost? 12 ft could make a substantial difference perhaps in terms a scale of loads and wing area and height ect...

 

But if the skinny that the boats are mangable now thru experiense (but still require the best sailors obviously) I'm intrigued by using the existing boats to fold into the next cup cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is simple. Continue with the 72's as the development is well underway. Scrap the wing sail and go back to a rotating wing section (controlled dimentions) and soft sails. Huge savings realized. The last thing the Ame Cup needs is to become just another regatta.....keep it expensive and elitist.....so what, that's what it always has been and is why it's still going.

I don't think you guys understand wings and the fact that they place far less load on the boat than do conventional sails. To do as suggested above, you'd have build far more robust and heave structures to support the loads. The boat would weigh significantly more, and the foils would also have to be larger and more massive to get the thing flying.

 

Plus, a jib is good for something like 90 tacks. How many soft sails would you have to put in the quiver in order to train, be competitive in the LVC and go on to compete in the cup.

 

I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm thinking you aren't going to save much money by going to soft sails.

 

Besides, if you are worried about costs, you are playing in the wrong sandbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the regatta starts, require the engineering details to all be public. None of this "we just bonded as a team" garbage.

There was a time when all those details were made public (or least available to the competitors) at the conclusion of the event. That seemed to have stopped sometime during the IACC period. When and why was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once the regatta starts, require the engineering details to all be public. None of this "we just bonded as a team" garbage.

There was a time when all those details were made public (or least available to the competitors) at the conclusion of the event. That seemed to have stopped sometime during the IACC period. When and why was that?

About the time that keeping your sponsors and becoming sailing whores driving billboards around replaced a summer of friends having fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the nationality rule apply to designers and construction, and major components like spars and sails. The American boat should be designed in the USA by Americans, built here, using American sails and/or wings, same for the Aussies, Kiwis, Italians, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The America's Cup has never been about fair, or affordable. It's a shit slinging fest for people that can afford as many lawyers as designers. If you don't like it, don't play; and if you're doing it for your own ego, you don't get your name on the damn trophy...unless you name the boat after yourself or your company.

 

I loved the idea of course boundaries. Last Thursday I watched the opening races of the BBS. The MOD 70 Orion used virtually the entire bay to get to the weather mark. Really? That's what you'd find interesting? That would be like having an F1 race on city streets where you could drive anywhere you want except that you'd have to finish at one specific intersection. No thank you, I've become a huge fan of stadium racing, and if you want to see it on TV again, you better hope they stick with the concept, or something very much like it on open water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anarchist Chris presents this as a new way forward for the America's Cup. What's yours?

 

The Boat:

1. 60' foiling cat out of a common symmetrical female mold. Each team can reinforce the hull for shrouds & centerboard locations as they please (goal is cost savings - Hull no longer touches water much so design is largely irrelevant).

2. Cross beams must disassemble from hulls for shipping (cost saver).

3. Mast two sections for ease of shipping (cost saver)

4. Wing mast. Contemplate a Spec spar (cost saver).

5. Standardize the centerboard bearing to a new common spec centerboard trunk/mechanism (cost saver).

6. Foils: Max four sets, possibly carbon only construction vs. Ti & carbon.

Advantages: easy shipping, build three hulls to have two and a spare in case of damage. Common centerboard trunks creates ability post event for teams to experiment and advance.

 

The Event:

1. Traveling roadshow to 4-6 city venues for 2 consecutive weekend events at each venue. Points from each event count to the challenger and defender selection, but not so many points can be achieved that anyone is mathematically badly handicapped before challenger finals in SF.

2. As boats are eliminated, activate fleet races for the ones that are out so those boats are still on the water - avoids one race/day problem and delivers guaranteed full summer of visibility for sponsors rather than visible until eliminated. The key to making golf interesting on TV is there are 18 holes going at once - lots more for the director to choose from. Great AC coverage in the past had the same thing, a rounding over here, a battle over there, back to another rounding, etc.

3. Finals in San Francisco - great venue for land viewing. Extend one leg to send the boats to a upwind mark 500 meters past the Gate. Iconic photo op and great viewing opportunity.

4. F1 has 4-5 other class races leading up to the big race each weekend - get the 45's out every day first, followed by the big kahuna main event each day. Absurd to drive into the city for one 35 minute race during the trials and then the day is over.

 

Rules Changes:

1. Nationality - 60% crew from nation of challenge

2. Eliminate or broaden course boundaries - have to be able to achieve true splits to different winds (both sides of Alcatraz would have been awesome).

3. Boat must finish with all crew members (absurd to be able to leave overboard members behind)

4. Change penalty to 100 meters if ahead and 50 meters if behind. Current two boat lengths is too painless; sailors will figure out that the risk/reward ratio favors pushing too far because the penalty is low.

5. Expand wind range and time limit.

Sounds great. When you have $40+ Billion, and win the cup, you can make the changes that the DoG allow. Until then, it's all a wet pipe-dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this for a left field suggestion to keep costs down:

You can build two boats only per AC cycle

You may not race/sail boat 1 against boat 2

You turn up for the match with your chosen boat maxed out and ready to race. You should have had a year to get to that point.

You can measure it in no more than two (2) modes ( light and heavy air)

You race ... but you can't change anything after the start of the first race other than switching between the two measured modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

+1 Surf Sailor, very profound.

 

Foiling here to stay, and allow active control (with rules specific to that)

 

Keep the wing, it was the one part of the cup this time that isnt mentioned enough, but that is definetly part of the new look.

 

Maybe a consideration to nationality rules. But I remember the shuffle of people relocating and getting new passports anyways, how do you regulate that? And obviously the small teams suffer...

 

One idea to move forward, the 72's were great as we witnessed. Does it make sense to scale down to 60 ft to make launching for shore crew easier and safer...and scaled down would make cheaper generally?

 

Hey surfsailer, what your take on that, still big boats, maybe right size?

60s would be a little cheaper, but they already have six 72s that could certainly be made viable. Why throw them in the bin? I also think that the logistics costs would be similar regardless of boat size, so the small savings in individual boat cost would not really suddenly open doors to less-funded challengers.

They have to slow the boats down a bit on the reaching legs because they are having problems with the foils cavitating. Probably the easiest way to do this is to make the boats smaller because it solves other problems as well: smaller boats will be cheaper and they should be safer and easier to recover after a capsize or pitchpole.

 

The argument that they have existing 72s only gets worse over time. If they stick with 72s they will have many more after AC35 and it will be very hard to change, so it would be better to do it now when there are only a few existing boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me:

 

OD wing design...30m or so. One interface control document that describes how the wing interfaces with the vehicle. Everyone starts out with essentially the same horsepower so the design contest is how you translate that horsepower into motion through the water.

 

Box rule for hull and beam structures. Minimum scantlings described in rule so we don't have another Juan K fuck up. IOW, go out and play, but don't be stupid.

 

Foil design is fair game. Max length and chord specified in rule. Boards shall not be dynamically adjustable to impact pitch. Rudders may have dynamic pitch authority that is directed through manual input at the helm. Maximum rudder dimensions to be specified.

 

No direct mechanical or electrical connectIon between boat sensors (pitch, roll, yaw, relative rates, acceleration, and vessel speed including sog and bspd) and ANY pitch and roll control mechanism. Pitch and roll control SHALL be manually controlled by specific pitch and roll control inputs. Electronics are cheap...but the crew needs to sail the boat.

 

Boat has to be built in the sponsoring nation. Components may be manufactured anywhere.

 

Nationality: Sailing team 33.3% to start.

Design team shall be from the sponsoring nation. It really is a friendly contest amongst nation's designs is it not?

 

Launch facilities, equipment, and personnel to be provided by the Event Authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's already a one design circuit, its called MOD 70s, and they can cross oceans.

 

This is the Americas Cup. It wont change. If you can afford to compete, fine, if you cant then watch.

 

Its a great spectacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC17

 

17 meters long

8 meters wide

25 meter tall

4 meters deep

 

Very few other rules. I think this will be big enough to make it grand and exciting, but small enough that a pucky small team with a few tens of millions can make a go at it. The big teams will build several, and be zipping around the bay. The small teams will build one or two and rely on great ideas and youthful enthusiasm to try and be giant killers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone's frightened about cavitating foils, and wants to slow the boats/insist on smaller ones? Heck, AC is a development program. Encourage the teams to find solutions or super-cavitating folis. Paul did at Vestas Sailrocket, on 1/100 of the budget. It will all trickle down, like dacron sails, aluminium masts, 3-speed winches, you name it....

 

Or should I hire a man with a red flag to walk in front of my car to stop me going over 3mph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh fuck it. Want an expensive and awesome spectacle? Want some real sailing and not some high tech computer generated race? Bring back the J boats. Big ass, classy behemoths. Get rid of the high tech gear and leave it to humans to make the calls.

 

If you want to do tech, then just make 70 foot foiling cats and set them up for computer control. But, if you a BOAT RACE. Put humans in monohulls.

 

Sound old fashioned? Yeah, I guess it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all about ensuring that brands can afford to support the sailing, because without them, the event won't happen.

 

Objective

- Increase the number of developing countries participating

- provide stepping stones WITHIN the Cup for teams to move from dipping the toes in the water to winning the cup including development of crews necessary to contest and win the cup

- Maintain the prestige of the 'big event' a full on design contest without dilution

- maintain mix of fleet and match racing, with the Amcup itself staying as a match raced design contest

- leverage big teams in other parts of sailing who may be unable to enter the AMCup due to nationality, cost, budget issues

- create media friendly spectacle where racing is ALWAYS shown using a mix of classes to ensure that racing can ALWAYS be run (no more postponements for too much wind, standardised media package for all markets, increased interest in developing markets through increased participation)

- create multi branded/ multi budget platform for sponsors

- increase coverage for sponsors of lower level budgets

 

Solution

 

- America's cup comprises a festival of sailing with 4 divisions: OD small monohull, OD small multi DEV large monohull DEV multi; cup is raced in the development multihull class

OD mono = sportsboat containerable standardised 6-8m, 4 person, only flexibility allowed in sails

OD multi = 28-33 foot containerable standardised, 4 person, only flexibility allowed in sails

DEV mono = GP42/TP52 or similar type boat, 10/12 person within a box rule

DEV multi = AC72 with similar restraints to AC34 (i.e. not many)

- 3 new trophies created alongside the AmCup for each of the divisions; 1 new trophy created for a team championship (ALA formula 1)

- Each team should enter at least 1 of the 4 leagues, and it is mandatory for any team contesting the DEV multi class (the America's Cup) to also be racing one of the other divisions; team trophy judged with points generated for each division and double points for the DEV multi

- OD rights of smaller classes sold to a single major sponsor within the LVMH brand portfolio or in a sports brand portfolio

- trophy rights within the larger classes sold to a single major sponsor ALA LV trophy

- sail advertising of the 3 non Amcup classes set aside in certain races to must feature AMCUP messages and branding

- cooperation with the major classes that already exist for 3 of the 4 categories

 

Format

- 'Acts' but named something that isn't nearly as lame, held around the world, with a roaming circus stopping by in multiple markets

- regional divisions heats accumulate points, leading to a major festival of sailing held during period of Amcup with finals

- OD and mono DEV all race a variety of fleet races and match races including distance races and other formats, with camera work and technology filtering down from the AC34

- AMCUP holds at best of 7 match racing with a better thought out course, because the format of racing enables cut aways to other classes, there is more to hold interest for a 2 hour broadcast (instead of trying to fit everything in for 1)

- 1 race per day format

- if AMCUP only has 2 teams, then so be it, the rest of the events allows multiple teams to contest with new personalities, new lower budgets, etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all about ensuring that brands can afford to support the sailing, because without them, the event won't happen.

Then gift a perpetual challenge cup to your yacht club and define the terms.

 

The AC will happen without brands. All the AC needs is two egos with boats. The AC will happen ... there is no real shortage of rich guys with egos. All the rest is so people that can't afford to play at the AC level can sell billboard space. The real players in the AC don't need the riff-raff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the AC72s

Keep the foiling, but make it simpler, trim tabs

Small hyd accumulator allowed

Set some tech rules on what is banned, what is allowed

One new boat allowed (v2)

Team can have max 2 boats,v1 + v2

But teams can sell old v1 boats to other teams

Restrict controls , elements on the wings

No gps for crew, no on board vpp software

5-28knots wind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anarchist Chris presents this as a new way forward for the America's Cup. What's yours?

 

The Boat:

1. 60' foiling cat out of a common symmetrical female mold. Each team can reinforce the hull for shrouds & centerboard locations as they please (goal is cost savings - Hull no longer touches water much so design is largely irrelevant).

2. Cross beams must disassemble from hulls for shipping (cost saver).

3. Mast two sections for ease of shipping (cost saver)

4. Wing mast. Contemplate a Spec spar (cost saver).

5. Standardize the centerboard bearing to a new common spec centerboard trunk/mechanism (cost saver).

6. Foils: Max four sets, possibly carbon only construction vs. Ti & carbon.

Advantages: easy shipping, build three hulls to have two and a spare in case of damage. Common centerboard trunks creates ability post event for teams to experiment and advance.

 

The Event:

1. Traveling roadshow to 4-6 city venues for 2 consecutive weekend events at each venue. Points from each event count to the challenger and defender selection, but not so many points can be achieved that anyone is mathematically badly handicapped before challenger finals in SF.

2. As boats are eliminated, activate fleet races for the ones that are out so those boats are still on the water - avoids one race/day problem and delivers guaranteed full summer of visibility for sponsors rather than visible until eliminated. The key to making golf interesting on TV is there are 18 holes going at once - lots more for the director to choose from. Great AC coverage in the past had the same thing, a rounding over here, a battle over there, back to another rounding, etc.

3. Finals in San Francisco - great venue for land viewing. Extend one leg to send the boats to a upwind mark 500 meters past the Gate. Iconic photo op and great viewing opportunity.

4. F1 has 4-5 other class races leading up to the big race each weekend - get the 45's out every day first, followed by the big kahuna main event each day. Absurd to drive into the city for one 35 minute race during the trials and then the day is over.

 

Rules Changes:

1. Nationality - 60% crew from nation of challenge

2. Eliminate or broaden course boundaries - have to be able to achieve true splits to different winds (both sides of Alcatraz would have been awesome).

3. Boat must finish with all crew members (absurd to be able to leave overboard members behind)

4. Change penalty to 100 meters if ahead and 50 meters if behind. Current two boat lengths is too painless; sailors will figure out that the risk/reward ratio favors pushing too far because the penalty is low.

5. Expand wind range and time limit.

 

Why the sudden interest ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. change the AC45's to foiling cats. Run that as the main circuit

2. For the AC and LVC only (every 3-4 years):

 

  • Max length 20m (lets get metric guys)
  • Human driven stored power only
  • Some Nationality Requirement such as:
    • Skipper, 50% crew, 50% of shore crew
    • 75% of custom components (wings, foils, hulls, etc but not OTC gear)

That's it. Otherwise open slather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. change the AC45's to foiling cats. Run that as the main circuit

2. For the AC and LVC only (every 3-4 years):

 

  • Max length 20m (lets get metric guys)
  • Human driven stored power only
  • Some Nationality Requirement such as:
    • Skipper, 50% crew, 50% of shore crew
    • 75% of custom components (wings, foils, hulls, etc but not OTC gear)

That's it. Otherwise open slather.

 

 

If you have AC45s as the main circuit then who cares whether a team wins the AC? Why wouldn't teams just race in the AC45s? It's much cheaper and if you don't go well then you can always try again next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because the AC is about spectacle. Build the skills in the affordable class, keep the big toys for the special event.

If the same boat is seen all through the cycle, why is this any different from what is already about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. change the AC45's to foiling cats. Run that as the main circuit

2. For the AC and LVC only (every 3-4 years):

 

  • Max length 20m (lets get metric guys)
  • Human driven stored power only
  • Some Nationality Requirement such as:
    • Skipper, 50% crew, 50% of shore crew
    • 75% of custom components (wings, foils, hulls, etc but not OTC gear)

That's it. Otherwise open slather.

Yup Agreed. but zero on the shore crew. Because all this stuff is basically contract work anyway - seriously, if OTUSA uses an Oracle Database, much of which is written in Bangalore - does that mean they can't use it???

 

No mechanical control of the foils these guys showed you could get to that level of skill. you just have to start sooner.

 

Agreed that an AC 45 circuit would do much to keep the TV ratings up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how to enforce nationality on skipper. Unless you mean helmsman, a team could name anyone the skipper, and then someone else on the boat could actually play the role. And I think nationality requirements end up increasing costs, because some teams will end up hiring people and making them have the right nationality, which is expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - Driver not Skipper

Use the Olympic or ISAF (same think) nationality rules. If people want to buy talent and said talent is willing to change countries, the so be it.

To make it difficult, you could make it that the nationality test applies over say 2 years prior to the cup, so that anyone changing nationalities would have to make the change early and could even end up sitting out a cup cycle.

The other thing to do is to limit exotic materials.

 

so new list

  • Max length 20m
  • Human driven stored power only
  • no computer control
  • limits on exotics
  • Some Nationality Requirement such as:
    • Helm, 50% crew, 50% of shore crew (2 year qualifying period)
    • 75% of custom components (wings, foils, hulls, etc but not OTC gear)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how to enforce nationality on skipper. Unless you mean helmsman, a team could name anyone the skipper, and then someone else on the boat could actually play the role. And I think nationality requirements end up increasing costs, because some teams will end up hiring people and making them have the right nationality, which is expensive.

Easy. Look at their passport. Every country that might have a yacht club that qualifies to challenge for the Cup also has immigration and nationality laws. Just use those. It ain't rocket surgery. B)

 

Every country that might have a yacht club that qualifies to challenge for the Cup also has rules/laws for vessels that can be registered to that nation. Use those to qualify a vessel as from the same country as the Club that is challenging or defending.

 

KISS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly what happened, is it? The CoR changed as the initial CoR dropped out.

"The "CoR" should not change every time a new leader of the challenger pool emerges."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not exactly what happened, is it? The CoR changed as the initial CoR dropped out.

 

"The "CoR" should not change every time a new leader of the challenger pool emerges."

There is no such thing as a "Challenger of Record" in the document that governs the Cup. The deed prohibits looking to the next challenge until after the existing challenge is decided. Even the practice of having your poodle club ready to offer a hip pocket challenge as soon as you cross the line turns the "Challenge Cup" into an "Invitational Regatta". Pretty much exactly the opposite of what the donor wanted.

 

The reason the practice is allowed is that no beneficiary of the trust has challenged it in court. Doing so would be bad for the business of whoring the Cup out for profit.

 

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I loved the idea of course boundaries. Last Thursday I watched the opening races of the BBS. The MOD 70 Orion used virtually the entire bay to get to the weather mark. Really? That's what you'd find interesting?

 

I agree with you. I don't understand why folks dislike the boundary. The alternative is that most windward legs would involve one tack. The loss of speed when tacking these boats is so great that minimizing the number of tacks overwhelms all other tactical considerations. Frankly, I would prefer forcing them to have more tacks and gybes, which would suggest even narrower boundaries.

 

The AC has never been a simple match-race, but a contest of design, boat handling skills, and match-racing skills. The boundaries improve the racing it by increasing the importance of boat handling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a "Challenger of Record" in the document that governs the Cup. The deed prohibits looking to the next challenge until after the existing challenge is decided. Even the practice of having your poodle club ready to offer a hip pocket challenge as soon as you cross the line turns the "Challenge Cup" into an "Invitational Regatta". Pretty much exactly the opposite of what the donor wanted.

 

The reason the practice is allowed is that no beneficiary of the trust has challenged it in court. Doing so would be bad for the business of whoring the Cup out for profit.

 

 

I think you are clearly wrong about the legality of this, and the intent of the deed of gift. This is very well litigated. The requirement to accept the first valid challenge was not to prevent a hip-pocket challenge, but to prevent someone from holding the cup indefinitely by not accepting challenges.

 

As a practical matter, the challengers have usually decided to run a selection regatta. The effectively guarantees that, no matter how much a poodle your COR may be, the defender does not get to pick who he sails against in the next AC. He only gets to pick who he negotiates with on the format of the contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the Deed of Gift, but it certainly is a term used several times in the Resolutions (consider them Amendments, having full force as the original). Definitely a meaningful term in the days of multiple Challengers.

Resolutions adopted July 1, 1990


"A questions as to a person’s eligibility shall be referred to the challenging club (or, if there is more than one challenging club, then to the duly elected or appointed Challenger of Record"

There is no such thing as a "Challenger of Record" in the document that governs the Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no such thing as a "Challenger of Record" in the document that governs the Cup. The deed prohibits looking to the next challenge until after the existing challenge is decided. Even the practice of having your poodle club ready to offer a hip pocket challenge as soon as you cross the line turns the "Challenge Cup" into an "Invitational Regatta". Pretty much exactly the opposite of what the donor wanted.

 

The reason the practice is allowed is that no beneficiary of the trust has challenged it in court. Doing so would be bad for the business of whoring the Cup out for profit.

 

 

I think you are clearly wrong about the legality of this, and the intent of the deed of gift. This is very well litigated. The requirement to accept the first valid challenge was not to prevent a hip-pocket challenge, but to prevent someone from holding the cup indefinitely by not accepting challenges.

 

As a practical matter, the challengers have usually decided to run a selection regatta which basically guarantees that, no matter how much a poodle your COR may be, the defender does not get to pick who he sails against in the next AC. He only gets to pick who he negotiates with on the format of the contest.

I'm not going to re-read the rulings from 1988 on ... I've done so many times. The question of the legality of the Hip pocket challenge has never been litigated. It was created post 1988 to prevent anyone from challenging under terms the defender did not want. i.e. to prevent the only challenge the Deed *requires* the defender to accept.

 

There is no requirement to accept the first valid challenge in the deed, The deed only states that a default terms challenge cannot be refused. The deed also prohibits considering any new challenge until the existing challenge is decided. The hip pocket process was created to circumvent requirements in the Deed.

 

As practical matter (when gentlemen sailed for the Cup) The defender agreed to waive the 10 months notice and face a new challenge under same terms originally agreed for the match. If the agreement was pink 12M with puce sails and first 4 wins, the winner of a challenger selection trial could race for the Cup without waiting 10 months. If the new challenger wanted to race under different terms, the defender could tell them to pound salt and the best they could force the defender into was a DoG default terms match.

 

The Deed and a viable, ongoing, profitable AC are not compatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not in the Deed of Gift, but it certainly is a term used several times in the Resolutions (consider them Amendments, having full force as the original). Definitely a meaningful term in the days of multiple Challengers.

 

Resolutions adopted July 1, 1990

 

"A questions as to a person’s eligibility shall be referred to the challenging club (or, if there is more than one challenging club, then to the duly elected or appointed Challenger of Record"

 

 

There is no such thing as a "Challenger of Record" in the document that governs the Cup.

and how much legal weight does a IR carry?

 

Here is a hint: A trustee cannot change the terms of the Deed without an order from the court to do so. If the IR's carried legal weight as if they were amendments having full force as the original what standing to they have now? SNG as trustee declared them null and void ... all of them.

 

The IR's are made up shit that the trustees know they can't get to fly in court. As long as no one calls their bluff they modify the terms of a legal trust without support from the court. Don't take my word for it, go buy yourself a couple of hours of opinion from a NY trust lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, definitely a meaningful term in the days of multiple Challengers.

Don't be a foo...

and how much legal weight does a IR carry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - Driver not Skipper

Use the Olympic or ISAF (same think) nationality rules. If people want to buy talent and said talent is willing to change countries, the so be it.

To make it difficult, you could make it that the nationality test applies over say 2 years prior to the cup, so that anyone changing nationalities would have to make the change early and could even end up sitting out a cup cycle.

The other thing to do is to limit exotic materials.

 

so new list

  • Max length 20m
  • Human driven stored power only
  • no computer control
  • limits on exotics
  • Some Nationality Requirement such as:
    • Helm, 50% crew, 50% of shore crew (2 year qualifying period)
    • 75% of custom components (wings, foils, hulls, etc but not OTC gear)

 

 

I think there would be a great disparity in the driver's skills. There are not that many great drivers, and they tend to come from only a few countries. China would be out. Korea would be out. This is not a good idea.

Easy. Look at their passport. Every country that might have a yacht club that qualifies to challenge for the Cup also has immigration and nationality laws. Just use those. It ain't rocket surgery. B)

 

Every country that might have a yacht club that qualifies to challenge for the Cup also has rules/laws for vessels that can be registered to that nation. Use those to qualify a vessel as from the same country as the Club that is challenging or defending.

 

KISS

So, most countries have laws/rules, but also each country has different rules and some (most?) countries make exceptions to their rules. You would end up with an unfair result in which some teams would be able to get foreign crew and get them passports, and other teams would not. This is also not a good idea.

 

I agree with KISS, and nationality rules are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americas Cup Rating Federation

 

???? per mile per % nationality

 

 

++++++

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

There is no such thing as a "Challenger of Record" in the document that governs the Cup. The deed prohibits looking to the next challenge until after the existing challenge is decided. Even the practice of having your poodle club ready to offer a hip pocket challenge as soon as you cross the line turns the "Challenge Cup" into an "Invitational Regatta". Pretty much exactly the opposite of what the donor wanted.

 

The reason the practice is allowed is that no beneficiary of the trust has challenged it in court. Doing so would be bad for the business of whoring the Cup out for profit.

 

I think you are clearly wrong about the legality of this, and the intent of the deed of gift. This is very well litigated. The requirement to accept the first valid challenge was not to prevent a hip-pocket challenge, but to prevent someone from holding the cup indefinitely by not accepting challenges.

 

As a practical matter, the challengers have usually decided to run a selection regatta which basically guarantees that, no matter how much a poodle your COR may be, the defender does not get to pick who he sails against in the next AC. He only gets to pick who he negotiates with on the format of the contest.

I'm not going to re-read the rulings from 1988 on ... I've done so many times. The question of the legality of the Hip pocket challenge has never been litigated. It was created post 1988 to prevent anyone from challenging under terms the defender did not want. i.e. to prevent the only challenge the Deed *requires* the defender to accept.

 

There is no requirement to accept the first valid challenge in the deed, The deed only states that a default terms challenge cannot be refused. The deed also prohibits considering any new challenge until the existing challenge is decided. The hip pocket process was created to circumvent requirements in the Deed.

As practical matter (when gentlemen sailed for the Cup) The defender agreed to waive the 10 months notice and face a new challenge under same terms originally agreed for the match. If the agreement was pink 12M with puce sails and first 4 wins, the winner of a challenger selection trial could race for the Cup without waiting 10 months. If the new challenger wanted to race under different terms, the defender could tell them to pound salt and the best they could force the defender into was a DoG default terms match.

 

The Deed and a viable, ongoing, profitable AC are not compatible.

 

Randy, yours is an interesting and rather narrow perspective. My take on it is somewhat different.

 

Please tell me how many America's Cup matches have been declared profitable for defender or challenger! Although most protocols talk about sharing surplus match income, the underlying intent of protocols has never been about making profits. The intent has been fairness and equal treatment

 

The Protocol introduced by San Diego YC in 1988, written as it happens by that student of Cup history Tom Ehman. was intended to nullify rogue challenges like the one had recently been perpetrated by our old pal Michael Fay, and to manage the potential impact of 20 or so challengers eagerly waiting in the wings. a

 

While its true the Deed doesn't explicitly state that an existing or new defender must accept the first valid challenge it receives, the language you cite permits no other conclusion. You're splitting hairs on that one, mate.

 

Yes, the legality of the hip-pocket challenge has never been tested but by now its a tested mechanism and would likely survive a visit to Center Street. The hip-pocket challenge, formalising a Protocol or a more simple agreement reached ahead of time by the new defender and a sympathetic challenging club, was a logical move for several reasons, chief among them shifting the burden of challenger management away from the defender.

 

The Ehman '88 Protocol makes interesting reading. For those interested it can be found here: http://www.cupinfo.com/downloads/1988-protocol-1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why only 60% crew nationality? Can America not come up with a decent American crew? I suppose that question has been answered so making the goal 60% must be a real stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

There is no such thing as a "Challenger of Record" in the document that governs the Cup. The deed prohibits looking to the next challenge until after the existing challenge is decided. Even the practice of having your poodle club ready to offer a hip pocket challenge as soon as you cross the line turns the "Challenge Cup" into an "Invitational Regatta". Pretty much exactly the opposite of what the donor wanted.

 

The reason the practice is allowed is that no beneficiary of the trust has challenged it in court. Doing so would be bad for the business of whoring the Cup out for profit.

 

I think you are clearly wrong about the legality of this, and the intent of the deed of gift. This is very well litigated. The requirement to accept the first valid challenge was not to prevent a hip-pocket challenge, but to prevent someone from holding the cup indefinitely by not accepting challenges.

 

As a practical matter, the challengers have usually decided to run a selection regatta which basically guarantees that, no matter how much a poodle your COR may be, the defender does not get to pick who he sails against in the next AC. He only gets to pick who he negotiates with on the format of the contest.

I'm not going to re-read the rulings from 1988 on ... I've done so many times. The question of the legality of the Hip pocket challenge has never been litigated. It was created post 1988 to prevent anyone from challenging under terms the defender did not want. i.e. to prevent the only challenge the Deed *requires* the defender to accept.

 

There is no requirement to accept the first valid challenge in the deed, The deed only states that a default terms challenge cannot be refused. The deed also prohibits considering any new challenge until the existing challenge is decided. The hip pocket process was created to circumvent requirements in the Deed.

As practical matter (when gentlemen sailed for the Cup) The defender agreed to waive the 10 months notice and face a new challenge under same terms originally agreed for the match. If the agreement was pink 12M with puce sails and first 4 wins, the winner of a challenger selection trial could race for the Cup without waiting 10 months. If the new challenger wanted to race under different terms, the defender could tell them to pound salt and the best they could force the defender into was a DoG default terms match.

 

The Deed and a viable, ongoing, profitable AC are not compatible.

 

Randy, yours is an interesting and rather narrow perspective. My take on it is somewhat different.

 

...

 

While its true the Deed doesn't explicitly state that an existing or new defender must accept the first valid challenge it receives, the language you cite permits no other conclusion. You're splitting hairs on that one, mate.

 

Yes, the legality of the hip-pocket challenge has never been tested but by now its a tested mechanism and would likely survive a visit to Center Street. The hip-pocket challenge, formalising a Protocol or a more simple agreement reached ahead of time by the new defender and a sympathetic challenging club, was a logical move for several reasons, chief among them shifting the burden of challenger management away from the defender.

 

The Ehman '88 Protocol makes interesting reading. For those interested it can be found here: http://www.cupinfo.com/downloads/1988-protocol-1.pdf

I call your attention to the months in court to define "having". :P

 

I'm pretty sure that if the CNEV as an unqualified Club had not worked, LE's lawyers could have cracked the hip pocket challenge idea as a failure of the trustee. The only problem is that once the hip pocket process is litigated it removes the mechanism to avoid default terms challenges and the deed does not have any wording to make order out of the process in the case where more than one club wants to challenge. As Clean so rightly observed "It becomes a race of process servers."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Oakley and Ellison can't reach a mutual agreement and Berterelli steps in with a DOG challenge.

 

Another epic shit fight in huge beasts would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Oakley and Ellison can't reach a mutual agreement and Berterelli steps in with a DOG challenge.

 

Another epic shit fight in huge beasts would be awesome.

 

A two race walkover in 8 knots is an epic shitfight, and a 9-8 race in foiling AC72's isn't? Or when you write "huge beasts" are you referring to the law firms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted these earlier in another thread:

 

for AC35

*~65ft Cats (Dirk Kramer confirmed on FP video today that next cup will likely be in cats)

*The same box rule for the lead up events and the Cup.

*~60% nationality - some will argue more, but for countries like South Korea and China, this will help them enter the Cup cycle with a viable team.

*Lead up races sailed in countries who represent the entered teams

*LVC and AC sailed in SF, without wind limits.

Marketing

*Don't gag the teams. They all love the Cup and it's politics and personalities that are a part of it. Learning about anything is best done with a story, and stories are best told about interesting people.

*Run the early ACWS Match Races on TV / YouTube. How else are newbie viewers going to understand match racing when the first time they see it is the LVC? If you can mike the sailors, we learn the personalities even sooner, and the MR stays interesting.

*Whatever you do, KEEP STAN HONEY.

The other FP story from Slate is baloney.

The AC is about three things:

Money (always has been) and lots of it

Design

Team

You can have the latter two, but you won't win without the former. By the same token, even with gobs of dough, you won't win without great design and a great racing team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I was speaking of egos.

 

 

 

I hope Oakley and Ellison can't reach a mutual agreement and Berterelli steps in with a DOG challenge.

 

Another epic shit fight in huge beasts would be awesome.

 

A two race walkover in 8 knots is an epic shitfight, and a 9-8 race in foiling AC72's isn't? Or when you write "huge beasts" are you referring to the law firms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only see one flaw in these rules and that is if you loose someone over the side you have to pick them up to continue. With these boats I think that is just dangerous not only for the people in the water but also for the guys on the boat. If this was in place during this last lot of races and the guy fell off and needed picking up somewhere near the shore eg the finish line, the risk to the boat and guy in the water would be massive. If you are going at a low speed eg ten knots and get clobbered by one of those foils you are going to know about it. Slow right down and the boats don't seem overly good at doing tight turns etc, In 30 knots near the shore I think you would have a boat on the rocks and crew in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that it is dumb to not finish with who you started with just like every other sailboat race out there. Nothing to say a Power boat can't pick up the guy and put him back on. Prob need to say that boat has to stop or slow down, but you gotta finish with who you started with, otherwise it is just bad form.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though.

 

It only takes 10 months, so its just a fluffer between the usual 4 yrs cycle.

 

Think 110' catamarans on foils with 20 men crews running across the decks.

 

 

 

No, I was speaking of egos.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that if the CNEV as an unqualified Club had not worked, LE's lawyers could have cracked the hip pocket challenge idea as a failure of the trustee. The only problem is that once the hip pocket process is litigated it removes the mechanism to avoid default terms challenges and the deed does not have any wording to make order out of the process in the case where more than one club wants to challenge.

 

What is the possible legal objection to a hip pocket challenger? There is nothing in the deed that even hints that such a process is contrary to intent. There is a precedent for this that goes back almost to the beginning of the AC. There are no guidelines in the deed that suggest any other means of selecting a challenger when there are multiple clubs. The fact the deed prevents entertaining multiple challengers at once legally implies that the challengers are first-come-first-served.

 

If you can show that the hip pocket challenger had no intention of competing for the cup, or they fail to meet the requirements, then you can get them tossed. However, that would not be because they were "hip pocket" -- nothing prohibits the defender from informally discussing the possibility of a future challenge prior to the end of the AC nor from sitting with a representative of a potentially challenging club for the concluding race of the AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep - Driver not Skipper

Use the Olympic or ISAF (same think) nationality rules. If people want to buy talent and said talent is willing to change countries, the so be it.

To make it difficult, you could make it that the nationality test applies over say 2 years prior to the cup, so that anyone changing nationalities would have to make the change early and could even end up sitting out a cup cycle.

The other thing to do is to limit exotic materials.

 

so new list

  • Max length 20m
  • Human driven stored power only
  • no computer control
  • limits on exotics
  • Some Nationality Requirement such as:
    • Helm, 50% crew, 50% of shore crew (2 year qualifying period)
    • 75% of custom components (wings, foils, hulls, etc but not OTC gear)

 

There's no computer control now.

 

<face palm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yep - Driver not Skipper

Use the Olympic or ISAF (same think) nationality rules. If people want to buy talent and said talent is willing to change countries, the so be it.

To make it difficult, you could make it that the nationality test applies over say 2 years prior to the cup, so that anyone changing nationalities would have to make the change early and could even end up sitting out a cup cycle.

The other thing to do is to limit exotic materials.

 

so new list

  • Max length 20m
  • Human driven stored power only
  • no computer control
  • limits on exotics
  • Some Nationality Requirement such as:
    • Helm, 50% crew, 50% of shore crew (2 year qualifying period)
    • 75% of custom components (wings, foils, hulls, etc but not OTC gear)

 

There's no computer control now.

 

<face palm>

Oh really - never knew that ....(sarcasm)

The red was just changes from my original first list.

Its got nothing to do with what was allowed in the AC72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty sure that if the CNEV as an unqualified Club had not worked, LE's lawyers could have cracked the hip pocket challenge idea as a failure of the trustee. The only problem is that once the hip pocket process is litigated it removes the mechanism to avoid default terms challenges and the deed does not have any wording to make order out of the process in the case where more than one club wants to challenge.

 

What is the possible legal objection to a hip pocket challenger? There is nothing in the deed that even hints that such a process is contrary to intent. There is a precedent for this that goes back almost to the beginning of the AC. There are no guidelines in the deed that suggest any other means of selecting a challenger when there are multiple clubs. The fact the deed prevents entertaining multiple challengers at once legally implies that the challengers are first-come-first-served.

 

If you can show that the hip pocket challenger had no intention of competing for the cup, or they fail to meet the requirements, then you can get them tossed. However, that would not be because they were "hip pocket" -- nothing prohibits the defender from informally discussing the possibility of a future challenge prior to the end of the AC nor from sitting with a representative of a potentially challenging club for the concluding race of the AC.

 

If you would like me to start quoting the deed to you and explaining my position I will be happy to do that. The first item is bolded above. There is no such history "back almost to the beginning of the AC":

In 1988, the first “hip pocket” protocol was written by San Diego to prevent further rogue challenges such as the one by Michael Fay in 1987 that produced a protracted legal battle resulting in the Catamaran Cup mismatch. [With the new protocol written, the next, pre-arranged challenger of record delivers the challenge from his hip pocket as the final race of a Cup match ends.] LINK

 

Why the HIYC Challenge is not valid:

The challenging Club shall give ten months’ notice in writing naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November first and May first if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May first and November first if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. Accompanying the ten months’ notice of challenge, there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and the following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water line; beam at load water line, and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible.

You can't have a valid challenge for dates "to be determined" with a boat "to be determined".

 

Why the defender cannot chose the next Challenger:

And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided.

You can try to argue that inviting the next club to challenge directly after your club wins the cup was not "considering another challenge" but you can't start until the laughter has died down.

 

You are right about one thing, the Deed allows for ONE Challenger, there is no provision for multiple challengers. None of the 6 trustees since the advent of multiple challengers in 1970 has made any effort to amend the deed to provide such a process.

 

In the past (prior to WWII) the negotiation over terms of the match was concluded *before* a challenge was accepted. It was a "Would you accept a challenge on these terms?" sort of conversation. Now for the express purpose of preventing someone with good funding from taking the Cup from the AC clique of clubs they created the hip pocket challenge to deny some beneficiaries of the trust equal access to benefits.

 

There is enough there to tie the Cup in court for 2-3 years.

 

Again, don't take my word for it. Ask a trust lawyer.

 

R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites