• 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.
    • B.J. Porter

      Moderation Team Change   06/16/2017

      After fifteen years of volunteer moderation at SA, I will no longer be part of the moderation team. The decision to step aside is mine, and has been some time in the works but we did not wish to announce it in advance for a number of reasons. It's been fun, but I need my time back for other purposes now. The Underdawg admin account will not be monitored until further notice, as I will be relinquishing control of it along with my administrative privileges. Zapata will continue on as a moderator, and any concerns or issues can be directed to that account or to the Editor until further notice. Anyone interested in helping moderate the forums should reach out to Scot by sending a PM to the Editor account. Please note that I am not leaving the community, I am merely stepping aside from Admin responsibilities and privileges on the site.

Archived

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

PeterHuston

Larry speaks about boat for AC 35

88 posts in this topic

Mr. Malibu gets the interview Clean claims he couldn't get. Just a quick one, but he doesn't duck Mr. Malibu and seems pretty sure of what he wants.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people hoping for a return of the AC72s are living in La La Land. Everybody paying the bills has said they want to reduce the costs. The defenders have conceded the boats were too expensive and the CoR has said it's a priority to reduce costs.

 

Reducing costs means downsizing: smaller boats and smaller teams.

 

Interesting comment from LE about the 45s. The introduction of hydrofoils to the SL33s of ETNZ reportedly increased the top speed from 24 to over 40 knots (http://www.cupinfo.com/en/americas-cup-gino-morrelli-foils-multihulls-13144.php), so it's possible that a suped-up AC45 could be a real weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling 45's for AC35 that go as fast as the 72's did in AC34, sounds like a pretty good approach to me. Though billionaires can still throw crazy amounts of money at a 45 to make them hyper competitive and again make it tough (or pointless) for less than billionaires to compete...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he just say "the America Cup"...

Obviously a serious fan... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Malibu looked Dazed and Confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that the 72's will race one more time and then foiling 45's wil be it......which is really disappointing in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omg--that guy is King of the Douchebags. And his cameraman an even bigger tool. "He's actually a celebrity." huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFC, what a loser.

 

LE said exactly nothing, and clearly understood MM is an idiot from the get go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is MM? Can't get streaming stuff on work computer; have to watch it later..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling 45's for AC35 that go as fast as the 72's did in AC34, sounds like a pretty good approach to me. Though billionaires can still throw crazy amounts of money at a 45 to make them hyper competitive and again make it tough (or pointless) for less than billionaires to compete...

It is nearly pointless for a non billionaire to do the Melges 32 circuit

Whats your point?

It is the AC it is for wealthy folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Larry is cutting back on his wardrobe budget. That is an old shirt.

 

BMW has not been a sponsor since AC33.

 

Must be tough times for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Probably make the 45s go just as fast". One hell of a quote from Mr Malibu. And he surfs too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Foiling 45's for AC35 that go as fast as the 72's did in AC34, sounds like a pretty good approach to me. Though billionaires can still throw crazy amounts of money at a 45 to make them hyper competitive and again make it tough (or pointless) for less than billionaires to compete...

It is nearly pointless for a non billionaire to do the Melges 32 circuit

Whats your point?

It is the AC it is for wealthy folks

What does a Melges 32 have to do with a foiling AC45? Coutts, Ellison and most key players acknowledged long ago they need to bring the entry price to compete down. Are you suggesting they should continue with the AC72, or something bigger/more complex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to hear that Larry wants more affordable boats, but Mister Malibu is pretty lame, IMHO..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: and whoever said that Angelinos are like the rest of us - plainly hasn't visited.LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lame? Shit no - he's famous!

 

Lamous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does a Melges 32 have to do with a foiling AC45? Coutts, Ellison and most key players acknowledged long ago they need to bring the entry price to compete down. Are you suggesting they should continue with the AC72, or something bigger/more complex?

I don't want the 45s for the AC. To small. Seeing them in person they remind me of a beach cat. It would be like F1 drivers being forced to race Indy Cars. ;)

 

Lop off 10 feet, or meters whatever it is, and mandate an OD wing. Let the folk at core build them. That way the design part of the AC is preserved, the boats are still bigger and grander, teams from AC34 can still use design data that they spent good money to develop and crews are reduced as well. AC62s.

 

Also, mandate all team bases are in close proximity to each other so crane services, and costs, for wing install can be shared by all teams. The sea plane base and pier 80 should be plenty of room for multiple challengers.

 

WetHog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Foiling 45's for AC35 that go as fast as the 72's did in AC34, sounds like a pretty good approach to me. Though billionaires can still throw crazy amounts of money at a 45 to make them hyper competitive and again make it tough (or pointless) for less than billionaires to compete...

It is nearly pointless for a non billionaire to do the Melges 32 circuit

Whats your point?

It is the AC it is for wealthy folks

What does a Melges 32 have to do with a foiling AC45? Coutts, Ellison and most key players acknowledged long ago they need to bring the entry price to compete down. Are you suggesting they should continue with the AC72, or something bigger/more complex?

I think an AC 172 would be kinda cool.

 

Or, Whatever they come up with 45 55 65.. It was fun to watch.

The big teams will still throw 100 million at it so there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Larry is cutting back on his wardrobe budget. That is an old shirt.

 

BMW has not been a sponsor since AC33.

 

Must be tough times for him.

 

Ok slacker! You owe me a keyboard. Not because of the post. Your avatar made me spit coffee all over this poor old laptop!!

 

WL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose GGYC and the COR can MC anything including the size of the boat, wouldn't the waterline length requirement in the DOG (44 feet) make the AC 45s ineligible?

 

That aside, I would hate to see cup reduced to something like the Extreme Sailing series or the Little AC.

 

Those are great in their own right, but they already exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What does a Melges 32 have to do with a foiling AC45? Coutts, Ellison and most key players acknowledged long ago they need to bring the entry price to compete down. Are you suggesting they should continue with the AC72, or something bigger/more complex?

I don't want the 45s for the AC. To small. Seeing them in person they remind me of a beach cat. It would be like F1 drivers being forced to race Indy Cars. ;)

 

Lop off 10 feet, or meters whatever it is, and mandate an OD wing. Let the folk at core build them. That way the design part of the AC is preserved, the boats are still bigger and grander, teams from AC34 can still use design data that they spent good money to develop and crews are reduced as well. AC62s.

 

Also, mandate all team bases are in close proximity to each other so crane services, and costs, for wing install can be shared by all teams. The sea plane base and pier 80 should be plenty of room for multiple challengers.

 

WetHog

I agree on everything Wethog.

I just wonder if having some of the component OD, in particular something as important as the wing, is in the plans of the defender. OR have and will have for sure one of the best design teams and bigger budget. The more standard the boats will be, the less advantage they have. If OR will take that road (to bring the costs down) it will be no doubt a great sportsmanship act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose GGYC and the COR can MC anything including the size of the boat, wouldn't the waterline length requirement in the DOG (44 feet) make the AC 45s ineligible?

 

That aside, I would hate to see cup reduced to something like the Extreme Sailing series or the Little AC.

 

Those are great in their own right, but they already exist.

They can MC anything including the size of the boat, as you say.

 

So the DOG requirement for waterline length between 44 and 90 feet doesn't apply. It's been changed by MC.

 

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I suppose GGYC and the COR can MC anything including the size of the boat, wouldn't the waterline length requirement in the DOG (44 feet) make the AC 45s ineligible?

 

That aside, I would hate to see cup reduced to something like the Extreme Sailing series or the Little AC.

 

Those are great in their own right, but they already exist.

They can MC anything including the size of the boat, as you say.

 

So the DOG requirement for waterline length between 44 and 90 feet doesn't apply. It's been changed by MC.

 

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived."

What are the parts of the Deed that cannot be overruled by the mutual consent? Of course the fact that whoever wins the Cup is still bind to it without any modification. But are there any constraints that limits the mutual consent? The length of the boat ( they couldn't choose a dinghy for instance) and the regatta in open sea, if I'm not mistaken, and then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I suppose GGYC and the COR can MC anything including the size of the boat, wouldn't the waterline length requirement in the DOG (44 feet) make the AC 45s ineligible?

 

That aside, I would hate to see cup reduced to something like the Extreme Sailing series or the Little AC.

 

Those are great in their own right, but they already exist.

They can MC anything including the size of the boat, as you say.

So the DOG requirement for waterline length between 44 and 90 feet doesn't apply. It's been changed by MC.

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived."

What are the parts of the Deed that cannot be overruled by the mutual consent? Of course the fact that whoever wins the Cup is still bind to it without any modification. But are there any constraints that limits the mutual consent? The length of the boat ( they couldn't choose a dinghy for instance) and the regatta in open sea, if I'm not mistaken, and then?
Maybe I'm wrong about the length because the DOG was amended in 1956 to reduce the minimum length from 65 to 44 feet. This was to allow the 12 metres to be used.

 

So it seems they would need an amendment to allow AC45s. Otherwise they would need a class rule that they are 44 feet on the waterline.

 

The AC45s are actually 44.13 feet long. I wonder what their waterline length is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling 45's would be a big letdown imo. Too small, not edgy enough. It would certainly bring the cost down with much less crew, and I'm sure the sailing would be fast and furious, but after Dogzilla and the AC72's? Disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling 45's would be a big letdown imo. Too small, not edgy enough. It would certainly bring the cost down with much less crew, and I'm sure the sailing would be fast and furious, but after Dogzilla and the AC72's? Disappointment.

Even if they were routinely achieving mid to upper 40's? Maybe breaking 50 on the reaches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Foiling 45's would be a big letdown imo. Too small, not edgy enough. It would certainly bring the cost down with much less crew, and I'm sure the sailing would be fast and furious, but after Dogzilla and the AC72's? Disappointment.

Even if they were routinely achieving mid to upper 40's? Maybe breaking 50 on the reaches?

You could probably do that with kite boards too. Its just not the same level of grandeur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Foiling 45's would be a big letdown imo. Too small, not edgy enough. It would certainly bring the cost down with much less crew, and I'm sure the sailing would be fast and furious, but after Dogzilla and the AC72's? Disappointment.

Even if they were routinely achieving mid to upper 40's? Maybe breaking 50 on the reaches?

You could probably do that with kite boards too. Its just not the same level of grandeur.

So a 50-60' winged monohull that foils?Can you imagine a 50' moth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Foiling 45's would be a big letdown imo. Too small, not edgy enough. It would certainly bring the cost down with much less crew, and I'm sure the sailing would be fast and furious, but after Dogzilla and the AC72's? Disappointment.

Even if they were routinely achieving mid to upper 40's? Maybe breaking 50 on the reaches?

You could probably do that with kite boards too. Its just not the same level of grandeur.

So a 50-60' winged monohull that foils?Can you imagine a 50' moth?

 

Might be faster than similar sized cat. Less weight with only only one hull, but probably way easier to capsize than a cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine a 50' moth?

Oh yes. That was my dream for AC35. Libera class meets Mirabaud. Winged cats are so 1980s.

 

Mirabaud-dsc_4344.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.



And Nathan won't confirm anything but from his smile I believe he has signed or is about to sign with Artemis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Can you imagine a 50' moth?

Oh yes. That was my dream for AC35. Libera class meets Mirabaud. Winged cats are so 1980s.

Erm ... Mirabaud's winged now

 

http://www.thedailysail.com/files/article_images/PAF-LXB11_900_620.jpg

 

 

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

Plus ça change ... Guess we'll soon see how the Oatleys compare to VO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ain't a cat.

 

I think for stability it will have to be a cat. Imagine doing some small fleet racing with Mirabaud-like speedsters, it might lead to carnage.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah. Stability is for old men. Seen 49ers racing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Can you imagine a 50' moth?

Oh yes. That was my dream for AC35. Libera class meets Mirabaud. Winged cats are so 1980s.

Erm ... Mirabaud's winged now

 

http://www.thedailysail.com/files/article_images/PAF-LXB11_900_620.jpg

 

 

>Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

Plus ça change ... Guess we'll soon see how the Oatleys compare to VO

 

Yes, it will be interesting to see if they manage to accomplish any cost cuttings. I remain sceptical. Maybe they at least could share some of the shore operations. Regarding the 45's, it might be a good idea to wait with foiling ones until they have come out of the beta phase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the AC72s return. They produced the best America's Cup regatta in history (I need to change my signature). Dumbing down the incredible spectacle we just witnessed would not be progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree pjh. Smaller just wont be as cool.

 

72's the second time around should be quite a bit cheaper. A lot of the engineering is done and there are 6 (I think) 72's around for new teams to get their feet wet in, so to speak. I'm with RC, bring back the 72's. Save money somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree pjh. Smaller just wont be as cool.

 

72's the second time around should be quite a bit cheaper. A lot of the engineering is done and there are 6 (I think) 72's around for new teams to get their feet wet in, so to speak. I'm with RC, bring back the 72's. Save money somewhere else.

 

I agree and you can save the money by getting rid of the grinders .. replace them with electric motors and rechargeable batteries making the boats safer and faster with the reduced windage .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I fear that even cutting the grinders salary and sharing the expenses for putting the boats in the water, it's not enough.

They need some major cost cutting in the design area, if they want to involve new competitors that will start from scratch.

Or there will be a crowded ACWS and 3+1 challengers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I fear that even cutting the grinders salary and sharing the expenses for putting the boats in the water, it's not enough.

They need some major cost cutting in the design area, if they want to involve new competitors that will start from scratch.

Or there will be a crowded ACWS and 3+1 challengers...

 

The 10 grinder's salaries is a considerable amount plus the accomadation costs in SF for them and their families probably doubles the savings ..

 

I accept that it is still not enough and more savings would be required .. the next big ticket item would be the wings .. if these were made one design the event could own them so spare wings for each team would not be necessary and it would mean huge savings for the design ..

 

Next to go would be the code zeros which would make further big savings .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be interesting to know how all the expenses are distributed over the project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

That doesn't really tell you much. "It's the salaries". Yes but what drives the salary costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

I'm not surprised. If RC wants to get the ACWS up and running as soon as has been suggested, there probably isn't the time to add foils. So the idea of running the first year without is an obvious consequence. Gives them time to get a foiling package sorted and gives the teams some sort of timetable for how to structure the time needed to get to grips with them too.

 

Same with the AC72. I really doubt (and hope) that RC is not pushing for the current rule, but is talking about AC72 v2.0 There is so much we know that can be fixed, and tweaked. The elephant in the room is of course the cost of the campaign, and how the boat influences that. Personally I don't think the actual length of the platform matters as much as all the attendant rules, and the manner in which new teams can be bootstrapped into a viable form. So I'll keep harping on about my thoughts - killing the soft sails, reducing crew, and providing a reference parts programme - plus restricting sailing to one boat on the water on any day.

 

Anyway, it is mostly a spectator sport, it isn't as if LE and RC are actually influenced by what we think here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree pjh. Smaller just wont be as cool.

 

72's the second time around should be quite a bit cheaper. A lot of the engineering is done and there are 6 (I think) 72's around for new teams to get their feet wet in, so to speak. I'm with RC, bring back the 72's. Save money somewhere else.

 

I agree and you can save the money by getting rid of the grinders .. replace them with electric motors and rechargeable batteries making the boats safer and faster with the reduced windage .

I wouldn't get rid of the grinders and here's why - on many occasions in this regatta, Spithill attributed Oracle wins to the grinders. In these boats the harder you grind the more often you can tweak the foils and wing, the faster you go. I like the idea of a spec wing and no code 0. A shorter campaign would make a big difference. By the next AC, everybody will be foiling full time so the hulls could be spec, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the AC72s return. They produced the best America's Cup regatta in history (I need to change my signature). Dumbing down the incredible spectacle we just witnessed would not be progress.

 

Hope to see the 72's return, wings and all. Ironic that almost everybody ruled them out before the first finals race (how many times did we hear one and done), and now they have a huge following.

 

Can you imagine if TNZ won and took us back to monos and $20M team budgets, which was the plan ? Would have lost all of Stan's technology as well.

 

For all Dalton complained about the 72's, it would now be an advantage for him if they return, and they're already targeting a $100M budget. Maybe he was just kidding for the past 3 years, and after having raised $100M he now sees it as a a competitive advantage and not a problem - especially if he's got 4 years to raise funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

And Nathan won't confirm anything but from his smile I believe he has signed or is about to sign with Artemis.

 

I REALLY don't understand the idea of not going foiling with the 45s. Why not make the ACWS more similar to the big boats, especially with something that would cost so little and bring perfomance, upwind in particular, much higher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

I'm not surprised. If RC wants to get the ACWS up and running as soon as has been suggested, there probably isn't the time to add foils. So the idea of running the first year without is an obvious consequence. Gives them time to get a foiling package sorted and gives the teams some sort of timetable for how to structure the time needed to get to grips with them too.

 

Same with the AC72. I really doubt (and hope) that RC is not pushing for the current rule, but is talking about AC72 v2.0 There is so much we know that can be fixed, and tweaked. The elephant in the room is of course the cost of the campaign, and how the boat influences that. Personally I don't think the actual length of the platform matters as much as all the attendant rules, and the manner in which new teams can be bootstrapped into a viable form. So I'll keep harping on about my thoughts - killing the soft sails, reducing crew, and providing a reference parts programme - plus restricting sailing to one boat on the water on any day.

 

Anyway, it is mostly a spectator sport, it isn't as if LE and RC are actually influenced by what we think here.

 

I don't understand why they couldn't have foiing AC45s by the start of the first ACWS season. They have already discussed the first ACWS regatta being in July or thereabouts. If they could design and build a full fleet of AC45s from scratch in 2010-11 and have them racing by August in Cascais, starting at about the same time (October/November), seems they could retrofit existing AC45s with the Artemis AC45 foil package and have them ready to race in the same amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

And Nathan won't confirm anything but from his smile I believe he has signed or is about to sign with Artemis.

 

I REALLY don't understand the idea of not going foiling with the 45s. Why not make the ACWS more similar to the big boats, especially with something that would cost so little and bring perfomance, upwind in particular, much higher?

 

Agreed.

The only downside of fleet racing super quick foiling 45's would be the dangers.

 

The youth AC in foiling 45's would be out of the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a 16 year old just finished the Moth Worlds around 40th.

 

It might be too dangerous for you, but teens and 20 somethings should be all over foiling 45s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're foiling does length matter?

 

If a minimum time for race completion is set that is less time than sub foiling cats can meet, length might not be an issue?

 

Small crews would be cool too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Foiling 45's for AC35 that go as fast as the 72's did in AC34, sounds like a pretty good approach to me. Though billionaires can still throw crazy amounts of money at a 45 to make them hyper competitive and again make it tough (or pointless) for less than billionaires to compete...

It is nearly pointless for a non billionaire to do the Melges 32 circuit

Whats your point?

It is the AC it is for wealthy folks

What does a Melges 32 have to do with a foiling AC45? Coutts, Ellison and most key players acknowledged long ago they need to bring the entry price to compete down. Are you suggesting they should continue with the AC72, or something bigger/more complex?

No... Obviously, his point was that racing has become extremely expensive at levels much lower than the AC, and that the AC has always been run by the rich. After all....do you think America was owned by someone in the middle class?

post-48540-0-80420100-1382294786.jpg

At least now, watching and enjoying the AC is possible for the middle class. And yes... you can thank a billionaire for that.

Ellison and Coutts are fully aware that they overshot, and need to get more boats in the competition by making the programs less expensive, and have stated as much on several occasions.What they learned in AC34 will go a long way to achieving that goal, while retaining the excitement.

If you want to watch middle class guys (like me) sail their boats around the cans, those regattas are still readily available. However, the AC never was, and never will be one of them. I wish folks would simply accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

I'm not surprised. If RC wants to get the ACWS up and running as soon as has been suggested, there probably isn't the time to add foils. So the idea of running the first year without is an obvious consequence. Gives them time to get a foiling package sorted and gives the teams some sort of timetable for how to structure the time needed to get to grips with them too.

 

Same with the AC72. I really doubt (and hope) that RC is not pushing for the current rule, but is talking about AC72 v2.0 There is so much we know that can be fixed, and tweaked. The elephant in the room is of course the cost of the campaign, and how the boat influences that. Personally I don't think the actual length of the platform matters as much as all the attendant rules, and the manner in which new teams can be bootstrapped into a viable form. So I'll keep harping on about my thoughts - killing the soft sails, reducing crew, and providing a reference parts programme - plus restricting sailing to one boat on the water on any day.

 

Anyway, it is mostly a spectator sport, it isn't as if LE and RC are actually influenced by what we think here.

 

I don't understand why they couldn't have foiing AC45s by the start of the first ACWS season. They have already discussed the first ACWS regatta being in July or thereabouts. If they could design and build a full fleet of AC45s from scratch in 2010-11 and have them racing by August in Cascais, starting at about the same time (October/November), seems they could retrofit existing AC45s with the Artemis AC45 foil package and have them ready to race in the same amount of time.

Artemis practiced on a foiling 45 after Red was destroyed and while Blue was being finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

And Nathan won't confirm anything but from his smile I believe he has signed or is about to sign with Artemis.

 

I REALLY don't understand the idea of not going foiling with the 45s. Why not make the ACWS more similar to the big boats, especially with something that would cost so little and bring perfomance, upwind in particular, much higher?

 

Agreed.

The only downside of fleet racing super quick foiling 45's would be the dangers.

 

The youth AC in foiling 45's would be out of the question.

 

The Youth AC kids would be stoked to have foiling 45s, and most well coached 29er/49er/F16/Moth kids would be just fine with a foiling 45. In fact, they have better reflexes and bounce better than us old guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

I'm not surprised. If RC wants to get the ACWS up and running as soon as has been suggested, there probably isn't the time to add foils. So the idea of running the first year without is an obvious consequence. Gives them time to get a foiling package sorted and gives the teams some sort of timetable for how to structure the time needed to get to grips with them too.

 

Same with the AC72. I really doubt (and hope) that RC is not pushing for the current rule, but is talking about AC72 v2.0 There is so much we know that can be fixed, and tweaked. The elephant in the room is of course the cost of the campaign, and how the boat influences that. Personally I don't think the actual length of the platform matters as much as all the attendant rules, and the manner in which new teams can be bootstrapped into a viable form. So I'll keep harping on about my thoughts - killing the soft sails, reducing crew, and providing a reference parts programme - plus restricting sailing to one boat on the water on any day.

 

Anyway, it is mostly a spectator sport, it isn't as if LE and RC are actually influenced by what we think here.

 

I don't understand why they couldn't have foiing AC45s by the start of the first ACWS season. They have already discussed the first ACWS regatta being in July or thereabouts. If they could design and build a full fleet of AC45s from scratch in 2010-11 and have them racing by August in Cascais, starting at about the same time (October/November), seems they could retrofit existing AC45s with the Artemis AC45 foil package and have them ready to race in the same amount of time.

Artemis practiced on a foiling 45 after Red was destroyed and while Blue was being finished.

 

I know. That's why I stated they could use the AR foiling package, as it was something developed quickly, and it looked more simple and stable than the OR foiling package they had on their foiling AC45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Best rumors at the moment are that Russell is pushing for AC72 for the next Cup, with a one-design circuit for the AC45s with no lifting foils for the first year.

 

ugly if true.

 

I'm not surprised. If RC wants to get the ACWS up and running as soon as has been suggested, there probably isn't the time to add foils. So the idea of running the first year without is an obvious consequence. Gives them time to get a foiling package sorted and gives the teams some sort of timetable for how to structure the time needed to get to grips with them too.

 

Same with the AC72. I really doubt (and hope) that RC is not pushing for the current rule, but is talking about AC72 v2.0 There is so much we know that can be fixed, and tweaked. The elephant in the room is of course the cost of the campaign, and how the boat influences that. Personally I don't think the actual length of the platform matters as much as all the attendant rules, and the manner in which new teams can be bootstrapped into a viable form. So I'll keep harping on about my thoughts - killing the soft sails, reducing crew, and providing a reference parts programme - plus restricting sailing to one boat on the water on any day.

 

Anyway, it is mostly a spectator sport, it isn't as if LE and RC are actually influenced by what we think here.

 

I don't understand why they couldn't have foiing AC45s by the start of the first ACWS season. They have already discussed the first ACWS regatta being in July or thereabouts. If they could design and build a full fleet of AC45s from scratch in 2010-11 and have them racing by August in Cascais, starting at about the same time (October/November), seems they could retrofit existing AC45s with the Artemis AC45 foil package and have them ready to race in the same amount of time.

Artemis practiced on a foiling 45 after Red was destroyed and while Blue was being finished.

 

I know. That's why I stated they could use the AR foiling package, as it was something developed quickly, and it looked more simple and stable than the OR foiling package they had on their foiling AC45.

 

Was that when AR talked to OR about how to do it which caused a minor uproar here because the defender was helping the COR ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling AC45's (and others too) are already evolved/established and youth, as usual will revel in these new? boat types. That's a given.

Forget about protecting youth just because some old farts want to retain delusions of authority/responsibility. The kids will be laughing (politely) at them.

If the next generation of big foilers is also a given, then they don't need to be such AC72 monsters to reach similar speeds - how about 62?

Still sounds big/impressive enough and if the foil control systems are loosened up, they'll be faster than the big guys.

The large crew of grinders (human motors) has to go. Ditto the silly soft sails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling AC45's (and others too) are already evolved/established and youth, as usual will revel in these new? boat types. That's a given.

Forget about protecting youth just because some old farts want to retain delusions of authority/responsibility. The kids will be laughing (politely) at them.

If the next generation of big foilers is also a given, then they don't need to be such AC72 monsters to reach similar speeds - how about 62? Still sounds big/impressive enough and if the foil control systems are loosened up, they'll be faster than the big guys.

The large crew of grinders (human motors) has to go. Ditto the silly soft sails.

 

 

All this discussion about length is a bit off course. You can have a relatively long boat but still reduce complexiity, cost, and power just be going a bit more narrow and reducing the wing size. Don't want to go too far, as you start getting less stable with your foiling. But we really should be focusing this discussion more on wing size, and beam, rather than length. Longer just makes pitch-polling less likely. Wing and beam is where the cost lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. When suggest 62, retain the beam proportions of the 72, same with wing size.

Dump the grinders and have stored energy (no fucking diesels).

In money saved there, add a smaller wing to allow high wind conditions. In fact the smaller wing could be one design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was ANYTHING OD in AC34? When has ANYTHING been OD in ANY AC???

 

Sorry... Got a little carried away there...

 

I keep hearing that length doesn't matter when foiling. Then why wouldn't moths go 45kts? Size brings power. Power brings speed. If they can make a 44 footer as fast as the latest 72's, then they can make a new 72 much faster.

 

To have a less expensive boat, they need one or more of the following:

 

Simpler launching and hauling

Smaller boat

Less crew

Fewer designers

Fewer shore personnel

Less maintenance

Less construction labor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AC45 IS one design - well, originally, before Oracle began fooling with them.

A one design smaller wing for the big boats was just a suggestion to reduce expense (after dropping grinders, large design, mainenance etc. staff)... yet still allow sailing in conditions originally laid down (then radically altered/backtracked) in the AC72 rules.

Oh yes, bigger foiler goes faster than stretched Moth ... except to sail in 3 to 33? knots wind the compromise foil design will hit the wall at around 50-52 knots boat speed. Can't have everything - except maybe two sets of foils on one boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading the suggestion that the grinders could be dropped in order to save expense.

Well no desrepect to our muscled brethren but how much do you have to pay these guys? Does this need to be a high paid skilled position? I know a few guys that if you had some extra beer....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading the suggestion that the grinders could be dropped in order to save expense.

Well no desrepect to our muscled brethren but how much do you have to pay these guys? Does this need to be a high paid skilled position? I know a few guys that if you had some extra beer....

Just a few beers and olympic gold medal-level fitness will get them right through the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I keep reading the suggestion that the grinders could be dropped in order to save expense.

Well no desrepect to our muscled brethren but how much do you have to pay these guys? Does this need to be a high paid skilled position? I know a few guys that if you had some extra beer....

Just a few beers and olympic gold medal-level fitness will get them right through the door.

Olympic class?

Have a look at the ages of the grinders on the ET boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stored power comes in two forms. Energy you take out to the race course with you, and energy that you put into storage whilst you are actually racing, to even out the power needs. IMHO the first of these is just not going to happen under any circumstances. The only viable way to take energy out is in chemical form. Batteries are chemical energy, so is diesel fuel. There is no real difference between them, just that one is noisier than the other, and not as heavy.

 

The second option is probably addressed with a hydraulic accumulator. There could be an argument to allow some defined amount of stored energy, possibly by defining a maximum size accumulator (and probably be mandating a one design accumulator). This won't replace the grinders. But it might even out the work loads they have. OTOH, if they have to grind flat out all the way uphill already, it won't help there. It may provide useful energy for sudden needs.

 

Wikipedea suggests a possible power delivery of 400 W per person for a trained cyclist. So running with that, and say 8 people grinding, gives us 3200 W. Or about 4 horsepower. I suspect the grinders are probably delivering less than half that on average, but maybe peaking higher. A 3kWhour lithium battery is about 10kg. Yes it is trivially done. However whether you want the spectacle reduced to four guys on an AC72 sitting and driving, is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. When suggest 62, retain the beam proportions of the 72, same with wing size.

Dump the grinders and have stored energy (no fucking diesels).

In money saved there, add a smaller wing to allow high wind conditions. In fact the smaller wing could be one design.

 

 

Actually, I was not suggesting that at all. I say keep the length of the current boats . . . but go 72', reduce beam and wing size, and in doing so signficantly reduce weight and design/engineering costs, dramatically reduce probability of pitchpole (see BPV). Keep grinders (I like the human element), but eliminate foresails if you want to shrink the crew costs (drop one or two guys off the crew, as well as design and sail fabrication/replacements and shore personel).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, right now you have the

 

A class

B class

C class

D class:

 

How about an E CLASS catamaran?

 

No longer than 45' long

No wider than 40' wide

No more than 500 sq ft of sail ( or 600 or 700 :))

 

And that would be it.

 

No stored power.

 

All the foil controls you want.

 

 

 

 

That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stored power comes in two forms. Energy you take out to the race course with you, and energy that you put into storage whilst you are actually racing, to even out the power needs. IMHO the first of these is just not going to happen under any circumstances. The only viable way to take energy out is in chemical form. Batteries are chemical energy, so is diesel fuel. There is no real difference between them, just that one is noisier than the other, and not as heavy.

 

The second option is probably addressed with a hydraulic accumulator. There could be an argument to allow some defined amount of stored energy, possibly by defining a maximum size accumulator (and probably be mandating a one design accumulator). This won't replace the grinders. ..

 

It's easy to spend money when someone else is paying .. Larry has stated quite firmly that that the costs have to be reduced to a level that will encourage more competitors ..

 

Clearly $100.00m per team is too high to produce a worthwhile competition so something like $50.00m per team would be the new target .. Playing around with the accumulator size is not realistic but getting rid of 10 highly paid grinders is a step in the right direction .. it even reduces the size of the gym not to mention accommodation costs in SF for their families ..

 

If you are a purest and don't want to bring stored energy out on the course you can limit the battery size and provide re-charging using wind or water as the source of energy .. this would have costs so I would favour just having a big battery ..

 

Getting rid of the code zeros is a no-brainer and would further reduce the staff needed .. reducing the height of the wings is also obvious and making the wings one design saves even more money because the spares could be pooled .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, right now you have the

 

A class

B class

C class

D class:

 

How about an E CLASS catamaran?

 

No longer than 45' long

No wider than 40' wide

No more than 500 sq ft of sail ( or 600 or 700 :))

 

Almost, I make that an F class.

 

A while ago I worked through the obvious classes, with a bit of tweaking to make things fit. Goes like this:

 

Class LOA Sail Beam

A 18 150 7.5

B 20 235 10

C 25 300 14

D 32 500 16

E 37 700 20

F 44 1000 23

G 52 1400 30

H 60 2000 37

I 72 2800 46

J 84 4000 57

K 100 5600 70

 

 

 

I was a bit sorry the pattern didn't make the AC72 a J class, but they clearly have something to aspire too :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure about reducing beam. Agreed, slows pitch pole problems ... but then the boats can go over sideways. Which was the old and bad story of years ago with skinny arsed beam multis.

Also many of us prefer the power overkill of wide beam plus foils. Remember, reduce beam, foils lift the platform, creating even less stability ... and when you blow over, it happens real fast.

We already have a G Class (Giant) 100 foot maxi multihulls - but your H Class sounds about right. However the old D's had 500 sq.ft. sail - your E Class, Amati, will need a bit more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I found interesting about creating this series of classes, which was partly done to make the AC72 and AC45 fit, was that the pattern was that sail area increased by close to the square root of 2 each step - ie the area doubles every two steps. Clearly a bit more tweaking could be used to properly match the platform size to this, but it does seem a reasonable idea for a range of classes beyond the current four. I figured that everyone would go for wings, so the apparently slightly low sail area would not actually matter. The I class has the current AC72 wing area.

 

I still think the B class should be revised to a towable beam. That would very possibly revitalise the whole class - and yield a two man development class to counterpoint the A - which is what it was supposed to be. Make it properly open, unlike the F16 and F18. Foils, wings. Possibly however add a fairly high minimum weight. Keep the C for the guys with serious money.

 

So for the next AC, maybe the choice is between H and I class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just winging ( :) ) it- excellent to see what the progression up in size of the classes would look like, Mr Vaughan- I'm too lazy to formalize this sort of stuff. I owe you a beer. Or a Scotch.

 

The square root of 2 was (is?- sometimes I wonder) also the formal mathematical key to the current equal temperament scale for keyboard instruments, 'bye the way. The story I like is the Duke Lao Hsiu (Wade Giles - I know, old school <sigh>) figured it out in the 12th or 13th century with slaves using abacus (abaci ?).

 

So you're right Mr Marx, 500 is too little. And the blowing over sideways carnage of the C class is part of the fun, so it might fit in nicely with the current AC zeitgeist, and maybe without the mortal peril of the 72's-

 

Given the mathematical history of the square root of 2, and the binary nature of Mr Ellison's business ventures, I wonder if he'd be intrigued by all this? But gosh, how do we let him know? Message in a bottle?

 

If Mr Ellison was Serious about his 45er comment, I'd go with the F class in a heartbeat. Make for some nice nicknames, and they could work their way back up to the J class. Maybe in the next economic disaster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I owe you a beer. Or a Scotch.

 

The square root of 2 was (is?- sometimes I wonder) also the formal mathematical key to the current equal temperament scale for keyboard instruments,

 

Scotch is good :) The F class was tweaked so that it matched the AC45. It all worked remarkably cleanly. The length increase factor is pretty constant across the set, and I only did a little fiddling so the AC45 and AC72 would fall on class definitions.

 

You are thinking of the twelfth root of two as the basis of the equal tempered scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right about the 12th root of two. I knew I had it wrong, but alas, could not return to my keyboard in time to fix things.

 

You probably know how many slaves with abacus were used, no doubt..... (I heard a thousand )

 

Back to F class- uh I mean F troop. Nicknames!

 

But even unlimited budget D class cats would be cool...

 

I can see it now- the LV with 50 teams. Or more! Wouldn't need the prequel. Just months of savage racing. Teams of three. Etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites