• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Tornado-Cat

What new AC 36 Class boat would you like ?

115 posts in this topic

What new AC Class boat would you like ?

If Oracle wins we know the boat will be quite the same, if TNZ wins it will be different, whatever, what would you like ?

For me:

- same 15 M length and platform for maximum number of teams

- open design hulls, it would not really change the cost

- open design wing

- open design fairings

- open design foils

- open design rudders, but no exterior T part for safety of the crew

- a protection or net in front of the main beam for safety too.

The only thing I hate in this AC is that sailors have been replaces by grinders and cyclors, this is NOT fun sailing as it should be. With movable trailing edges on both the main foil and the rudder, like a plane, it would be possible to have faster, more extreme and spectacular boats.

We could also increase the lenth of the course and wind limits so that team can't rely on muscle oil to win.

What is your wish ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A completely open design wing may be a step too far for an AC50 V2 since it's already pretty wide open, but: Agree all of the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about movable trailing edges on the beam fairings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about another full on DoG challenge, with what we know now, it would look different and be pretty exciting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if oracle win it will be the same boat.  If ETNZ win i think (hope) it'll be a new rule written around the same platform.  ie the current boats are fully compliant but there are more avenues to experiment if wanted.

Teams should only be allowed to own 4 hulls (2 boats) at any time and boats from this cycle can be raced by any nationality without CIC restrictions. 

Boats bigger than 30' and smaller than 60' considered surrogates and factored into 2 boat allowance.

Just needs some form of restriction stopping people building a string of boats and putting a chainsaw through the ones they don't want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ~Stingray~ said:

A completely open design wing may be a step too far for an AC50 V2 since it's already pretty wide open, but: Agree all of the rest.

Agreed, I would love to see fast boats with crew really sailing, and having pleasure to do so. No more slaves on board, more speed, more fun, even more show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BLAK said:

how about movable trailing edges on the beam fairings?

Good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'll play this silly game :D

I want monos but if we do end up with a new class of cat I'd like attitude control on the rudders ala moths, 2 sizes of wing for different wind speeds, higher minimum weight to encourage more robust boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before; Same platform and foils etc but get rid of the stupid wings and hydraulics and ban anything electric - then we might have more than 2 or 3 actual sailors involved in each team and the activity would be a smidgen closer to the other 99.9% of yachts out there racing. We wouldn't have any silly arguements about herbies and feedback loops etc - otherwise we may as well just install motors and have computers run the boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

centomiglia-3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me sailing is a sport for vehicles supported by the water and popelled by extracting energy from the air and water.

The use of stored power is powerboating. Even more so when the stored power is charged up before hand.

I'd like to see further limits on the amount of stored power that can be used to move any device that propels (including devices that propell it upwards) the boat or that is connected to one. Plus a complete ban on charging stored power before the start.

Limiting the design challenge in order to see more challengers is one thing. Taking it so far that we see customer teams mushroom is another. A customer team that buys or is provided with ip derived by the defender in the current cycle should compete to be the defender and not a challenger. A future TJ should be ineligible for the challenger knock out stage.

The rule should allow for more than one team to compete to be the defender.

The cup should be sailed in the national waters of the defending nation. The defending nation being the country of the club whose team last won the cup.

And to take the natuonality thing one  step further the teams should be funded by individuals or organisations domiciled in their own country.

No limit on sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rgeek said:

The rule should allow for more than one team to compete to be the defender.

The AC34 rule did allow for that. The only candidate was either a madman or a publicity-seeker, it was never clear which.

Of the two teams in the Match, there is no sign at all of another team in the country who would seriously contend to be defender.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going forward from now, stick with the current platform size but open it up to new designs(current ones still comply), no stored energy, 1 rig but anything goes(can downsize or upsize on wind strength) keep the 2 sets of boards rule, jibs optional. Boat to be built in country, and sailed in country of defender. Also no limit on crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

The AC34 rule did allow for that. The only candidate was either a madman or a publicity-seeker, it was never clear which.

Of the two teams in the Match, there is no sign at all of another team in the country who would seriously contend to be defender.

 

Not in terms of TJ being a defender rather than a challenger tho. In reality that is what they have turned out to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynical and bitter as I may often be, I don't actually agree with that assessment of TJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, so on the fence with this topic.

I so want to see real match racing taylor canfield monohull style with prestarts that have you on your feet yelling. With dial downs that have your heart skip a beat. 

I don't want to see the current ac cats. FOr me, the excitement level of nill. Just tell me who wins. And ya, with races about 10 minutes long, that is about all you will remember. 

Watch taylor canfield monohull action and you will remember that for life.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the 15 metre cats, but with a box rule. Dump all OD restrictions.

Retain crew limit - present 6 seems OK.

2 x wings - light and heavy weather rigs.

Nationality Rule - yacht must be built in challenging YC country. Sailor nationality optional.

Ban Defender/Challenger racing prior to Match

Race in YC home waters.

Retain 4-year cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want hi-tech:

Open up the AC50 a bit (grandfather current ones in any changes)

Hull, wing (preferably somehow area adjustable for wind range) & platform box limited.

Maybe keep one-design beams/platform or physical strength test.

Allow more foils but limit tips, restrict rudder count.

 

If you actually want to limit costs:

Bit longer displacement cat, maybe 62ft with same beam/rig size?

Hull free except bow volume ratios for safety (or some kind of alternative anti-pitchpole proof/test).

Either one-design beams/platform or physical strength test.

Wing with windrange adjustment or wingmast + softsail depending on what is cheaper (not just design/construction but logistically).

Nice big Code 0 for downwind/reaches/light, helps visual interest & provides occasional spectacular set/douse fuckup.

Limited sail numbers, limits on construction methods depending on relative prices.

Ban complex electronics/hydraulics & stored energy.

Ban foiling, mandated straight daggerboards, no rake/pitch adjustment, limited replaceable tips, limited load flex, maybe limited T/J for pitchpole prevention.

Probably allow T foils on rudders (limited numbers) for pitchpole prevention.

 

The latter is a bit retrograde but less so than monohulls & I think would be genuinely more visually attractive, affordable & more accesible to new/limited budget teams.

I love the foiling cats I reall do, its even been a rare case of AC tech actually being applied lower down the rungs but visually they are not that great: nose down, 0 heel, going from close hauled with jib to close hauled with jib round marks, no extras is just not so visually appealing.

Might just be my monohull background but they look so much prettier flying a hull in the really light stuff...

 

Keep AC45s around for any prelim type series, I think they've proven to be adequately good looking, performant (when not sailed in stupid places), rugged & transportable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foiling 60-foot monohulls, built to a box rule, like the current Open 60's.  Increase the crew size to 12.

Longer races.  Go back to the classic windward - leeward courses, but please, for God's sake, remove the boundary restrictions.  Also remove the rule about boats entering the start box at different times.  I want to see tactics and positioning long before the start of a race.

Replace the main sail with a wing sail.  The AC is all about innovation, so why not put a wing sail on a monohull?  This could be one-design, or not.

Allow teams to build, at most, 2 yachts.  Remove any surrogate rules during testing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little value in open design on the hulls when they can, for 100% of a race, be out of the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can at least look a bit different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J class...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chuso007 said:

J class...

Or a down sized version of Comanche or Wild Oats XI.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a modern version of a Chesapeake Log Canoe?

nr915p.jpg

  • Spectacular capsizes for the Red Bull/Facebook generation. Check.
  • Canvas enough to be a sailmakers wet dream. "I think I've found a way for us to add another 3 sq ft". Check
  • Athletic movement of hiking boards makes more sense to spectators than hamsters/cyclors/grinders pumping oil. Check.
  • Mizzen trimmer sitting on the bumpkin, so usually a light weight female crew member => mixed crews. Check.
  • Position in crew for owner/celebrity guest as "boardmen" Check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WetHog said:

Or a down sized version of Comanche or Wild Oats XI.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Or an Etchells up-sized to 20 meters LOA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TP52 style box rule at 65' or so, no wings, lifting foils, hydraulic controlled systems, straight-up manually operated systems. Something that can race in the ocean in 30 knots if it has to without going down the mine or falling apart, that will have a potential afterlife once out of date for AC duty, but could be modified (in theory) to be competitive for a round or two (like a number of the old 12's used to be and the 52's do now), must have a couple of amateur crew in the mix with the pros (all ages, not just kids). Standard match-racing starts, no delays in entering or some weird shaped box, races geared for maybe 45 mins. minimum, maybe a boundary that is just short of the extreme lay lines to keep them somewhat close but not something so small where there are limited tactical options.

There are already a variety of series set-up that they could tag-on with to have events in the time between matches. Maybe some special events made for TV to drive interest and aid in the sponsor dollars, which are a given no matter who is behind the teams, and get back to where the YC has more control over their representatives than just being a name the teams tag on to. Separate the financial obligations from the club to the team/sponsors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about foiling log canoes only bigger and in Newport,RI..Foil or Swim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tornado-Cat said:

With movable trailing edges on both the main foil and the rudder, like a plane, it would be possible to have faster, more extreme and spectacular boats.

This. I'd be happy to see an AC50 with movable flaps on the horizontal rudders, controlled by the helmsman via an aircraft-style yoke or stick instead of a wheel.

I like the foilers, I like the AC pushing foiling technology forward, and it seems to me that the biggest gain yet to be made is in the control of these boats. More reactive ride height control allows more unstable (i.e. faster) foils, more effective manoeuvres, possibilities for two boats to get closer... and it frees the crew from just pumping fluid to control the main board rake continuously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Swanno said:

There is little value in open design on the hulls when they can, for 100% of a race, be out of the water.

Yes, it has been hard for some to understand 3 years ago before this AC.

But it is also a reason to let it open design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hover yachts.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lartitude36S said:

Hover yachts.?

How do get traction upwind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravitational pull.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Swanno said:

There is little value in open design on the hulls when they can, for 100% of a race, be out of the water.

aerodynamics

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see vessels with no hydraulics.

Relying on oil and continuous grinding to "power" vessels seems to be the antithesis of sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Swanno said:

There is little value in open design on the hulls when they can, for 100% of a race, be out of the water.

A statement proven false the very first time you nose dive off the foils or try to accelerate out of a hook on the start line.

can =! will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General theme of this discussion - "I want less one design elements and closer match racing"

 

Just think about that for a second....

 

Now that you've realised how fucking dumb you are, take a deep breath and look at it from a general public perspective - this is the only way you will gather more viewers, increase ROI, increase interest, and ultimately increase the number of competitors.

If you want close racing heavy on the match racing tactics, go watch the match racing world tour. If you want TP52 style monohulls, go watch the TP52 series. If you want TP52 style but bigger, go watch the Maxi 72's. If you want an open slather foiling/wing design competition, go watch the C Class. Point being, there is plenty of options out there to satisfy every level of sailing geek in us.

To create an 'F1 on water', it needs to be fast, close and easy to understand, hence the need for OD elements, boundaries and short races. The longer the current platform is in play, the closer racing will get, the higher chance of traditional match racing tactics. Before you scream "that's not what sailors want" I've got news for you - organisers and teams don't give a fuck what sailors want, they give a fuck what gives investors and sponsors the highest ROI. If you want something for the sailors, join your local regatta committee and get to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I know it won't happen, I would really like to see aircraft carriers such as old KZ-1 battle it out on the high seas, just because.

KZ1-8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd keep the boats basically the same in order to control costs and encourage more contenders, with the following exception:

Allow stored energy in battery form and dispense with human powered hydraulics.

They could focus all their time and resources for AC36 on perfecting foil design and trim tech to make the next evolutionary step to 50+ territory

The racing is good and close right now, where a small tactical mistake or crew work bungle can affect the outcome of the race. 

Swapping the leads back and forth makes for good TV, and with that comes the sponsor money.

You need to make this a spectacle that even non-sailors can enjoy to keep this ball rolling and the wheels well greased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DT Wanderer said:

General theme of this discussion - "I want less one design elements and closer match racing"

 

Just think about that for a second....

 

Now that you've realised how fucking dumb you are, take a deep breath and look at it from a general public perspective - this is the only way you will gather more viewers, increase ROI, increase interest, and ultimately increase the number of competitors.

If you want close racing heavy on the match racing tactics, go watch the match racing world tour. If you want TP52 style monohulls, go watch the TP52 series. If you want TP52 style but bigger, go watch the Maxi 72's. If you want an open slather foiling/wing design competition, go watch the C Class. Point being, there is plenty of options out there to satisfy every level of sailing geek in us.

To create an 'F1 on water', it needs to be fast, close and easy to understand, hence the need for OD elements, boundaries and short races. The longer the current platform is in play, the closer racing will get, the higher chance of traditional match racing tactics. Before you scream "that's not what sailors want" I've got news for you - organisers and teams don't give a fuck what sailors want, they give a fuck what gives investors and sponsors the highest ROI. If you want something for the sailors, join your local regatta committee and get to work.

I think you will find the theme is more:

"I want less one design"

or

"I want closer match racing"

I am far less concerned about the boats being competitive with each other and far more concerned with seeing how fast they can go, it's the America's cup not some round the cans Sunday one design.

It really doesn't matter what your rules are, the longer a class exists the closer the racing and if someone makes a huge break through, then sure they win, but then that break through becomes the new normal next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before wishing for mono's go back and watch some of the videos from the earlier Amercia's cups.

I have watched the 2000 ETNZ v Prada, and the the last race in the 33rd AC races. Yes the racing was closer (mostly within 50 metres), but it was slow and not very exciting. A lee bow tack was about as exciting as it got. There wasn't the options for the skippers to use to attack the other boat, or to defend. There wasn't the worry (or hope) that one mistake will lose (or win) the race.

I fully appreciate there is skill required to lug 25 tonnes of lead around a course quicker then someone else, but these skills were still limited to a small number of old fat men (butterworth) in the back of the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also remember the AC cup is about building and sailing the fastest boat around the course. It is not a match racing competition, it is a design and build competition, and it's looking like the kiwis may have done it this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the above comments make two things abundantly clear: 

  1. There's no right answer.  
  2. The right answer needs to be informed by a broader question around "what is the Americas Cup anyway"

Originally it was a contest between nations. Just two, USA and their Colonial parent the UK - represented by rich industrialists from both.  It was a father and son thing, USA proved it was technologically capable and endeed had outgrown the mother ship.  Yacht design wasn't globalised, nations had real differences in the levels of technology and capability they could bring to bear an dthere was plenty of colonial baggage still around.. 

Before too long - a few decades, some basic rules and restrictions were introduced to make the competition sensible and feasible - and with that came a focus on match racng.  All else being about equal the best match racers win.  This era progressed through yachts being built to rating, then box rules.  Seawanahaka rule, Universal Rule, then J Class within that rule, then 12 metre, then IACC, AC72, AC15 via an expensive and silly little side trip or two  to the DOG pound via the Kiwis in 1988 and whoever it was in 2010.  Meanwhile, yacht design and construction mirrored industrial development and globalised.  Nationalty rules started to look pretty silly, even irrelevant to some who wanted to play but didn't have the capabilitiues in their countries.

Each class of boat became more and more of a match racing platform as generations of technology development converged on optimal answers.  Diminishing returns.

Time has moved on again, rich guys think they need the event to look vaguely commercial and attract a wide public audience to be viable, and with that comes a focus on a design of boat that creates a spectacle that would attract a non-sailing audience.  Despite any amount of evidence going back decades that sailing simply isn't a spectator sport to any significant degree.  Never mind, that's where we are and that's what needs to drive the agenda.

What has been constant is "Innovation within Boundaries" and what has been largely constant is a focus on match racing.  That's pretty much teh spirit of the Americas Cup these days.  

As a sailor I was enthralled by the 2007 AC in Valencia, I was there and the atmosphere was electric.  The public spectacle was huge and engaging despite the dinosaurs being raced.  I don't personally believe the  technology of the boats matters too much to a non-sailing audience, but a spectacle close tightly fought contest with an ever present risk of catastrophe always brings the crowds, assuming that's the objective.

I've been disappointed by the level of mano-a-mano match racing we've seen so far, but unsurprised.  The boats used limit what can be done as they're not particularly manouverable at slow speed, the risk of being second onto the foils at the start is so high and the risk of nasty consequences of a high speed collision is simply too high.  That said, they're fun to watch.  Some of the pre-start tussles have been cool to watch too but not as cool as two big crews in tightly matched leadmines hunting and circling and trying to nail penalties on each other.  

Once the start's done it's all been fairly processional apart from a handful of boundary incidents.  Boatspeed aside, windshifts are everything and it's been a bit of a lottery as the boats gain sepearation so fast.

I'd persist with the current platform for now, mainly because the whole concept is new and really only at its second generation of technology development.  That said, increase the focus on innovation and design that can trickle down to the broader sport.  Reposting something from another thread here's how I'd change the current boat:

  • Stored power, no brainer.  Choice of approach open and left to teams - will drive innovation in light, reliable, efficient technologies for powering things in mobile and potentially adverse environments. Who needs dedicated grinders or cyclists, really?  
  • Arguably retain manual wing/sail controls however - just to make it look like a yacht, ish.
  • Automated foil control, using whatever approach the teams can dream up.  Would become a major area of development and the trickle down to other sailing disciplines (and perhaps non-sailing too) would be very significant.
  • Open up foil geometry rules to a broad "box" type restriction.  I guess we need to keep the boats fairly close to keep the focus on match racing. Otherwise Option B is just to make foils comletely open.  Within a box, allow flaps and variable geometry, remove restrictions on rotation about axes.  Remove restrictions on windward foil being lifted.  Keep restrictions on numbers of foils and changing them.  All designed to broaden the foils useful range of operation and effectiveness.  Excellent area for research and innovation and good trickle down potential.   
  • Retain the same one-design approach to wings and beams.  Leave out competing on platform and wing aerodynamics for now, crank up the focus even more on control systems - again a potentially big trickle-down benefit.  Maybe open up wing sections next time around, by which time we will be at 3rd generation control systems and in expensive, diminishing returns territory.
  • Retain the same one-design approach on hulls - they're not relevant anyhow.  
  • Arguably build the hulls all centrally to reduce costs (like VOR) then let teams modify their internal structure and foil handling components post-construction.  Maybe deliver hulls to teams in two halves split longitudionally and allow teams to complete assembly once they've inserted their proprietary componentry.
  • Change the AC course to increase impact of reaching components - force designers to come up with more versatile foil-borne packages.  Maybe make the course different every race, subject to it being televisable (though this is pretty easy using the Virtual Eye technology now in place.  Proximity to the shore is a secondary concern really.)
  • Fix any safety related issues identified this time around - e.g. put nets up front, put in place rails to stop sailors going overboard in high speed tacks etc..
  • To those yearning for A-sails: forget it.  The apparent wind angles these bitches operate at render them irrelevant. Joey Newton said "16-17 degrees AWA upwnd, maybe 19-20 downwind" in a commentary the other day.  AC50s would probably go faster without jibs in fact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will be MRX's or Elliots or Stewart 34s I reckon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partemis, Pemirates, Poracle and Pandrover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ~HHN92~ said:

TP52 style box rule at 65' or so, no wings, lifting foils, hydraulic controlled systems, straight-up manually operated systems. Something that can race in the ocean in 30 knots if it has to without going down the mine or falling apart, that will have a potential afterlife once out of date for AC duty, but could be modified (in theory) to be competitive for a round or two (like a number of the old 12's used to be and the 52's do now), must have a couple of amateur crew in the mix with the pros (all ages, not just kids). Standard match-racing starts, no delays in entering or some weird shaped box, races geared for maybe 45 mins. minimum, maybe a boundary that is just short of the extreme lay lines to keep them somewhat close but not something so small where there are limited tactical options.

There are already a variety of series set-up that they could tag-on with to have events in the time between matches. Maybe some special events made for TV to drive interest and aid in the sponsor dollars, which are a given no matter who is behind the teams, and get back to where the YC has more control over their representatives than just being a name the teams tag on to. Separate the financial obligations from the club to the team/sponsors.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pipo said:

will be MRX's or Elliots or Stewart 34s I reckon

And limit budgets to $100M.  See how much you can spend on a Stewart 34 ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dogwatch said:

centomiglia-3.jpeg

Lago di Garda, Centomiglia (question mark)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Libera class. I love those boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that lake....

memories....

first time we went there and they started laying the course with zero wind while calling the boats onto the water

18 knots Ora 15 minutes later, like clockwork

Oh the days.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DickDastardly said:

All the above comments make two things abundantly clear: 

  1. There's no right answer.  
  2. The right answer needs to be informed by a broader question around "what is the Americas Cup anyway"

Originally it was a contest between nations. Just two, USA and their Colonial parent the UK - represented by rich industrialists from both.  It was a father and son thing, USA proved it was technologically capable and endeed had outgrown the mother ship.  Yacht design wasn't globalised, nations had real differences in the levels of technology and capability they could bring to bear an dthere was plenty of colonial baggage still around.. 

Before too long - a few decades, some basic rules and restrictions were introduced to make the competition sensible and feasible - and with that came a focus on match racng.  All else being about equal the best match racers win.  This era progressed through yachts being built to rating, then box rules.  Seawanahaka rule, Universal Rule, then J Class within that rule, then 12 metre, then IACC via an expensive and silly little side trip to the old DOG approach via the Kiwis in 1988.  Meanwhile, yacht design and construction mirrored industrial development and globalised.  Nationalty rules started to look pretty silly, even irrelevant to some who wanted to play but didn't have the capabilitiues in their countries.

Each class of boat became more and more of a match racing platform as generations of technology development converged on optimal answers.  Diminishing returns.

Time has moved on again, rich guys think they need the event to look vaguely commercial and attract a wide public audience to be viable, and with that comes a focus on a design of boat that creates a spectacle that would attract a non-sailing audience.  Despite any amount of evidence going back decades that sailing simply isn't a spectator sport to any significant degree.  Never mind, that's where we are and that's what needs to drive the agenda.

What has been constant is "Innovation within Boundaries" and what has been largely constant is a focus on match racing.  That's pretty much teh spirit of the Americas Cup these days.  

As a sailor I was enthralled by the 2007 AC in Valencia, I was there and the atmosphere was electric.  The public spectacle was huge and engaging despite the dinosaurs being raced.  I don't personally believe the  technology of the boats matters too much to a non-sailing audience, but a spectacle close tightly fought contest with an ever present risk of catastrophe always brings the crowds, assuming that's the objective.

I've been disappointed by the level of mano-a-mano match racing we've seen so far, but unsurprised.  The boats used limit what can be done as they're not particularly manouverable at slow speed, the risk of being second onto the foils at the start is so high and the risk of nasty consequences of a high speed collision is simply too high.  That said, they're fun to watch.  Some of the pre-start tussles have been cool to watch too but not as cool as two big crews in tightly matched leadmines hunting and circling and trying to nail penalties on each other.  

Once the start's done it's all been fairly processional apart from a handful of boundary incidents.  Boatspeed aside, windshifts are everything and it's been a bit of a lottery as the boats gain sepearation so fast.

I'd persist with the current platform for now, mainly because the whole concept is new and really only at its second generation of technology development.  That said, increase the focus on innovation and design that can trickle down to the broader sport.  Reposting something from another thread here's how I'd change the current boat:

  • Stored power, no brainer.  Choice of approach open and left to teams - will drive innovation in light, reliable, efficient technologies for powering things in mobile and potentially adverse environments. Who needs dedicated grinders or cyclists, really?  
  • Arguably retain manual wing/sail controls however - just to make it look like a yacht, ish.
  • Automated foil control, using whatever approach the teams can dream up.  Would become a major area of development and the trickle down to other sailing disciplines (and perhaps non-sailing too) would be very significant.
  • Open up foil geometry rules to a broad "box" type restriction.  I guess we need to keep the boats fairly close to keep the focus on match racing. Otherwise Option B is just to make foils comletely open.  Within a box, allow flaps and variable geometry, remove restrictions on rotation about axes.  Remove restrictions on windward foil being lifted.  Keep restrictions on numbers of foils and changing them.  All designed to broaden the foils useful range of operation and effectiveness.  Excellent area for research and innovation and good trickle down potential.   
  • Retain the same one-design approach to wings and beams.  Leave out competing on platform and wing aerodynamics for now, crank up the focus even more on control systems - again a potentially big trickle-down benefit.  Maybe open up wing sections next time around, by which time we will be at 3rd generation control systems and in expensive, diminishing returns territory.
  • Retain the same one-design approach on hulls - they're not relevant anyhow.  
  • Arguably build the hulls all centrally to reduce costs (like VOR) then let teams modify their internal structure and foil handling components post-construction.  Maybe deliver hulls to teams in two halves split longitudionally and allow teams to complete assembly once they've inserted their proprietary componentry.
  • Change the AC course to increase impact of reaching components - force designers to come up with more versatile foil-borne packages.  Maybe make the course different every race, subject to it being televisable (though this is pretty easy using the Virtual Eye technology now in place.  Proximity to the shore is a secondary concern really.)
  • Fix any safety related issues identified this time around - e.g. put nets up front, put in place rails to stop sailors going overboard in high speed tacks etc..
  • To those yearning for A-sails: forget it.  The apparent wind angles these bitches operate at render them irrelevant. Joey Newton said "16-17 degrees AWA upwnd, maybe 19-20 downwind" in a commentary the other day.  AC50s would probably go faster without jibs in fact.

 

All good but in addition they need to change the measurement rules .. the need to re-measure the boats after each foil change is silly and introduces a lottery element as to who gets to guess the weather right.

The platforms can be measured then the foils each measured separately so that the decision about which foil to use can be made just before the race .. just like sail selection on the lead mines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

All good but in addition they need to change the measurement rules .. the need to re-measure the boats after each foil change is silly and introduces a lottery element as to who gets to guess the weather right.

The platforms can be measured then the foils each measured separately so that the decision about which foil to use can be made just before the race .. just like sail selection on the lead mines.

Good point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One slight amendment....

For some time there had been attempts to establish a truly professional event for the sport, allowing the best sailors in the world to compete against each other, run the teams and get paid. The pressure put on The Admirals Cup caused it to collapse. The Americas Cup was to unstable with considerable periods of not getting paid in between. Attempts where made to plug the gaps with round the world race campaigns but they are hard to put together and sponsorship from the traditional sponsors for sport like the tobaco and drinks industries dried up under world wide legislative pressure. There was some traction with tp52s and ior50s before them but in the end the money tired of paying other people to go sailing or the tax breaks that kept them alive ended or the overly restrictive rules created joyless design deadends. The match racing world series both peaked and died under pressure to make it more commercial. The desperate clubs running events couldn't leverage the oportunity, and it ended up in a dead end (sound familiar WS Sailing World Cup?)

The only option for the best sailors in the world to get paid was to sit on the shoulder of the owner and teach them how to helm. A number of classes have come and gone each claiming to be the Grand Prix of sailing and while not really being the real deal. One thing is for sure though, the people in sailing who sail in or make money out of them are not keen on the Americas Cup being in boats that make it abundantly clear to even a casual observer that their monofest in the sunshine is not Grand Prix and not the top end of the sport at all. The only people making sailing commercially viable are the ESS, but their cut back version of the sport (a one design version of formula 40) is limited for the sailors.

RC and sets up the RC44. It's a hybrid of owner driver and pro circuit and a bridge for people who dont want to get involved with or cant aford the Americas Cup. The boats even look like small IAAC. It starts off with some pretentious in terms of generating coverage but gradually the money involved becomes less keen on their playground being visible to the public. At the same time EB has done the exciting bit. He's won the cup and defended it. Cup holders don't just give up but if he can stay in the game and get other people to pay for it then great.

Mean while RC has started to peddle a sailing World Series. A fully pro idea taking the essentials of the ESS and making it a more genuine sailing challenge aimed at being the top level of the sport capable of stable income of the sailors (amongst other things).

The problem is the Americas Cup is already the top level of the sport, with massive history and momentum behind it. The only way to create a world sailing league it to take over the AC and reshape it.

So there are two slightly competing visions of what the biggest event in sailing should be right being shoe horned into the AC now. A sailor led contest representing the top level of the sport. The traditional owner led design challenge. The best sailors in the fastest boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DT Wanderer said:

To create an 'F1 on water', it needs to be fast, close and easy to understand, hence the need for OD elements, boundaries and short races. 

Why is it supposed to be F1? There are plenty of other classes and circuits for F1 type events (Extreme series etc).

It's the AC - fastest boat wins - money no object. For the worlds oldest international sporting event it seems to be doing ok without F1 bullshit! Even the F1 is more open than the current AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terry Hollis said:

All good but in addition they need to change the measurement rules .. the need to re-measure the boats after each foil change is silly and introduces a lottery element as to who gets to guess the weather right.

The platforms can be measured then the foils each measured separately so that the decision about which foil to use can be made just before the race .. just like sail selection on the lead mines.

Why even have a daily measurement? Have a pre-regatta or new equipment measurement process and anything can be used at any time providing it is previously measured and legal. This is the way sail selection works for any normal regatta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The analogy with f1 comes mostly from the place the AC is in right now and the history of f1.

F1 took a situation largely like we have in the AC now and turned it into a no holes barred sporting and commercial success and people want some of that in sailing.

The ESS is monster truck racing and the boats aren't the highest performing in sailing. It's not the f1 of sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pipo said:

Partemis, Pemirates, Poracle and Pandrover

+ Proupama and Poftbank :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, rgeek said:

The analogy with f1 comes mostly from the place the AC is in right now and the history of f1.

F1 took a situation largely like we have in the AC now and turned it into a no holes barred sporting and commercial success and people want some of that in sailing.

 

F1 is now enormously more expensive than it used to be and the fields are about one third as big as they used to be. Why is that a good model to follow?

Russelvision certainly managed to reduce the fields by two thirds. I wonder how he's going on the other side of the equation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude the AC only ever has 2 teams in it.

The IACC had run its course. What would of happened next is conjecture. But it surely would of involved a change of class and fewer Shoshaloza/team china's. 

The biggest reason for there being fewer teams is that the holder is American. That basically means no other American teams.

Luna Rossa + Alinghi + may be another Italian team

Vs

GBR + TF + TJ

Much of a muchness really (the move on Luna Rossa and dumbing down the boats was a dick move all the same)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like all the billionaires to be racing in optimists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been pretty much the coolest cup ever... I'd continue to develop the wing and keep it standard, but leave everything else open. the boats size will then just be limited by the power of the wing. 

This venue is a bit lame, it's too predictable, but i guess it was good for development.  It'd be good to go further offshore, so that we'd start to sea boats built for "real" conditions. Then we might see more developments that will actually benefit the average sailor. The Hauraki gulf would be rad.

The control systems and energy storage are here to stay- that's the big story here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and on a more serious note, I agree with the idea of having stored power. It feels kind of stupid to have world class sailors onboard who are not taking part in the actual "sailing" at all, but are reduced to working as power generators. Either smaller crews or alternatively tasks more evenly spread out   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rgeek said:

Dude the AC only ever has 2 teams in it.

The IACC had run its course. What would of happened next is conjecture. But it surely would of involved a change of class and fewer Shoshaloza/team china's. 

The biggest reason for there being fewer teams is that the holder is American. That basically means no other American teams.

Luna Rossa + Alinghi + may be another Italian team

Vs

GBR + TF + TJ

Much of a muchness really (the move on Luna Rossa and dumbing down the boats was a dick move all the same)

Who said that the IACC had to stay in?  

You're ignoring that we used to have up to three Australian teams - now we have none. In earlier LVCs we had another New Zealand team, another French team, two Italian teams, a Spanish team, the Swiss, the South Africans and the Canadians - they are all gone now. Russel's vision of 17 teams has been proven to be rubbish and for all the talk about the need to keep the poor pro sailors rolling in cash, there are probably fewer people getting a living out of the AC than there was a decade or more ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DickDastardly said:

All the above comments make two things abundantly clear: 

  1. There's no right answer.  
  2. The right answer needs to be informed by a broader question around "what is the Americas Cup anyway"

I'd persist with the current platform for now, mainly because the whole concept is new and really only at its second generation of technology development.  That said, increase the focus on innovation and design that can trickle down to the broader sport.  Reposting something from another thread here's how I'd change the current boat:

  • Stored power, no brainer.  Choice of approach open and left to teams - will drive innovation in light, reliable, efficient technologies for powering things in mobile and potentially adverse environments. Who needs dedicated grinders or cyclists, really?  
  • Arguably retain manual wing/sail controls however - just to make it look like a yacht, ish.
  • Automated foil control, using whatever approach the teams can dream up.  Would become a major area of development and the trickle down to other sailing disciplines (and perhaps non-sailing too) would be very significant.
  • Open up foil geometry rules to a broad "box" type restriction.  I guess we need to keep the boats fairly close to keep the focus on match racing. Otherwise Option B is just to make foils comletely open.  Within a box, allow flaps and variable geometry, remove restrictions on rotation about axes.  Remove restrictions on windward foil being lifted.  Keep restrictions on numbers of foils and changing them.  All designed to broaden the foils useful range of operation and effectiveness.  Excellent area for research and innovation and good trickle down potential.   
  • Retain the same one-design approach to wings and beams.  Leave out competing on platform and wing aerodynamics for now, crank up the focus even more on control systems - again a potentially big trickle-down benefit.  Maybe open up wing sections next time around, by which time we will be at 3rd generation control systems and in expensive, diminishing returns territory.
  • Retain the same one-design approach on hulls - they're not relevant anyhow.  
  • Arguably build the hulls all centrally to reduce costs (like VOR) then let teams modify their internal structure and foil handling components post-construction.  Maybe deliver hulls to teams in two halves split longitudionally and allow teams to complete assembly once they've inserted their proprietary componentry.
  • Change the AC course to increase impact of reaching components - force designers to come up with more versatile foil-borne packages.  Maybe make the course different every race, subject to it being televisable (though this is pretty easy using the Virtual Eye technology now in place.  Proximity to the shore is a secondary concern really.)
  • Fix any safety related issues identified this time around - e.g. put nets up front, put in place rails to stop sailors going overboard in high speed tacks etc..
  • To those yearning for A-sails: forget it.  The apparent wind angles these bitches operate at render them irrelevant. Joey Newton said "16-17 degrees AWA upwnd, maybe 19-20 downwind" in a commentary the other day.  AC50s would probably go faster without jibs in fact.

 Mildly interesting that the most thoughtful answers came from across the Tasman.  In addition to DD from Sydney, we have from WA

8 hours ago, DT Wanderer said:

General theme of this discussion - "I want less one design elements and closer match racing"

Just think about that for a second....

Now that you've realised how fucking dumb you are, take a deep breath and look at it from a general public perspective - this is the only way you will gather more viewers, increase ROI, increase interest, and ultimately increase the number of competitors.

To create an 'F1 on water', it needs to be fast, close and easy to understand, hence the need for OD elements, boundaries and short races. The longer the current platform is in play, the closer racing will get, the higher chance of traditional match racing tactics. Before you scream "that's not what sailors want" I've got news for you - organisers and teams don't give a fuck what sailors want, they give a fuck what gives investors and sponsors the highest ROI. If you want something for the sailors, join your local regatta committee and get to work.

With apologies I've truncated both posts to reflect my take on it.

Stick with similar foiling platforms per the above although perhaps go up a couple of metres in LOA.

Safety ideas good. Also is it possible to ditch T-rudders in favour of L-rudders without too much loss of righting moment?

If Bermuda next time, longer courses further North into the Great Sound. If not Bermuda, longer courses anyway. With the success of AC35 it should be possible for ACEA or its successor to pitch the idea of a three-hour broadcast, more in line with other sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WetHog said:

Or a down sized version of Comanche or Wild Oats XI.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Good enough...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To create an 'F1 on water', it needs to be fast, close and easy to understand

Nobody fucking asked for 'F1 on water' its never going to happen & people need to stop trying to fuck up the AC to try to turn it into that.

Its already been tried and there is no market for it, see Extreme Sailing Series: It gets like 30s coverage on Mainsheet maybe a paragraph & small pic in a sailing magazine every now and then & thats it.

 

When I watch Cricket I don't sit there thinking 'man I wish that was more like Nascar' or Soccer thinking 'damn, this should be more like waterpolo', no I fucking watch sailing to watch sailing.

The sailing should be of a type where sailors understand whats going on & enjoy it. Fuck anyone else.

 

Every AC there is this same BS 'oh we have to cater for non-sailor audience'.

No, fuck that you need to cater for the sailing audience.

The reason sailing coverage gets shit viewership is because sailors who want to actually watch it get fucked off by all the baby talk shit, we want to hear commentators who know what they are talking about talk about actual sailing stuff like any other sport gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eloquently put M'lord - Well said Sir! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since innovation is a big part of the Americas Cup, and every team spends a lot of money in innovations. If I won the AC and I could propose my own rules would be:

  • Size specifications (all sailboats must fit one a very broad box, let's say something 15m X 10 m)
  • Race in waters owned by the country of the sailing club who are the defenders.
  • The skipper of the boat must have the nationality of the country that the team represents.
  • The boats should be able to sail in the ocean, and be transferred to the regatta by their own power.

The last rule will make the boats more safe to be able to sail in any conditions, and thus the whole innovation part of Americas Cup will push the innovation closer to everyday sailboats that we are using.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spanish team was gone with the economic downturn. A second french team gave it as go and wasnt put off by the change. They had other issues. A south korea team gave it a go not put off by the vision. So the difference is the Canadians and south Africans.

The problem with changing the class is that there aren't old boats and proven know how for teams to get into the cup on the cheep. I recon those teams would of dropped anyway due to the inevitable class change required to rejuvenate the cup.

The 90 million ticket for entry that has kept smaller teams out isn't down to Russel vision. Nor did Russel vision initially keep the Italians out. In fact they wanted a more exclusive competition.

Some of those backers are still there backing ETNZ or waiting to see if things worked out or whether it fell apart.

It hasn't fallen apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those sorts of factors affect each AC so you can't use them as excuses for the poorer turn-up since Russell took over. If you are going to count the teams that "could have, should have" made it for 2016, you have to also count the teams that "could have, should have" made it in earlier ACs.

Just to give two examples, the first ever LV was run in a time of worldwide recession - there were still 7 teams in the LVC and 10 teams in the AC. There were five teams that were serious enough to pay the $250,000 entry fee for Auckland that didn't make the start line for various reasons. You can't count the second French team or the Koreans but not count the similar no-show teams in earlier generations.

Russell talked up the prospect of 16 teams when they switched to cats - he got four. Since he's been in charge we have seen the smallest number of competing teams for decades, and the ratings are poor.  It hasn't fallen apart, but it has missed meeting the claims by miles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All fair points Jay. Aukland in particular was a breath of fresh air after all the SDYC nonsense.

The first LVC was what? 1983? 30 years after the 12s had been established as the AC class. Its all 1, 2, 4 challengers before that. All teams from countries engaged this time round. By Freemantle there where 13. Then it all went to shit with a DoG challenge from a team that had never made it to the Cup before.

Then it's 92 and we got a new class with the IACC and number dropped to 8.

Things grow again until we where back at 11-13. The 11 for the final IACC event boosted by China, South Africa etc. Then it all goes to shit with a DoG challenge form a team that had never made it to the Cup before.

Now we're back at 5.

The difference between 92 and 2017? An Australian, Italian and Spanish team? Loosing an Aussies is a black mark for sure, but on the other hand it's not like Australian sailing is under represented. The Italians are out because largely because of a completely shit move, but the LVC would of been smaller again if things had carried on. The Spanish economy tanked.

So what's happened is basically exactly what happens with a change of class. Russel Vision can be blamed for the Italian no show.

Bu if the Italians and Spanish are back in as suggested then it'll be very much business as usual.

The lesson?

Big numbers turn up for a Cup in the southern hemisphere, when it's perceived to be a sporting event, when the Americans think they have a point to prove and when there's stability in terms of the class.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rgeek said:

All fair points Jay. Aukland in particular was a breath of fresh air after all the SDYC nonsense.

The first LVC was what? 1983? 30 years after the 12s had been established as the AC class. Its all 1, 2, 4 challengers before that. All teams from countries engaged this time round. By Freemantle there where 13. Then it all went to shit with a DoG challenge from a team that had never made it to the Cup before.

Then it's 92 and we got a new class with the IACC and number dropped to 8.

Things grow again until we where back at 11-13. The 11 for the final IACC event boosted by China, South Africa etc. Then it all goes to shit with a DoG challenge form a team that had never made it to the Cup before.

Now we're back at 5.

The difference between 92 and 2017? An Australian, Italian and Spanish team? Loosing an Aussies is a black mark for sure, but on the other hand it's not like Australian sailing is under represented. The Italians are out because largely because of a completely shit move, but the LVC would of been smaller again if things had carried on. The Spanish economy tanked.

So what's happened is basically exactly what happens with a change of class. Russel Vision can be blamed for the Italian no show.

Bu if the Italians and Spanish are back in as suggested then it'll be very much business as usual.

The lesson?

Big numbers turn up for a Cup in the southern hemisphere, when it's perceived to be a sporting event, when the Americans think they have a point to prove and when there's stability in terms of the class.

 

 

Though if you remember, in 2007 there were really only 3 challengers out of 11 who had any realistic shot - ETNZ, BMWO, and LR. In 2003 Alinghi basically trounced the entire thing. 2000 was great, at least for the LVC (and us yanks' nationalism was fed by 5 American teams with mostly American crews). Anyway, there's an argument to be made for quality vs quantity. The extra teams in prior years seem to be more chaff than wheat. There always seems to be a core group of around 3-4 serious contenders, the rest exist to be spoilers (though the weaker teams are valuable for developing talent).

One thing that seems to contribute to more teams in the later editions of a particular class is the availability of used boats that are at least somewhat competitive, which allows low-budget teams to spin-up without building a new boat. Heck, sometimes teams have actually competed with boats from the prior edition. They're usually not great teams (in "modern" times - yes I know there have been multiple defenses in the same boat), but if you recall Spithill's first cup, it was racing with a youth Australian team in 2000 sailing with a boat from '95.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case should the youth AC teams be factored in?

Burlings promotion means it can't be ignored as a genuine path to the AC proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three to four man crew, take the non-sailing factor of human powered hydraulics completely out of the equation. A variation would be grinders strictly for sail trim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KiwiJoker said:

 Mildly interesting that the most thoughtful answers came from across the Tasman.  In addition to DD from Sydney, we have from WA

At the risk of sounding self-satisified, the Australian accents are as often as not found in AC team brain trusts.  Just as well, as there's essentially no hope of getting an Australian AC team up these days, the public interest and support simply isn't there and is diluting further every day as Australia becoms more diverse and multicultural.

I went through school (literally) and did my early sailing with and against Fresh, Iain Murray, Glen Bourke and Grant Simmer to name a few...yet despite my efforts to get them hooked on sailing my sons are both elite football (as in soccer) players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the costs had stayed in line with inflation since 1983, we'd be looking at $10 million for a complete challenge or about 18 million if you wanted to go over the top like Peter Unsavoury did. I think that's stayed consistent since the early 12 Metre days and, surprisingly, the J Class era. In the era of the 130 footers it was quite common to re-use gear off older boats and of course the crew's wages were low.

It shows how much those in control of the Cup have let boat and campaign costs rise.  Countries like Australia could probably fund a $18 mill campaign, although guys like Spithill may not be worth $22 million any more. Oh the suffering!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rgeek said:

In that case should the youth AC teams be factored in?

Burlings promotion means it can't be ignored as a genuine path to the AC proper.

If we are going to count the youth AC because it gave people like Burling their "genuine path" into the AC afterguard then how can we ignore the "genuine path" that Stars, 18 Foot Skiffs, IOR boats, A Class and Tornadoes, Etchells, slow match racing monos, 420s, Lasers, Finns, and Radials gave to DC, Turner, Murray, Ashby, Spithill, Dickson, Bertrand, Ainslie and Slingsby?

Lots of sailors and owners used to be involved with IOR boats around the time they got involved in the AC. Look at de Savary and Bond alone - they both ran IOR campaigns that were linked to their AC boats. Turner raced the 12 Metre American Eagle in the Fastnet and Hobart partly to get used to 12s, I think.  Syd Fisher was going IOR boats when he did his campaigns. Does that mean that all the IOR boats count as part of the "genuine path" to the AC too?  Challengers of Record have come from the Farr 40 and supermaxi scene - does that mean that IRC boats count as the "genuine path"?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70 foot mono box rule.... enable full foiling.  Think IMOCA 60 but with no restrictions on foils.  Would love to know if they could get a mono upto similar speeds as these AC cats.  Much better and more likely trickle down tech.

return to proper windward works off the start line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AVID said:

70 foot mono box rule.... enable full foiling.  Think IMOCA 60 but with no restrictions on foils.  Would love to know if they could get a mono upto similar speeds as these AC cats.  Much better and more likely trickle down tech.

return to proper windward works off the start line.

Depending on the beam you might not end up with something that much different than if you have a multi, the boats would all end up maximum beam up to the point where the foils were with the foils and rudders as far out as possible, they'd be fast but ugly as sin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, AVID said:

Would love to know if they could get a mono upto similar speeds as these AC cats.

The answer is no. The reason is physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hoom said:

The answer is no. The reason is physics.

Actually I disagree.... AC boats have a finite top speed based on foil design. They simply can't break this barrier.  Monohulls have plenty of scope... we have IMOCA 60's achieving over 30knots single handed in the middle of an ocean... 40 knots if unconstraind would be realustic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Jay said:

 there are probably fewer people getting a living out of the AC than there was a decade or more ago.

There's no "probably" about it. Not that the purpose is to provide employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AVID said:

Actually I disagree....

The answer is still no & still because of physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

There's no "probably" about it. Not that the purpose is to provide employment.

You're probably correct. I was erring on the side of being generous about the large shore crews the current boats apparently have, and I have no idea about the number of people involved in building the boats. I suppose there are far fewer sailmakers involved as well.

Yes, the AC is not about providing jobs, but on the other hand, in the Great Depression there was an appeal by a US maritime union for big-boat (ie AC style) owners to race their boats just to keep people employed. I think Vanderbilt etc answered the call. So some of the great names of the Cup apparently felt some sort of duty to provide employment, or at least good PR.

The main point of course is that the claims that the new AC was necessary to feed poor starving pro sailors appears to be complete bullshit, just like most other justifications for the current AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current format provides stable and continuous employment but for an ever-shrinking number of people. Nice provided you are on the bandwagon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hoom said:

The answer is still no & still because of physics.

Aerodynamics I'd say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fastest power boats are not foilers (way to slow) and are a hybrid mono.

One more round of cats and we will be at terminal velocity, which is where they were 15 years ago (just much faster)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

The current format provides stable and continuous employment but for an ever-shrinking number of people. Nice provided you are on the bandwagon.

 

I'm not sure that's true.

The total team sizes seem to be larger this time round, although the number of sailors on the boat is smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comparison would be with AC32 as the previous "normal" cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,

BAR: 110 or so on the team: 15 of them sailors
ETNZ: 96 with 10 sailor/cyclists

How big was, say, Alinghi or ORBMW in AC32?

ETNZ: 24 sailors, 95 in total

Alinghi looks to be around the 120 mark, with 24 in marketing alone.

So based on that limited sample there doesn't seem to have been a lot of impact on team size.

(figures from the teams own web sights form 2007 on the wayback machine)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there were 12 teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2017 at 3:18 AM, dogwatch said:

there is no sign at all of another team in the country who would seriously contend to be defender.

 

Not true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the AC once again a computation between nations. No hired guns, designers, builders and sailors all form the country. As for the boat, I don't much care but should be cutting edge. It should be inexpensive enough so as not to be a barrier to entry so we get more than 6 countries. Oh, and a defender series would be good too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2017 at 6:18 AM, hoom said:

Its already been tried and there is no market for it, see Extreme Sailing Series: It gets like 30s coverage on Mainsheet maybe a paragraph & small pic in a sailing magazine every now and then & thats it.

 

EXSS has beaten its worldwide exposure numbers (audited, not vapor) year on year for a decade now, continues to add sponsors, sold for a lot of money, and got its founder the credibility to now run the biggest event in the sport.  EXSS has daily averages of IRL spectators larger than the BDA events so far, too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogwatch said:

But there were 12 teams.

Which is as much down to the necessity of a change in class as the Aussies not wanting to back their sailors with their own team and the abortive attempt at having a larger boat that ended with bad blood with LR. With a change is class we wouldn't expect to see multiple teams from one country or youth or "none core country" teams sailing old boats. 1-2 of those are in the Youth Americas Cup, which has 12 (!) teams. In fairness we can only look at the events actually organised by the Cup organisers.

Of the habitual entries to the AC it's the Aussies and Italian teams that are missing, may be the Spanish, no more. Both can be laid directly at the feet of ACEA and RC; over reach and fucking about.

Here's another question. Of the 140 years of AC, how many challenger series have had more than 5 entries?

Pretty much every one since the LVC started. Typical entry 7-9 boats. Usually with 2-3 Australians or Americans.

... and Jimmys youth team is the only Australian entry since 1995 (when there where 3 Aussie entries). So something has been rotten in the kingdom for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dog said:

I would like to see the AC once again a computation between nations. No hired guns, designers, builders and sailors all form the country. As for the boat, I don't much care but should be cutting edge. It should be inexpensive enough so as not to be a barrier to entry so we get more than 6 countries. Oh, and a defender series would be good too.

 

You must love the Commodors Cup right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now