MidPack

Poll: Next AC Boat

Next AC Boat?  

636 members have voted

  1. 1. Next AC Boat?

    • Foiling cat very similar to AC35 boats
      191
    • Another foiling multihull
      127
    • Displacement monohull
      140
    • Foiling monohull
      160
    • Other
      18


Recommended Posts

A large part of the America's Cup has is a design competition. Its difficult to have a design competition if everyone has to submit the same design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

77% of this reactionary SA community want the AC to be on foils.

The support for foiling is probably higher outside of SA.

Displacement sailing is about as likely for the AC as Red Bull entering a horse and buggy for the 2018 Formula 1 season. Lead is Dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mambo Kings said:

A large part of the America's Cup has is a design competition. Its difficult to have a design competition if everyone has to submit the same design.

That is an assumption that may be so, the submission part...but depends...and lead or heavy something, may or may not be dead, at least in the AC game, which means that too is an assumption and will, in any case, not be decided here.

It is what it is...I just swill, smile and deal with it. It is fun!

Share this post


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

Why all this talk about a 1-design hull? That was one of the worst things about the last cup. No matter the boat and design rule it has to go back to an individually designed and built platform. Even if they end-up in the same corner of the rule there has to be some creativity beyond a set of foils.

It is not an issue about money, they all spent a ton even with less crew and no design costs for a platform, etc. The spent it on foil and systems design non-stop during the entire campaign. The 'cost saving' argument is moot, teams will spend all they can get, maybe reduce the number of designers, engineers, and computer simulation and then you will see some savings.

NASCAR tried this with the new car design, having 1-chassis that could be used on all tracks, short, speedway, or road course. The result? They all build new cars like before and sometimes set for the type of track like before. They are spending money at higher rates than ever, requiring multiple sponsors to get the needed funding. And where are they spending a bunch of it? Designers, engineers, computer simulators, shaker rigs. The driver and crew are a small part of it.

The very worst thing that could happen to the Cup would be that boat(s) breaks up, crew members die, and government officials of the country close down the racing as a result.

What ever is necessary to avoid that from happening should be done, even if it means OD platform or hulls. It's not about cost savings at all.

If rules and mandatory testing can achieve the same without OD, that's OK as well, but do not expect every challenger to succeed in that on their own while doing everything allowed by the rules to make their boat faster.

Share this post


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

There has never been an AC raced in OD boats. The closest are box or formula designs like the J class, IACC, etc. 12m are just a smaller formula.  

 

I keep putting this here, but the boat itself has fuck all to do with the cost of an AC campaign. The cost is all in the crew. AC sailors are the highest paid in the world by a fair margin, and every additional crew slot adds a lot to the final cost. 

Even for a lot budget program like ETNZ the build cost of the boat is less than 10% the operational budget. 

They just don't get it SN. None so blind and all that shit...

Share this post


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

The only bit of one-design I'm comfortable with is around structures for safety reasons since the Artemis (Juan) failure.

But requiring a physical strength test to a level much higher than a practical racing load should deal to that.

 

Which is why they didn't need to be one-design.

Could have at least allowed teams to design the bows so there was some obvious visual difference between the boats.

My vote would be for a 90' mono box rule, Dali foils, canting keel, soft sails, 80% nationality for the crew of ten. Hull and deck to be built in country, sails, rigging and instruments free. Masts to be one design by SS and a OD canting keel system,  if you must have a acws let it be in tp52's...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea 90ft foiling canting keel monohull in a windward leeward course is so flawed it's laughable. It's a fine concept for an ocean race but that's it.

Foiling boats have to hit a certain boat speed (around 15kts) before they pop up. It is highly unlikely a monohull would be able to hit a take off speed consistently through the wind range. 

Dali style foils also pose a challenge for close combat sailing. Not sure if we are ready for Ben her on water. They knocked down that idea to have foils outside the max beam because of safety concerns in the last cup.

Canting keels should be out because you would need an engine to move it with any speed.  This is sailing not a motor sport.

So your left with 2 options. Multihull or displacement monohull.  The mono is further limited in size due to draft restrictions. For practical standpoint 3.5m draft is about maximum allowable draft for the majority harbors including Auckland. So based on the draft the largest monohull you would see would be minimaxi 65-70ft.  While I would imagine it still would be a lot of fun to sail it would be eclipsed by any new event that stays at the leading edge. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only potential place I can see for a bit of lead being useful anywhere on a fast foiler is as sliding ballast on a short track across the main beam to add RM. Add a grinder role for helping to do that, could be cool to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2017 at 5:13 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

#macga

 Mesoamerican and Caribbean Geospatial Alliance ? ?  ?

Share this post


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

The idea 90ft foiling canting keel monohull in a windward leeward course is so flawed it's laughable. It's a fine concept for an ocean race but that's it.

Foiling boats have to hit a certain boat speed (around 15kts) before they pop up. It is highly unlikely a monohull would be able to hit a take off speed consistently through the wind range. 

Dali style foils also pose a challenge for close combat sailing. Not sure if we are ready for Ben her on water. They knocked down that idea to have foils outside the max beam because of safety concerns in the last cup.

Canting keels should be out because you would need an engine to move it with any speed.  This is sailing not a motor sport.

So your left with 2 options. Multihull or displacement monohull.  The mono is further limited in size due to draft restrictions. For practical standpoint 3.5m draft is about maximum allowable draft for the majority harbors including Auckland. So based on the draft the largest monohull you would see would be minimaxi 65-70ft.  While I would imagine it still would be a lot of fun to sail it would be eclipsed by any new event that stays at the leading edge. 

 

With a draft available of only 3.5m everyone talking about 80-90' boats is just on crack. The TP-52's have a draft of no more than 3.5m. Any of the 100' class aren't even close. 

 

Rabler 88 has a draft of 6m

Comanche 6.5m

VOR 65's 4.78m

Melgus 40 3.2m

 

So if all you have to play with is 3.5m we are talking something between a Melgus 40 and a TP-52... ya that will be a riot. 

Share this post


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

The idea 90ft foiling canting keel monohull in a windward leeward course is so flawed it's laughable. It's a fine concept for an ocean race but that's it.

Foiling boats have to hit a certain boat speed (around 15kts) before they pop up. It is highly unlikely a monohull would be able to hit a take off speed consistently through the wind range. 

Dali style foils also pose a challenge for close combat sailing. Not sure if we are ready for Ben her on water. They knocked down that idea to have foils outside the max beam because of safety concerns in the last cup.

Canting keels should be out because you would need an engine to move it with any speed.  This is sailing not a motor sport.

So your left with 2 options. Multihull or displacement monohull.  The mono is further limited in size due to draft restrictions. For practical standpoint 3.5m draft is about maximum allowable draft for the majority harbors including Auckland. So based on the draft the largest monohull you would see would be minimaxi 65-70ft.  While I would imagine it still would be a lot of fun to sail it would be eclipsed by any new event that stays at the leading edge. 

 

Whenever you set a challenge to engineers they figure out a way...you probably said that the 72's would never foil...

Who said we are sailing w/l in a stadium, GD has said the AC is an ocean event, and they would be sailing in 6-35knts..Cali foils don't pose a challenge once you have figured not to be too close to fuck up..these are the best sailors? and who knows how long it would take talented design/ engineers to get them to foil at lower speeds. Canting keel technology does not mean you have to have motors, the hydraulic/ grinder solution is there to be found by the best designers.Draught is solved by lifting/canting keel systems already found on high end custom boats

Its easy to say this idea is laughable, without even giving it any thought, just shows you don't really want anything to change, this just might the leading edge of boats which have any relevance to the boats that the majority of sailors sail...

Pretty much only kiwis went to Bermuda, no one watched it on tv except most kiwis and a few guys around here, for the rest of the world it didn't exist, and I don't think it's attracted too many juniors/face bookers to our sport, so why not try something else?....don't expect many here to get it...

Share this post


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

The very worst thing that could happen to the Cup would be that boat(s) breaks up, crew members die, and government officials of the country close down the racing as a result.

What ever is necessary to avoid that from happening should be done, even if it means OD platform or hulls. It's not about cost savings at all.

If rules and mandatory testing can achieve the same without OD, that's OK as well, but do not expect every challenger to succeed in that on their own while doing everything allowed by the rules to make their boat faster.

Scantlings? Boats used to be built to scantlings to avoid such things. Certain parts of the boat, which may have been in place this time, could be spec'd so that it Is not a worry.

Get back to a real boat that you do not have to worry such things and get to racing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2017 at 7:30 PM, Qman said:

just imagine how many cyclops you would need to cant a 10 tonne bulb. 

 

are yoo a wun-ide TNZ supporter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about teem rayssing. 6 botes, 2 teemz per rayss.

Each hevvy monohull eskorted by a kuppel ov 49er styl botes, like a bommer with fyter support.

New matsh rayssing rewls az to hoo gets to inflikt pennelteez on hoom and how.

Also mewtewel dependents: eg: wun escort bote must round mark ahed of hevvy bote from there teem, and other must round after.

 

Erly yot rayssing woz stylized naval warfair withowt gunz. Lets get bak to that idea.

 

EDIT: NO tshayss botes, umpyrd and filmd from dronez. Live feedz from evry kamera to www.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ac72 were to dangerous which already have taken one life. AC50 to small for Hauraki Gulf and would results in to many crashes and a life been taken is a distinct possibility. The only boat that will the awe and visual candy like the foils is a super maxi with about 100 feet length. Unrestricted design on a super maxi would break any budget.  TNZ will still have a modest budget so I pick OC design in hull and masts. All boats built off the same mould. Keels, bulbs, Dagger Boards rudders any design you like. Maximum of 2 pairs of dagger boards, and rudders. Two keels and 3 bulbs. No maximum or minimum  keel weight. Maximum 20 sails in inventory. All sails to built identical of same molds with  durability been an imprtant aspect of design. 

12 Meter Yachts and IACC almost evolved into a one clas design, were all the boats evolved into a similar design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2017 at 1:52 AM, multihuler said:

What is with this fetish for catamarans, SUPERFOILER TRIMARANS WILL PROVE that trimarans are faster,stronger and even be reusable after the event. throw away boats built on a narrow band are dangerous as hell and catamarans ARE OVER! 

 

i tend to agree that trimarans will probably be the way forward. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing TNZ will make a decent choice. There are always tradeoffs. I think it would be great to go to NZ to see AC36. I hope they make it decent viewing from the shore and make it available for streaming online!

Share this post


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

are yoo a wun-ide TNZ supporter?

lol, unless you want motorised canters.    but lead is dead, light is fast, and the only way you get righting moment without weight is multihull period. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For a foiling boat you need two things, to be light weight and lots of righting moment prefferable at zero angle of heel,  with a canting keel monohull you can have one or the other not both.  Righting moment in simplest terms is weight x a distance. Try and make the math work. Yes you get additional righting moment from outboard foils but it's not enough for sustained flight.

Ok also so let's pretend we can get this pig to fly. What now? Why do you think it's better than the current boats? As you get faster and faster the need for downwind sails disappears. Your always going upwind. Maybe they keep a tight luff gennaker for downwind but is that really better. Yes they put up a sail and down, but the age of bowman peeling kites is gone at these speeds. Peeling code zeros is not exciting.

I think everyone is in agreememt what we want is more tactics and less people trying to be machines.

The multihull concept as is, is not perfect. they need to get people in front of the technology not behind it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if you go to a fast mono the days of giant light spinnakers is gone.  even on volvo boats they are rarely deep enough to justify anything other than a furling sail

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, johnstarks said:

 

For a foiling boat you need two things, to be light weight and lots of righting moment prefferable at zero angle of heel,  with a canting keel monohull you can have one or the other not both.  Righting moment in simplest terms is weight x a distance. Try and make the math work. Yes you get additional righting moment from outboard foils but it's not enough for sustained flight.

Ok also so let's pretend we can get this pig to fly. What now? Why do you think it's better than the current boats? As you get faster and faster the need for downwind sails disappears. Your always going upwind. Maybe they keep a tight luff gennaker for downwind but is that really better. Yes they put up a sail and down, but the age of bowman peeling kites is gone at these speeds. Peeling code zeros is not exciting.

I think everyone is in agreememt what we want is more tactics and less people trying to be machines.

The multihull concept as is, is not perfect. they need to get people in front of the technology not behind it.  

As I said...you don't really want anything to change and you don't want to see what far better minds than yours could come up with..hence the pig comment..

As for sustained flight this type of boat has gone round the world singlehanded, so why not let the best minds in the business have a three year go at a crewed version..because nothing about the current boats works for anyone except the sailors and about ten guys like you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't have a problem with monos but if you look at progression, i can understand the move to lighter, faster multis but the only reason they are talking about returning to monos would be to keep LR happy.  which isn't a great reason in my book, notwithstanding that we wouldnt be here without the $30million rescue package. 

 

Share this post


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

As I said...you don't really want anything to change and you don't want to see what far better minds than yours could come up with..hence the pig comment..

As for sustained flight this type of boat has gone round the world singlehanded, so why not let the best minds in the business have a three year go at a crewed version..because nothing about the current boats works for anyone except the sailors and about ten guys like you...

I like foiling monohulls, they have there place reaching around the world not in a windward leeward course.

I'm all for a more robust boat that can sail in waves and breeze.  I'm not saying a catamaran is the only solution. I personally think a well thought out trimaran might be better. I just don't think foiling monohull concept works in this application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johnstarks said:

I like foiling monohulls, they have there place reaching around the world not in a windward leeward course.

I'm all for a more robust boat that can sail in waves and breeze.  I'm not saying a catamaran is the only solution. I personally think a well thought out trimaran might be better. I just don't think foiling monohull concept works in this application.

u may well be ryt . . . 

but menny ov us thort foyling multeez wood be krap at matsh rayssing

Theez teemz hav a way ov making stuff werk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, snaerk said:

u may well be ryt . . . 

but menny ov us thort foyling multeez wood be krap at matsh rayssing

Theez teemz hav a way ov making stuff werk

i for one was blown away from the first images and video i saw of SL33 foiling and as for the ac72, i was gob smacked.  refined and improved the AC50 was a good progression.    

Share this post


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

i don't have a problem with monos but if you look at progression, i can understand the move to lighter, faster multis but the only reason they are talking about returning to monos would be to keep LR happy.  which isn't a great reason in my book, notwithstanding that we wouldnt be here without the $30million rescue package. 

 

I'm not sure that LR is the reason for monos, they had two boats in the world super league of the world and were well into a 62 cat program until Russ gave them a good rogering..I think it's time for something different to what is not working now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, johnstarks said:

I like foiling monohulls, they have there place reaching around the world not in a windward leeward course.

I'm all for a more robust boat that can sail in waves and breeze.  I'm not saying a catamaran is the only solution. I personally think a well thought out trimaran might be better. I just don't think foiling monohull concept works in this application.

You are entitled to your opinion as am I ...I'm done with this until the Protocol comes out..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the mono hull vs multihull battle is a bit dated now, same foiling non foiling.

America's cup has always been a design competition with big money. Even when the design rules are full of constrains or very open the money spend is the same at the end (more or less) 

Personally I would think a very open class like the C class would be great : mono/multi, foil no foil, regulation system open. Limit length, number of crew and sail area. Wide wind range to guarantee reliability (I like crash test : drop the boat from 5m high the day before the 1st race) 

The past AC class proved to be non creative class. Moth, Open 60, Mini, C class are creative class. To the main extend, AC class always were "fine tuning existing systems"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and just to add a bit on above :

I think not to waste AC35 learning, keeping 6 crew 50 feet and same sailing area would help all existing team to develop (if they want) their new ideas around what they have.

And if we believe we need to cap teh spend then cap the spend not create technical rules in the class that at the end cannot cap the spend!. Let's say cap spend per team and assign a financial auditor end of story. Teams would have to be smart to use the best they can the max budget ($50m $80m?)

For the teams or sponsor that have too much money : then they can have independant teams : A team and a B team and have to enter competition with both. It would help to increase number of challengers too. I don't mind seeing Oracle 1 2 and 3. It would be healthy competition. Same a Bar 1 and Bar 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, josselin said:

and just to add a bit on above :

I think not to waste AC35 learning, keeping 6 crew 50 feet and same sailing area would help all existing team to develop (if they want) their new ideas around what they have.

And if we believe we need to cap teh spend then cap the spend not create technical rules in the class that at the end cannot cap the spend!. Let's say cap spend per team and assign a financial auditor end of story. Teams would have to be smart to use the best they can the max budget ($50m $80m?)

For the teams or sponsor that have too much money : then they can have independant teams : A team and a B team and have to enter competition with both. It would help to increase number of challengers too. I don't mind seeing Oracle 1 2 and 3. It would be healthy competition. Same a Bar 1 and Bar 2.

Terrible ideas.

Keeping the same size wingsail in a boat that was overpowered in 20kn makes no sense in akl.

Spending cap in what currency? Penalises teams from economies where sponsorship is plentiful but labour expensive. 

Allowing teams to field A and B teams is madness. Instant result rigging.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the only reason they are talking about returning to monos would be to keep LR happy.

Wrong.

As Challenger of Record LR gets to choose.

Hopefully they will choose to have an open decision between all the Challengers & hopefully it won't be some nasty leadmine, hopefully more visually & design interesting than OD AC50s.

Share this post


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

The only potential place I can see for a bit of lead being useful anywhere on a fast foiler is as sliding ballast on a short track across the main beam to add RM. Add a grinder role for helping to do that, could be cool to watch.

If OR return, we can count on them to find a use for some lead... {massive grin}

Share this post


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

i tend to agree that trimarans will probably be the way forward. 

 

Foiling trimarans are great, except for the useless central hull that just adds weight cost and drag.  Catamaran layout is the only layout for a foiler that makes sense.  If you make a catamaran wide enough then you don't need retractable daggerboards or movable crew for increased righting moment.  And with 2m draft on the daggerboards and rudders it can handle 1-1.5m waves just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the maximum width vs length for a foiling catamaran? Have not seen any cats with a ratio over 1 (except sailrocket), but I cannot see why a ratio much larger shouldn't be much faster (more righting movement) given the same length. The only real limit should be weight/strength.

Share this post


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

What is the maximum width vs length for a foiling catamaran? Have not seen any cats with a ratio over 1 (except sailrocket), but I cannot see why a ratio much larger shouldn't be much faster (more righting movement) given the same length. The only real limit should be weight/strength.

You eventually end up with a problem. As you go wider the beams need to get progressively stronger and larger to prevent the boat from wracking. As boats get wider moving to a trimaran actually does work better. 

 

Interetingly with a wing sail you eliminate one of the major issues pushing towards a trimaran. You don't have high rig compression loads sitting at the midpoint of an unsupported beam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

something has to float the boat in non foiling mode, isn't one hull on a trimaran less than two on a cat? of course you would have two tiny amas, also only one rudder is used. there isn't a world class race that isn't owned by a trimaran, and even though catamarans have their niche the America's Cup is about going big .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, arneelof said:

What is the maximum width vs length for a foiling catamaran? Have not seen any cats with a ratio over 1 (except sailrocket), but I cannot see why a ratio much larger shouldn't be much faster (more righting movement) given the same length. The only real limit should be weight/strength.

Another difficulty with increasing width and righting moment will be stability. It's hard enough to keep an AC50 or AC72 at zero heel all the time (keeping the heeling moment created by the sails within a very narrow margin). If you make the boats wider, not only will the acceptable heel angle range (between windward hull smashing into the water and a couple of degrees heel to leeward) become smaller, the acceptable range of heeling moment will become significantly smaller relative to the amount of heel angle needed, making the boat way harder to sail and maneauver around the course.

I would agree that one could push the width/length ratio a little as the AC50's seemed to be quite stable towards the end of this AC. It might also be interesting to see where exactly the crossover between catamarans and trimarans is (as StumbleNola pointed out, that crossover exists as boats get wider). However, I very much doubt that we will see stable flight in a round the cans race anytime soon with anything that has a width to length ratio somewhere in the range of offshore trimarans or the Hydroptere back in the days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Width gets you righting moment. Length between rudder and daggerboard helps with pitching moment. Then you need a certain amount of volume fwd for crashing 

Share this post


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

You eventually end up with a problem. As you go wider the beams need to get progressively stronger and larger to prevent the boat from wracking. As boats get wider moving to a trimaran actually does work better. Interetingly with a wing sail you eliminate one of the major issues pushing towards a trimaran. You don't have high rig compression loads sitting at the midpoint of an unsupported beam.

If your boat has only rigid wing and no soft sails, it can have 2 stays to each hull. The beams don't have to resist wracking loads at all no matter what the size. A catamaran platform wins over trimaran in such case. The question of how wide a cat can be for its length, is determined by location of center of gravity relative to longitudinal location of lifting foils. If center of gravity would have been much further aft, NZ AC50 would not have pitchpoled, even if it were wider. A wider design would need wider aft foils as well, and if T-rudders are used, they would extend further outwards from the hull. Anyone dropping out of the hull would be hit hard and be deadly. It would still work out safely, if no personnel would drop of the boat, easily done if all crew used harnesses and were forbidden from transiting from one hull to the other during racing by the rules. Just leave the tramp out as well. All problems solved, and could race just fine in higher windspeeds and in waves as well, if size of wing is dependent on conditions by the rules and not freely selected by the racing teams. That means several one off sizes, not one off designs. Less restrictions on size of foils as well, allowing them to be deep enough in waves. Allow them to move foils how they like, not mandating moving all of it around an axis inside the hull to control angle of incidence. Just allow flaps for the foils as well.

Share this post


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

It might also be interesting to see where exactly the crossover between catamarans and trimarans is (as StumbleNola pointed out, that crossover exists as boats get wider). 

There is no crossover, unless caused by the rules. Without them, cat always wins in short time racing. Offshore racing is different during nights as there are less information available about waves and flight height than round the buoys racing during daytime.

Share this post


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

something has to float the boat in non foiling mode, isn't one hull on a trimaran less than two on a cat? of course you would have two tiny amas, also only one rudder is used. there isn't a world class race that isn't owned by a trimaran, and even though catamarans have their niche the America's Cup is about going big .

 

Sounds fine if you want more accidents and crashing as that central rudder lifts out and control is lost. If you have all lifting foils in central hull  as well, then there is a lack of righting moment, not control. Scaling up a moth does not work, even if you used tiny amas and call it a tri.

Share this post


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

Scantlings? Boats used to be built to scantlings to avoid such things. Certain parts of the boat, which may have been in place this time, could be spec'd so that it Is not a worry.

Get back to a real boat that you do not have to worry such things and get to racing...

Scantlings only work if loads are known at the time they are made. If design does not exist at that time, neither are the loads known.

AC50 could easily to be developed for a real tough boat handling more difficult conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to be harnessed to the hull in a pitch pole situation.

If the boats get wider what scope will there be for passing at marks? When racing is close the boat behind will have to sail the looong way around.

Remove the tramp and crossing from hull to hull would make racing even less interesting for spectators than watching a bunch of cyclists.

In light breeze, when foiling difficult, not being able to move crew would suck.

A.c. should not be a drag race - it should be a match race. Please let them improve the class to encourage tactics, skill and racing, not speed at all costs.

Some of the ideas being suggested imply there should just be motors driving winches or hydraulics and a single crew member driving the "aeroplane" by remote control from the chase boat.

Whilst that could be impressive please don't make that the Americas cup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KoW said:

I wouldn't want to be harnessed to the hull in a pitch pole situation.

If the boats get wider what scope will there be for passing at marks? When racing is close the boat behind will have to sail the looong way around.

Remove the tramp and crossing from hull to hull would make racing even less interesting for spectators than watching a bunch of cyclists.

In light breeze, when foiling difficult, not being able to move crew would suck.

A.c. should not be a drag race - it should be a match race. Please let them improve the class to encourage tactics, skill and racing, not speed at all costs.

Some of the ideas being suggested imply there should just be motors driving winches or hydraulics and a single crew member driving the "aeroplane" by remote control from the chase boat.

Whilst that could be impressive please don't make that the Americas cup!

There are people who die in car crashes too because not using seat belts. A reasonable person understands that 50 knots is dangerous without them. Releasing a seat belt after crash is not too difficult at all after pitchpole, if it' needed. But as we saw during ETNZ AC50 capsize, the wing floats and it will not result inversion.

There are 2 marks to choose from in all the gates.

The spectators looking for accidents would just have to find their amusement from somewhere else. For those who enjoy sail racing the crossing is irrelevant.

In light breeze, when foiling difficult, the conditions are the same for both boats, and racing will still be tight.

Better flying will improve match racing tactics compared to seahuggers, not the other way around. The more similar and advanced the boats, the better match racing will result, but foiling match racing, not the old style leadmine match racing. Just make them similar by advancing the design by themselves, not by making it all OD.

AC is not about remote control, we agree on that one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2017 at 11:23 AM, NotSoFast said:

The very worst thing that could happen to the Cup would be that boat(s) breaks up, crew members die, and government officials of the country close down the racing as a result.

What ever is necessary to avoid that from happening should be done, even if it means OD platform or hulls. It's not about cost savings at all.

If rules and mandatory testing can achieve the same without OD, that's OK as well, but do not expect every challenger to succeed in that on their own while doing everything allowed by the rules to make their boat faster.

Well, hell, let's have it in Optis, then.  VERY little chance of injury with those.  Good luck getting any interest or having a meaningful, worthwhile event. 

Sorry, but the endeavor of sport, be it in auto racing, boat racing, soccer, football, etc., they all involve some level of risk of death or injury.  That is not to say effort should not be made to minimize the risk, but to act like that is the only concern is stupid.  People make livings, technological innovation is created and advanced to the rest of the world through the interest that is created by having an actually compelling event to watch, so having some level of risk is to be recognized and accepted.

Share this post


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

Well, hell, let's have it in Optis, then.  VERY little chance of injury with those.  Good luck getting any interest or having a meaningful, worthwhile event. 

Sorry, but the endeavor of sport, be it in auto racing, boat racing, soccer, football, etc., they all involve some level of risk of death or injury.  That is not to say effort should not be made to minimize the risk, but to act like that is the only concern is stupid.  People make livings, technological innovation is created and advanced to the rest of the world through the interest that is created by having an actually compelling event to watch, so having some level of risk is to be recognized and accepted.

What is wrong about AC50 then, for the conditions it was designed to operate in?

I did and still do consider it a meaningful, worthwhile event.

I don't see it as too dangerous at all in Bermudan conditions. For something else, it (both rules and boats) obviously needs to be adjusted for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, josselin said:

I think the mono hull vs multihull battle is a bit dated now, same foiling non foiling.

America's cup has always been a design competition with big money. Even when the design rules are full of constrains or very open the money spend is the same at the end (more or less) 

Personally I would think a very open class like the C class would be great : mono/multi, foil no foil, regulation system open. Limit length, number of crew and sail area. Wide wind range to guarantee reliability (I like crash test : drop the boat from 5m high the day before the 1st race) 

The past AC class proved to be non creative class. Moth, Open 60, Mini, C class are creative class. To the main extend, AC class always were "fine tuning existing systems"

Good post.

I like a box rule of length, width, and max sail area, and require being able to handle a wide wind range and sea state.  I would prefer a venue truly open to the sea, or at least part of the racing... in SFO, they could have had the racing on the outside of the Gate (at least part of the time).  Going AROUND the Isle of Wight, involved part of the race being in somewhat sheltered waters, the rest outside in open ocean.  Sydney could have part inside the bay, part out.  LOTS of venues could do similarly... but doing so, opening up the design options, would force designers and builders to make more well-rounded boats, more robust boats, and could lead to actually less money being necesary to make a competitive boat, as where it has seemed the biggest budgets have had an advantage is in refinement rather than on big innovation.  We would get much more diversity, it would be way more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NotSoFast said:

What is wrong about AC50 then, for the conditions it was designed to operate in?

I did and still do consider it a meaningful, worthwhile event.

I don't see it as too dangerous at all in Bermudan conditions. For something else, it (both rules and boats) obviously needs to be adjusted for it.

See my last post.  First of all, The AC50/15 was WAY too 'one-design' in nature.  Identical boats with the only differences being in things that were nearly impossible for the typical viewer to see (excepting TNZ's use innovation of cyclors... bravo! truly the only interesting thing of note relative to innovation in this edition differentiating the teams).  This is a poor departure from the true nature of the AC. 

Then, racing in a lake-like lagoon is not fitting with the AC... certainly not interesting on a visual standpoint.  SFO worked, because even though lacking big swells, the venue left open the possibility of HUGE chop and high winds (well, until the organizers screwed it up by forcing too big of a wing without flexibility, and then reducing the wind range).  Far better and more interesting, and dare I say majestic, to have powerful, robust boats, and the ultimate in having such boats race in extreme conditions (think Perth with fast, big multis.... that would be AWESOME!).  And again, it would be somewhat of a neutralizer for the lesser-funded teams to be able to compete, some may take a bit of a flyer on a design that might work better at the higher or lower end of the ranges, and get lucky in having such conditions (of course, they could get screwed if the conditions were different, but it would leave open an opportunity, and it would be far more interesting to see that develop.

"Meaningful & worthwhile event"???  ABSOLUTELY... I would love to watch a regular series of such boats, even in venues like Bermuda, fantastic for the a series like the ACWS... so maybe even integrated in to AC36, but NOT for the America's Cup.  I absolutely HATED the idea the consortion of Oracle and the Challengers came up with where the AC Class would eventually be racing in the ACWS.... for that alone, a big part of me wanted TNZ to win (only tempered by the concern they would revert to monos).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had reasonably good speed differences across conditions in the AC50's, even with the basics of the platform being OD, but not so much difference that too-huge mismatches were created. While the scoreline in the Match was one-sided, both boats were actually great performers despite the wind speed being close to one corner of the wind range. You may have heard SBTJ designer Nick Holroyd, saying "Anyone who thinks this rule is even close to being One Design, must be joking!" and it's very likely that all other designers would say it that way too. Heck, even at ETNZ they ~revel~ in the design difference-makers.

NotSoFast is right about safety, it needs to be addressed in both the Racing and Design rules but this platform is otherwise a great starting point - yes, including for all the Match Racing it produced. 

If visual interest needs to be added, allow more freedom in the visible shapes like hulls and fairings next time, get rid of rules-loophole computerized autopilot 'Herbies' more explicitly, and come up with foils that aren't so ridiculously power hungry to fine-tune.

There's also the fact that a metric shit-ton of money has now been invested into the AC50 V1 design, by several potential AC36 contenders 

Share this post


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

We had reasonably good speed differences across conditions in the AC50's, even with the basics of the platform being OD, but not so much difference that too-huge mismatches were created. While the scoreline in the Match was one-sided, both boats were actually great performers despite the wind speed being close to one corner of the wind range. You may have heard SBTJ designer Nick Holroyd, saying "Anyone who thinks this rule is even close to being One Design, must be joking!" and it's very likely that all other designers would say it that way too. Heck, even at ETNZ they ~revel~ in the design difference-makers.

NotSoFast is right about safety, it needs to be addressed in both the Racing and Design rules but this platform is otherwise a great starting point - yes, including for all the Match Racing it produced. 

Sorry, but anyone claiming AC35 was not OD is a nerdy engineer, not a fan that likes to watch for fun, not a fan that likes big innovation beyond cord-length, valves, and actuators.  The hulls, beams, and sail shape were forced to be identical, and fairings and pod differences were nearly impossible to spot without having Doug-Lordesque lines and super-impositions.  Call me a simpleton if you wish, but l LOVE seeing differences in hull designs.  Remember how exciting it was when Oracle brought out their first boat in AC34, immediately earning the name "bat-boat", with the needle like bows, center pod, and big fairings.  Now THAT boat, compared to ETNZ and Big Red Artemis was HUGELY different.  I would love to see a rule where some came with cats, and others came with tris. 

To me, truly NON-one-design was AC34, or give me a situation like the old 'The Race', where we saw the Olivier sister-ships racing against Playstation and Philips...

But again, I say the safety is handled on its own when the boats HAVE to be able to deal with a very wide range of wind and sea state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ "Sorry, but anyone claiming AC35 was not OD is a nerdy engineer, not a fan that likes to watch for fun"

Agreed that they looked too similar from a distance (although most AC boats of the past actually did too)  but the broadcasts still had plenty of differences to talk about when they zoomed in and commented about them.  

I would love to see a good Kiwi spin taken to the AC50 design, with the Hauraki Gulf used as inspiration for a Kiwi Cup AC50 V2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those calling for canting keel monohulls because the racing will be better should watch CQS's forced tack in the last Hobart. (right hand corner of screen)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unless they come up with something else that can do about 35 knots in 8 - 10 knots of wind, then we are going backwards in development.

Would be fun to watch an AC50 sail past a giant canting monohull. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bajakiter said:

Would be fun to watch an AC50 sail past a giant canting monohull. 

Which boat would look completely pathetic to 99% of everyone who saw that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, SCARECROW said:

those calling for canting keel monohulls because the racing will be better should watch CQS's forced tack in the last Hobart. (right hand corner of screen)

 

Looks like all the other canters were tacking OK..

Share this post


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

those calling for canting keel monohulls because the racing will be better should watch CQS's forced tack in the last Hobart. (right hand corner of screen)

 

Good idea to use a shity tack to illustrate your point...how about you look at a Commanche tack...

Share this post


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

Which boat would look completely pathetic to 99% of everyone who saw that? 

Why don't you poll the crowds at the start of the next SH and compare it to the audience in  Bermuda watching one of Team France's efforts..

Share this post


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

How bigger foiling cat and beefed up do we need for a gulf cup? Would 60-65 be big enough?

I think we might see a 62ft foiling cat since LR already started designing one for this AC before RC changed the rules on them.

Share this post


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

I think we might see a 62ft foiling cat since LR already started designing one for this AC before RC changed the rules on them.

not sure its so much the size but the pointy design.  maybe slightly higher volume rockered hulls.  

 

Share this post


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

Which boat would look completely pathetic to 99% of everyone who saw that? 

The Monohull, David beats Goliath. But yes, scale them up,at least 65 foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Qman said:

not sure its so much the size but the pointy design.  maybe slightly higher volume rockered hulls.  

 

 

If it's a cat, the limiting length should be determined by how much bow you can detach to fit into a 40' container. The advantage for ACWS  would be too significant. Likewise, 40' crossbeams

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the superfoiler. There is heaps of rocker in it to help avoid nose dives.  still quite possible but it should be more resilient 

Share this post


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

not sure its so much the size but the pointy design.  maybe slightly higher volume rockered hulls.  

 

A lot of it is the wing size.  If they go with soft sails, high- and low-wind wings, or a wing that can be "reefed", somehow getting the sail area down would do a lot to make the boats better able to handle some seas.  Maybe go with longer foils, but I would think getting the boat longer would be necessary, too, to allow for bigger spread between the rudder and main foil. 

The AC72s were originally intended to be able to handle BIG chop that I would think would be comparable to much of what they could run into in the Gulf.  Would a AC62, also?  I would think so, particularly with the ability to carry less sail area.

Perfect solution is to go with a 65' box rule, figure out a reasonable max-beam and max-sail area, let the teams opt for either soft sails or wings, and see what develops.  I could easily see some truly big advances in sail/wing design if they softened up the rules and let the teams really get innovative on dealing with handling a wide wind range.  Could be really fun to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, Modernrate Buai said:

When did the Garrards-crafted 100-Guinea Cup (Queens Cup) become the Sovereign cup? If you look outside of Wiki (fake variable source) you may just discover that while the gold standard Guinea was replaced by the Sovereign, as a coin not that long before the first Isle Of Wight race by America, in practice away from the unwashed and brash, use of the word "guinea" always referred to the value of anything of quality or prestiege, even growing up in the 1960s this was common use, even post decimal currency ( new pence) for a few die hards and ex pat types!

...well maybe not common use among coal miners and common folks, but anyhoo we are talking about yachting in an age where the idea of working folks being allowed to step into a yacht club was laughable.

A guinea was 21 shillings, whereas a pound was 20 shillings. 12d (pence) in a shilling - so a 1 pound was 240d. Bills for gentlemen were invoiced in guineas. Particularly for your tailor, and when buying horses. 

The cup was advertised as a 100 pound cup: 

m2045_crop169014_1024x576_proportional_1

 

 

Share this post


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

Do you guys read other threads, get involved with race yacht design etc?

Type forming has been chatted about here, with examples, for everything from IOR to IMS and compared to drag co efficients that make most new cars look the same.

The commercial fishing aspect of the 1800s saw many fleets evolve into copy cat clones to pay their way, ever noticed how an areas fishing fleet looked similar, in old pics, replicas or survivors?

Good designs that suit an area or purpose, that have evolved, will always look and be similar.

In effect its genetic evolution where the faster designs are copied and refined. Bad designs are not copied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish GD would let us know soon what the design rule is going to be. I suspect this information will be a long time coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mako23 said:

I wish GD would let us know soon what the design rule is going to be. I suspect this information will be a long time coming.

Gotta consult widely first, mako23 - then do what the hell you like. ;)

It takes a bit of time. 

Share this post


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

Gotta consult widely first, mako23 - then do what the hell you like. ;)

It takes a bit of time. 

I agree it will take time. I suspect the design selected will to some part reflect the budget of ETNZ. This will requires the sponsers to be signed up or at least consultated. The more money they raise the less chance of OD solution. Im sure GD will drop hints, im sure some of these hints might be decoys to create confusion against the competing syndicates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2017 at 4:15 AM, Mambo Kings said:

A large part of the America's Cup has is a design competition. Its difficult to have a design competition if everyone has to submit the same design.

Fair point, on the other hand its hard to have interesting and competitive racing if every one has completly different yachts.  In my opinion a box rule  used in the IACC class had to many variables. Its true that they all started to look the same at the end, but that was after 60 or so boats were built. I think a monohull were width should be set and freeboard as well. The mast should identical and width of the boat being reasonably wide to help support the mast in high winds. Weights of these boats should fixed to  a low weight to ensure surfing in downwind legs.  In the IACC  design upwind speed was deemed to be worth more than downwind. Any design should try ensure that downwind legs are just as valuable. The factors that should in the limited box rule is length and Sail area. The longer you go in length the less sail area.  However the maximum length variation should be three feet. Reduction or increase in sail area will be in the mainsail. Hull length should be calculated at 200 mm above the wetted line.  This would be to ensure that all boats do not have destroyer bows. In a twist all boats must have detachable bows. Set at the first 15 feet ( wetted area) which can be swapped with ease. Each syndicate would be allowed 3 different detachable bows. This would allow boats to vary there rated length overnight.  However chopping and changing mainsails to different sizes could get very expensive. 

Please feel free to pick holes in my ideas im trying to encorage discussion on how we could avoid OC  but have a box rule that limits the ability of bigger syndicates to totaly outdesign the smaller syndicates and make racing so onesided that its boring to watch.  Of course im assuming that it will be a monohull design but after what Dalts said I do think monohulls are likely. ps If I had my way id go back to AC72 designs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Fair point, on the other hand its hard to have interesting and competitive racing if every one has completly different yachts.  In my opinion a box rule  used in the IACC class had to many variables. Its true that they all started to look the same at the end, but that was after 60 or so boats were built. I think a monohull were width should be set and freeboard as well. The mast should identical and width of the boat being reasonably wide to help support the mast in high winds. Weights of these boats should fixed to  a low weight to ensure surfing in downwind legs.  In the IACC  design upwind speed was deemed to be worth more than downwind. Any design should try ensure that downwind legs are just as valuable. The factors that should in the limited box rule is length and Sail area. The longer you go in length the less sail area.  However the maximum length variation should be three feet. Reduction or increase in sail area will be in the mainsail. Hull length should be calculated at 200 mm above the wetted line.  This would be to ensure that all boats do not have destroyer bows. In a twist all boats must have detachable bows. Set at the first 15 feet ( wetted area) which can be swapped with ease. Each syndicate would be allowed 3 different detachable bows. This would allow boats to vary there rated length overnight.  However chopping and changing mainsails to different sizes could get very expensive. 

Please feel free to pick holes in my ideas im trying to encorage discussion on how we could avoid OC  but have a box rule that limits the ability of bigger syndicates to totaly outdesign the smaller syndicates and make racing so onesided that its boring to watch.  Of course im assuming that it will be a monohull design but after what Dalts said I do think monohulls are likely. ps If I had my way id go back to AC72 designs

zzzzz 

Share this post


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

A lot of it is the wing size.  If they go with soft sails, high- and low-wind wings, or a wing that can be "reefed", somehow getting the sail area down would do a lot to make the boats better able to handle some seas.  Maybe go with longer foils, but I would think getting the boat longer would be necessary, too, to allow for bigger spread between the rudder and main foil. 

The AC72s were originally intended to be able to handle BIG chop that I would think would be comparable to much of what they could run into in the Gulf.  Would a AC62, also?  I would think so, particularly with the ability to carry less sail area.

Perfect solution is to go with a 65' box rule, figure out a reasonable max-beam and max-sail area, let the teams opt for either soft sails or wings, and see what develops.  I could easily see some truly big advances in sail/wing design if they softened up the rules and let the teams really get innovative on dealing with handling a wide wind range.  Could be really fun to watch.

that was the silly thing with the AC72, is that etnz designed for the top end, only to have the top end reduced. resulting in an overdesgined boat. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mako23 said:

If you find it so boring why comment 

just saying it is pretty boring concept.  "maybe surfing" downwind is along way from where were are at.  sub 20 knot boat speeds will be sleep worthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my post you will see a comment at the end, stating my preference would be ac72 hells if it was safe id like ac100 foiling cats doing 50 knots.

I have spent most of my 50 plus years living in view of the Hauraki Gulf and I dont think its safe, and those who know the most ETNZ seem to think so as well. The recent change in Health and safety laws in NZ also make foiling cats unlikely. I think the new laws are crazy but they are what they are. So monhulls seem likely. 

I agree that monohulls are less interesting, Thats why im suggesting very big light displacement monohulls.  We then need to do something to keep the costs down or nobody turns up. Thats why im talking about a limited box set rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not safe? Simply rule on max breeze and/or sea state. 

Recall in AC34 the teams had a big discussion on lowering upper limit - prior to the match. 

ETNZ disagreed and, to make the point, took Aotearoa out to play in 30 knots and a wicked ebb. It was a stunning demonstration of both seamanship and the seaworthiness of Aotearoa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many here don't like the foiling multis while lamenting they've taken the tactical aspects, sail changes, etc. of AC racing off the table, and they newer AC boat/format is just a drag race (between boundaries).** Can you give an example of a boat or class of foiling/canting monohull of the size/speed suitable for a leading edge design contest that is maneuverable enough to allow tactical match racing? As much as I love the Vendee, Volvo, Comanche and SH boats - they're not very maneuverable (by design) and therefore not well suited to match race around a W/L course.

Or is the foiling monohull crowd here also advocating a distance race course and abandoning W/L courses?

If boat designers could make foiling monohulls as compelling as foiling multihulls, why haven't any been designed? Maybe a rhetorical questions, but what has drawn the design leading edge to foiling multihulls instead?

Good thing we didn't cling to horses when automobiles were in their infancy, in the hope engineers would design faster more exciting horses...

** largely false, but for purposes of discussion (more previous mono LV and AC races were blowouts with a few great tactical races here and there - anyone can review the history)

Share this post


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

Good thing we didn't cling to horses when automobiles were in their infancy, in the hope engineers would design faster more exciting horses...

This is a broken analogy... arguing that faster and more technological guarantees better racing does not make sense.

"Abandoning horses for automobiles" would be the equivalent of abandoning sail boats for jet boats. Argue about the relative merits of multi v monos sure, but don't bring irrelevant comparisons into the discussion - I mean, Iam a motor racing fan but it is bloody hard to argue that formula one yields better racing than other forms of motor sport because the aero all but prevents passing.

I enjoy both cats and monohulls (foiling or not) but let's keep it a sail boat race rather than a pumping race please!

If I had my way all the automatic course selection computers, time on distance, weather prediction software etc would also be banned.

Bottom line is that more advanced tech doesn't guarantee better sport.

Share this post


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

This is a broken analogy... arguing that faster and more technological guarantees better racing does not make sense.

"Abandoning horses for automobiles" would be the equivalent of abandoning sail boats for jet boats. Argue about the relative merits of multi v monos sure, but don't bring irrelevant comparisons into the discussion - I mean, Iam a motor racing fan but it is bloody hard to argue that formula one yields better racing than other forms of motor sport because the aero all but prevents passing.

I enjoy both cats and monohulls (foiling or not) but let's keep it a sail boat race rather than a pumping race please!

If I had my way all the automatic course selection computers, time on distance, weather prediction software etc would also be banned.

Bottom line is that more advanced tech doesn't guarantee better sport.

Agreed, speed is only part of the equation and its a fact that slower boats have closer racing. In AC35 they are doing a boat length ever 1.2 seconds, i.e. 10 seconds is 150 metres or visually a mile apart. The other element is that speed is relative as we have all experienced on displacement keelboats when 10 are approaching the bottom mark together and decisions have to be made!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youth are actually excited about sailing again thanks to foiling. It would be suicide for the future of the sport to turn our backs on foiling at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anti-foiling multihull, the vociferous monohull brigade. are terrified-of-change arch conservatives clinging to their backward mid 20th Century heavy displacement yacht philosophy (if you can call this bigotry a philosophy). They are a dying race of reactionaries dragged kicking and screaming into reality. Just accept it you silly turkeys, the yacht of today is a multihull foil design, not an antique carrying huge lumps of lead.  And the new generation knows this.

 

Share this post


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

The anti-foiling multihull, the vociferous monohull brigade. are terrified-of-change arch conservatives clinging to their backward mid 20th Century heavy displacement yacht philosophy (if you can call this bigotry a philosophy). They are a dying race of reactionaries dragged kicking and screaming into reality. Just accept it you silly turkeys, the yacht of today is a multihull foil design, not an antique carrying huge lumps of lead.  And the new generation knows this.

 

If I had my way we would have ac72 boats back. AC50 had some thrills and spill as well. However this was inside a lagoon which makes for very flat water. However could they handle a south westerly blowing 20 knots  with a steep chop in the water. I have my doubts, it would be like smash derby.  I also have a sneaky feeling our wonderful health and safery legislation would also have an effect. 

Share this post


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

This is a broken analogy... arguing that faster and more technological guarantees better racing does not make sense.

"Abandoning horses for automobiles" would be the equivalent of abandoning sail boats for jet boats. Argue about the relative merits of multi v monos sure, but don't bring irrelevant comparisons into the discussion - I mean, Iam a motor racing fan but it is bloody hard to argue that formula one yields better racing than other forms of motor sport because the aero all but prevents passing.

I enjoy both cats and monohulls (foiling or not) but let's keep it a sail boat race rather than a pumping race please!

If I had my way all the automatic course selection computers, time on distance, weather prediction software etc would also be banned.

Bottom line is that more advanced tech doesn't guarantee better sport.

Maybe a heavy handed statement, but that's all you got from the post? Did you have anything on the central point, which was bold-highlighted? Or did you just single out one nit to pick instead of supporting your POV.

If you don't like the foiling multi direction, what boat would you like to see exactly, instead of some rosy imaginary alternative that no one has come up with - befitting the design aspect and $ scale of the AC with tactical/match racing capability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Groucho Marx said:

The anti-foiling multihull, the vociferous monohull brigade. are terrified-of-change arch conservatives clinging to their backward mid 20th Century heavy displacement yacht philosophy (if you can call this bigotry a philosophy). They are a dying race of reactionaries dragged kicking and screaming into reality. Just accept it you silly turkeys, the yacht of today is a multihull foil design, not an antique carrying huge lumps of lead.  And the new generation knows this.

 

So you want  to foil a multi hull around the world. AC50 are fine in flat water, but the Hauraki Gulf is not flat, also AC50 not to keen on 25 knots of wind. So for Auckland you only race on days with flat water and no wind. On the hand we could alter the AC50 by reducing mast square footage and design some means to reduce the likely hood of the nose dive off the foils. Its the nose dive off the foils thats the real danger. It has the potential to kill. When swept back wings in passenger jets were first developed they discovered that they had an alarming tendency to flip upside down. Not the sort of thing you want for passengers. They eventualy developed a mechanical device that would sense the flipping motion and automatically correct it. In effect they developed a mechanical computer to do the job.  We need to develop something similar for foiling boats

Share this post


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

If you don't like the foiling multi direction, what boat would you like to see exactly

I have never stated that I do not like foiling multis - I'd like to see a larger cat that addresses the many shortcomings of the AC50. But, if they do go for a monohull I won't be at all upset unlike all the rabid multi nutjob advocates on this site.

I have however stated repeatedly that I don't like boats that require continuous grinding, batteries or motors. I don't want to see 4 grinders/cyclists/rowers generating energy continuously.

I personally would like it if they had soft sails because that gives a reason to have a crew, is unique to sailing, and doesn't turn the whole sport into a job for aeroplane experts... (But I personally don't really see how soft sails are compatible with 100% foiling and apparent-wind sailing).

I don't really see how foiling monos would work for match racing  - foils outside max beam could make 'em dangerous and ineffective in close-quarter manuevering. 

I don't really see how canting keels would work without motors, hydraulics and/or stored power (which as stated I am not a fan of).

It will be interesting to see what class rule they do come up with and probably nobody on this forum will be happy with it.

I think it is important that new viewers of the sport need to be able to see some kind of cause and effect between someone doing something and the outcome of what they are doing... and that it shouldn't look like human energy is directly powering the vessel's movement, in a nutshell my philosophy is:

AC sailing should be about harnessing the wind for power. The ability for these vessels to perform without the need for continuous human exertion, hydraulics, motors and computers is an important and relevant point of difference to motor sports or endurance sports (like rowing).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KoW said:

This is a broken analogy... arguing that faster and more technological guarantees better racing does not make sense.

"Abandoning horses for automobiles" would be the equivalent of abandoning sail boats for jet boats. Argue about the relative merits of multi v monos sure, but don't bring irrelevant comparisons into the discussion - I mean, Iam a motor racing fan but it is bloody hard to argue that formula one yields better racing than other forms of motor sport because the aero all but prevents passing.

I enjoy both cats and monohulls (foiling or not) but let's keep it a sail boat race rather than a pumping race please!

If I had my way all the automatic course selection computers, time on distance, weather prediction software etc would also be banned.

Bottom line is that more advanced tech doesn't guarantee better sport.

 

I think your analogy is also broken .. you seem to be under the illusion that the America's Cup is a sporting contest.

It has always been a contest to find which country has the technology to build the fastest boat.

ETNZ built the fastest boat in Auckland and to prove that it was the fastest they shipped it to Bermuda and won some races .. end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quoting Loick Peyron (a man who knows a thing or two about multihulls and the cup):

"Plutôt que de garder des cyclistes, vont-ils remettre des marins ? Parce qu'il n'y a plus de voiles sur les AC50 et lorsqu'il n'y a plus de voiles, il n'y a plus besoin de marins...
© Le Télégrammehttp://www.letelegramme.fr/voile/en-images/7-a-1-la-coupe-de-l-america-est-neo-zelandaise-26-06-2017-11572898.php#SpCZogbMxqqxVald.99"

Badly translated it says: Instead of keeping cyclors, will they put back sailors? Because there are no more sails on AC50 and when there is no more sails there is no need for sailors...

<