Sisu3360

More Teams = Better Event (Usually)

Recommended Posts

The first America's Cup I ever watched on TV was in 2000. Those of you in the US may recall that ESPN had full race coverage (broadcast at midnight) beginning with the LVC Semifinal, a double round robin of the top 6 challengers. That was a pretty exciting series, with a competitive semifinal (marred by Ruddergate) and a final that went the distance. Made up for a snoozer of the Cup Match. 2003 was lackluster due to Alinghi just bulldozing the whole event, but 2007 was one of the best, with Prada's semifinal upset of Oracle and a competitive Cup Match.

Sometimes we get lucky, as in 2013, and have a memorable Cup Match after a noncompetitive challenger series, but I think one of the biggest things we've lost since 2007 was a populated competitor field. I was curious, so I plotted the number of competitors present at every non-DOG event since the 12 Meter era began (I did not include S+S as a challenger for 2021 - show me a boat first). As you can see, the recent events have been among the most poorly attended since the 60s, and it's quite a gap since the late 12M/IACC era.

I know that a large field doesn't necessarily mean a deep field, but in the past the minor teams have been important talent farms. Recall that Jimmy Spithill got his start with the shoestring Young Australia in 2000, and plenty of other greats got their starts in noncompetitive teams. Other sports leagues have teams that clearly don't have a prayer of winning in a given season, but they compete anyway.

I really think it comes down to the cost of mounting a campaign. In 1987 Stars and Stripes had one of the healthiest budgets in the event at $16M, or $36M today. Other teams spent far less and still made the starting line.

We simply have to have a lower barrier to entry for competitors. Funding, Innovation, and/or sailing ability will always win the day, but it's shortsighted to just whittle the challengers down to 3 or 4 while saying "the rest wouldn't have had a shot anyhow." That's not a dig on any particular type of boat, though I will point out that the 12 Meter was deliberately selected as an established class that was cheaper to build and operate than the prewar boats.

Also, we lost something when the defender series went away. That's arguably a bigger part of the Cup's DNA than a challenger series.

Anyway, just my observations as a humble fan, with no money or skill to appreciably impact the event (though that describes most of us).

image.png.186f1394c149205d6a48c3f3b220d44f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with changing classes every single edition since ac32. Just stick to a class for the foreseeable future like they did way back when with the IACC. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduced budgets equal defeat according to Dalton.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/9609184/Reduced-budget-will-result-in-defeat-says-Dalton

Older article I know but GD is on the record touting the AC75 for being a less complicated and cheaper AC option.

Some Cup commentators have criticised the new boat as being too complex and too expensive; legend Dennis Conner reckoned it would hike the cost of a competitive challenge up to $200 million.

"To the people who say it's out of control cost-wise, they are uneducated – they have no idea what's going on here," Dalton fires back.

Yeah right Grant.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, barfy said:

Maybe....

 

1200px-Optimist_on_the_beach.jpg

Crikey Barf have you costed a new Opti.

AC75 is a cheaper option 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Priscilla said:

Reduced budgets equal defeat according to Dalton.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/9609184/Reduced-budget-will-result-in-defeat-says-Dalton

Older article I know but GD is on the record touting the AC75 for being a less complicated and cheaper AC option.

Some Cup commentators have criticised the new boat as being too complex and too expensive; legend Dennis Conner reckoned it would hike the cost of a competitive challenge up to $200 million.

"To the people who say it's out of control cost-wise, they are uneducated – they have no idea what's going on here," Dalton fires back.

Yeah right Grant.

 

 

So for comparison, there are only three MLB teams with an annual payroll above $200M (spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/).

Ok, I get that's apples to kumquats ($200M is the cost of an entire 4 year challenge), but come on guys, this is a sailboat race.

I read that Ranger cost about $500K to build in 1936. That's a shade over $9M today.

I'm not trying to sound like a certain senator from Vermont, but lower costs are good for everybody. The same amount (or more) will still be spent, just by more teams employing more sailors and dock crew, and - in the quixotic chase for a viewership base outside us sailing nuts - drawing more fans. I know it's not just the cost of the boat, though it seems like foiling is really upping the ante on development costs.

Share this post


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

Reduced budgets equal defeat according to Dalton.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/9609184/Reduced-budget-will-result-in-defeat-says-Dalton

Older article I know but GD is on the record touting the AC75 for being a less complicated and cheaper AC option.

Some Cup commentators have criticised the new boat as being too complex and too expensive; legend Dennis Conner reckoned it would hike the cost of a competitive challenge up to $200 million.

"To the people who say it's out of control cost-wise, they are uneducated – they have no idea what's going on here," Dalton fires back.

Yeah right Grant.

 

 

Holy crap, GD actually said that? He's looking a bit like an idiot now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sisu3360 said:

know it's not just the cost of the boat, though it seems like foiling is really upping the ante on development costs.

Speed costs $$$$$$$$$

Share this post


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

Speed costs $$$$$$$$$

Just look at Formula One...  you can probably run an entry level team for ~USD$135M p/a.  But to be competitive toward the pointy end of the field you'll have to spend over half a billion a year.  And on a number of tracks the difference between first and last is measured in a few tenths of a second per lap.  Performance costs alright... plus plus....

Share this post


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

Just look at Formula One...  you can probably run an entry level team for ~USD$135M p/a.  But to be competitive toward the pointy end of the field you'll have to spend over half a billion a year.  And on a number of tracks the difference between first and last is measured in a few tenths of a second per lap.  Performance costs alright... plus plus....

No F1 team spends 500 million a year. To be on the grid you need to be in the +50 million a year. To be competitive you need at least 100 million a year. Yearly contention for the championship for a big arse team is north of 150 million a year; and more importantly, good designers, engine and drivers. Note: you don't need to break the bank (speaking relative terms here) to have a competitive car in f1. The basis for a competitive car is a reliable and powerful engine and a car that's easy on its tires. Look at Williams in 2014. Lotus/renault/enstone in 2012 and 2013 especially.

Conversely, look at McLaren from 2015 to 2017. Full on constructor team with similar or identical budget to the big 3 and they were struggling to get out of Q1 on quite a lot of races. Or even Red Bull in recent years. Despite a huge budget, their car is consistently lacklustre compared to mercedes or ferrari in the first few races before improving dramatically by the first round of major upgrades for the Spain GP. 

While money makes everything MUCH easier in f1 and the most successful teams will be the ones spending the most money, an 'average' budget can on occasion, produce an amazing car. 

Kimi_Raikkonen_2013_Malaysia_FP1.thumb.jpg.c0361f5bb5bdab205957e9690ac29d35.jpg

Share this post


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

, an 'average' budget can on occasion, produce an amazing car. 

 

Used to could. Not these days unless by average you mean the cost of last year's Merc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Raptorsailor said:

No F1 team spends 500 million a year. To be on the grid you need to be in the +50 million a year. To be competitive you need at least 100 million a year. Yearly contention for the championship for a big arse team is north of 150 million a year; and more importantly, good designers, engine and drivers. Note: you don't need to break the bank (speaking relative terms here) to have a competitive car in f1. The basis for a competitive car is a reliable and powerful engine and a car that's easy on its tires. Look at Williams in 2014. Lotus/renault/enstone in 2012 and 2013 especially.

 Conversely, look at McLaren from 2015 to 2017. Full on constructor team with similar or identical budget to the big 3 and they were struggling to get out of Q1 on quite a lot of races. Or even Red Bull in recent years. Despite a huge budget, their car is consistently lacklustre compared to mercedes or ferrari in the first few races before improving dramatically by the first round of major upgrades for the Spain GP. 

While money makes everything MUCH easier in f1 and the most successful teams will be the ones spending the most money, an 'average' budget can on occasion, produce an amazing car. 

Kimi_Raikkonen_2013_Malaysia_FP1.thumb.jpg.c0361f5bb5bdab205957e9690ac29d35.jpg

After reading your reply and thinking I remembered reading that Alfa's budget for 2019 was ~USD$135M, I went looking for some confirmation of my thoughts on F1 team budgets...

These suggest the numbers i provided are more or less on the mark... although they are offset by team revenues.  Still stands that Ferrari spends ~USD$460M per season (exclusive of engines, and as well as the cost of the engines themselves, they have to factor the additional 500 staff it takes to produce those engines - on top of the standing team staffing of ~1000), so the reality is they spend well over the half billion a year.  Of course that is offset by their revenues, reducing their nett cash requirements significantly, but it's still an expensive undertaking any way you look at it...

https://www.essentiallysports.com/what-are-the-budgets-for-all-10-formula-one-teams-2019/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2018/04/08/revealed-the-2-6-billion-budget-that-fuels-f1s-ten-teams/#15f4846c6595

Probably not a good budgetary model for future AC events if we want to grow the number of competitors... although the move to cap Formula 1 budgets at ~USD$175M from 2021-22 might go some way toward equalising the sport and making it easier to retain a full complement of teams.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Skipstone said:

After reading your reply and thinking I remembered reading that Alfa's budget for 2019 was ~USD$135M, I went looking for some confirmation of my thoughts on F1 team budgets...

These suggest the numbers i provided are more or less on the mark... although they are offset by team revenues.  Still stands that Ferrari spends ~USD$460M per season (exclusive of engines, and as well as the cost of the engines themselves, they have to factor the additional 500 staff it takes to produce those engines - on top of the standing team staffing of ~1000), so the reality is they spend well over the half billion a year.  Of course that is offset by their revenues, reducing their nett cash requirements significantly, but it's still an expensive undertaking any way you look at it...

https://www.essentiallysports.com/what-are-the-budgets-for-all-10-formula-one-teams-2019/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2018/04/08/revealed-the-2-6-billion-budget-that-fuels-f1s-ten-teams/#15f4846c6595

Probably not a good budgetary model for future AC events if we want to grow the number of competitors... although the move to cap Formula 1 budgets at ~USD$175M from 2021-22 might go some way toward equalising the sport and making it easier to retain a full complement of teams.

 

Merc makes a profit.  Ferrari too if you consider that it's the majority of the parent corp's marketing spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Merc makes a profit.  Ferrari too if you consider that it's the majority of the parent corp's marketing spend.

I'm not sure any AC team does.  Or has...

Share this post


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

I'm not sure any AC team does.  Or has...

I don't think they have to. Look at the 52 Series. That's basically a dozen or so wealthy owners/syndicates paying pros to play with the toys they bought. Any of those teams making money? Almost certainly not, but the cost is more in line with the recreational budget of a grand prix boat owner, not the GDP of a small island nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sisu3360 said:

I really think it comes down to the cost of mounting a campaign. In 1987 Stars and Stripes had one of the healthiest budgets in the event at $16M, or $36M today. Other teams spent far less and still made the starting line.

What is a campaign's personnel cost differential from 1987 to 2020? Back then wasn't it basically: here's a team shirt with 3 hots and a cot? What's a grinder make/yr these days??

We could go back to corinthian sailors, fiber glass boats, aluminium masts and dacron sails - huge cost savings! Moving teams around the world for the run up series is a silly waste of money for teams and boats that big!

It's still a race between 2 egos with too much money...

 

Share this post


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

I'm not sure any AC team does.  Or has...

You'd be correct, though that doesn't mean the team principal hasn't profited handsomely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

You'd be correct, though that doesn't mean the team principal hasn't profited handsomely.

Numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought. Pulling things out of your butt again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2020 at 5:46 PM, Raptorsailor said:

Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with changing classes every single edition since ac32. Just stick to a class for the foreseeable future like they did way back when with the IACC. 

I have spent most my sailing life racing in high performance boats but IMHO the quest for speed in the AC has not made it better. I went to Bermuda to watch some of the last AC and the reality is the racing was pretty boring. Pretty much, win the start win the race. And the speed thing I'm sure is a kick if your on the boat but as a spectator it doesn't really excite especially on TV. I'd much prefer watching a tactical chess match between two 12 meters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have spent most my sailing life racing in high performance boats but IMHO the quest for speed in the AC has not made it better. I went to Bermuda to watch some of the last AC and the reality is the racing was pretty boring. Pretty much, win the start win the race. And the speed thing I'm sure is a kick if your on the boat but as a spectator it doesn't really excite especially on TV. I'd much prefer watching a tactical chess match between two 12 meters.

Some people like the tactical side of sail boat racing and some prefer the development of faster boats, I am the latter, there are hundreds of classes for you to follow but very few for me, long live the America's Cup just as it is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Some people like the tactical side of sail boat racing and some prefer the development of faster boats, I am the latter, there are hundreds of classes for you to follow but very few for me, long live the America's Cup just as it is.

I prefer the latter myself too but higher performance IMHO has not translated to a more compelling viewing experience. For me the gold standard for televised sail boat racing is by the star class but the 18ft. skiffs do a good job too.

Share this post


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

I prefer the latter myself too but higher performance IMHO has not translated to a more compelling viewing experience. For me the gold standard for televised sail boat racing is by the star class but the 18ft. skiffs do a good job too.

I remember when Larry's Tri versus the Cat and the Tri stuffed the start in the first race, the Tri just outpointed the Cat and went faster, a fascinating sight, nothing tactical about it, but I could not take my eyes of  the screen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 2:26 PM, Raptorsailor said:

No F1 team spends 500 million a year. To be on the grid you need to be in the +50 million a year. To be competitive you need at least 100 million a year. Yearly contention for the championship for a big arse team is north of 150 million a year; and more importantly, good designers, engine and drivers. Note: you don't need to break the bank (speaking relative terms here) to have a competitive car in f1. The basis for a competitive car is a reliable and powerful engine and a car that's easy on its tires. Look at Williams in 2014. Lotus/renault/enstone in 2012 and 2013 especially.

Conversely, look at McLaren from 2015 to 2017. Full on constructor team with similar or identical budget to the big 3 and they were struggling to get out of Q1 on quite a lot of races. Or even Red Bull in recent years. Despite a huge budget, their car is consistently lacklustre compared to mercedes or ferrari in the first few races before improving dramatically by the first round of major upgrades for the Spain GP. 

While money makes everything MUCH easier in f1 and the most successful teams will be the ones spending the most money, an 'average' budget can on occasion, produce an amazing car. 

Kimi_Raikkonen_2013_Malaysia_FP1.thumb.jpg.c0361f5bb5bdab205957e9690ac29d35.jpg

Quote

As champions, Mercedes receives the largest slice of of the revenue pie, however, they still trail Ferrari on overall pay-out. Wolff’s contract is expected to end in 2020, coinciding with the expiration of F1’s current agreements. Their budget for the 2019 season is around $484 million, which is close to half a billion dollars.

https://www.essentiallysports.com/what-are-the-budgets-for-all-10-formula-one-teams-2019/

Share this post


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

I remember when Larry's Tri versus the Cat and the Tri stuffed the start in the first race, the Tri just outpointed the Cat and went faster, a fascinating sight, nothing tactical about it, but I could not take my eyes of  the screen.

Yeah, a weird new humongous machine was fascinating and beautiful in a brutal way but if there had been 7 races people would have been channel surfing probably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Terry Hollis said:

I remember when Larry's Tri versus the Cat and the Tri stuffed the start in the first race, the Tri just outpointed the Cat and went faster, a fascinating sight, nothing tactical about it, but I could not take my eyes of  the screen.

I remember watching this at work sneakily on my PC. Boss looked over my shoulder and even he as a non-sailor was fascinated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That AC was an interesting design competition but with only 2 boats and 2 races it was a lame sailboat racing competition.

Share this post


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

That AC was an interesting design competition but with only 2 boats and 2 races it was a lame sailboat racing competition.

The AC has always been a design competition, and that is where the interest lies.  If you like some other kind of competition there are heaps of one design competitions around for you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The AC has always been a design competition, and that is where the interest lies.  If you like some other kind of competition there are heaps of one design competitions around for you.

I think he was specifically talking about 2010. It was exciting to watch because we had no idea what the heck would happen, but 2 races was about all the drama that the design competition could sustain before it clearly became a mismatch.

The AC has been most exciting when it was a design competition within a box that was narrow enough to still allow a decent sailboat race. I agree that OD runs counter to the principles of the event, but it's also not good when highly skilled sailors are reduced to jockeys getting a vastly superior machine around a course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JS said recently that Dogzilla is his favorite boat of all time. I agree!

Share this post


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

By Hamish Ross at 
https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2020/05/20/what-does-the-americas-cup-need/

What does the America’s Cup need? In short, more competitors.

My take: A simpler boat will bring more competitors (if we disregard the special situation we're in currently that could make the AC impossible at all).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO: 

Not necessarily a simple boat, but maybe a class that is stable over a few Cups.  Like the IACC, maybe even a cup or two more in 75 foot foiling monohulls. 

The circus of events outside the venue are probably not net-benefit for competitors, especially new ones. 

Having the rich'un on board if he/she wants to be is a plus.  Don't they still have the guest racer spot this Cup? 

Share this post


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

Like the IACC, maybe even a cup or two more in 75 foot foiling monohulls. 

Clean did an interview with GD during the AC36 Class deliberations and while he couldn’t (or maybe just wouldn’t) reveal the exact direction they were leaning for the new monohull, when pressed about if it would foil, his ‘intonation’ at one point in his responses strongly suggested ‘you won’t be disappointed...’

I took that to heart and the moment the new boat concept got revealed I posted ‘OMFG - WOW!!!’ :D And I like it even more now that is proving to be a serious rocket ship. 
 

I hope this Class has some longevity too but if I hade a vote then it’d be to step back up to solid wings. 

Share this post


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

hope this Class has some longevity too but if I hade a vote then it’d be to step back up to solid wings. 

Haters gotta hate something, every post. even if it's just slide in that one word. Wait for the debrief, no one knows how the double skin will work out, least of all you with no clew about sailing.

Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, barfy said:

Haters gotta hate something, every post. even if it's just slide in that one word. Wait for the debrief, no one knows how the double skin will work out, least of all you with no clew about sailing.

Up

One hand people are complaining that the AC75 doesn't have relevance to the sailing masses because it's simply alien.... pushed the design envelope out too far, beyond the ability of most to fathom how to sail it... let alone sail one.

On the other hand, that double skin sails (which might have a wider role in more everyday vessels of the future) should be replaced by solid wings... because outright performance, impact on budget and impact on vessel resilience in the face of unplanned manoeuvres are less important than outright performance and shooting for the design stars.

 

All it says... is if there's 10 onlookers there will be at least 11 perspectives....

Share this post


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

if there's 10 onlookers there will be at least 11 perspectives....

In the case of the twin-skin ‘soft wing’ various folks from all 3 Challs have at various times remarked on it: They don’t care for it. 
 

In more recent remarks  both Vasco (LR) and Simmer (Ineos) even added that there’s very little chance of it being adopted more widely. 
 

But I agree with the larger point, that it’d be good if the AC75 Class enjoys longevity, even if the next gen’s improvements all happen elsewhere in the design. 

Share this post


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

In the case of the twin-skin ‘soft wing’ various folks from all 3 Challs have at various times remarked on it: They don’t care for it. 
 

In more recent remarks  both Vasco (LR) and Simmer (Ineos) even added that there’s very little chance of it being adopted more widely. 
 

But I agree with the larger point, that it’d be good if the AC75 Class enjoys longevity, even if the next gen’s improvements all happen elsewhere in the design. 

Yeah you pointed that out from a TH interview right....the one where he falsely claimed the saran-wrap wing was cheaper, conveniently forgetting all the extra ground-crew and gear needed to get one in and out of the water, not to mention the difficulty of 'towing' the boat if it had issues. The very factors that the more than conversant ETNZ took into account when making their choice....

When Casper wins it ;) - lets see how he balances all those balls at once eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TH repeated his assertion in the interview posted today by Rennie, that widespread adoption even in classes like TP52’s is highly unlikely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean a different assertion now? Not just falsely complaining about cost but prognosticating about the adoption of an unfinished product as well?

Well that's something else and only time will tell, but if that's the standard now, how many TP52s have wings?

Share this post


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

One hand people are complaining that the AC75 doesn't have relevance to the sailing masses because it's simply alien.... pushed the design envelope out too far, beyond the ability of most to fathom how to sail it... let alone sail one.

That's been my main problem with the AC75 - yes, the AC has always been about innovation, but it's always been about evolution of sailing design concepts created elsewhere. Wing sails existed before they were in the AC, foiling cats existed before they were in AC. The AC has never been sailed in a whole new genre of boat invented for the event.

If they wanted monohulls, accelerating the development of foil-assisted inshore keelboats would have made more sense, and had a better chance of trickle-down to something most of us might have a chance to sail in the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Skipstone said:

All it says... is if there's 10 onlookers there will be at least 11 perspectives....

wait for the debrief on this one i reckon...4 teams, at least 3 wedded realities.

and only one winner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 5:20 AM, Sisu3360 said:

If they wanted monohulls, accelerating the development of foil-assisted inshore keelboats would have made more sense, and had a better chance of trickle-down to something most of us might have a chance to sail in the foreseeable future.

What you or others think has no bearing. The AC is a very rarified and unique proposition. Developing other already established class of boats or concepts is hardly unique or rarified. Even the marketing gurus would can that proposition as a dilution of virtually everything that the AC represents.

Nor does this follow or fit the mentality of throw the Ball as far as you can..... which is the mindset of the likes of Bernasconi et al. and this is exactly what they produced.

Bertelli proscribed Monohulls and No Wing rigs as non negotiable, whilst pushing for a size of boat with more presence (translates to BIG - not off the beach style dinghies) - Hey Presto - AC75's.....

Share this post


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

The AC is a very rarified and unique proposition. Developing other already established class of boats or concepts is hardly unique or rarified. Even the marketing gurus would can that proposition as a dilution of virtually everything that the AC represents.

The 12 Meter rule existed for half a century before it was adopted by the AC, and it was the longest-lived Cup class by far. Is that not representative of the event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sisu3360 said:

The 12 Meter rule existed for half a century before it was adopted by the AC, and it was the longest-lived Cup class by far. Is that not representative of the event?

The 12 Meter rule was just a reflection of the time, when the great depression of the 1930's occurred the J class was born to reduce costs.  Then we had world war 2 from 1939 to 1945 and not surprisingly, given the state of the world economy, no one was interested in the America's Cup so the NYYC came up with a cheap existing class which got the interest going again.

The 12 Meter rule was so successful that I think there were 17 entries at Perth with corresponding interest until Faye returned it to it's roots with the big boat challenge.

They tried to get it back to the 12 metre days with another class design but the big money boys had other ideas.  Maybe the virus will decide that something cheaper is needed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sisu3360 said:

The 12 Meter rule existed for half a century before it was adopted by the AC, and it was the longest-lived Cup class by far. Is that not representative of the event?

Are you not aware of why the 12M class was adopted? 

Just read on down, Thanks to @Terry Hollis for explaining that little chapter to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2020 at 1:53 AM, Terry Hollis said:

The 12 Meter rule was just a reflection of the time, when the great depression of the 1930's occurred the J class was born to reduce costs.  Then we had world war 2 from 1939 to 1945 and not surprisingly, given the state of the world economy, no one was interested in the America's Cup so the NYYC came up with a cheap existing class which got the interest going again.

The 12 Meter rule was so successful that I think there were 17 entries at Perth with corresponding interest until Faye returned it to it's roots with the big boat challenge.

They tried to get it back to the 12 metre days with another class design but the big money boys had other ideas.  Maybe the virus will decide that something cheaper is needed.

For the 1958 Match, the DoG had to be amended to reduce the minimum required waterline length from 65' down to 44' to allow competition in the 12mR class.

The 12mR class was perfect for the time. It was a type-forming rating rule that had been in use internationally for more than a half century, and there were numerous existing boats that could be used as starting points for new designs both in the US and Europe. There were just over a dozen US 12s in existence at that point (before design began for the 1958 Match), and none was a post-ww2 design, so the US did not have an inherent design advantage.

It did, however, have Olin Stephens, who was arguably at the peak of his design powers at age 50, and who as a young man had worked on the design of Ranger for the last America's Cup in 1937.  Stephens designed several 12mRs in the late 1930s, and was probably more familiar with the rule than any other active designer at that point, at least in the US.

The IACC rule that followed the 12mR Rule was actually based on many of the same principles, and had many similar design constraints and measurement procedures, such as girth measurements at the ends, and a measured length at some specified height above the floatation plane.

The rating formula was similar to that of the 12mR rule, with length, sail area and displacement in the numerator, divided by a constant to yield a rating in metres.. The original divisor in the IACC formula resulted in an oddball maximum permitted rating  in metres. At some point after the first iteration of the rule, some clever person came up with the idea of tweaking the divisor so that the maximum ACC permitted rating was 24.000 metres, rather that the 12.000 metres in the 12mR.

This gave some sense of continuity, even though the boats themselves had little in common with their 12mR ancestors.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thesis for this thread is that more teams and tighter competition is preferable to completely bonkers innovation, in my unsolicited opinion. I don't want a one-design event, but the class has to support discount entries as much as it supports the fully-funded teams. Maybe the AC75 will still deliver on that in future years, we'll see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youth Cup* for the discount shoppers?

It's gonna be a ripper boat mate!

 

* Covid allowing etc

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