Jump to content


If you could choose the boat that would be used in AC racing...


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#1 dzaveski

dzaveski

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:59 PM

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different.  Just for fun.

 

If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why.  Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.

 

My choice:

Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull).  Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.  

 

Monohull because I like the tacking duels

 

Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter. 

 

OH yeah and there would be a country rule....  To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country.  No naturalize citizens.  Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.

 

Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day.  Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.

 

What say you!

 



#2 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:15 PM

My wish list is:

 

90 ft monos or even V5s for that matter

soft sails

Upwind downwind 3 times - average 1.5 hours per race

At a location where there are ocean swells.

Upper wind limit of 20 knots Lower limit of 5 knots.

No course boundaries.



#3 baygrass

baygrass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:36 PM

You are being very quick to judge a few outcomes with little real information to back it. Shut Up!



#4 Tom O'Keefe

Tom O'Keefe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts
  • Location:San Clemente, California
  • Interests:Custom Plastic Injection Molding
    Hendo 30 Power Point
    Mac Gregor 65' Lean Machine
    Spencer 65' Rag Time
    SC 50 Horizon
    R/P 68' Tax Dancer
    R/P 86' Pyewacket

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:40 PM

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

#5 catsailordude

catsailordude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:51 PM

60 foot catamarans

36 foot beam

90 foot mast with one reef point 10 feet down

gennaker halyard also 10 feet from mast head

soft sails

straight rudders (no horizontal foils on rudders)

daggerboards load from the top

 

There should also be resonable minimum weights on the platform and the rig to ensure that the boats are overdesigned and can sustain a capsize with minimal damage.

 

A formula like this would result in good racing (like in the AC 45s) but would also be reasonable in terms of cost and logistics.  You'd probably see 10 to 15 teams compete and these boats could be sailed in other events.



#6 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,394 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:05 PM

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different.  Just for fun.
 
If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why.  Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.
 
My choice:
Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull).  Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.  
 
Monohull because I like the tacking duels
 
Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter. 
 
OH yeah and there would be a country rule....  To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country.  No naturalize citizens.  Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.
 
Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day.  Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.
 
What say you!
 

I'd choose an AC72 just because you're a whiny cunt.

#7 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,266 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:11 PM


In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different.  Just for fun.
 
If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why.  Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.
 
My choice:
Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull).  Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.  
 
Monohull because I like the tacking duels
 
Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter. 
 
OH yeah and there would be a country rule....  To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country.  No naturalize citizens.  Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.
 
Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day.  Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.
 
What say you!
 

I'd choose an AC72 just because you're a whiny cunt.

Was this truly necessary ?

#8 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,394 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:30 PM



In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different.  Just for fun.
 
If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why.  Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.
 
My choice:
Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull).  Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.  
 
Monohull because I like the tacking duels
 
Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter. 
 
OH yeah and there would be a country rule....  To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country.  No naturalize citizens.  Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.
 
Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day.  Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.
 
What say you!
 

I'd choose an AC72 just because you're a whiny cunt.
Was this truly necessary ?
Yes. I understand that some people don't like the AC72's. Others will complain about anything Larry/Russell do. I will show absolutely no respect to anyone who chooses to take advantage of the death of a good man in pushing this agenda.

#9 dzaveski

dzaveski

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:41 PM

You are being very quick to judge a few outcomes with little real information to back it. Shut Up!

Such technical words.... I no understand.....



#10 dzaveski

dzaveski

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:45 PM

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

A well written and reasonable way to tell me you feel I am wrong...  Love this response.  



#11 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:03 PM

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

 

Great post.



#12 Moonduster

Moonduster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,377 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:06 PM

This one is simple - the AC should be sailed in V70s with the same crew contingent that races the V70s around the cans during the Volvo.

 

The V70 buoy racing was spectacular. Lots of lead changes, lots of drama, sponsors on board, tons of media coverage and completely accessible to everyone who sails any kind of boat anywhere in the world.

 

It's got the best designers, the best sails, the best crews and the best fans. And there are plenty of boats available today for trial horses.

 

By any comparison, the AC72s and this AC are shaping up to be a complete failure.



#13 Tom O'Keefe

Tom O'Keefe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts
  • Location:San Clemente, California
  • Interests:Custom Plastic Injection Molding
    Hendo 30 Power Point
    Mac Gregor 65' Lean Machine
    Spencer 65' Rag Time
    SC 50 Horizon
    R/P 68' Tax Dancer
    R/P 86' Pyewacket

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:28 PM

Can't do the VO70's they are now VO65's and they are one design. So, you lose the whole design contest between nations thing.

#14 Hank Chinaski

Hank Chinaski

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  • Location:Puget Sound

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:30 PM

This one is simple - the AC should be sailed in V70s with the same crew contingent that races the V70s around the cans during the Volvo.

 

The V70 buoy racing was spectacular. Lots of lead changes, lots of drama, sponsors on board, tons of media coverage and completely accessible to everyone who sails any kind of boat anywhere in the world.

 

It's got the best designers, the best sails, the best crews and the best fans. And there are plenty of boats available today for trial horses.

 

By any comparison, the AC72s and this AC are shaping up to be a complete failure.

 

I think if you ask the V70 crews you'll find out that they don't like buoy racing with a boat designed for ocean passages. The boats aren't designed to be tacked/gybed as often as is necessary in a buoy race.

 

I'm with Tom... the AC was intended to be a technological contest not a one design or box rule regatta. A DoG race is the purest form of AC race and MC allows for tweaking of the rules to suit the yacht clubs. I'm not all that crazy about the LV either but I think it's necessary when you have such interest among challengers. If there's only a few challengers... so what? Let them duke it our and see who gets to face the defender. To paraphrase what I said when Larry announced the whole ACWS idea... I don't like it, if you want a worldwide series go start one, don't fuck with the AC. But since he and ACalphabet were in charge and for some reason they didn't listen to me I said "go for it and good luck, let's see what happens".

 

I attended two of the ACWS regattas (SD and SF Aug) and it was incredible. Let's see how it plays out. Besides the powers that be won't listen to anyone from ACA anymore than they did to me before the ACWS.

 

Edit... Tom is right about V65s.



#15 kiwi_bob

kiwi_bob

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:06 PM

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different.  Just for fun.

 

If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why.  Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.

 

My choice:

Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull).  Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.  

 

Monohull because I like the tacking duels

 

Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter. 

 

OH yeah and there would be a country rule....  To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country.  No naturalize citizens.  Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.

 

Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day.  Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.

 

What say you!

I'd go with your boat rule but (big change here) allow it to be 45" wide - approx on the cusp of the trimaran/cat boundary. Mono's have been done to death and it is ragingly obvious they are not on the leading edge of sailing. 

 

Also make a rule they have to be able to lower the sails/wingsails (whatever) within 10mins of the end of the race without outside assistance. 



#16 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,266 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:21 PM




In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different.  Just for fun.
 
If you could choose the boat that would be used in America's cup racing what would you choose and why.  Keep is short and sweet or at least funny.
 
My choice:
Some sort of box rule of 60 feet long (I could be convinced of longer) 20 feet wide (keep in monohull).  Spec out the height of the rig and the depth of the fins, but leave almost everything else up to the designers imagination.  
 
Monohull because I like the tacking duels
 
Keep the size reasonable so that more countries can afford to enter. 
 
OH yeah and there would be a country rule....  To sail on the boat of a specific country you must be born in that country.  No naturalize citizens.  Or lets just call it was it is, pro racing circuit with not national ties.
 
Must sail in what ever wind shows up or doesn't that day.  Races are only cancelled when neither boat can get around the course in some sort of allotted time.
 
What say you!
 

I'd choose an AC72 just because you're a whiny cunt.
Was this truly necessary ?
Yes. I understand that some people don't like the AC72's. Others will complain about anything Larry/Russell do. I will show absolutely no respect to anyone who chooses to take advantage of the death of a good man in pushing this agenda.

Where do you see him taking " advantage " of anyone ? He's put forth a question that everyone else in this thread has seen fit to respond to with thoughtful comments . Your choice of language further lessons the impact of your viewpoint . Please let the adults continue to discuss amongst themselves and keep your needless comments to the school yard .

#17 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • Location:Auckland, New Zealand
  • Interests:Flying sea monsters

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:32 PM

Pick a multihull length and beam size you think is safe and manageable.

Pick minimum weight to ensure it's engineered big enough to actually be safe.

Pick a maximum rig height to further limit really dangerous arrangements.

 

Get rid of all the weird rubbish that are borderline as to whether your actually sailing like engines and computer controlled everything.

 

Leave everything else open!



#18 8Y8

8Y8

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Location:Pittwater AUS

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:43 PM

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

 

Yep too true, any sailor could have just as easily been trapped below decks folding sails on an old mono that broke in half and sunk, I don't understand this rush to blame the speed (or the boat). Maybe (time will tell) the engineers will have to answer for their calcs, or the builder for some error, but other than that these are awesome machines to watch, and the format is even of interest to my wife who has never watched sailing in her life. Let it go....



#19 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:47 PM

Yacht-Hanuman.jpg



#20 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:50 PM

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. 

 

ITYM ensure survival. 



#21 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:13 PM

Yacht-Hanuman.jpg

 

Hard to argue with that but the AC72's are much closer in spirit to the J boats than the 12 meter/IACC boats were.



#22 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

Can't do the VO70's they are now VO65's and they are one design. So, you lose the whole design contest between nations thing.

 

The whole "contest between nations" was lost quite sometime ago, it's a contest between sponsors.



#23 Great Red Shark

Great Red Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,666 posts
  • Location:Honolulu

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:32 PM

1. Strict nationality requirements - citizen of the country for 5 yrs +. 

2. PIck a boat - like a Santa Cruz 70, for instance

3. 1 million dollar entry fee gets you the right to race and a hull

4. Foils, spars and sails from country of challenge, size and material limits specified

 

Boats would have a use after racing,  more countries would challenge,  interest would be higher.

 

Would have been a great concept back in '92 after the first DoG event,  but now... that ship has sailed.



#24 Tom O'Keefe

Tom O'Keefe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts
  • Location:San Clemente, California
  • Interests:Custom Plastic Injection Molding
    Hendo 30 Power Point
    Mac Gregor 65' Lean Machine
    Spencer 65' Rag Time
    SC 50 Horizon
    R/P 68' Tax Dancer
    R/P 86' Pyewacket

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:35 PM

I agree it has been quite a few AC cycles since it was strictly one nations designs against another. CIC is still an artifact of that original premise. I wish Oracle had included M&M in their design team. And, we know there is a lot of French talent involved in the wing design. But, Core was originally a Southern California firm that migrated to Washington to be close to the day job customers and then opened shop in New Zealand for their labor talent/price advantage.
So, if we are wishing about new boats to challenge, I'd still put my vote in for the design aspect being a "contest between nations".

#25 dzaveski

dzaveski

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:38 PM

Yacht-Hanuman.jpg

 

Hard to argue with that but the AC72's are much closer in spirit to the J boats than the 12 meter/IACC boats were.

So true.....



#26 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:46 PM

1. Strict nationality requirements - citizen of the country for 5 yrs +. 

2. PIck a boat - like a Santa Cruz 70, for instance

3. 1 million dollar entry fee gets you the right to race and a hull

4. Foils, spars and sails from country of challenge, size and material limits specified

 

Boats would have a use after racing,  more countries would challenge,  interest would be higher.

 

Would have been a great concept back in '92 after the first DoG event,  but now... that ship has sailed.

 

Man, that would be AWEFUL!!!  Wow.  Could not get further from the intent of the deed, and could not be any less interesting.



#27 Great Red Shark

Great Red Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,666 posts
  • Location:Honolulu

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:56 PM

Yeah,  10-15 teams in a match-racign round-robin with closely-matched big-ass boats where people identified with their countries' challenge.  That would suck.

 

Wait a year,  do it all over again with the new defender picking the hull,  old boats don't have to get mothballed because they are so critical.  yeah,  awful.



#28 Kiwing

Kiwing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:03 PM

The AC is about cutting edge design,

pushing the envelope necessarily means danger,

but the egos provide the money and the money provides the advances in sailing.

 

There are plenty of good races, one design, nation verse nation, etc.

 

The AC is what it is and it is a great place for cutting edge development.

And we love watching them fight!!



#29 olaf hart

olaf hart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,547 posts
  • Location:D'Entrecasteaux Channel

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:38 PM

It would probably help to design some sort of a reality TV type challenge for the lawyers.
Keep them out of the way of the sailors, and make some extra cash from TV rights.
The AC has traditionally been a competition in the courts as well as on the water, we need to keep the tradition alive.

#30 Kiwing

Kiwing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:47 PM

I would choose AC72s



#31 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:50 PM

Yeah,  10-15 teams in a match-racign round-robin with closely-matched big-ass boats where people identified with their countries' challenge.  That would suck.

 

Wait a year,  do it all over again with the new defender picking the hull,  old boats don't have to get mothballed because they are so critical.  yeah,  awful.

 

That is not the America's Cup.  Not by the deed, not by the tradition, not by what most people want.

 

Might as well say the World Cup in Soccer should be played indoors, on a hardwood court, with a basketball shot into elevated baskets at each end of the court, with 2 or 3 points per basket.  Still call it "soccer".  Heck, it would be a lot more exciting than what is currently "soccer".



#32 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:52 PM

I would choose AC72s

 

Same here.  Sure, if the AC72 rule stays, they WILL change the rules about foils (replacing rules that were intended to prevent foiling with rules that will allow safer control), and they may change the wing rule as well as requirements regarding beams, or something else.  But I love that these are about the baddest ass possible boats for racing around a course.   As a consolation, I would be OK with a similar rule, scaled down to 60' or so (I know, I know, xLot)



#33 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,315 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:58 PM

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?



#34 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:04 PM

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

 

Sounds reasonable (50-60' option).  The idea that the boats have to be able to handle wide variety of conditions, both with regard to wind and waves/swell, would likely result in significant improvement in strength, durability, and stability, and may even reduce costs.  If you can't go off on an extreme for design, it may take away the incentive to go do so damned much expensive design work.  I would love to see such a simple rule, wide open.  The minimum weight requirement, without maximum, and without COG requirements, would make a lot of sense.  Teams will reasonably want to get the COG as low as possible, improving stability and safety.

 

Still, I'm not writing off the AC72.



#35 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:04 PM

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

We have ample evidence that the AC72's can cross SF bay without a problem.  



#36 Tom O'Keefe

Tom O'Keefe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts
  • Location:San Clemente, California
  • Interests:Custom Plastic Injection Molding
    Hendo 30 Power Point
    Mac Gregor 65' Lean Machine
    Spencer 65' Rag Time
    SC 50 Horizon
    R/P 68' Tax Dancer
    R/P 86' Pyewacket

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:07 PM

TC BPV would not do well against an AC72 in closed course inshore racing.  Hydrapoter (sp?) would be a much better choice if you also threw in an offshore qualifier.



#37 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,315 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:10 PM

TC BPV would not do well against an AC72 in closed course inshore racing.  Hydrapoter (sp?) would be a much better choice if you also threw in an offshore qualifier.

I know BPV would not do well, however a more open rule would allow cheaper boat, perhaps faster, and mainly seaworthy.

Basically a better show for TV in tougher conditions.



#38 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,315 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:11 PM

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

We have ample evidence that the AC72's can cross SF bay without a problem.  

Yep, 2 crashes in medium conditions and work for the lawyers ;)



#39 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:16 PM

 

50 or 60 feet cats, no wind limits, no foil limits, minimum weight, no max weight, lots of races in different conditions and possibility to chose a wing or a soft sail with reefes.

 

Competitors would have to design a seaworthy boat.

 

How can BPV can turn around the world, most of the time above 30kts, often above 40 kts, without a problem while it is too dangerous for an AC72 to cross a bay ?

We have ample evidence that the AC72's can cross SF bay without a problem.  

Yep, 2 crashes in medium conditions and work for the lawyers ;)

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about on the legal end.  Come to think of it, you don't have much of one on the sailing end either.

 

How is it that ETNZ hasn't crashed yet?  Or LR?  I've seen ETNZ out in what looked like a dishwasher and yet it remained upright and in one piece.  Odd.  Moreover, as you noted, Artemis capsized in what appeared to be moderate conditions.  Supports the conclusion that something unusual happened.  We shall see.



#40 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,186 posts

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:21 PM

Safety needs to be better addressed but the AC72 is about the baddest-ass in-shore racing boat on the planet. I want a successor.

Allowing for better much control of the main and rudder foils would be an excellent evolution across all aspects compared to V1.

#41 knarly34

knarly34

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,263 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:21 PM

AC90



#42 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:48 AM

AC72 box rule. Big version of C class rule.

Wing only with area limit, no soft sails. 

Central pod, no tramp (final DZ style).

Vertical foils, no lifting surfaces, boards raise only (no rotation or translation around other axes), rudders 1 axis of rotation.

No weight limits.

No wind limits.

No movable ballast.



#43 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:51 AM

AC72 box rule. Big version of C class rule.

Wing only with area limit, no soft sails. 

Central pod, no tramp (final DZ style).

Vertical foils, no lifting surfaces, boards raise only (no rotation or translation around other axes), rudders 1 axis of rotation.

No weight limits.

No wind limits.

No movable ballast.

 

Why no lifting foils?  Why no tramp?  Just wondering.



#44 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:53 AM

I would choose AC72s

 

Same here.  Sure, if the AC72 rule stays, they WILL change the rules about foils (replacing rules that were intended to prevent foiling with rules that will allow safer control), and they may change the wing rule as well as requirements regarding beams, or something else.  But I love that these are about the baddest ass possible boats for racing around a course.   As a consolation, I would be OK with a similar rule, scaled down to 60' or so (I know, I know, xLot)

 

You guys might, but you're not paying the bills.

 

We have a pitiful three challengers and that's a direct reflection of the cost and infrastructure required to support this class.

 

Enjoy it while you can, you'll never see these boats again post AC.



#45 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:00 AM

AC72 box rule. Big version of C class rule.

Wing only with area limit, no soft sails. 

Central pod, no tramp (final DZ style).

Vertical foils, no lifting surfaces, boards raise only (no rotation or translation around other axes), rudders 1 axis of rotation.

No weight limits.

No wind limits.

No movable ballast.

 

Why no lifting foils?  Why no tramp?  Just wondering.

Foils no lift: whilst the foilers are spectacular, I prefer "boats" to be in the water at all times.

No tramp: safety and drag. DZ showed you can get around an even wider boat without them with a small platform of the rear edge of the main beam, a central pod and a wide rear beam. Not much to get trapped under if it does turtle.



#46 Guy LeDouche

Guy LeDouche

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • Location:S/V Flyin Hawaiian

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:02 AM

Macgregor 26X.  Wing sail.  250HP Mastervolt Podmaster.



#47 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:30 AM

 

I would choose AC72s

 

Same here.  Sure, if the AC72 rule stays, they WILL change the rules about foils (replacing rules that were intended to prevent foiling with rules that will allow safer control), and they may change the wing rule as well as requirements regarding beams, or something else.  But I love that these are about the baddest ass possible boats for racing around a course.   As a consolation, I would be OK with a similar rule, scaled down to 60' or so (I know, I know, xLot)

 

You guys might, but you're not paying the bills.

 

We have a pitiful three challengers and that's a direct reflection of the cost and infrastructure required to support this class.

 

Enjoy it while you can, you'll never see these boats again post AC.

 

You have to remember that the AC is a Challenge Cup all you need for it to take place is 1 challenger.

That is what makes it unique.

The history is what makes it the plaything of billionaires.

Why dumb it down to get more "no hoper wanna be's" involved (AC32) and turn it into nascar.

Gimme AC33 over AC32 any day.



#48 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:32 AM

Can't help thinking that is what the AC should been - 15 years ago.

 

From the front page.

Attached Files



#49 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:34 AM

Can't help thinking that is what the AC should been - 15 years ago.

 

From the front page.

 

Lovely boat..........................................but hardly a showcase of cutting edge tech.



#50 Samin

Samin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:45 AM

the AC72 is about the baddest-ass in-shore racing boat on the planet. I want a successor.

+1

#51 baygrass

baygrass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:57 AM

AC72 

 

If they had a 1 boat rule it would be a-lot more affordable and the boats would be more durable. 



#52 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:58 AM

AC72



#53 Terrafirma

Terrafirma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,535 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:01 AM

The biggest issue for the cup moving forward is COST..! Unless the COST comes down we won't have a cup in the future. The money to compete is just too much.



#54 uflux

uflux

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Location:I'm watching you right now...
  • Interests:Windsurfing, Sailing...

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:20 AM

Smaller version of the AC72. Purely because of the logistics of managing such a large Cat, and being able to right them if and when they do capsize.

 

In terms of structural safety and reducing costs. There could perhaps be a standard platform/hull package which is 'off the shelf'. This would then open up the teams to concentrate of designing their own wings/ foils etc...



#55 Keith

Keith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,834 posts
  • Location:Vancouver B.C.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:41 AM

The Americas cup has always been a very wealthy persons game. That wont change.

 

This design below is well proven.  But, Keep it high tech, leading edge, amazing sailing machines. lets not go back in time.

 

 

 

Attached Files

  • Attached File  bpv.jpg   120.71K   16 downloads


#56 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 03:49 AM

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

People like Herreshoff himself took decisive action to REMOVE the most radical boats from the AC. That's why he created the Universal Rule which lead to the end of the Reliance-type scow-shaped hulls. Herreshoff letters on the Mystic Seaport site confirmed that he refused Iselin's request to built a more radical giant scow - an idea that had evolved in the Seawanhaka Cup BEFORE it was proposed in the AC (just like bulb keels, spade rudders, bermudan rigs, sloop rigs and light displacement hulls were evolved in the Seawanhaka before they were in the AC....).

 

The early British AC boats like Livonia, Cambria, Genesta and Galatea were pretty standard boats of their day. They were normally met by pretty normal US boats of their day.

 

The UK challengers up to the 12 Metre era often raced as part of the mainstream "Big Class" - they were not all that different (if at all) from the rest of the Big Class cutters.

 

The hype of the AC being the bleeding edge, the biggest and fastest, just doesn't seem to fit with the historical facts. So if we are going to maintain the tradition the AC should be sailed in boats that are pretty much the "big end" of the mainstream.

 

Would it look as spectacular? Maybe not - without getting non-sailors in to ask what looks better, who knows?

 

Is looking spectacular important? Nope, not for getting TV - golf gets more viewers than skydiving, football gets more viewers than hydroplane racing, swimming at 6 knots in the Olympics gets more viewers than just about anything else in the Games.



#57 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • Location:Auckland, New Zealand
  • Interests:Flying sea monsters

Posted 14 May 2013 - 04:12 AM

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

People like Herreshoff himself took decisive action to REMOVE the most radical boats from the AC. That's why he created the Universal Rule which lead to the end of the Reliance-type scow-shaped hulls. Herreshoff letters on the Mystic Seaport site confirmed that he refused Iselin's request to built a more radical giant scow - an idea that had evolved in the Seawanhaka Cup BEFORE it was proposed in the AC (just like bulb keels, spade rudders, bermudan rigs, sloop rigs and light displacement hulls were evolved in the Seawanhaka before they were in the AC....).

 

The early British AC boats like Livonia, Cambria, Genesta and Galatea were pretty standard boats of their day. They were normally met by pretty normal US boats of their day.

 

The UK challengers up to the 12 Metre era often raced as part of the mainstream "Big Class" - they were not all that different (if at all) from the rest of the Big Class cutters.

 

The hype of the AC being the bleeding edge, the biggest and fastest, just doesn't seem to fit with the historical facts. So if we are going to maintain the tradition the AC should be sailed in boats that are pretty much the "big end" of the mainstream.

 

Would it look as spectacular? Maybe not - without getting non-sailors in to ask what looks better, who knows?

 

Is looking spectacular important? Nope, not for getting TV - golf gets more viewers than skydiving, football gets more viewers than hydroplane racing, swimming at 6 knots in the Olympics gets more viewers than just about anything else in the Games.

 

 

The only issue I have with this is that it is such a wasted opportunity. 

You have people with more money than they know what to do with willing to throw into sailing development, don't waste that opportunity on pulling the last zillionth percent out of the mainstream, get them to spend it on the edge where very real revolutions can be made to the sport (and other practical applications for water bourne vehicles).  This doesn't necessarily have to be dangerous, it just requires enough latitude in the rules for some weird and wonderful ideas to be given a chance to be tested, the two foil system on the AC72's is a pretty good example of what can be achieved with enough money to throw at a design problem.



#58 Barnyb

Barnyb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:19 AM

My choice would be Neo J's:

  1. 90 foot (30 meter) hulls with
  2. massively overpowered soft sails.
  3. One or 2 hulls per team,
  4. with nationality rules for designers and the key crew members.
  5. Lifted nationality rules for new country entrants like china, korea, ... to increase nations who participate.
  6. Encouragement of the "romantic" AC like PB said over the last few days
  7. Encouragement of corporate sponsored teams. Maybe build in surety of schedule so sailing teams can build their programmes around VOR, maxi series...
  8. Build 2 first generation yachts and put them on a chartered freighter to Italy over the northern summer for a same boat match racing series. Teams can own their spinakers with their own sponsors logos. (remember the world series!)
  9. Get the crew in some fashionable kit that clothing sponsors would be proud to sponsor.
  10. Build in a realistic corporate entertainment packages combining the event and teams (review F1 product)
  11. Capture more sponsors like LV, Emirates, banks, clothing, watches, design houses, national promotion agencies (ie TNZ). Some real work needs to be done to attract the sponsors to the new format.  

Have a look at Fremantle. That was such a good regatta with lots of nationalities

 

I think we need to understand that if TNZ or LR win in Sept that will be the end of the AC72's. I can not see that AR would be supportive if they won. There would be  even less teams who would participate next time if OR wins and chooses to keep the AC72. Imagine the extra insurance costs of running another AC72 program.



#59 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:43 AM

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

I've been trying to think of a single innovation that's come out of the AC, and at the moment, the only thing I can come up with is 3Di. But it could be argued that it's another example of AC-style development - take an innovation that's happened outside sailing/the AC (load path sails - which has been an idea around for a while - radial cuts) and throw money at it. 

 

Most development in sailing, fundamentally, is the result of development in materials. And that's all paid for by other people (aerospace).



#60 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:57 AM

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

I've been trying to think of a single innovation that's come out of the AC, and at the moment, the only thing I can come up with is 3Di. But it could be argued that it's another example of AC-style development - take an innovation that's happened outside sailing/the AC (load path sails - which has been an idea around for a while - radial cuts) and throw money at it. 

 

Most development in sailing, fundamentally, is the result of development in materials. And that's all paid for by other people (aerospace).

 

Here's 3 off the top of my head:

 

Winged keel AC23

Wings on boats over 25ft AC33 (oops forgot Stars and 
Stripes AC25)

Full foiling on sail boats over 25ft AC34

 

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

Steel masts

Aluminium masts

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

FRP Big boats

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Use of CFD

 

Cutting edge: tech definitely, even when constrained by really slow boat rules.


Edited by Wandering Geo, 14 May 2013 - 07:06 AM.


#61 nroose

nroose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,574 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 14 May 2013 - 07:23 AM

I think a simpler, less powerful cat box rule would be great.  20 meters long.  10 meters wide.  30 meter wing (or soft sail if you desire).  Have at it.  Tweak those dimensions if you want, but keep it round numbers, and keep it less powerful than the current rule.  I don't get the idea that we should prevent people from spending money on it.  I do think that if you had a simple rule, there would be room for innovation rather than just huge budgets to leave no stone unturned.  And if you eliminate the rules against foiling control systems, you make it easier to innovate, rather than harder, so you reduce costs, rather than increase costs.

 

And if you make it a little smaller than the current stuff, I think you end up with more teams.  Even if many of them don't have a high chance of winning.  Make the summer a good summer of a lot of racing with a decent number of teams, and it becomes a decent deal for sponsors, and a decent experience for the Bs.

 

I am very much looking forward to seeing the AC72s flying around the bay this summer, but I sure wish there were more teams, and I am worried that the recent tragedy may hurt the event profoundly.



#62 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 May 2013 - 07:27 AM

Winged keel wasn't an idea out of the blue. BL had stuck wings on foils before. I see that wing end plates were first proposed in 1897.

http://en.wikipedia....Wing_end-plates

Wings on big boats is not innovation. Its throwing money at a previous idea. Wings on boats came from the C class. 

Fully foiling?

 

hydroptere_3_715.jpg



#63 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:07 AM

^

PE,

Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

Wings on big boats is innovation. Loads increase dramatically. Major new tech required build them and to control them. 

Did you see EBs reaction when DZ was unveiled.

Don't think hydroptere goes around a race course. Massively different foil and control system design compared to AC72.

All genuine cutting edge tech and genuine innovation in my book.

All development (scientific achievement) stands on the shoulders of what has gone previously.



#64 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:54 AM


PE,
Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

 
Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.
 
The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

#65 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:55 AM

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

Steel masts

Aluminium masts

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

FRP Big boats

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Use of CFD

 

Cutting edge: tech definitely, even when constrained by really slow boat rules.

 

Seppings started using iron strappings in wooden hulls in 1830. By 1839, Brunel was building the SS Great Britain in wrought iron, with iron masts. So dissimlar hull materials and metal masts predate even America  herself. From then on, it's just a case of choosing whichever (commercially or near commercially available) material you want to use. Was Sir T.O.M. known as an aircraft guy bringing aircraft thinking into boats, or vice versa? Another example: 505s were playing with carbon masts in the 80s

 

And iron/steel frames and alu hull plating is an engineering dead end, as all you're really building is a giant battery.

 

The first FPR 12s were the glass Kiwi boats for the 86/7 Freemantle AC. As an example as to how late a take up of tech this is, in 1985/86, Cote D'Or - a carbon/nomex maxi - did the Whitbread. For sale, FWIW.

 

CFD? Please tell me how often the word "boat" appears here: http://en.wikipedia...._fluid_dynamics

 

Reliance? Largest sloop, yes. Small, in ship terms.



#66 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:59 AM

Don't think hydroptere goes around a race course. Massively different foil and control system design compared to AC72.

 

34 minutes cross the Manche/ English Channel. Different idea & systems (not constrained by rules), but definitively proof of concept. Big boats can fly.



#67 Tornado_ALIVE

Tornado_ALIVE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,169 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, AUS

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:16 AM

60 x 60 max
40 foot min, no beam min
Human power only (no engines)
Nationality rules (crew, design and full manufacture)

All else open......... Bring the best you have.

Windward / lewards x 3 laps no boundarys and 7 race min.

BTW, I am only choosing 60 x 60 because I would like to see a few more countries challenging, otherwise, go big..... 110 x 90

#68 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:26 AM


PE,
Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

 
Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.
 
The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

None are full wings, they are wing MASTS with soft sails.

Impressive, sure but nowhere near the level of full wings on display on Connors boat, DZ or the AC72s  



#69 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:34 AM

Wandering Geo wrote;

 

Here's 3 off the top of my head:

 

Winged keel 

 

How many do you see these days? It was basically a way around the International Rule's limit on fin keel depth.

 

Wings on boats over 25'

 

 

For a start, that's proving the point that the REAL innovation comes small boats like those under 25'.

 

Secondly, wingsails were used on boats over 25' like Guy Delarge's 60' (approx) proa around 1981 or the Walker Wingsail tri of the '70s.

 

Thirdly, wingsails and wing masts were very much a small boat invention, seen on things like International Canoes in the '30s and LF Herreshoff's Suicide around the same time. 

 

So they AC is just riding, as usual, on small boat development and arguably simply making an impractical version of it.

 

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

Full foiling on sail boats over 25ft AC34Cer

 

Certainly not - apart from L'Hydroptere, there was Dave Culp's Williwaw which was a full foiling tri that crossed oceans decades ago.

 

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

 

 

No - first foam composite boat appears to have been the (Finn-like) O Jolles built by the daughter of Lindemann, creator of Airex, in the '50s. First composite AC boat were the '87 Kiwi 12 Metres, at least 9 years behind the first foam composite offshore racers like Boomerang (2nd, '68 Hobart).

 

 

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

Steel masts

I think they were used in square riggers like Pamir?

 

Aluminium masts

????

 

 

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

Not sure - evidence? And IIRC it was a dead end due to electrolysis, anyway

 

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

 

Biggest sloop by a bit - smaller than contemporary yachts in other classes. And her designer created a rule to ban such boats in favour of a more conservative, less 'leading edge' style.

 

 

 

Use of CFD

 

Evidence?

 

FRP big boats? 

 

No - the Ocean 71 had done a round the world race about 14 years before the first FRP AC boat hit the water. The 73' Greybeard was also a foam/glass maxis in '72, 15 years before the first FRP AC boat. 

 

 

Is the AC cutting edge? Sometimes in specific ways, but overall arguably not.

 

This AC will use a basic hull configuration developed in modern form by Prout etc 60 years ago; a mast style developed by Canoes and small cats 80-50 years ago; foils developed by big and small boats over the past 50 or 60 years; and construction methods (carbon over foam or Nomex??) developed by Parker Contenders about '70 and 505s, FDs and 18s a few years later.

 

The AC DID develop Reliance - a dead end that wasn't that much bigger than contemporary cutters and was smaller than schooners of her time. It may have developed duralimum (sp) masts, dip pole gybes and coffee grinder winches. That's nothing compared to what smaller and "mainstream" boats have done.

 

The PR about the AC being the leading edge is just PR, IMHO. And guys like Uffa Fox went into print saying the same thing, with specific examples, in the '30s. If it's any consolation, motoring writers like JK Sevewright (sp) point out the same thing about motor racing and car development.



#70 crack

crack

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:chongqing china
  • Interests:sailing golf sailing and generally enjoying life

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:35 AM

my thoughts are make sure whatever the design rule it really is a boat and can handle ocean conditions ,maybe capable pof open ocean ,not another 5 minute wonder.



#71 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:37 AM

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

Steel masts

Aluminium masts

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

FRP Big boats

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

Use of CFD

 

Cutting edge: tech definitely, even when constrained by really slow boat rules.

 

Seppings started using iron strappings in wooden hulls in 1830. By 1839, Brunel was building the SS Great Britain in wrought iron, with iron masts. So dissimlar hull materials and metal masts predate even America  herself. From then on, it's just a case of choosing whichever (commercially or near commercially available) material you want to use. Was Sir T.O.M. known as an aircraft guy bringing aircraft thinking into boats, or vice versa? Another example: 505s were playing with carbon masts in the 80s

 

And iron/steel frames and alu hull plating is an engineering dead end, as all you're really building is a giant battery.

 

The first FPR 12s were the glass Kiwi boats for the 86/7 Freemantle AC. As an example as to how late a take up of tech this is, in 1985/86, Cote D'Or - a carbon/nomex maxi - did the Whitbread. For sale, FWIW.

 

CFD? Please tell me how often the word "boat" appears here: http://en.wikipedia...._fluid_dynamics

 

Reliance? Largest sloop, yes. Small, in ship terms.

 

I am not trying to argue that the AC tech is completely new, what I am saying is that it is developed in the AC that to a different level that is bleeding edge.

Very little in technology is genuinely new, it builds on the advances and knowledge previously acquired.

 

Things like winged keels, duralium masts, wing sails, full foils etc certainly are based in existing technology.

If it weren't the cup would be about to be won by an aluminium boat, with a soft sail that took $100K to build. 



#72 Tornado_ALIVE

Tornado_ALIVE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,169 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, AUS

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:42 AM

How about .........

Powered by human power
Nationality rules

NO OTHER RULES.......... Bring the baddest ass boat you have.

Kind of like "The Race" but with the nationality rules and around the bouys racing.


http://translate.goo...iw=1024&bih=672

#73 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:54 AM

 


PE,
Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

 
Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.
 
The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

None are full wings, they are wing MASTS with soft sails.

Impressive, sure but nowhere near the level of full wings on display on Connors boat, DZ or the AC72s  

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't sure whether the query was about wing masts or wing sails.

 

Walker Wingsails were around from '86 (a proto was earlier, IIRC) but arguably unsuccessful. Solid wings started, afaik, with Austin Farrar's 1948 International Canoe wing and were of course largely developed in C Class cats like Helios, Miss Nylex, etc.

 

Yes, these examples were smaller (and it appears I was wrong about Delage's proa, which had a wing mast of about 45% chord). But the point is that the AC is NOT creating innovations, it is merely adopting innovations from small boats, and often the development inside the AC is a bit of a dead-end street as it was with Reliance, winged keel 12 Metres, heavy skinny IACCs, etc etc.

 

As a way of developing innovations for wide use in the sport the AC arguably is a massive failure considering the hype and dollars involved. Therefore arguing for a class based on some sort of history of leading edge development isn't the way to go, IMHO.

 

In reality, rather than hype, historically the AC has been about refinement of the mainstream. With racing cats (which are NOT a growing part of the sport if you look at long or medium-term trends) they are well out of the mainstream; with foilers and wing mast, even further away.



#74 Tornado_ALIVE

Tornado_ALIVE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,169 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, AUS

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:55 AM

Forget the AC, forget the VOR.........

The baddest sailboat race the World had ever seen.

NO LIMITS

http://m.youtube.com...player_embedded

#75 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:56 AM

Wandering Geo wrote;

 

Here's 3 off the top of my head:

 

Winged keel 

 

How many do you see these days? It was basically a way around the International Rule's limit on fin keel depth.

 

Wings on boats over 25'

 

 

For a start, that's proving the point that the REAL innovation comes small boats like those under 25'.

 

Secondly, wingsails were used on boats over 25' like Guy Delarge's 60' (approx) proa around 1981 or the Walker Wingsail tri of the '70s.

 

Thirdly, wingsails and wing masts were very much a small boat invention, seen on things like International Canoes in the '30s and LF Herreshoff's Suicide around the same time. 

 

So they AC is just riding, as usual, on small boat development and arguably simply making an impractical version of it.

 

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

 

Full foiling on sail boats over 25ft AC34Cer

 

Certainly not - apart from L'Hydroptere, there was Dave Culp's Williwaw which was a full foiling tri that crossed oceans decades ago.

 

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

 

 

No - first foam composite boat appears to have been the (Finn-like) O Jolles built by the daughter of Lindemann, creator of Airex, in the '50s. First composite AC boat were the '87 Kiwi 12 Metres, at least 9 years behind the first foam composite offshore racers like Boomerang (2nd, '68 Hobart).

 

 

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

>> 

Steel masts

I think they were used in square riggers like Pamir?

 

Aluminium masts

????

 

 

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

Not sure - evidence? And IIRC it was a dead end due to electrolysis, anyway

 

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

 

Biggest sloop by a bit - smaller than contemporary yachts in other classes. And her designer created a rule to ban such boats in favour of a more conservative, less 'leading edge' style.

 

 

 

Use of CFD

 

Evidence?

 

FRP big boats? 

 

No - the Ocean 71 had done a round the world race about 14 years before the first FRP AC boat hit the water. The 73' Greybeard was also a foam/glass maxis in '72, 15 years before the first FRP AC boat. 

 

 

Is the AC cutting edge? Sometimes in specific ways, but overall arguably not.

 

This AC will use a basic hull configuration developed in modern form by Prout etc 60 years ago; a mast style developed by Canoes and small cats 80-50 years ago; foils developed by big and small boats over the past 50 or 60 years; and construction methods (carbon over foam or Nomex??) developed by Parker Contenders about '70 and 505s, FDs and 18s a few years later.

 

The AC DID develop Reliance - a dead end that wasn't that much bigger than contemporary cutters and was smaller than schooners of her time. It may have developed duralimum (sp) masts, dip pole gybes and coffee grinder winches. That's nothing compared to what smaller and "mainstream" boats have done.

 

The PR about the AC being the leading edge is just PR, IMHO. And guys like Uffa Fox went into print saying the same thing, with specific examples, in the '30s. If it's any consolation, motoring writers like JK Sevewright (sp) point out the same thing about motor racing and car development.

 

 

OK, this is starting to get a bit silly.

Let me ask a question, do you think there is any other sail boat on the planet that could beat an AC 72 or DZ or even the winged Stars and Stripes around a windward leeward race course?

Bleeding edge or not?



#76 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:08 AM

 

 


PE,
Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

 
Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.
 
The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

None are full wings, they are wing MASTS with soft sails.

Impressive, sure but nowhere near the level of full wings on display on Connors boat, DZ or the AC72s  

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't sure whether the query was about wing masts or wing sails.

 

Walker Wingsails were around from '86 (a proto was earlier, IIRC) but arguably unsuccessful. Solid wings started, afaik, with Austin Farrar's 1948 International Canoe wing and were of course largely developed in C Class cats like Helios, Miss Nylex, etc.

 

Yes, these examples were smaller (and it appears I was wrong about Delage's proa, which had a wing mast of about 45% chord). But the point is that the AC is NOT creating innovations, it is merely adopting innovations from small boats, and often the development inside the AC is a bit of a dead-end street as it was with Reliance, winged keel 12 Metres, heavy skinny IACCs, etc etc.

 

As a way of developing innovations for wide use in the sport the AC arguably is a massive failure considering the hype and dollars involved. Therefore arguing for a class based on some sort of history of leading edge development isn't the way to go, IMHO.

 

In reality, rather than hype, historically the AC has been about refinement of the mainstream. With racing cats (which are NOT a growing part of the sport if you look at long or medium-term trends) they are well out of the mainstream; with foilers and wing mast, even further away.

 

Dunno if you have ever tried to design and build boats or other structures, but simple changes in scale can require immense advances in analysis, design and materials simply to stop the large structure failing under its own weight (think elephant sized insects, AR W1, Tacoma narrows bridge, modern skyscrapers, rail/road tunnels).

Figuring out how to get the change in scale to work is the innovation.

 

Agree, AC is not mainstream.

Who said it was?

Who wants it to be?

It is a unique event in sport.

IMHO it should not be buggered up by sailing it in run of the mill, cheap boats, so that you get a large, but mediocre turnout.

Needs to be a hi-tech plus big$$$ challenge to keep out the big noting wanna be's. 



#77 Turkey Slapper

Turkey Slapper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,868 posts
  • Location:Queensland

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:20 AM

In the wake of what will be, if it isn't already, the most tragic America's cup event do to boat choice, lets consider something different.  Just for fun.

 

40 foot Opti's, crewed by bikini clad Opti mums only!

 

What could go wrong?



#78 Tornado_ALIVE

Tornado_ALIVE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,169 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, AUS

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:55 AM

image_zpsef2abf55.jpg

#79 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:58 AM

 

 

 


PE,
Which other successful race boat had wings before A2?

 
Jet Services (75', 1987), Paul Ricard (about 75', 1979?), Ker Cadelac (75'-ish, '87-ish), Formula Tag (later Enza), 85' (later extended) 1983..... Oh, and perhaps Manureva (75'ish, 1968) but she may not have been successful 'till '72.
 
The AC boats were late to the party, as usual, with wing masts. Which IMHO is not a bad thing if they are seen as they were historically, which is as an example of a highly-developed mainstream big boat. And that, arguably, means that a lot more of the stuff that they DO refine can be used by the average sailor.

None are full wings, they are wing MASTS with soft sails.

Impressive, sure but nowhere near the level of full wings on display on Connors boat, DZ or the AC72s  

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't sure whether the query was about wing masts or wing sails.

 

Walker Wingsails were around from '86 (a proto was earlier, IIRC) but arguably unsuccessful. Solid wings started, afaik, with Austin Farrar's 1948 International Canoe wing and were of course largely developed in C Class cats like Helios, Miss Nylex, etc.

 

Yes, these examples were smaller (and it appears I was wrong about Delage's proa, which had a wing mast of about 45% chord). But the point is that the AC is NOT creating innovations, it is merely adopting innovations from small boats, and often the development inside the AC is a bit of a dead-end street as it was with Reliance, winged keel 12 Metres, heavy skinny IACCs, etc etc.

 

As a way of developing innovations for wide use in the sport the AC arguably is a massive failure considering the hype and dollars involved. Therefore arguing for a class based on some sort of history of leading edge development isn't the way to go, IMHO.

 

In reality, rather than hype, historically the AC has been about refinement of the mainstream. With racing cats (which are NOT a growing part of the sport if you look at long or medium-term trends) they are well out of the mainstream; with foilers and wing mast, even further away.

 

Dunno if you have ever tried to design and build boats or other structures, but simple changes in scale can require immense advances in analysis, design and materials simply to stop the large structure failing under its own weight (think elephant sized insects, AR W1, Tacoma narrows bridge, modern skyscrapers, rail/road tunnels).

Figuring out how to get the change in scale to work is the innovation.

 

Agree, AC is not mainstream.

Who said it was?

Who wants it to be?

It is a unique event in sport.

IMHO it should not be buggered up by sailing it in run of the mill, cheap boats, so that you get a large, but mediocre turnout.

Needs to be a hi-tech plus big$$$ challenge to keep out the big noting wanna be's. 

 

I've sailed boats up to 83' and down to 7' windsurfers, and helped build 11m multis and 7' windsurfers; so I've no vast big boat expertise but some idea of the differences in magnitude. Yes, the loads are bigger than a 40'er, but IMHO it's just a continuum of scale.

 

The 12s were, I think, the longest-serving AC class of all. The only 12 Metre regatta I did (the NYYC regatta off Newport, former home of the Cup) we had 4 AC winners on the line and I was on the bow of Weatherly. It wasn't orders of magnitude different to something like a typical contemporary boat of the time when those boats were built. 

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the mainstream and the AC. Historically, the AC WAS mainstream. Reliance, the Js etc were just big versions of the mainstream yachts of their day. The Js were built to the same rule as the 25' S Boats. Reliance was built to the same linear rule as the 25' Seawanhaka Raters. The 12s were chosen as the biggest extant inshore class of their day, just 6 years after the 6 Metres AND 5.5 Metres had both been Olympic classes. A lot of the criticism of the 12s in their era centred on the fact that they were not mainstream enough at an era when offshore racing dominated.

 

The AC classes have traditionally been big versions of the mainstream grand-prix inshore classes. That does not apply with the AC72s.

 

Whether history is important is a matter of opinion (I think it is because I dislike poaching of an event by another discipline) but it is factually incorrect IMHO to try to say that historically the AC has been about major design innovations, rather than refinement of the mainstream.

 

 

Re "OK, this is starting to get a bit silly."

 

Why - because history is getting in the way?

 

Re "Let me ask a question, do you think there is any other sail boat on the planet that could beat an AC 72 or DZ or even the winged Stars and Stripes around a windward leeward race course?

Bleeding edge or not?"

 

Sure, there have been 3 AC series in which the fastest boats competed. There have also been about 30 in which the boats competing were not significantly faster than contemporary non-AC boats of their time, or when the AC boats were quite slow.

 

Why are we characterising the event by what it was like for 3 iterations and not what it was like for most of the other 30+?



#80 Turkey Slapper

Turkey Slapper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,868 posts
  • Location:Queensland

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:58 AM

image_zpsef2abf55.jpg

 

On a 40 footer, with opti mum string bikinis failing on impact against the finest gaff dacron!

 

Im excited!



#81 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • Location:Orkland

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:05 PM

An Edwardian Office Block.

http://www.dailymoti...bed/video/xyqxc



#82 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:09 PM

CoR - the Crimson Permanent Assurance?

 

17663.gif



#83 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:20 PM

 

 

Dunno if you have ever tried to design and build boats or other structures, but simple changes in scale can require immense advances in analysis, design and materials simply to stop the large structure failing under its own weight (think elephant sized insects, AR W1, Tacoma narrows bridge, modern skyscrapers, rail/road tunnels).

Figuring out how to get the change in scale to work is the innovation.

 

Agree, AC is not mainstream.

Who said it was?

Who wants it to be?

It is a unique event in sport.

IMHO it should not be buggered up by sailing it in run of the mill, cheap boats, so that you get a large, but mediocre turnout.

Needs to be a hi-tech plus big$$$ challenge to keep out the big noting wanna be's. 

 

I've sailed boats up to 83' and down to 7' windsurfers, and helped build 11m multis and 7' windsurfers; so I've no vast big boat expertise but some idea of the differences in magnitude. Yes, the loads are bigger than a 40'er, but IMHO it's just a continuum of scale.

 

The 12s were, I think, the longest-serving AC class of all. The only 12 Metre regatta I did (the NYYC regatta off Newport, former home of the Cup) we had 4 AC winners on the line and I was on the bow of Weatherly. It wasn't orders of magnitude different to something like a typical contemporary boat of the time when those boats were built. 

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the mainstream and the AC. Historically, the AC WAS mainstream. Reliance, the Js etc were just big versions of the mainstream yachts of their day. The Js were built to the same rule as the 25' S Boats. Reliance was built to the same linear rule as the 25' Seawanhaka Raters. The 12s were chosen as the biggest extant inshore class of their day, just 6 years after the 6 Metres AND 5.5 Metres had both been Olympic classes. A lot of the criticism of the 12s in their era centred on the fact that they were not mainstream enough at an era when offshore racing dominated.

 

The AC classes have traditionally been big versions of the mainstream grand-prix inshore classes. That does not apply with the AC72s.

 

Whether history is important is a matter of opinion (I think it is because I dislike poaching of an event by another discipline) but it is factually incorrect IMHO to try to say that historically the AC has been about major design innovations, rather than refinement of the mainstream.

 

 

Re "OK, this is starting to get a bit silly."

 

Why - because history is getting in the way?

 

Re "Let me ask a question, do you think there is any other sail boat on the planet that could beat an AC 72 or DZ or even the winged Stars and Stripes around a windward leeward race course?

Bleeding edge or not?"

 

Sure, there have been 3 AC series in which the fastest boats competed. There have also been about 30 in which the boats competing were not significantly faster than contemporary non-AC boats of their time, or when the AC boats were quite slow.

 

Why are we characterising the event by what it was like for 3 iterations and not what it was like for most of the other 30+?

OK, what about the original America? Was it the fastest sail boat around set course.

What about the Js and the boats the led up to the J's?

 

Why are you characterising the AC by relatively recent restrictive class rules intended to get more challengers involved, when the real rules produce the fastest course racing sail boats of all time?



#84 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:26 PM

CoR - the Crimson Permanent Assurance?

 

17663.gif

F**k more Python



#85 ITA602

ITA602

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Location:North Italy - Milan Area
  • Interests:Sail more & work less, snowboarding, reading a good book.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:37 PM

The original Cup Race was a design challenge between nations to exhibit the fastest vessels of their era. Due to a couple of World Wars this competition got dumbed down to increase participation. These foiling catamarans have the potential to bring the Cup back to its original premise. But, people are right the time to develop reliable foiling has been super compressed in this AC cycle. The MC rules that were presented for the 34th AC were supposed to limit the boats to semi-foiling and not full foiling as a cost containment and evolution restriction. However, a loop hole was left open (whether intentionally or un-intentionally we may never know) and TNZ jumped through it. Nobody intended to make these machines dangerous. But, the leap to be competitive left the potential for extreme breakdowns.

I believe these boats are fantastic machines for this AC. But, I do think that minimum scantlings reviewed by an independent third party and non-destructive analysis after each sail are critical to keeping the participants relatively safe. A main beam catastrophic failure is not an acceptable area for risk. Nor foiling boards that can fail. The consequences are too great.

 

Great post.

+1



#86 Jon711

Jon711

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:41 PM

In the original AC events, the yacht had to sail to the event under it's own steam, America crossed the Atlantic to race around the Island, and the J's sailed across the Atlantic to race against the US. All they need to do is to reinstate that rule, and we will have seaworthy boats - whatever size, mono or multihull, that will be safe......

Just my twopenneth...

Jon

#87 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:44 PM

And you will also have an insurmountable local advantage. As shown by the Js & their predecessors.



#88 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,849 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:02 PM

And you will also have an insurmountable local advantage. As shown by the Js & their predecessors.


Not if all boats need to conform to seaworthy scantlings. I think all of the grumbling about "own bottom" was misplaced. What ultimately loosened the NYYC's hold on the Cup was allowing a CSS to balance the DSS.

#89 Jon711

Jon711

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 02:21 PM

And you will also have an insurmountable local advantage. As shown by the Js & their predecessors.

I had already thought of that argument, half of the events are held at the current holders venue and half held at the Official challengers venue... That should mitigate home advantage....

Jon

#90 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,266 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:45 PM



Wandering Geo wrote;

 

Here's 3 off the top of my head:

 

Winged keel 

 

How many do you see these days? It was basically a way around the International Rule's limit on fin keel depth.

 

Wings on boats over 25'

 

 

For a start, that's proving the point that the REAL innovation comes small boats like those under 25'.

 

Secondly, wingsails were used on boats over 25' like Guy Delarge's 60' (approx) proa around 1981 or the Walker Wingsail tri of the '70s.

 

Thirdly, wingsails and wing masts were very much a small boat invention, seen on things like International Canoes in the '30s and LF Herreshoff's Suicide around the same time. 

 

So they AC is just riding, as usual, on small boat development and arguably simply making an impractical version of it.

 

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png



 
Full foiling on sail boats over 25ft AC34Cer


 

Certainly not - apart from L'Hydroptere, there was Dave Culp's Williwaw which was a full foiling tri that crossed oceans decades ago.

 

Also use of composite materials, need to check:

 

 

No - first foam composite boat appears to have been the (Finn-like) O Jolles built by the daughter of Lindemann, creator of Airex, in the '50s. First composite AC boat were the '87 Kiwi 12 Metres, at least 9 years behind the first foam composite offshore racers like Boomerang (2nd, '68 Hobart).

 

 

Wandering Geo, on 14 May 2013 - 16:47, said:snapback.png

>> 
Steel masts


I think they were used in square riggers like Pamir?

 


Aluminium masts
????

 

 

Composite hulls: aluminium over steel frame

Not sure - evidence? And IIRC it was a dead end due to electrolysis, anyway

 

Reliance largest sloop ever built (1903) until recently.

 

Biggest sloop by a bit - smaller than contemporary yachts in other classes. And her designer created a rule to ban such boats in favour of a more conservative, less 'leading edge' style.

 

 

 

Use of CFD

 

Evidence?

 

FRP big boats? 

 

No - the Ocean 71 had done a round the world race about 14 years before the first FRP AC boat hit the water. The 73' Greybeard was also a foam/glass maxis in '72, 15 years before the first FRP AC boat. 

 

 


Is the AC cutting edge? Sometimes in specific ways, but overall arguably not.
 
This AC will use a basic hull configuration developed in modern form by Prout etc 60 years ago; a mast style developed by Canoes and small cats 80-50 years ago; foils developed by big and small boats over the past 50 or 60 years; and construction methods (carbon over foam or Nomex??) developed by Parker Contenders about '70 and 505s, FDs and 18s a few years later.
 
The AC DID develop Reliance - a dead end that wasn't that much bigger than contemporary cutters and was smaller than schooners of her time. It may have developed duralimum (sp) masts, dip pole gybes and coffee grinder winches. That's nothing compared to what smaller and "mainstream" boats have done.
 
The PR about the AC being the leading edge is just PR, IMHO. And guys like Uffa Fox went into print saying the same thing, with specific examples, in the '30s. If it's any consolation, motoring writers like JK Sevewright (sp) point out the same thing about motor racing and car development.

 
 
OK, this is starting to get a bit silly.
Let me ask a question, do you think there is any other sail boat on the planet that could beat an AC 72 or DZ or even the winged Stars and Stripes around a windward leeward race course?
Bleeding edge or not?

And why should this matter ?

The America's Cup should be more than just the fastest boat on the planet .

Just because the 72 may be faster doesn't automatically mean its the best choice for the event .

Once we get through AC 34 and the results are in it will be interesting indeed to see what the new direction will be taken due to lessons learned . Hopefully those lessons will not cost much more than they already have but that's a lot to hope for at this stage .

Time will tell .

#91 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:01 PM

^^

The Deed of Gift is pretty clear in its intention.

Friendly race between nations.

Couple of limitations on dimensions and courses.

Not much else.

 

Only conclusion: Bring the fastest boat or lose!

 

Of course, the defender and challenger can water this down by mutual agreement, but at the essence is a quick boat.

 

What would you suggest as the primary boat choice criteria other than speed?



#92 Kiwing

Kiwing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,337 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:28 PM

The AC72s are the best thing that has happened to yachting in a long time!

 

IMHO



#93 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,621 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:26 PM

 The event became corrupted by a period of encouraging fairly even boats that weren't too expensive, and there would be a long event and lots of interesting matches. This led to economic interests of the host becoming involved due to the crowds it drew. 

 

 It's back to what it was originally intended to be, a few mega-wealthy guys race a few unique boats, which means a short event and much smaller general interest.

 

 I'd have it in much less expensive, nearly one-design boats again.  



#94 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:49 AM

OK, what about the original America? Was it the fastest sail boat around set course.

What about the Js and the boats the led up to the J's?

 

Why are you characterising the AC by relatively recent restrictive class rules intended to get more challengers involved, when the real rules produce the fastest course racing sail boats of all time?

 

America was NOT the fastest racing boat of her day. She was easily beaten by John Stevens' Maria in trials before she left NY. As the renowned writer/historian/leading-edge designer of the day (WP Stephens) wrote in his "History of American yachting", "that Maria won very easily was but natural" because Maria was a larger boat and an inshore racer. Lawson claimed that Maria sailed around America three times in a short period during the trials.

 

So from her very trials, America was NOT the fastest boat and NOT a radical boat.

 

Some people, including LF Herreshoff, say that she was actually quite lucky to win the race around the Wight; there were issues about the course and faster boats fouling out and going to assist others. Be that as it may, America had 13 wins in 53 races in her career (LF Herreshoff, Golden Age of Yachting) and people like Herreshoff refer to her superiority as a "myth" despite the fact that Nat held her up as a model of the type he loved to create himself.

 

WP Stephens wrote that the fleet America met was NOT representative of the best British boats, but merely of the boats owned by prominent yachtsmen who did regular races. He does believe (unlike others) that America was superior but notes "the
victory of the America had no effect whatever
on the progress of yacht design in her native
country" because most owners and designers ignored her "pilot schooner" hull and went for faster, more radical "skimming dish" centreboarders. So America was NOT "bleeding edge" herself in the USA.

 

Schuyler himself wrote that if the AC was not a test of sea-going qualities as well as speed, then it would "essentially detract" from the interest in the Cup. So an owner of America herself was NOT calling for bleeding-edge inshore boats, but for seaworthy yachts. Note that Schuyler himself referred to DoG challenge arrangements being there "in case" mutual consent could not be arrived at - he did NOT see DoG challenges as the norm!

 

The early schooners were NOT leading-edge boats, either. Nor, were the early "L x SA" rule cutters anything outstanding. For example, look at the 1893 AC boats. In UK waters, Valkyrie rated 153 - much lower than Satanita, only 1 higher than Britannia. The US defender Vigilant went to the UK after the AC and rated 169. There she was beaten over the line by Britannia (Valkyrie's near sister) 11 times out of 17 races. Vigilant was also rated slower than the Soper-designed Satanita. So the AC winner was NOT the fastest boat on the water, and neither was the challenger.

 

Britannia and Valkyrie were near sisters, which is yet another indication that the AC boats were NOT anything very different from the normal mainsteam non-AC big boats of the day. Let's not even get into the big cutter Germania, which was a bigger, faster version of Valkyrie....

 

As noted, the excesses oft he L x SA boats like Reliance were cured by Nat Herreshoff's rating rule - he of all men should have known what the AC was about and as is clear from his letters on the Mystic Seaport site, he believed that sense should rule over speed.
 

In the 1930s, the AC Challenger Shamrock V was rated equal with Astra and Candida (23 Metres), all of which were rated 1.2 seconds per mile SLOWER than Britannia. Later AC challengers were rated only about 3 seconds per mile faster than the majority of the "Big Class'. As late as 1934, the J Class era, the schooner Westward was the scratch boat in the UK Big Class, even up against the America's Cup Js.
 

As late as the 1930s there were racing schooners that could beat all the AC-type cutters in the right weather and had a higher top speed; the top speed recorded for a boat of the "America's Cup cutter" style was the 13.73 knots of Satanita, known as the fastest reacher of the Big Class, whereas in the schooners Rainbow hit 16 knots, Germania hit 15 knots, and Atlantic averaged 14.2 knots for over 24 hours. So in peak speeds, the AC boats were inferior to the schooners.
 

All of these boats were basically big and conservative versions of smaller Metre, Universal, and Linear rule boats. For lots of detail about this, see for example John Irvings 1930s book "The Racing Yacht Brittania".

 

Some idea of how the AC development leaned on info from smaller conventional class-racing boats comes from the fact that when the first post WW12 challenge was received, according to the man who would know best, "Because of
their light construction the committee decided to bar both Resolute
and Vanitie, built to defend the Cup in 19 14, from consideration as
cup-defense candidates. While these yachts were eligible under the
Racing Rules (they had been constructed prior to the adoption by
the Club of Lloyd's scantling rules), the committee deemed it for
the best interests of the sport to bar them, as the Challenger would
have to be of heavier construction to comply with Lloyd's rules. As
a result of this action, the Challenger could suffer no handicap in re-
spect to weight of hull construction."

 

That is from Harold S Vanderbilt, most successful owner of Js. So we have one of the greats of the AC pointing out that the lighter boats were PREVENTED FROM DEFENDING by the NYYC. That is hardly the stance of a club intending that the AC be raced in bleeding-edge technology.

 

The Js that were adopted for the challenge were simply one of a range of cutters and sloops under the Universal Rule that ran down to the 25'-ish "S Class", just as the Metre boats ran from 23 Metres to 5 Metres. They were NOT something unusual in basic design. See, for example, Uffa Fox's writings about how design practice in smaller Universal Rule and Metre boats, which lead the larger boats in development for reasons that Uffa explained, could be used to predict the future development of 23 Metres and Js. 

 

As an example of how closely linked the AC boats were to smaller boats, Vanderbilt was so impressed by his smaller Universal Rule M Class Prestige (54' LWL) that he "suggested
that (designer Burgess) make the model of the (succcessful cup-defending J Class Enterprise) resemble that of Prestige
as nearly as possible."

 

The experience of the smaller Universal boats was used directly to ascertain the LOA of Enterprise, and choosing the correct LOA was seen by Vanderbilt as one of the two critical reasons she won the AC. "Comparative data were obtainable from ex-
isting boats only up to and including the M class 50 to 54 feet
waterline. The arguments in favor of the large boat were that in
yachts up to and including the M class, those with the maximum
waterline length and with the limit of displacement had proven to
be the fastest".

 

The facts are clear - almost all of the AC races have been under restrictive rules creating "normal" boats, because that is what people like the NYYC, Schuyler and others wanted. Those events were sailed in boats that were NOT bleeding edge, but refined and large versions of the standard inshore boats of their day.

 

It is these events that created the AC legend and made the AC what it is today, not the couple of DoG matches.


 



#95 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,003 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:57 AM

ocean courses, things wwould be a bit different

#96 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:01 AM

The AC has rarely, if ever, been about leading edge design development. The leading edge in design was almost always in smaller boats. That's why sloop rigs, bermudan rigs, multihulls, spinnakers, genoas, bendy masts, light displacement, planing hulls, shifting ballast, assymetrics, bulb keels, spade rudders and just about every other aspect of the modern sailboat was created OUTSIDE of the AC.

 

I've been trying to think of a single innovation that's come out of the AC, and at the moment, the only thing I can come up with is 3Di. But it could be argued that it's another example of AC-style development - take an innovation that's happened outside sailing/the AC (load path sails - which has been an idea around for a while - radial cuts) and throw money at it. 

 

Most development in sailing, fundamentally, is the result of development in materials. And that's all paid for by other people (aerospace).

 

Yep, and small boats are where the application of the new technology starts.



#97 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,849 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:05 AM

America was NOT the fastest racing boat of her day. She was easily beaten by John Stevens' Maria in trials before she left NY. As the renowned writer/historian/leading-edge designer of the day (WP Stephens) wrote in his "History of American yachting", "that Maria won very easily was but natural" because Maria was a larger boat and an inshore racer. Lawson claimed that Maria sailed around America three times in a short period during the trials.

 

So from her very trials, America was NOT the fastest boat and NOT a radical boat.

[...]

It is these events that created the AC legend and made the AC what it is today, not the couple of DoG matches.


 

 

This is the BEST POST I have ever seen on AC Anarchy.  Bravo Chris!!!



#98 Keith

Keith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,834 posts
  • Location:Vancouver B.C.

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:11 AM

I love a good history lesson, thank you.



#99 Wandering Geo

Wandering Geo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 07:32 AM

OK, what about the original America? Was it the fastest sail boat around set course.

What about the Js and the boats the led up to the J's?

 

Why are you characterising the AC by relatively recent restrictive class rules intended to get more challengers involved, when the real rules produce the fastest course racing sail boats of all time?

 

America was NOT the fastest racing boat of her day. She was easily beaten by John Stevens' Maria in trials before she left NY. As the renowned writer/historian/leading-edge designer of the day (WP Stephens) wrote in his "History of American yachting", "that Maria won very easily was but natural" because Maria was a larger boat and an inshore racer. Lawson claimed that Maria sailed around America three times in a short period during the trials.

 

So from her very trials, America was NOT the fastest boat and NOT a radical boat.

 

Some people, including LF Herreshoff, say that she was actually quite lucky to win the race around the Wight; there were issues about the course and faster boats fouling out and going to assist others. Be that as it may, America had 13 wins in 53 races in her career (LF Herreshoff, Golden Age of Yachting) and people like Herreshoff refer to her superiority as a "myth" despite the fact that Nat held her up as a model of the type he loved to create himself.

 

WP Stephens wrote that the fleet America met was NOT representative of the best British boats, but merely of the boats owned by prominent yachtsmen who did regular races. He does believe (unlike others) that America was superior but notes "the
victory of the America had no effect whatever
on the progress of yacht design in her native
country" because most owners and designers ignored her "pilot schooner" hull and went for faster, more radical "skimming dish" centreboarders. So America was NOT "bleeding edge" herself in the USA.

 

Schuyler himself wrote that if the AC was not a test of sea-going qualities as well as speed, then it would "essentially detract" from the interest in the Cup. So an owner of America herself was NOT calling for bleeding-edge inshore boats, but for seaworthy yachts. Note that Schuyler himself referred to DoG challenge arrangements being there "in case" mutual consent could not be arrived at - he did NOT see DoG challenges as the norm!

 

The early schooners were NOT leading-edge boats, either. Nor, were the early "L x SA" rule cutters anything outstanding. For example, look at the 1893 AC boats. In UK waters, Valkyrie rated 153 - much lower than Satanita, only 1 higher than Britannia. The US defender Vigilant went to the UK after the AC and rated 169. There she was beaten over the line by Britannia (Valkyrie's near sister) 11 times out of 17 races. Vigilant was also rated slower than the Soper-designed Satanita. So the AC winner was NOT the fastest boat on the water, and neither was the challenger.

 

Britannia and Valkyrie were near sisters, which is yet another indication that the AC boats were NOT anything very different from the normal mainsteam non-AC big boats of the day. Let's not even get into the big cutter Germania, which was a bigger, faster version of Valkyrie....

 

As noted, the excesses oft he L x SA boats like Reliance were cured by Nat Herreshoff's rating rule - he of all men should have known what the AC was about and as is clear from his letters on the Mystic Seaport site, he believed that sense should rule over speed.
 

In the 1930s, the AC Challenger Shamrock V was rated equal with Astra and Candida (23 Metres), all of which were rated 1.2 seconds per mile SLOWER than Britannia. Later AC challengers were rated only about 3 seconds per mile faster than the majority of the "Big Class'. As late as 1934, the J Class era, the schooner Westward was the scratch boat in the UK Big Class, even up against the America's Cup Js.
 

As late as the 1930s there were racing schooners that could beat all the AC-type cutters in the right weather and had a higher top speed; the top speed recorded for a boat of the "America's Cup cutter" style was the 13.73 knots of Satanita, known as the fastest reacher of the Big Class, whereas in the schooners Rainbow hit 16 knots, Germania hit 15 knots, and Atlantic averaged 14.2 knots for over 24 hours. So in peak speeds, the AC boats were inferior to the schooners.
 

All of these boats were basically big and conservative versions of smaller Metre, Universal, and Linear rule boats. For lots of detail about this, see for example John Irvings 1930s book "The Racing Yacht Brittania".

 

Some idea of how the AC development leaned on info from smaller conventional class-racing boats comes from the fact that when the first post WW12 challenge was received, according to the man who would know best, "Because of
their light construction the committee decided to bar both Resolute
and Vanitie, built to defend the Cup in 19 14, from consideration as
cup-defense candidates. While these yachts were eligible under the
Racing Rules (they had been constructed prior to the adoption by
the Club of Lloyd's scantling rules), the committee deemed it for
the best interests of the sport to bar them, as the Challenger would
have to be of heavier construction to comply with Lloyd's rules. As
a result of this action, the Challenger could suffer no handicap in re-
spect to weight of hull construction."

 

That is from Harold S Vanderbilt, most successful owner of Js. So we have one of the greats of the AC pointing out that the lighter boats were PREVENTED FROM DEFENDING by the NYYC. That is hardly the stance of a club intending that the AC be raced in bleeding-edge technology.

 

The Js that were adopted for the challenge were simply one of a range of cutters and sloops under the Universal Rule that ran down to the 25'-ish "S Class", just as the Metre boats ran from 23 Metres to 5 Metres. They were NOT something unusual in basic design. See, for example, Uffa Fox's writings about how design practice in smaller Universal Rule and Metre boats, which lead the larger boats in development for reasons that Uffa explained, could be used to predict the future development of 23 Metres and Js. 

 

As an example of how closely linked the AC boats were to smaller boats, Vanderbilt was so impressed by his smaller Universal Rule M Class Prestige (54' LWL) that he "suggested
that (designer Burgess) make the model of the (succcessful cup-defending J Class Enterprise) resemble that of Prestige
as nearly as possible."

 

The experience of the smaller Universal boats was used directly to ascertain the LOA of Enterprise, and choosing the correct LOA was seen by Vanderbilt as one of the two critical reasons she won the AC. "Comparative data were obtainable from ex-
isting boats only up to and including the M class 50 to 54 feet
waterline. The arguments in favor of the large boat were that in
yachts up to and including the M class, those with the maximum
waterline length and with the limit of displacement had proven to
be the fastest".

 

The facts are clear - almost all of the AC races have been under restrictive rules creating "normal" boats, because that is what people like the NYYC, Schuyler and others wanted. Those events were sailed in boats that were NOT bleeding edge, but refined and large versions of the standard inshore boats of their day.

 

It is these events that created the AC legend and made the AC what it is today, not the couple of DoG matches.


 

 

Let me respond to the many words with a few pictures:

 

Attached File  300px-Australia-II-keel_(1).jpg   17.72K   13 downloads

 

Attached File  6a00d83451b13569e200e5500a37388834-800wi.jpg   29.65K   13 downloads

 

Attached File  b3ojll.jpg   127.88K   10 downloads

 

Attached File  CC121031-675.jpg   137.14K   9 downloads

 

Fantastic history lesson by the way. Just far from convinced you know the mind of Schuyler accurately as the DoG in its raw form definitely leads to bleeding edge boats (or developments of boats).

 

Guess we will have to maintain a difference of opinion on this point.  :)



#100 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,486 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:27 AM



 

>..bits deleted...
 
The facts are clear - almost all of the AC races have been under restrictive rules creating "normal" boats, because that is what people like the NYYC, Schuyler and others wanted. Those events were sailed in boats that were NOT bleeding edge, but refined and large versions of the standard inshore boats of their day.
 
It is these events that created the AC legend and made the AC what it is today, not the couple of DoG matches.

 

 
Chris, fantastic history lesson, unfortunately the "facts" are far from "clear".
Can you point out where in the DoG it specifies "normal" boats and some references for Schuyler's "clearly" stated intention (which is completely contrary to the open guidelines he actually created).
 
Simple questions:
Does the literal interpretation of the DoG lead to bleeding edge tech race boats?
If perverted by mutual consent to use a class rule, does the AC and the huge $$ available lead to pushing of the boundaries in boat design, analysis and sailing technology?
Would you prefer they sail AC match races in Beneteau 40.7s with tin masts (or similar) or AC72's?
 
 
Complex questions have simple answers - often they are justly simple wrong ones. Why should this issue be any different?
 
1- Does the literal interpretation of the DoG lead to bleeding edge tech race boats?
 
The literal interpretation of the DoG would prevent any competition like the ones we are seeing, as it states that "this Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."  This AC, like many of the previous ones, could not be called literally "friendly" so if we take your approach there have basically been very, very few ACs, and this one is definitely not allowed - look at the recent un-friendly stoush in NZ.
 
So the literal approach prohibits ANY modern match we're likely to see. Does that suit your desires?
 
The literal interpretation of the DoG arguably leads to mutual consent matches. This is because the "DoG" provisions (course length, area etc) apply "IN CASE the parties cannot mutually agree on the terms of the match."  In english, when you say things only happen "in case" that is normally an expression that they are a fall-back position, NOT the usual position. Therefore mutual consent, which normally involves class rules etc, is accepted by the Deed as the normal format.
 
 
2- There is NO "perversion" in using mutual consent. THAT IS WHAT SCHUYLER ETC WANTED.
 
Or are you really trying to tell us that the NYYC, Lipton, Connor, Vanderbilt, Iselin, Herreshoff, Crane, Burgess, Gen Paine and all the other great characters who sailed under class rules didn't know what the Cup was about, but that you do?
 
3- Silly question. I never said that the AC should be sailed in 40.7 (it's prevented by the DoG waterline limit, anyway).
 
The facts are facts, and they are quite clear. It is clear that almost all ACs have been sailed under reasonably restrictive rating or class rules. That is a fact that is simply not open to dispute.
 
It is a fact that many ACs have been sailed in boats that were NOT much, if at all, faster than the "mainstream" non-AC contemporary yachts. This is simply a verifiable factual issue of LOAs, tonnage etc that is not open to reasonable dispute unless you somehow believe that aliens from Mars or the CIA created historical records of boats like Maria, Britannia, Meteor, Satanita or Velsheda, which were NOT AC boats but were as large or larger and about as fast (or faster) as AC boats.
 
BTW Schuyler's intention was stated to the NY Times and is on their archive site.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users