Jump to content


Larry speaks about boat for AC 35


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,247 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 01:18 AM

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

 

 

 

 



#2 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 15 October 2013 - 01:22 AM

bugger

#3 The Advocate

The Advocate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,360 posts
  • Location:32.00.13 S 115.50.73 E

Posted 15 October 2013 - 01:33 AM

He got a comment, would hardly call it an interview!



#4 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,659 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 15 October 2013 - 01:36 AM

Nice one!  Thanks PH



#5 Desprit

Desprit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • Location:Wellington, New Zealand

Posted 15 October 2013 - 01:42 AM

Well they do know how to make AC45s go faster.



#6 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:04 AM

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

 

Reducing costs means downsizing: smaller boats and smaller teams.

 

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



#7 Gibbo_aus

Gibbo_aus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:06 AM

That bloke looked a serious stalker.



#8 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:16 AM

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

#9 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:17 AM

Mr. Malibu is sooooo douchey



#10 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:37 AM

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

Obviously a serious fan... :huh:



#11 Rev. blackmouth

Rev. blackmouth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Location:round the bend in the south puget sound
  • Interests:boating, fishing, machines

Posted 15 October 2013 - 03:51 AM

Mr. Malibu looked Dazed and Confused.



#12 Mud sailor

Mud sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 06:17 AM

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

#13 chauch

chauch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 06:54 AM

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



#14 Alpha FB

Alpha FB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:11 AM

Note that 'Malibu' asked what boats would be sailing next YEAR (ie 2014) not in the next cup...



#15 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:15 AM

JFC, what a loser. 

 

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



#16 killapenguin

killapenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Location:Honolulu, HI

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:54 AM

MM is a douche



#17 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,931 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 15 October 2013 - 03:34 PM

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



#18 In the Jailhouse Now

In the Jailhouse Now

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 04:23 PM

are dates set for AC35 yet?



#19 killapenguin

killapenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Location:Honolulu, HI

Posted 15 October 2013 - 04:45 PM

MM would be Mr. Malibu



#20 The Gardener

The Gardener

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:44 56' N 93 17' W

Posted 15 October 2013 - 05:02 PM

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

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

Whats your point?

It is the AC it is for wealthy folks



#21 mo fuzz

mo fuzz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 05:07 PM

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

 

BMW has not been a sponsor since AC33.

 

Must be tough times for him.



#22 Kenny Dumas

Kenny Dumas

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 16 October 2013 - 03:20 AM

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

#23 snaerk

snaerk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Location:High latitudes
  • Interests:sea and snow and ice

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:12 PM

sicko - fant ?



#24 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:39 PM



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

It is nearly pointless for a non billionaire to do the Melges 32 circuit
Whats your point?
It is the AC it is for wealthy folks
What does a Melges 32 have to do with a foiling AC45? Coutts, Ellison and most key players acknowledged long ago they need to bring the entry price to compete down. Are you suggesting they should continue with the AC72, or something bigger/more complex?

#25 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,931 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 16 October 2013 - 10:43 PM

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



#26 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:12 PM

Lame? Shit no - he's famous!

#27 floater

floater

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Location:Berkeley - California

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:13 PM

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

#28 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,212 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 17 October 2013 - 08:58 AM

Lame? Shit no - he's famous!

 

Lamous! 



#29 WetHog

WetHog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,538 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD USA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:00 AM

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


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

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

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

WetHog

#30 The Gardener

The Gardener

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:44 56' N 93 17' W

Posted 17 October 2013 - 12:43 PM

 



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

It is nearly pointless for a non billionaire to do the Melges 32 circuit
Whats your point?
It is the AC it is for wealthy folks
What does a Melges 32 have to do with a foiling AC45? Coutts, Ellison and most key players acknowledged long ago they need to bring the entry price to compete down. Are you suggesting they should continue with the AC72, or something bigger/more complex?

I think an AC 172 would be kinda cool.

 

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

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



#31 WhiteLightnin'

WhiteLightnin'

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,710 posts
  • Location:Anacortes, Wa
  • Interests:Seriously, when was the last time you read the Constitution? Bill of Rights?

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:15 PM

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

 

BMW has not been a sponsor since AC33.

 

Must be tough times for him.

 

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

 

WL



#32 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,452 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:53 PM

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

 

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

 

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



#33 strider470

strider470

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Milan - Italy / Bruxelles - Belgium
  • Interests:Sailing photography

Posted 17 October 2013 - 06:02 PM


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

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

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

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

WetHog

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

#34 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:21 PM

I suppose GGYC and the COR can MC anything including the size of the boat, wouldn't the waterline length requirement in the DOG (44 feet) make the AC 45s ineligible?
 
That aside, I would hate to see cup reduced to something like the Extreme Sailing series or the Little AC.
 
Those are great in their own right, but they already exist.


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

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

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

#35 strider470

strider470

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Milan - Italy / Bruxelles - Belgium
  • Interests:Sailing photography

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:46 PM



I suppose GGYC and the COR can MC anything including the size of the boat, wouldn't the waterline length requirement in the DOG (44 feet) make the AC 45s ineligible?
 
That aside, I would hate to see cup reduced to something like the Extreme Sailing series or the Little AC.
 
Those are great in their own right, but they already exist.

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

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

"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived."
What are the parts of the Deed that cannot be overruled by the mutual consent? Of course the fact that whoever wins the Cup is still bind to it without any modification. But are there any constraints that limits the mutual consent? The length of the boat ( they couldn't choose a dinghy for instance) and the regatta in open sea, if I'm not mistaken, and then?

#36 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:17 PM



I suppose GGYC and the COR can MC anything including the size of the boat, wouldn't the waterline length requirement in the DOG (44 feet) make the AC 45s ineligible?
 
That aside, I would hate to see cup reduced to something like the Extreme Sailing series or the Little AC.
 
Those are great in their own right, but they already exist.

They can MC anything including the size of the boat, as you say.
So the DOG requirement for waterline length between 44 and 90 feet doesn't apply. It's been changed by MC.
"The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived."
What are the parts of the Deed that cannot be overruled by the mutual consent? Of course the fact that whoever wins the Cup is still bind to it without any modification. But are there any constraints that limits the mutual consent? The length of the boat ( they couldn't choose a dinghy for instance) and the regatta in open sea, if I'm not mistaken, and then?
Maybe I'm wrong about the length because the DOG was amended in 1956 to reduce the minimum length from 65 to 44 feet. This was to allow the 12 metres to be used.

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

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

#37 zillafreak

zillafreak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Location:Newport Beach

Posted 18 October 2013 - 03:08 AM

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



#38 NonOnion

NonOnion

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 03:54 AM

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

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



#39 zillafreak

zillafreak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Location:Newport Beach

Posted 18 October 2013 - 05:59 AM

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

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

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



#40 Peragrin

Peragrin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 594 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 11:33 AM

 

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

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

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

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



#41 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 12:50 PM

Its been done.

 

mothra-9.jpg



#42 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,931 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 19 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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



#43 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,845 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:22 PM

Can you imagine a 50' moth?

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

 

Mirabaud-dsc_4344.jpg
 



#44 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,659 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 19 October 2013 - 03:24 PM

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

 

ugly if true.



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



#45 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,919 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 19 October 2013 - 03:33 PM




Can you imagine a 50' moth?

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

Erm ... Mirabaud's winged now

http://www.thedailys...B11_900_620.jpg


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


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

#46 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,845 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 19 October 2013 - 03:39 PM

Ain't a cat.



#47 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,931 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 19 October 2013 - 03:41 PM

Ain't a cat.

 

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



#48 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,845 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 19 October 2013 - 03:57 PM

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



#49 jonas a

jonas a

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 19 October 2013 - 04:14 PM

 




Can you imagine a 50' moth?

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

Erm ... Mirabaud's winged now

http://www.thedailys...B11_900_620.jpg


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


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

 

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



#50 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

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

Posted 19 October 2013 - 07:54 PM

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

#51 gregj1

gregj1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 08:45 PM

I agree pjh.  Smaller just wont be as cool.

 

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



#52 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 19 October 2013 - 10:38 PM

I agree pjh.  Smaller just wont be as cool.

 

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

 

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



#53 strider470

strider470

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Milan - Italy / Bruxelles - Belgium
  • Interests:Sailing photography

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:14 AM

^ I fear that even cutting the grinders salary and sharing the expenses for putting the boats in the water, it's not enough.
They need some major cost cutting in the design area, if they want to involve new competitors that will start from scratch.
Or there will be a crowded ACWS and 3+1 challengers...

#54 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 20 October 2013 - 07:57 AM

^ I fear that even cutting the grinders salary and sharing the expenses for putting the boats in the water, it's not enough.
They need some major cost cutting in the design area, if they want to involve new competitors that will start from scratch.
Or there will be a crowded ACWS and 3+1 challengers...

 

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

 

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

 

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



#55 jonas a

jonas a

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 20 October 2013 - 08:36 AM

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

#56 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,845 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 20 October 2013 - 10:08 AM

^

 

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



#57 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 20 October 2013 - 12:13 PM

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

 

ugly if true.

 

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

 

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

 

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



#58 gregj1

gregj1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 03:45 PM

I agree pjh.  Smaller just wont be as cool.

 

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

 

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

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



#59 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,130 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 04:43 PM

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

 

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

 

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

 

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



#60 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:19 PM

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

 

ugly if true.



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

 

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



#61 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:23 PM

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

 

ugly if true.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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



#62 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:24 PM

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

 

ugly if true.



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

 

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

 

Agreed.

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

 

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



#63 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,659 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:45 PM

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

 

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



#64 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,666 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:50 PM

If you're foiling does length matter?

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

Small crews would be cool too.

#65 L124C

L124C

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 20 October 2013 - 07:11 PM

 



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

It is nearly pointless for a non billionaire to do the Melges 32 circuit
Whats your point?
It is the AC it is for wealthy folks
What does a Melges 32 have to do with a foiling AC45? Coutts, Ellison and most key players acknowledged long ago they need to bring the entry price to compete down. Are you suggesting they should continue with the AC72, or something bigger/more complex?

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

Attached File  300px-America's_Cup_yacht_America.jpg   18K   5 downloads

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

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

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



#66 L124C

L124C

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 20 October 2013 - 07:31 PM

 

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

 

ugly if true.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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



#67 catsailor

catsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts
  • Location:Always near the water

Posted 20 October 2013 - 08:17 PM

 

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

 

ugly if true.



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

 

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

 

Agreed.

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

 

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

 

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



#68 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 08:51 PM

 

 

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

 

ugly if true.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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



#69 coaster1

coaster1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Location:left coast

Posted 20 October 2013 - 08:55 PM

 

 

 

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

 

ugly if true.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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



#70 Groucho Marx

Groucho Marx

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location:auckland, nz
  • Interests:varied

Posted 20 October 2013 - 08:56 PM

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

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

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

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

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



#71 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:03 PM

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

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

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

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

 

 

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



#72 Groucho Marx

Groucho Marx

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location:auckland, nz
  • Interests:varied

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:12 PM

Agreed. When suggest 62, retain the beam proportions of the 72, same with wing size.
Dump the grinders and have stored energy (no fucking diesels).
In money saved there, add a smaller wing to allow high wind conditions. In fact the smaller wing could be one design.

#73 nroose

nroose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,577 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:36 PM

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Simpler launching and hauling

Smaller boat

Less crew

Fewer designers

Fewer shore personnel

Less maintenance

Less construction labor



#74 Groucho Marx

Groucho Marx

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location:auckland, nz
  • Interests:varied

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:43 PM

AC45 IS one design - well, originally, before Oracle began fooling with them.
A one design smaller wing for the big boats was just a suggestion to reduce expense (after dropping grinders, large design, mainenance etc. staff)... yet still allow sailing in conditions originally laid down (then radically altered/backtracked) in the AC72 rules.
Oh yes, bigger foiler goes faster than stretched Moth ... except to sail in 3 to 33? knots wind the compromise foil design will hit the wall at around 50-52 knots boat speed. Can't have everything - except maybe two sets of foils on one boat.

#75 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 10:04 PM

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

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



#76 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,659 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:09 AM

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

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

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



#77 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:33 AM

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

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

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

Olympic class?

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



#78 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:26 AM

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

 

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

 

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



#79 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:43 AM

Agreed. When suggest 62, retain the beam proportions of the 72, same with wing size.
Dump the grinders and have stored energy (no fucking diesels).
In money saved there, add a smaller wing to allow high wind conditions. In fact the smaller wing could be one design.

 

 

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



#80 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,666 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:23 AM

Well, right now you have the

A class
B class
C class
D class:

How about an E CLASS catamaran?

No longer than 45' long
No wider than 40' wide
No more than 500 sq ft of sail ( or 600 or 700 :))

And that would be it.

No stored power.

All the foil controls you want.




That's it.

#81 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:30 AM

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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



#82 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:59 AM

Well, right now you have the

A class
B class
C class
D class:

How about an E CLASS catamaran?

No longer than 45' long
No wider than 40' wide
No more than 500 sq ft of sail ( or 600 or 700 :))

 

Almost, I make that an F class.

 

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


Class  LOA   Sail   Beam
A       18   150    7.5
B       20   235    10
C       25   300    14
D       32   500    16
E       37   700    20
F       44   1000   23
G       52   1400   30
H       60   2000   37
I       72   2800   46
J       84   4000   57
K      100   5600   70

 

 

 

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



#83 Groucho Marx

Groucho Marx

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location:auckland, nz
  • Interests:varied

Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:49 AM

Not so sure about reducing beam. Agreed, slows pitch pole problems ... but then the boats can go over sideways. Which was the old and bad story of years ago with skinny arsed beam multis.
Also many of us prefer the power overkill of wide beam plus foils. Remember, reduce beam, foils lift the platform, creating even less stability ... and when you blow over, it happens real fast.
We already have a G Class (Giant) 100 foot maxi multihulls - but your H Class sounds about right. However the old D's had 500 sq.ft. sail - your E Class, Amati, will need a bit more.

#84 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 21 October 2013 - 06:05 AM

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

 

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

 

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



#85 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,666 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:37 PM

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

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

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

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

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

#86 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 21 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

 I owe you a beer. Or a Scotch.

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

 

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

 

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



#87 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,666 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:42 AM

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

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

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

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

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

#88 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:37 AM

Similar platforms with soft wings and reasonable (open) appendage rules.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users