AC34 to be Multihull as well?????, After reading the latest Seahorse.............. Options

[pluscount]

Before being about money, the AC was about speed. The quest was "let´s see who gets there first".
I feel that racing the AC in slow boats corrupts the essence of the original challenge. The quest is not who sails fastest, but who sails fastest in a boat designed to be slow!

This is like changing Formula Indy rules so that cars can´t be wide anymore, and ballast becomes the best solution for stability. Speeds are halved, cars are cheaper, races become safer, more "tactical", etc. - but it was supposed to be a race between the fastest cars!

Just my opinion, of course.

+1. I really like the idea of a box rule. I can go multi or lead mine. Efforts should be made to keep the cost "reasonable", but not cheap.

Just my opinion, of course.

[s2 alter ego]

Before being about money, the AC was about speed. The quest was "let´s see who gets there first".
I feel that racing the AC in slow boats corrupts the essence of the original challenge. The quest is not who sails fastest, but who sails fastest in a boat designed to be slow!

This is like changing Formula Indy rules so that cars can´t be wide anymore, and ballast becomes the best solution for stability. Speeds are halved, cars are cheaper, races become safer, more "tactical", etc. - but it was supposed to be a race between the fastest cars!

Just my opinion, of course.

+1. I really like the idea of a box rule. I can go multi or lead mine. Efforts should be made to keep the cost "reasonable", but not cheap.

Just my opinion, of course.

The cost for DOG class multis are reasonable ; if it wasn't so, there would not be 2 of them already ready to sail for AC33. There is no reason for the prize tag being lower as long as there are 2 parties willing to spend that much. The AC is about 2 clubs battling it out anyway, not 10...20 clubs to do the same. Thus the costs should only get down if no club challenges for AC34, otherwise the cost is low enough already for AC and no change is needed at all regarding that. Just let them keep spending just as deed suggests they keep doing ... Don't try to fix something that already works just fine.

[HHN92]

Sure, the 12's were not the fastest boats around, and look super slow to what can be done now, but the contest was still a design contest. The boats were not one-design, and there was some real creativity in trying to make a relatively limited heavy boat go faster than the next guy.

If you look at the 'modern' boat designs, other than trying to make them fit some measurement rule, the speed increases have been incremental, in a way that the 12's were also. You get a breakthrough once in a while, but it is always incremental in speed gain. The only great gains have been in where boats have a power-to-weight ratio that allows them to plane instead of just surf on occasion. RTW boats, Transpac boats, etc generally do not go to weather that great, and the records that they break are where they can surf for long periods of time.

An AC match, no matter how much of a 'match race' that it is, will not generally benefit from that type of design technology. Their closed-course inshore racing machines, and should be looked at as such.

Water ballast tanks, canting keels, etc. just do not cut-it for this type of compettition. Now, on a DoG course it could work to a certain extent. But, on the types of courses that are viable in todays AC, where trying to generate public interest to drive sponsorship dollars, long stretched-out courses with little action is not going to make it where these types of designs are viable.

This is my feelings why a 'box' type rule, where there are parameters but not a direct one-design, is the way to go. Let's see, after the initial excitement of these two boats being in the start box, and the speeds they show, wears off and the long haul of the overall race sets-in.

[fasterfasterfast...]

The only "box" rule needed is "Manual Power Only"

Combine manual power and courses that require a more than just high VMG or straight-line speed ... like 5 miles windward/leeward 4 times around (to get the same 40 mile total) and you have a natural limit on boat size and cost.

No way would you see 90 ft LWL multi's if the crew had to work them for pre-start plus 9 mark roundings and the extra tacks/gybes that course would require. You would see athlete sailors working hard and good for spectators smaller separations.

The idea of limiting the size by manual power and short course definety has credit. Simple races like this will be a far better result than complex technical rules that mongrel competitors can exploit.

I am worried that the current match is that it will be very hard for spectators to see anything. The speed of the multihulls, and being 20nm legs will prevent anyone on the water seeing very much. Not many boats will have hope of keeping up, so all you will see is a blurr of a high speed multi going past - then its all over.

Maybe combining short legs with plenty of manourvering at teh start and finsih, with a longer middle couple of legs would keep size reasonable and give plently of interest in the racing.

Definetely AC should be an all out race combining design and on the water action. The unveiling of design innovation on a big stage such as AC is essential to maintain interest throughout the cycle.

Keep the previsous AC class as the LVT - no problem, but let there be innovation in the real AC.

[mustang__1]

i think it should go back mono's, that is what the cup was about.

max length 90', hell, make it 110 for all i care..., manual power. All current RRS apply. Have at.

[RHough]

The ACCs were not too fast for the trailing boat to attack.

The use of A sails made it all but impossible to attack with windshadow because the apparent wind was so much further forward than with S sails.

Randy, your arguments are silly. We had big multis (ORMAs) and nobody watched that. We had nearly pure design contests (the LAC) and nobody watched that, either.

The deed is clearly set up to allow the clubs to determine what kind of boat they want to sail in. If they decide to sail leadmines, you can pout all you want about it not being "what the America's Cup" was intended to be, it won't change a thing.

You will recall that I tried to promote a Cup Class Association ... now LV and the WSTA are getting it together. What the owners and sailors want and what will see the best competition for the AC is what should come out of this.

What I want personally is of no consequence. Racing big multis never caught on mainly because of the Multi-phobes that control rule making ... heaven help us if we were to race fast boats! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Can you explain how "the multi-phobes that control rule making" killed the ORMA series?

I ask in complete honesty, cause I don't know the story.

I didn't say that.

I said that racing big multi's never caught on because of multi-phobes ... starting with catamarans being banned after Amaryliss beat the crap out of the big expensive yachts the NYYC had their egos invested in.

Even in 1876? the establishment was invested in speed producing lead. Allowing this new design type to sail in races would have made that investment near worthless ... so design innovation was squelched and multi-hulls were banned. Ever since, mutli-hulls have been excluded from mainstream yacht racing. Mutli-hull design has not the investment in time and money that mono-hull development has, so it is remarkable that they still evolved to the fastest vessels in the ocean ...

If racing yachtsmen had set aside tradition and embraced fast boats, we would have seen multi's in the AC decades ago.

If fast boats rather than slow boats were used, the AC would still be a match race and boat on boat tactics would still be highly developed ... the rules would have evolved differently and tactics would be different but they would have developed to suite the boats.

I'm not sure when Cup sized multi-hulls would have become competitive, I suspect that in the 65-90 foot LWL size that it would have required the development of lightweight construction that also allowed light displacement monos. Modern ultra light mono's have polar plots that look very much like the polars for multi's. The ACC boats and both the Valencia Travel Lift 90's and the AC33 rules were ultralights that would have been shitty "Match Racers" by 12M standards.

People that think a simple return to a single hull will bring the Cup back to the good old days are deluding themselves. To get the Good Match Racing of the 12 Metre era, you need heavy slow boats that no one I know wants to sail. Boats with D/L ratios about 300 are pigs by modern standards ... I know ... I own a D/L=300 Catalina 30. No one will want to step off a modern design and go back to being slow and wet.

If the next generation of AC designs are not vintage racers they won't be any fucking good for "Match Racing" either ... so why not multis?

[radio flyer]

Before being about money, the AC was about speed. The quest was "let´s see who gets there first".
I feel that racing the AC in slow boats corrupts the essence of the original challenge. The quest is not who sails fastest, but who sails fastest in a boat designed to be slow!

This is like changing Formula Indy rules so that cars can´t be wide anymore, and ballast becomes the best solution for stability. Speeds are halved, cars are cheaper, races become safer, more "tactical", etc. - but it was supposed to be a race between the fastest cars!

Just my opinion, of course.

+1. I really like the idea of a box rule. I can go multi or lead mine. Efforts should be made to keep the cost "reasonable", but not cheap.

Just my opinion, of course.

The cost for DOG class multis are reasonable ; if it wasn't so, there would not be 2 of them already ready to sail for AC33. There is no reason for the prize tag being lower as long as there are 2 parties willing to spend that much. The AC is about 2 clubs battling it out anyway, not 10...20 clubs to do the same. Thus the costs should only get down if no club challenges for AC34, otherwise the cost is low enough already for AC and no change is needed at all regarding that. Just let them keep spending just as deed suggests they keep doing ... Don't try to fix something that already works just fine.

exactly

[sledracr]

People that think a simple return to a single hull will bring the Cup back to the good old days are deluding themselves. To get the Good Match Racing of the 12 Metre era, you need heavy slow boats that no one I know wants to sail. Boats with D/L ratios about 300 are pigs by modern standards ... I know ... I own a D/L=300 Catalina 30. No one will want to step off a modern design and go back to being slow and wet.

That's sort of the crux of it - is the America's Cup about the design battle, or the race?

If it is about design (and pretty much any DOG match is), the answer is no-holds-barred, build the biggest/meanest/fastest boat you can. Knowing that the racing itself is - at best - likely to be anticlimactic.

If it is about competition in the water, I think those old/heavy/slow boats - such as those used in every MC event in recent times - generate a much more interesting battle on the water, arguably more interesting for the non-sailing public (because there is human-interest tension and drama... "can Joe outfox Helmut and manage to break through into the lead? Stay tuned, after the commercial break!")

I personally *love* the chess-game that is match racing. My hope is that whatever AC34 brings, it will include boats that engage in tactics and actually "race" each other, rather than each just trying to get around a race course faster than the other, if you know what I mean.

[pluscount]

Before being about money, the AC was about speed. The quest was "let´s see who gets there first".
I feel that racing the AC in slow boats corrupts the essence of the original challenge. The quest is not who sails fastest, but who sails fastest in a boat designed to be slow!

This is like changing Formula Indy rules so that cars can´t be wide anymore, and ballast becomes the best solution for stability. Speeds are halved, cars are cheaper, races become safer, more "tactical", etc. - but it was supposed to be a race between the fastest cars!

Just my opinion, of course.

+1. I really like the idea of a box rule. I can go multi or lead mine. Efforts should be made to keep the cost "reasonable", but not cheap.

Just my opinion, of course.

The cost for DOG class multis are reasonable ; if it wasn't so, there would not be 2 of them already ready to sail for AC33. There is no reason for the prize tag being lower as long as there are 2 parties willing to spend that much. The AC is about 2 clubs battling it out anyway, not 10...20 clubs to do the same. Thus the costs should only get down if no club challenges for AC34, otherwise the cost is low enough already for AC and no change is needed at all regarding that. Just let them keep spending just as deed suggests they keep doing ... Don't try to fix something that already works just fine.

I like the idea of an MC challenge with any number of (DoG valid) pretenders racing off to meet the single defender. I think a 90x90 box rule would limit the competition to the very few LE/EB types. Maybe true to the DoG, but a smaller box would still be as exciting and allow for innovation within smaller budgets. Just my opinion, of course.

[DA-WOODY]

Damn, I hope so.

These boats are so cool, no way back to lumbering leadmines now...

A souped up version of iShares perhaps?

Well I certainly hope so too, as far as using multis are concerned. (Course a mono can compete if it wants to :^)) However I think there needs to be some careful thought given to size and cost, not every syndicate has multibillion dollar egomaniacs as a major member. There is recent history of multi based competitions that have flourished for a while and failed, so there are lessons to be learned ifpeople want to learn. The F40 inshore racers did very well for a few years before petering out. F28 were to take over, being almost as fast and a good deal cheaper yet they too slowly faded away. ORMA 60 offshore tris were very hot competitors for several years but eventually the cost of extracting a bit more speed, preferably without breaking up, made them suddenly slip into history, with ORMA 50 offshore multis starting to grow, but for how long we do not know based on past experience. So if the AC goes back to the way it was originally set up, happening every few years once someone thought they might have a chance at winning, it could be like the present scene, but there is the possibility of a challenge in say a 60 foot boat provided that the defender then also uses a 60 foot boat. Speeds would be just a tad less but costs would be much lower, so there could be more challenges. OTOH if the wish is there for a multichallenge set up like the last few, especially if parts of the Round Robin are run off in various locations as is being suggested, then a multihull box rule would seem to be the way to go and at a size which is affordable. Interesting that 70 foot Orma tris are seen to cost less than the 60's because they could be a great deal simpler. There are also the 70 foot cats series being promoted by Coutts and Cayard for inshore racing, so something along those lines might fit the need. Thinking a bit GREEN they should be usable for fast cruising once no longer competitive, or at least for fast sails around the bay with paying passengers.:^) Equally needed is a technical clarification to the DoG, keeping the thrust of the original intent but taking into account modern design characteristics for monohulls and for,optional, multihulls. Spend the money on boats not on lawyers.

your grammar check

did not activate






damn (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[BalticBandit]

The ACCs were not too fast for the trailing boat to attack.

The use of A sails made it all but impossible to attack with windshadow because the apparent wind was so much further forward than with S sails.

Randy, your arguments are silly. We had big multis (ORMAs) and nobody watched that. We had nearly pure design contests (the LAC) and nobody watched that, either.

The deed is clearly set up to allow the clubs to determine what kind of boat they want to sail in. If they decide to sail leadmines, you can pout all you want about it not being "what the America's Cup" was intended to be, it won't change a thing.

You will recall that I tried to promote a Cup Class Association ... now LV and the WSTA are getting it together. What the owners and sailors want and what will see the best competition for the AC is what should come out of this.

What I want personally is of no consequence. Racing big multis never caught on mainly because of the Multi-phobes that control rule making ... heaven help us if we were to race fast boats! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Can you explain how "the multi-phobes that control rule making" killed the ORMA series?

I ask in complete honesty, cause I don't know the story.

I didn't say that.

I said that racing big multi's never caught on because of multi-phobes ... starting with catamarans being banned after Amaryliss beat the crap out of the big expensive yachts the NYYC had their egos invested in.

Even in 1876? the establishment was invested in speed producing lead. Allowing this new design type to sail in races would have made that investment near worthless ... so design innovation was squelched and multi-hulls were banned. Ever since, mutli-hulls have been excluded from mainstream yacht racing. Mutli-hull design has not the investment in time and money that mono-hull development has, so it is remarkable that they still evolved to the fastest vessels in the ocean ...

If racing yachtsmen had set aside tradition and embraced fast boats, we would have seen multi's in the AC decades ago.

If fast boats rather than slow boats were used, the AC would still be a match race and boat on boat tactics would still be highly developed ... the rules would have evolved differently and tactics would be different but they would have developed to suite the boats.

I'm not sure when Cup sized multi-hulls would have become competitive, I suspect that in the 65-90 foot LWL size that it would have required the development of lightweight construction that also allowed light displacement monos. Modern ultra light mono's have polar plots that look very much like the polars for multi's. The ACC boats and both the Valencia Travel Lift 90's and the AC33 rules were ultralights that would have been shitty "Match Racers" by 12M standards.

People that think a simple return to a single hull will bring the Cup back to the good old days are deluding themselves. To get the Good Match Racing of the 12 Metre era, you need heavy slow boats that no one I know wants to sail. Boats with D/L ratios about 300 are pigs by modern standards ... I know ... I own a D/L=300 Catalina 30. No one will want to step off a modern design and go back to being slow and wet.

If the next generation of AC designs are not vintage racers they won't be any fucking good for "Match Racing" either ... so why not multis?

If you read the History of Skiffs, there's similar take on the pro-lead ballast anti-pro sailor bias in the US East Coast that gets rid of the sandbaggers, which are then sold off to the midwest where they become nicknamed "gravel trains" and become the protos for the scows.

I think a Box rule with purely human power, and a limit on the number of crew that can be carried - say 10-11, would result in boats that while they would likely be tri's ala DoGgie - so that LWL can be maximized, would be more affordable since the manpower limits would put maxes on sail handling capabilities. Toss in a course that puts some premium on handling and you've got a formulae that while not cheap will be somewhat price limiting and still push technology.

In terms of raw speed, which is more interesting? A Drag Race or a Formula 1 Race?

In know there are Drag afficianados, but F1 has way more fans. Speed PLUS handling.

With a box rule, I could easily see someone building a foiler as an entry.

[atefooterz]

wtf is all this "more affordable" crap ?

i suppose you guys want to thousands of peeps to own a "more affordable" BMW , Rolls Royce or Mercedes etc. rather than having the cash to get your own one built to your specs. = peasants and certainly NOT what the AC is really about . (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

[GybeSet®]

ate,

there is an argument for there to be more than 2 entrants, if that means 'affordability' so be it

the number of teams at the last Vlc AC was about right

[s2 alter ego]

ate,
there is an argument for there to be more than 2 entrants, if that means 'affordability' so be it

the number of teams at the last Vlc AC was about right

The number of teams at the last AC was exactly 2, and the same for AC31, or AC30 or AC29 or ...
Just read the deed, it's all there ...

The number of teams at the last vlc was of course far more than 2 and that fact has nothing at all to do with the AC. Teams wanting to partipicate for those events don't need the AC and neither does LV. Actions on the water involving match racing in monohulls after AC32 prove just that. Let them keep doing that for those who want to see it and/or participate in those events, just don't try to use AC for that against the deed. When Schooner America won the trophy from the british it had nothing to do with match racing, it was a fleet race and the fastest boat won. There is no evidence proving it also had the fastest crew, so presumably it had not.

Besides, reducing size of boats don't limit the cost top teams spent in any way. Just look at how much C-cats cost to make. Far more than most 40 footers, and if people like EB or LE were involved in those they would spend far more ...

[GDEvans]

Anybody who has ever raced on an IACC boat will tell you how exciting they are - I know as I've been there. The boats are so closely matched now they are in their 5th generation, that it really comes down to the best crew on the day. Just look at how close the results were in some races in AC32. I love multihulls and fast monohulls, but the most exciting racing I have ever had is in one design fleets.

These big multihulls are going to be exciting. However, I expect the event to last only two races. Either one boat will be so much faster than the other, or one of them will self destruct. Just look at BOR's mast to see how close to the limit they are being sailed.

I hope we can look forward to version 6 of the IACC in AC34! However, I fear that the AC33 debacle will result in a new class being proposed. WWII ended the use of the J Class yachts. The Mercury Bay Challenge ended the 31 year reign of the 12 metres. The 'Zillas will probably end the use of IACC yachts. Whether the Louis Vuitton Trophy is enough to keep the class alive remains to be seen.

[KiwiJoker]

Anybody who has ever raced on an IACC boat will tell you how exciting they are - I know as I've been there. The boats are so closely matched now they are in their 5th generation, that it really comes down to the best crew on the day. Just look at how close the results were in some races in AC32. I love multihulls and fast monohulls, but the most exciting racing I have ever had is in one design fleets.

These big multihulls are going to be exciting. However, I expect the event to last only two races. Either one boat will be so much faster than the other, or one of them will self destruct. Just look at BOR's mast to see how close to the limit they are being sailed.

I hope we can look forward to version 6 of the IACC in AC34! However, I fear that the AC33 debacle will result in a new class being proposed. WWII ended the use of the J Class yachts. The Mercury Bay Challenge ended the 31 year reign of the 12 metres. The 'Zillas will probably end the use of IACC yachts. Whether the Louis Vuitton Trophy is enough to keep the class alive remains to be seen.

Not much chance of a Ver. 6 IACC, I think. The delay occasioned by the AC33 debacle may have hastened the adoption of a new class but it is not the cause. Discussion and debate about a new class was circulating before the current mess.

In a funny way, the LVPS helped put a nail in the Ver. 5 coffin. Sharing boats in Auckland and Nice means that all developments have been shared. It's time to start again.

Plenty of work already been done on the new class, thanks to Alinghi-initiated discussions. Expect the Cup community to share in the final concept. Of course the winner of the 33rd Cup will have a major influence. Another reason to hope for an GGYC/BMWOR victory.

[HHN92]

Anybody who has ever raced on an IACC boat will tell you how exciting they are - I know as I've been there. The boats are so closely matched now they are in their 5th generation, that it really comes down to the best crew on the day. Just look at how close the results were in some races in AC32. I love multihulls and fast monohulls, but the most exciting racing I have ever had is in one design fleets.

These big multihulls are going to be exciting. However, I expect the event to last only two races. Either one boat will be so much faster than the other, or one of them will self destruct. Just look at BOR's mast to see how close to the limit they are being sailed.

I hope we can look forward to version 6 of the IACC in AC34! However, I fear that the AC33 debacle will result in a new class being proposed. WWII ended the use of the J Class yachts. The Mercury Bay Challenge ended the 31 year reign of the 12 metres. The 'Zillas will probably end the use of IACC yachts. Whether the Louis Vuitton Trophy is enough to keep the class alive remains to be seen.

Not much chance of a Ver. 6 IACC, I think. The delay occasioned by the AC33 debacle may have hastened the adoption of a new class but it is not the cause. Discussion and debate about a new class was circulating before the current mess.

In a funny way, the LVPS helped put a nail in the Ver. 5 coffin. Sharing boats in Auckland and Nice means that all developments have been shared. It's time to start again.

Plenty of work already been done on the new class, thanks to Alinghi-initiated discussions. Expect the Cup community to share in the final concept. Of course the winner of the 33rd Cup will have a major influence. Another reason to hope for an GGYC/BMWOR victory.

I would not bury the IACC boats just yet..............................


I am sure they are neat boats to race. They are also developed enough to promote close racing, even with some variability to move around inside the rule.

But, they get fast enough downwind to hinder attacking from behind, other than just placement and waiting for that first gybe. If there is a wind shift, that option may be eliminated.

To get a quick turn-around so things gets going again, IACC V6 may become a reality.

[DSmith]

The only "box" rule needed is "Manual Power Only"

Combine manual power and courses that require a more than just high VMG or straight-line speed ... like 5 miles windward/leeward 4 times around (to get the same 40 mile total) and you have a natural limit on boat size and cost.

No way would you see 90 ft LWL multi's if the crew had to work them for pre-start plus 9 mark roundings and the extra tacks/gybes that course would require. You would see athlete sailors working hard and good for spectators smaller separations.

+1

[andyxs]

personaly i love the current set up with the monos, it has been optimised to hell, is fast enough yet not to fast and close as hell so that even the new guys arnt compleatly out the back door. the course length is great for tv and spectators and makes it interesting yet easy to explain, hell the last ac was the first time my housemates have sat down and actualy watched sailing with me. why the hell anyone would want to watch a techno drag race replay again and again is beyond me. i love the zillas but they arnt really sustainable. all the cool multi videos online are those where they are going like hell in lots of wind, not what the ac would do. The time differences will be so huge as to make it boring, whatever anyone says it wont be match racing and that is what the AC has come to represent even if 100yrs ago it didnt.
and the sad thing is is that i love multis as well, have a catamaran etc.

[ecosse4me]

RHough, I like your thinking. Forget every measurement rule, just make it man power and set a course that you want to go around. No engines and no stored power. So simple and easy to manage. Just as long as they have to stay on the boat during the race! You are a genius... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)