[Patrick C.]

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

[YetMoreTrouble]

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).
Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ?

If a single vertical stick is enough then Dogzilla is a three-master and can be DSQ'd
Of course, if CZ fitted an Oppie mast, they could go sailing in more than 1m waves!!!

[Tucky]

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

You have to recognize that the way the rules will be administered in this DOG challenge will require basic fairness and obvious intent, and the decision makers will be neutral and will have the whole sport watching. I think your perspective is from classes with detailed rules and years of rule pushing- this is how J-24s, Olympic classes, etc. all operate. In NASCAR they say "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'".

I don't think DOG decisions on "what is a mast?, what is a sloop?" will be made in this kind of narrow environment- there will now be an impartial jury with basic fairness as a guideline, and a foundation in the deed.

In that spirit, the BMO wing is clearly a single masted sloop- it has one thing sticking up on which all it's sails fly. It is that simple. The deed created a waterline advantage for two masted vessels at the time of schooners vs. sloops- the recognition that schooner rigs were inherently slower led to the deed giving them a waterline allowance, as it were, so they could race boat for boat. In this context, any kind of small mast is not legal, the rule assumes two masts of relatively similar dimensions.

So the issue for Alinghi will be how far they want to go down that road, knowing there is a neutral jury making the decisions and a court of appeal that is an actual court, and one that has not been happy to have tricks played on it. They have driven past a lot of signs on that road saying "Danger ahead" and ignored them to date, I think playing games with what a two masted vessel is isn't going to fly- what has happened with Judge Judy has really put the right people in charge.

[BalticBandit]

Tucky, on Nov 20 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

You have to recognize that the way the rules will be administered in this DOG challenge will require basic fairness and obvious intent, and the decision makers will be neutral and will have the whole sport watching. I think your perspective is from classes with detailed rules and years of rule pushing- this is how J-24s, Olympic classes, etc. all operate. In NASCAR they say "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'".

I don't think DOG decisions on "what is a mast?, what is a sloop?" will be made in this kind of narrow environment- there will now be an impartial jury with basic fairness as a guideline, and a foundation in the deed.

In that spirit, the BMO wing is clearly a single masted sloop- it has one thing sticking up on which all it's sails fly. It is that simple. The deed created a waterline advantage for two masted vessels at the time of schooners vs. sloops- the recognition that schooner rigs were inherently slower led to the deed giving them a waterline allowance, as it were, so they could race boat for boat. In this context, any kind of small mast is not legal, the rule assumes two masts of relatively similar dimensions.

So the issue for Alinghi will be how far they want to go down that road, knowing there is a neutral jury making the decisions and a court of appeal that is an actual court, and one that has not been happy to have tricks played on it. They have driven past a lot of signs on that road saying "Danger ahead" and ignored them to date, I think playing games with what a two masted vessel is isn't going to fly- what has happened with Judge Judy has really put the right people in charge.

+1

And note that part of the analysis will include whether or not the structure under the mast could carry any sort of sail loads and whether you have the rigging and sails on board. Its quite possible that adding a 2nd mast, even a small faux mast, could add enough weight and drag to offset Cheezy's suggested weight advantage.

[NAMT]

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 05:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

There was a lengthy discussion some weeks ago about whether a wing might be a mast. All kinds of definitiions & viewpoints including some pretty nutty ones from my viewpoint. Simon N had quite a lot to say - I will look for the thread ..

[dirtdog]

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

I think they would need a different Notice of Challenge from a new CoR.

DoG = The competing yachts or vessels, if of one mast, shall be not less than forty-four feet nor more than ninety feet on the load water-line; if of more than one mast they shall be not less than eighty feet nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water-line.

yachts or vessels is plural, does it mean the defender must sail a boat equal in mast # to the challenger? I do not think there is a ruling on this yet by any court but we might see one prior to Feb.

[NAMT]

NAMT, on Nov 20 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 05:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

There was a lengthy discussion some weeks ago about whether a wing might be a mast. All kinds of definitiions & viewpoints including some pretty nutty ones from my viewpoint. Simon N had quite a lot to say - I will look for the thread ..

OK, I found the thread I was thinking of.
It is more obscure than I thought - see "Letter from GGYC to May 20"
The discussion also focused on hard sails.

The posts that I remember most clearly were from Simon N.
It was interesting to re-read a couple - here are some brief excerpts:
Post #66
"Forget the potential wing mast which is clearly in breach (how did Mercury Bay miss that one!) A rotating wing mast like the opne that BOR is currently using is capable of producing enough lift to move a boat and I wonder how long it will be before there is a claim that the boat isn't propelled by sails alone.
On the other hand, they will probably wait until they measure USA just before the racing and then DSQ it knowing that BOR cannot build a new rig in days...................

"I am looking forward to somebody trying to justify a solid wing mast as being a sail based on the ERS"

[Peelman]

NAMT, on Nov 20 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

NAMT, on Nov 20 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 05:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

There was a lengthy discussion some weeks ago about whether a wing might be a mast. All kinds of definitiions & viewpoints including some pretty nutty ones from my viewpoint. Simon N had quite a lot to say - I will look for the thread ..

OK, I found the thread I was thinking of.
It is more obscure than I thought - see "Letter from GGYC to May 20"
The discussion also focused on hard sails.

The posts that I remember most clearly were from Simon N.
It was interesting to re-read a couple - here are some brief excerpts:
Post #66
"Forget the potential wing mast which is clearly in breach (how did Mercury Bay miss that one!) A rotating wing mast like the opne that BOR is currently using is capable of producing enough lift to move a boat and I wonder how long it will be before there is a claim that the boat isn't propelled by sails alone.
On the other hand, they will probably wait until they measure USA just before the racing and then DSQ it knowing that BOR cannot build a new rig in days...................

"I am looking forward to somebody trying to justify a solid wing mast as being a sail based on the ERS"

The questions about a Wing is actually 2 questions. What is a mast & what is a sail. IMO BOR doesn't have a problem as it has a vertical structure that supports fabric all being controlled by running rigging to power the vessel by harnessing the wind.

[dirtdog]

NAMT, on Nov 20 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

NAMT, on Nov 20 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 05:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

There was a lengthy discussion some weeks ago about whether a wing might be a mast. All kinds of definitiions & viewpoints including some pretty nutty ones from my viewpoint. Simon N had quite a lot to say - I will look for the thread ..

OK, I found the thread I was thinking of.
It is more obscure than I thought - see "Letter from GGYC to May 20"
The discussion also focused on hard sails.

The posts that I remember most clearly were from Simon N.
It was interesting to re-read a couple - here are some brief excerpts:
Post #66
"Forget the potential wing mast which is clearly in breach (how did Mercury Bay miss that one!) A rotating wing mast like the opne that BOR is currently using is capable of producing enough lift to move a boat and I wonder how long it will be before there is a claim that the boat isn't propelled by sails alone.
On the other hand, they will probably wait until they measure USA just before the racing and then DSQ it knowing that BOR cannot build a new rig in days...................

"I am looking forward to somebody trying to justify a solid wing mast as being a sail based on the ERS"

A5's mast has a lift component.
but I will give the justification a shot-
USA's wing is in two very different components, one component is in the location of a traditional mast the other in the location of a traditional sail. The mast component and the sail component are clearly separated and function separately.
nothing to see here, no different from traditional setup.  mastsail.jpg (516.69K)
Number of downloads: 214
edit- not sure why there are two images?

Attached File(s)

•  mastsail.jpg (240.27K)
  Number of downloads: 45

[TurmoilJ]

dirtdog, on Nov 21 2009, 04:53 AM, said:

NAMT, on Nov 20 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

NAMT, on Nov 20 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 05:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

There was a lengthy discussion some weeks ago about whether a wing might be a mast. All kinds of definitiions & viewpoints including some pretty nutty ones from my viewpoint. Simon N had quite a lot to say - I will look for the thread ..

OK, I found the thread I was thinking of.
It is more obscure than I thought - see "Letter from GGYC to May 20"
The discussion also focused on hard sails.

The posts that I remember most clearly were from Simon N.
It was interesting to re-read a couple - here are some brief excerpts:
Post #66
"Forget the potential wing mast which is clearly in breach (how did Mercury Bay miss that one!) A rotating wing mast like the opne that BOR is currently using is capable of producing enough lift to move a boat and I wonder how long it will be before there is a claim that the boat isn't propelled by sails alone.
On the other hand, they will probably wait until they measure USA just before the racing and then DSQ it knowing that BOR cannot build a new rig in days...................

"I am looking forward to somebody trying to justify a solid wing mast as being a sail based on the ERS"

A5's mast has a lift component.
but I will give the justification a shot-
USA's wing is in two very different components, one component is in the location of a traditional mast the other in the location of a traditional sail. The mast component and the sail component are clearly separated and function separately.
nothing to see here, no different from traditional setup. mastsail.jpg
edit- not sure why there are two images?

I was going to supply an opposing argument - then I got distracted by something in your pictures :rolleyes: - so you must be right!

[SimonN]

This whole area is really difficult and I wouldn't want anybody to think I have proposed a definative argument on this matter. The first issue is that the DOG states "a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only". This suggests to me that the mast cannot propel the boat. So far, so good! On the average boat, the mast doesn't provide propulsion in any way. However, once there is a wing mast that might change. To me, the real test is whether the boat can sail upwind with just the mast and on that basis, IMO, a wing mast as seen on A5 doesn't come close to "propelling" the boat.

However, the interesting thing is how one looks at this when you look at the wing on USA. The first thing to determine is which parts of the wing are mast and which part are sail. As there is only so much stiffening allowed in a sail, a fair amount of the structure must be mast. If there is any "skin" that is essential to the structure of the mast, it cannot be counted as sail. And once one has sorted through that mine field, the next question is whether what has been defined as mast is capable of propelling the boat on its own.

Do I really think we will see this issue raised? I honestly don't know. Based on past form, I would say that Alinghi will challenge it and of all the things they have raised, I think it will be the hardest one to predict which way it will go.

[Tucky]

SimonN, on Nov 21 2009, 05:07 AM, said:

Do I really think we will see this issue raised? I honestly don't know. Based on past form, I would say that Alinghi will challenge it and of all the things they have raised, I think it will be the hardest one to predict which way it will go.

The knots you are twisting yourselves in are unnecessary. Any simple glance at BMWO shows it meets the spirit of the rule, and for now, at least, there is a panel of experts well versed in the history of sailing and the AC, including 1988, who are advising the court.

Alinghi steps in this shit at it's extreme peril. It has a duty as trustee (SNG) to facilitate a match.

[SimonN]

Tucky, on Nov 21 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

It has a duty as trustee (SNG) to facilitate a match.

It is also the duty of the trustee to ensure that the challenger meets all its obligations under the DOG, including that the challenger's boat is legal. Fudiciary duty works both ways.

[pjh]

Simon, what do you suppose the intent of "propelled by sails only" was?

[dirtdog]

SimonN, on Nov 21 2009, 05:07 AM, said:

This whole area is really difficult and I wouldn't want anybody to think I have proposed a definative argument on this matter. The first issue is that the DOG states "a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only". This suggests to me that the mast cannot propel the boat. So far, so good! On the average boat, the mast doesn't provide propulsion in any way. However, once there is a wing mast that might change. To me, the real test is whether the boat can sail upwind with just the mast and on that basis, IMO, a wing mast as seen on A5 doesn't come close to "propelling" the boat.

However, the interesting thing is how one looks at this when you look at the wing on USA. The first thing to determine is which parts of the wing are mast and which part are sail. As there is only so much stiffening allowed in a sail, a fair amount of the structure must be mast. If there is any "skin" that is essential to the structure of the mast, it cannot be counted as sail. And once one has sorted through that mine field, the next question is whether what has been defined as mast is capable of propelling the boat on its own.

Do I really think we will see this issue raised? I honestly don't know. Based on past form, I would say that Alinghi will challenge it and of all the things they have raised, I think it will be the hardest one to predict which way it will go.

of course a mast can propel a boat forward, I do not doubt that you have been in enough breeze yourself that the rig alone would have propelled the yacht forward.

It can however be argued that USA has no mast and only sail, the DoG is silent to structure and construction of a sail....so by your logic does "propelled by sails alone" make masts illegal under the DoG? ;) yes I know the DoG requires a single mast etc... but how cana rig 200 feet tall not propell a boat forward, actually now that we are into it - the design of the hull actually influences forward motion quite a bit also. so what did the framer intend?

[cogito]

Simon,
I repectively think your reading of the deed is a bit too fundamentalist on the issue of propelled by sails alone. They knew, as you do, that a mast can contribute to propulsion, so can a spray dodger and many other parts of a boat. They didn't see fit to exclude all those too. If you were writing in the 19th century and wanted to exclude those confounded new steam contraptions or Maltese war galleys you probably would have worded the deed in the same way.
Aren't they just saying "This is a race for sailboats?"
"But BOR doesn't have a sail, it has a wing" you say.
To use the cliche´d porn test: "I know it when I see it" - I look at BOR90 and I see a sailboat. If you decided to replace the sails on your boat with quarter inch plywood would your boat cease to be a sailboat?
If your boat has an auxiliary engine it's still a sailboat but you wouldn't turn it on and put it in gear during a race.
I think the writers of the deed where sailors and educated men. They wanted a sailboat race and said don't use an engine for propulsion. I doubt they would believe how some sailors would parse their words today.
Whether they would have allowed engines to trim the sails is a separate issue and one I think the majority wish they had addressed.

[DRIFTW00D]

SimonN, on Nov 21 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

Tucky, on Nov 21 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

It has a duty as trustee (SNG) to facilitate a match.

It is also the duty of the trustee to ensure that the challenger meets all its obligations under the DOG, including that the challenger's boat is legal. Fudiciary duty works both ways.

I keep seeing S&Stripes wing and thinking water under the bridge "grandfather got away with one" President Set.
No jib up wind on S&Stripes "no problem".



http://adamant.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/26/catamaran_stars_and_stripes_kz1_pep.jpg
So is this the logic "Stripes did it" what BMWO is working with today ?

[Ishmael]

SimonN, on Nov 21 2009, 02:07 AM, said:

This whole area is really difficult and I wouldn't want anybody to think I have proposed a definative argument on this matter. The first issue is that the DOG states "a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only". This suggests to me that the mast cannot propel the boat. So far, so good! On the average boat, the mast doesn't provide propulsion in any way. However, once there is a wing mast that might change. To me, the real test is whether the boat can sail upwind with just the mast and on that basis, IMO, a wing mast as seen on A5 doesn't come close to "propelling" the boat.

However, the interesting thing is how one looks at this when you look at the wing on USA. The first thing to determine is which parts of the wing are mast and which part are sail. As there is only so much stiffening allowed in a sail, a fair amount of the structure must be mast. If there is any "skin" that is essential to the structure of the mast, it cannot be counted as sail. And once one has sorted through that mine field, the next question is whether what has been defined as mast is capable of propelling the boat on its own.

Do I really think we will see this issue raised? I honestly don't know. Based on past form, I would say that Alinghi will challenge it and of all the things they have raised, I think it will be the hardest one to predict which way it will go.

If we are going to discuss this in terms of how the expert panel would approach it, wouldn't the simplest explanation suffice? That a yacht propelled by sails only is not propelled by a motor, or oars, or other mechanical or human powered devices...
Trying to stretch this to cover any other meaning is out of the realm of the original intent.

[Boats13]

With the complexity of 3DL sails, various battens, etc... One could look at the ribs in the "sail" section as just very thick battens and is there any rule or "spirit of rule" that says you can't have air between the layers of your sailcloth? I think it really is a No Brainer: The Cup was about bringing the best and newest technology (at least sail/rigging/ and hullwise) to the race. Engine powered trimming and ballasting are a seperate matter entirely.

13

[BalticBandit]

SimonN, on Nov 21 2009, 10:07 AM, said:

This whole area is really difficult and I wouldn't want anybody to think I have proposed a definative argument on this matter. The first issue is that the DOG states "a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only". This suggests to me that the mast cannot propel the boat. So far, so good! On the average boat, the mast doesn't provide propulsion in any way. However, once there is a wing mast that might change. To me, the real test is whether the boat can sail upwind with just the mast and on that basis, IMO, a wing mast as seen on A5 doesn't come close to "propelling" the boat.

However, the interesting thing is how one looks at this when you look at the wing on USA. The first thing to determine is which parts of the wing are mast and which part are sail. As there is only so much stiffening allowed in a sail, a fair amount of the structure must be mast. If there is any "skin" that is essential to the structure of the mast, it cannot be counted as sail. And once one has sorted through that mine field, the next question is whether what has been defined as mast is capable of propelling the boat on its own.

Do I really think we will see this issue raised? I honestly don't know. Based on past form, I would say that Alinghi will challenge it and of all the things they have raised, I think it will be the hardest one to predict which way it will go.

At the time of the writing of the Deed, a vessel could and would carry yard arms and mast sections that might or might not carry sails during a race. And on the offwind legs these clearly generated motive power and yet were not considered in violation.

similarly at the time "sailing under bare poles" was a commonly understood practice in very big storms. Thus the notion that "propelled by sails alone" as exclusive of masts is a ridiculous reading.

Using the fundamentalist approach of your reading, one could similarly assert that those sails could only be hand held by the crew, since otherwise the vessel was not being propelled by "Sails ALONE" because the sails were working in conjunction with the masts.


So your line of reasoning actually leads to a conclusion that is patently silly. Furthermore it is at odds with the historic understanding of the term "propelled by sails alone" - which back then included the balancing of vessel heel, etc by modifying the mast configuration under way with yardarms, gaffs, and even in swaying up and tacking down TopMasts.


Mix in the contemporaneous understanding that a SAILplane is a aeronautic machine (this is from the OED) who's flight is sustained by wings, and you have a very strong CONTEMPORARY claim that something propelled by a wing MAST is "SAILing".


Now add in the mix that there is now an Experts' Panel in place to limit the frivolousness of SNG's sailing claims, and there is no challenge here that will be heard.

[palaimon]

dirtdog, on Nov 20 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

I think they would need a different Notice of Challenge from a new CoR.

DoG = The competing yachts or vessels, if of one mast, shall be not less than forty-four feet nor more than ninety feet on the load water-line; if of more than one mast they shall be not less than eighty feet nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water-line.

yachts or vessels is plural, does it mean the defender must sail a boat equal in mast # to the challenger? I do not think there is a ruling on this yet by any court but we might see one prior to Feb.

"yachts or vessels is plural" - of course it's plural - how can a singular yacht or vessel compete?
"does it mean the defender must sail a boat equal in mast # to the challenger?" - no, it doesn't. The DoG only states the lenght of a yacht or vessel with one ore more masts. No word, that the competing yachts or vessels must have the same number of masts. The DoG doesn't even limit the number of masts.

[dirtdog]

palaimon, on Nov 21 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

dirtdog, on Nov 20 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

Patrick C., on Nov 20 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

What is a mast ... I mean on the juridic side (as the importance in AC is what the court says ...).

I mean, if Alinghi decide to put a second mast for solving the LWL/balast stuff, what do they need to add to the boat ? Is a single vertical stick of carbon enough ? Do they have to carry sails during the race of if the stick is able to support sails it is enough ? For instance if they add a mast of a model boat (50 cm height) ... would it be considered as a valid mast ?

I think they would need a different Notice of Challenge from a new CoR.

DoG = The competing yachts or vessels, if of one mast, shall be not less than forty-four feet nor more than ninety feet on the load water-line; if of more than one mast they shall be not less than eighty feet nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water-line.

yachts or vessels is plural, does it mean the defender must sail a boat equal in mast # to the challenger? I do not think there is a ruling on this yet by any court but we might see one prior to Feb.

"yachts or vessels is plural" - of course it's plural - how can a singular yacht or vessel compete?
"does it mean the defender must sail a boat equal in mast # to the challenger?" - no, it doesn't. The DoG only states the lenght of a yacht or vessel with one ore more masts. No word, that the competing yachts or vessels must have the same number of masts. The DoG doesn't even limit the number of masts.

limits length not number of masts-
"competing vessels, if of one mast..."
is inclusive language, you can not claim "no, it doesn't", if the (two) competing vessels (are) ... of one mast. It does not say if a competing vessel is of one mast. to define vessel vs. vessels, inclusive or exclusive there use in other parts of the DoG can be used to help us understand.
"with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the Challenging Club belongs"
here the DoG uses the singular exclusive "vessel".

why the differing tense? it means something....it means inclusive of each other when "vessels" is used.

[Peelman]

Outside of the 1st race & 1988 the Defender & Challenger have used MC to be in the same box. In 1988's DoG they both were under 90' & with 1 mast so again in the same box.

[Trovão]

cogito, on Nov 21 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Simon,
I repectively think your reading of the deed is a bit too fundamentalist on the issue of propelled by sails alone. They knew, as you do, that a mast can contribute to propulsion, so can a spray dodger and many other parts of a boat. They didn't see fit to exclude all those too. If you were writing in the 19th century and wanted to exclude those confounded new steam contraptions or Maltese war galleys you probably would have worded the deed in the same way.
Aren't they just saying "This is a race for sailboats?"
"But BOR doesn't have a sail, it has a wing" you say.
To use the cliche´d porn test: "I know it when I see it" - I look at BOR90 and I see a sailboat. If you decided to replace the sails on your boat with quarter inch plywood would your boat cease to be a sailboat?
If your boat has an auxiliary engine it's still a sailboat but you wouldn't turn it on and put it in gear during a race.
I think the writers of the deed where sailors and educated men. They wanted a sailboat race and said don't use an engine for propulsion. I doubt they would believe how some sailors would parse their words today.
Whether they would have allowed engines to trim the sails is a separate issue and one I think the majority wish they had addressed.

i completely agree.

[Alpha FB]

Kind of related subject :

in small boat sailing (particularily windsurfing) it's possible to propell the boat in windless conditions by 'pumping' the sail

would this be possible with these monsters, and, more to the point, would this be permissable, considering the sails are sheeted in by engines...