What Would Schuyler Do?

idontwan2know · February 7, 2008

Common wisdom on the forums has been that Alinghi could choose to meet Oracle's 90' LWL multi with an (up to) 115’ LWL multi of two or more masts and discussion has centered around whether such a boat would ultimately faster than a shorter sloop. To my mind this is an unwarranted assumption. If the whole keel yacht nonsense has shown us anything, it's that people can look at the same passage in a document and see it as obviously meaning two completely different things. A reexamination of this little facet might provide some new meat for us to chew on, at the least.

First, let's state the question clearly: Under a default DoG match, can the defender choose to meet a single-masted challenger of max 90' LWL with a two masted defender of max 115' LWL?

As I see it there are three controlling factors here: 1) The deed of gift; 2) The Mercury Bay Decision interpreting the DoG; 3) Extrinsic evidence as to the understanding of the deed's author, George Shuyler.

1) The Deed of Gift:

As we all learned in the initial case, NY trust law requires that the trust document be read "by the four corners", i.e. what the plain language of the deed itself says. Extrinsic evidence as to what the author meant can only be considered if there is some ambiguity in the literal language of the trust document itself. The relevant portion of the deed says:

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.

So, does the wording suggest that the challenger and defender can each select which type of boat to build, or does it suggest that both "yachts or vessels" must both be of the same type(insofar as the number of masts is concerned)? At best, it seems unclear. Certainly it doesn't explicitly preclude differing types. However, to my mind, the fact that both clauses use the plural when referring to the boats..."yachts or vessls" in the first and "they" in the second...could certainly be read to suggest that it is an either/or limitation for both boats in the match. Separated from each other, it would read. "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. The yachts or vessels, if of more than one mast, shall be not less than eighty feet, nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water-line." That reading seems to say strongly that both boats in a default DoG match must be either single-masted or two-masted, and since the challenger declares their boat first, they get to choose. Have I changed the meaning by replacing the semi-colon with a period? Certainly it's a debatable point, but most of my English professors would have said no.

In my mind, the deed can be read, according to its plain language, either way on this question. With ambiguous wording, the "four corners" requirement falls by the wayside and outside evidence as to what George Schuyler intended can be considered. However, the Mercury Bay Decision has already interpreted the deed when it comes to whether the defender has to meet the challenger in a "similar" boat, so let's examine that finding to see if it can decide the question first.

2) The Mercury Bay Decision:

For sake of background, in the initial decision by Justice Ciparick it was found that the deed intended a match between similar types of vessels, not a "mismatch" and that therefore SDYC could not defend in a catamaran against a monohull challenger. The appeals court disagreed and held that the only limits on the competing vessels were those outlined in the deed itself. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of the Mercury Bay decision from which I can copy and paste (Stingray, with his prodigious search engine skills, might be able to), but I assure you, that's what the relevant portions say.

On first blush, the appeals court decision seems to knock a serious hole in any argument that the defender must meet the challenger in a similar boat. However, we have to look a little deeper than that. Justice Ciparick's decision was based on a belief, not outlined specifically in the deed, that the deed intended a fair match between similar vessels. The appeals court held that Justice Ciparick improperly read a fairness expectation into the deed that wasn't "by the four corners". They held that since the deed was already explicit on the requirements of the competing vessels, nothing more should be considered.

However, GGYC's likely claim that SNG must meet them with a single-masted vessel would not be based on Ciparick's presumption of "fairness". It would be based on a possible interpretation of the specific requirements in the DoG, already endorsed by the Mercury Bay decision. Hence, the Mercury Bay decision does not present any difficulty to a claim that SNG must meet GGYC in a single-masted boat.

So, we've made a good case that the deed is at least ambiguous on this point, and found that Mercury Bay is not relevant. To resolve the question, we have to try to determine what George Shuyler intended via outside evidence. Or, as the thread title asks, what would George Shuyler do?

3) WWSD?

We're fortunate to have a wealth of statements and writings of one George L. Schuyler to rely on in figuring out exactly what he meant. I won't claim to have looked at a tenth of it, but I did find one quote that seems to address this point directly while researching SNG's claim to a right to "understand" the challenging yacht. You can find the story, an interview with Schuyler just after the writing of the third(and current) DoG, at the NY Times website here. The money quote is about halfway in:

"If the English gentlemen were sharp they would would build a ninety-foot boat and then tell us that they do not care to arrange a series of races by mutual consent, but will abide by the terms of the deed. The result would be races on the open sea, boat against boat, no time allowance being given, and we would be forced to build a nintey-foot boat unless we would be content to meet the challenger with a boat four feet shorter[referring to Volunteer, the only existing defender at the time]."

There you have it, in George L. Shuyler's own words, that faced with a 90' challenge under default DoG terms, the defender would be "forced" to respond with a presumably single-masted 90' boat!

So, to summarize, the deed of gift is unclear, Mercury Bay isn't relevant to a claim based on the deed's specific requirements, and George Schuyler's own words indicate that the defender cannot choose to meet a 90' single-masted challenger with a 115' two-masted defender. I'm not a lawyer, but I do like to play one on the internet. Anyone(Simon? Marian? PSP?) care to craft a hypothetical SNG response to my hypothetical GGYC claim?

Theoretic · February 7, 2008

The money quote is about halfway in:

"and we would be forced to build a nintey-foot boat unless we would be content to meet the challenger with a boat four feet shorter[referring to Volunteer, the only existing defender at the time]."

There you have it, in George L. Shuyler's own words, that faced with a 90' challenge under default DoG terms, the defender would be "forced" to respond with a presumably single-masted 90' boat!

1) It can be read that G.S. doesn't beleave 2 masted 115footer could compete, and thus 90footer should be built. Same reasoning as with why not to use 86footer existing one ; it isn't against the rules either just regarded as uncompetitive. Therefore using word "forced to..." relates to uncompetitive not to illegal. I'm not saying this would be correct interpretation, just that it seems like a possible claim to me.

2) Another point is that in this quote from 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.

there isn't any limitation how long waterline can be if yacht has no mast at all. So does a solid winged vessel have any masts ? One could argue that it hasn't. I'm not arguing that this is a correct assumption either, just that it seems possible as well to claim so.

idontwan2know · February 7, 2008

1) It can be read that G.S. doesn't beleave 2 masted 115footer could compete, and thus 90footer should be built. Same reasoning as with why not to use 86footer existing one ; it isn't against the rules either just regarded as uncompetitive. Therefore using word "forced to..." relates to uncompetitive not to illegal. I'm not saying this would be correct interpretation, just that it seems like a possible claim to me.

Agreed. We don't know what assumptions underlied the statement. This is precisely why courts avoid divining the intent of long dead authors when they can.

I am not taking the position that Alinghi can't show up with a 115' yawl, just that it shouldn't be taken for granted that they can. There is at least a reasonable logical argument against it.

MR.CLEAN · February 7, 2008

Well done, IDW2K - I never read it that way before, but it actually seems quite clear - the language does lump the defender and challenger in the same type of boat. If a judge saw that as clear enough, that would be the end of the story.

If extrinsic evidence of the Deed's meaning with regard to masts is going to be introduced, I think the most relevant evidence would be past Cups. Did America compete against sloops and/or ketches? Were there other matches between differing rig types? This is direct evidence of the way the deed functioned.

deckersr · February 7, 2008

3) WWSD?

We're fortunate to have a wealth of statements and writings of one George L. Schuyler to rely on in figuring out exactly what he meant. I won't claim to have looked at a tenth of it, but I did find one quote that seems to address this point directly while researching SNG's claim to a right to "understand" the challenging yacht. You can find the story, an interview with Schuyler just after the writing of the third(and current) DoG, at the NY Times website here. The money quote is about halfway in:

"If the English gentlemen were sharp they would would build a ninety-foot boat and then tell us that they do not care to arrange a series of races by mutual consent, but will abide by the terms of the deed. The result would be races on the open sea, boat against boat, no time allowance being given, and we would be forced to build a nintey-foot boat unless we would be content to meet the challenger with a boat four feet shorter[referring to Volunteer, the only existing defender at the time]."

There you have it, in George L. Shuyler's own words, that faced with a 90' challenge under default DoG terms, the defender would be "forced" to respond with a presumably single-masted 90' boat!

So, to summarize, the deed of gift is unclear, Mercury Bay isn't relevant to a claim based on the deed's specific requirements, and George Schuyler's own words indicate that the defender cannot choose to meet a 90' single-masted challenger with a 115' two-masted defender. I'm not a lawyer, but I do like to play one on the internet. Anyone(Simon? Marian? PSP?) care to craft a hypothetical SNG response to my hypothetical GGYC claim?

I'm only responding to the WWSD section because I and others have refuted the first in other threads. The second section depends on your interpretation of the first. The third is new material to me.

The title of that NY Times article was "A Question of Fairness". In it Schuyler was responding to the controversey of the day in which the English believed the new DoG was unfair.

You shouldn't conveniently omit a vital part of the quote that you use to support your position. What Schuyler is doing, in an amazing display of fairness, is pointing out how ridiculous the English claim of unfairness is by telling them and the entire world exactly how to go about beating the defender at that time. Schuylers full quote in that NY Times article reads (emphasis mine):

"Look at our position at present. We only have one of the recent cup defenders-the Volunteer-to fall back upon, and she is for sale and may be sold next Fall. If the English gentlemen were sharp they would build a ninety foot boat and then tell us that they do not care to arrange a series of races by mutual consent, but will abide by the terms of the deed. The result would be races on the open sea, boat against boat, no time allowance being given, and we would be forced to build a nintey-foot boat unless we would be content to meet the challenger with a boat four feet shorter."

I believe you are also incorrect regarding the 'money quote'. Here it is, the elipses indicate that there is a part of the original quote missing, and again empahsis mine:

". . . The main reason we ask for the load water line length, draught of water, beam at the water line, and extreme beam is to know what kind of a vessel we have to meet. I believe the callenged party has a right to know what the yacht challenging is like, so it can meet her with a yacht of her own type if it is so desired."

If it is so desired indicates that Schuyler intended the type of boat for the defender (single or two masted) to be their choice.

P_Wop · February 7, 2008

2) Another point is that in this quote from 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.

there isn't any limitation how long waterline can be if yacht has no mast at all. So does a solid winged vessel have any masts ? One could argue that it hasn't. I'm not arguing that this is a correct assumption either, just that it seems possible as well to claim so.

I think a "solid winged vessel" can also be expressed as a "vessel with a wing mast". The solid wing almost certainly fulfills the definition of a 'mast', i.e. "a spar or structure rising above the hull and upper portions of a ship or boat to hold sails, spars, rigging, booms, signals, etc., at some point on the fore-and-aft line, as a foremast or mainmast." Unless someone says there's no sail. In which case we look at 'sail', and find: "an area of canvas or other fabric extended to the wind in such a way as to transmit the force of the wind to an assemblage of spars and rigging mounted firmly on a hull, raft, iceboat, etc., so as to drive it along." Since the wingmast/solid wing will almost certainly be made or covered with a layer of fabric (even if carbon fibre), and will have a more solid leading edge, it looks like this might pass.

Hey, beats arguing about ferking colons.....

Brian Weslake · February 7, 2008

There you have it, in George L. Shuyler's own words, that faced with a 90' challenge under default DoG terms, the defender would be "forced" to respond with a presumably single-masted 90' boat!
So, to summarize, the deed of gift is unclear, Mercury Bay isn't relevant to a claim based on the deed's specific requirements, and George Schuyler's own words indicate that the defender cannot choose to meet a 90' single-masted challenger with a 115' two-masted defender. I'm not a lawyer, but I do like to play one on the internet. Anyone(Simon? Marian? PSP?) care to craft a hypothetical SNG response to my hypothetical GGYC claim?

I agree with your conclusions, and I think the fact that challengers have always been met by defenders carrying the same number of masts supports this. The NYYC was more than happy to push the rules when it wished to, but it never met a single masted challenger with a schooner.

deckersr · February 7, 2008

I agree with your conclusions, and I think the fact that challengers have always been met by defenders carrying the same number of masts supports this. The NYYC was more than happy to push the rules when it wished to, but it never met a single masted challenger with a schooner.

I think it is because all of the matches where mutual consent, not DoG default matches.

I think that allowing a two masted vessel to have a longer lwl was to compensate for the inherent disadvantage of having two masts.

Brian Weslake · February 7, 2008

I believe you are also incorrect regarding the 'money quote'. Here it is, the elipses indicate that there is a part of the original quote missing, and again empahsis mine:

". . . The main reason we ask for the load water line length, draught of water, beam at the water line, and extreme beam is to know what kind of a vessel we have to meet. I believe the callenged party has a right to know what the yacht challenging is like, so it can meet her with a yacht of her own type if it is so desired."

If it is so desired indicates that Schuyler intended the type of boat for the defender (single or two masted) to be their choice.

Type is more likely to refer to hull design. The British typically challenged in deep, narrow and heavy keel yachts and the Americans typically defended in broad, shallow centerboarders. The differences between these types were the major topic of discussions in the yachting press during the 1870 - 1895, with the two schools of thought coming closer together until Herreshof designed Defender, a keel boat, for the 1895 cup.

hhn92 · February 7, 2008

Schuyler would probably kick EB in the ass and tell him to get on with it, "whadda ya afraid of"?

"You're the defender, you gotta get out there and defend the Cup, quit screwing around with this 'vision' thing. Being the defender does not have anything to do with a 'vision'. Its about coming up with a faster boat than the challenger and sailing it like you stole it.

You think Charlie Barr worried about 'vision'? DC? Dick Brown? They worried about whether Steers, Herreshoff, Butler, Valentin, etc. were designing something faster than the other guy.

Let the club worry about the running the event, you just go race. We did not get into this thing to make money. Maybe win a wager or two, but not a money making franchise.

Oh yeah, why don't you go read a little history on how we won the Cup and maybe it will help you figure it out. See that thread on the 'Sailing Anarchy AC Forum' thing, whatever this internet deal is, about 'America' winning the Cup."

Of course, maybe in more of a NY accent style, but pretty close to his thinking.

SimonN · February 7, 2008

". . . The main reason we ask for the load water line length, draught of water, beam at the water line, and extreme beam is to know what kind of a vessel we have to meet. I believe the challenged party has a right to know what the yacht challenging is like, so it can meet her with a yacht of her own type if it is so desired."

So, based on this quote, why do people believe that a challenger can build a boat with substantially different dimensions from those stated in the challenge. To do so would mean that the defender would no longer know what the challenge yacht is like, the exact thing that GS states is the reason for giving the dimensions.

hhn92 · February 7, 2008

QUOTE(deckersr @ Jan 29 2008, 10:05 PM) You got it right on the "shall not be exceeded" part, but missed on who it applies to. It only applies to the challenger's vessel.

This text form the Mercury Bay court decision http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/arc...ry_sandiego.htm

"Nothing in the deed limits the design of the defending club's vessel other than the length on water-line limits applicable to all competing vessels, nor are the competing vessels expressly limited to monohulls."

"In this match, however, the deed expressly permits a defense by any type of yacht or vessel, and restricts the actual vessels to be used only by the length on load water-line restrictions applicable to all "competing vessels", the latter phrase again making clear the donors' intention to leave both the defender's and the challenger's choice of vessel otherwise unrestricted."

Another little gem I found in reading the Mercury Bay decision, which has been brought up in another thread, stating that the draught of the 'keel' and the draught of the 'centerboards'.

"Centre-board or sliding keel vessels shall always be allowed to compete in any race for the Cup, and no restriction nor limitation whatever shall be placed upon the use of such centre-board or sliding keel, nor shall the centre-board or sliding keel be considered a part of the vessel for any purposes of measurement"

My post #33 from 'How Narrow will Cahn's decision be' thread. The link goes to the Mercury Bay decision. This section to me seems to make it necessary to stay within the limits of the challenge, but the deed does not specify boat type, just limits. Therefor, you could have a two masted vessel within the 90' waterline limitation, but do not exceed the dimensions of the challenge.

deckersr · February 7, 2008

So, based on this quote, why do people believe that a challenger can build a boat with substantially different dimensions from those stated in the challenge. To do so would mean that the defender would no longer know what the challenge yacht is like, the exact thing that GS states is the reason for giving the dimensions.

I am one of those that believes that. It is because of 2 things. First, if taken literally, the shall not be exceeded wording prevents the challenger from buiding a faster boat ie longer=faster, wider mixed but on internally ballasted vessels it effects form stability and therefore sail carrying ability therefore faster, more draft better pointing and possibly more sail carrying ability therefore faster etc. So the dimensions given ROUGHLY describes the fastest boat the challenger intends to build. The limitations where put in there to give the defender an opportunity to build an appropriate vessel to defend. If the challenger showed up in a vessel that didn't make maximum use of what their challenge stated, bad on them and no harm to the defender because they planned for the challenger to show up in something faster.

Second, it's just plain poor wording and taking advantage of that might violate the spirit of the deed, but not the letter.

BTW, I also think Schuyler intended this competition to be sailed in the fastest possible mono hulls but the court disagreed, because they limited themselves (on appeal) to the letter of the deed.

hhn92 · February 7, 2008

BTW, I also think Schuyler intended this competition to be sailed in the fastest possible mono hulls but the court disagreed, because they limited themselves (on appeal) to the letter of the deed.

Multi-hull vessels were a novelty at the time that GS wrote the deed, and were obviously not considered as an AC boat worth noting. My thinking is he would have mentioned them if he considered them a viable option.

Due to the progress of technology, multi-hull vessels are now a viable sailing vessel in competition. This just was not the case in 1887. Schuyler would probably think that multi-hulls were 'freaks'. Probably would intrigue him, but still think of them as a novelty.

deckersr · February 7, 2008

Multi-hull vessels were a novelty at the time that GS wrote the deed, and were obviously not considered as an AC boat worth noting. My thinking is he would have mentioned them if he considered them a viable option.

Due to the progress of technology, multi-hull vessels are now a viable sailing vessel in competiton. This just was not the case in 1887. Schuyler would probably think that multi-hulls were 'freaks'. Probably would intrigue him, but still think of them as a novelty.

I agree.

Stingray · February 7, 2008

First, let's state the question clearly: Under a default DoG match, can the defender choose to meet a single-masted challenger of max 90' LWL with a two masted defender of max 115' LWL?

As I see it there are three controlling factors here: 1) The deed of gift; 2) The Mercury Bay Decision interpreting the DoG; 3) Extrinsic evidence as to the understanding of the deed's author, George Shuyler.

1) The Deed of Gift:

As we all learned in the initial case, NY trust law requires that the trust document be read "by the four corners", i.e. what the plain language of the deed itself says. Extrinsic evidence as to what the author meant can only be considered if there is some ambiguity in the literal language of the trust document itself. The relevant portion of the deed says:

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.

Seems obvious. The passage implies very strongly that both competing yachts (the 'they') be of one type, or the other. Any other intent read into it is clearly unreasonable.

Brian Weslake · February 7, 2008

wider mixed but on internally ballasted vessels it effects form stability and therefore sail carrying ability therefore faster, more draft better pointing and possibly more sail carrying ability therefore faster etc. So the dimensions given ROUGHLY describes the fastest boat the challenger intends to build.

Firstly, beam and draft are not both directly speed producing factors. Narrow beam and deep draft may be as fast as wide beam and shallow draft, but a deep wide boat is likely to be slower than both. You only have to look at the trend in beam over the past 15 years in the ACC boats to see that.

Besides, if your point were to be true, a challenger would simply state length 90ft, beam 50ft, draft 50 ft and then design a yacht that lay somewhere inside those limits. In other words the dimensions would give the defender zero information about the challenger. This interpretation is counter to Schuyler's stated intent as well as being fairly ridiculous. I seem to remember Clean pointing out something about trusts not being allowed to be interpreted in a manner that was absurd. So I don't think your interpretation would stand up in court.

MR.CLEAN · February 7, 2008

Firstly, beam and draft are not both directly speed producing factors. Narrow beam and deep draft may be as fast as wide beam and shallow draft, but a deep wide boat is likely to be slower than both. You only have to look at the trend in beam over the past 15 years in the ACC boats to see that.

Besides, if your point were to be true, a challenger would simply state length 90ft, beam 50ft, draft 50 ft and then design a yacht that lay somewhere inside those limits. In other words the dimensions would give the defender zero information about the challenger. This interpretation is counter to Schuyler's stated intent as well as being fairly ridiculous. I seem to remember Clean pointing out something about trusts not being allowed to be interpreted in a manner that was absurd. So I don't think your interpretation would stand up in court.

Schuyler's stated intent is irrelevant, and shouldn't be admitted unless the deed is clearly ambiguous.

Equality has nothing to do with the Cup match, as explained in Mercury Bay.

Brian Weslake · February 7, 2008

Schuyler's stated intent is irrelevant, and shouldn't be admitted unless the deed is clearly ambiguous.

Equality has nothing to do with the Cup match, as explained in Mercury Bay.

So is the deed clearly ambiguous or not?, If not, why is this discussion going on at all?

MR.CLEAN · February 7, 2008

So is the deed clearly ambiguous or not?, If not, why is this discussion going on at all?

That's up to the Judge to decide, and up to the lawyers to rack up bills arguing about.

Stingray · February 7, 2008

Well done, IDW2K - I never read it that way before, but it actually seems quite clear - the language does lump the defender and challenger in the same type of boat. If a judge saw that as clear enough, that would be the end of the story.

If extrinsic evidence of the Deed's meaning with regard to masts is going to be introduced, I think the most relevant evidence would be past Cups. Did America compete against sloops and/or ketches? Were there other matches between differing rig types? This is direct evidence of the way the deed functioned.

That question is like a floating fastball, fat and right over the plate. This Q and A should crush it outta the park:

Q: Has a one-masted yacht ever raced against a two-masted yacht in the AC?

A: Never after 1851, a fleet race. They were all schooners in '70. The NYYC barred sloops against Cambria, a schooner.

deckersr · February 7, 2008

Firstly, beam and draft are not both directly speed producing factors. Narrow beam and deep draft may be as fast as wide beam and shallow draft, but a deep wide boat is likely to be slower than both. You only have to look at the trend in beam over the past 15 years in the ACC boats to see that.

Besides, if your point were to be true, a challenger would simply state length 90ft, beam 50ft, draft 50 ft and then design a yacht that lay somewhere inside those limits. In other words the dimensions would give the defender zero information about the challenger. This interpretation is counter to Schuyler's stated intent as well as being fairly ridiculous. I seem to remember Clean pointing out something about trusts not being allowed to be interpreted in a manner that was absurd. So I don't think your interpretation would stand up in court.

Your right there PSP, in fact, I was defending a theory that I previously believed and have since backed away from. Check this post. Whats worse is I used faulty logic to defend the position.

If I could edit that post I would remove the entire first paragraph which you responded to. To answer Simon's question about why people believe they could show up in a vessel different from what they described in the challenge I would still answer that the poor wording of the DoG invites abuse. It says the dimensions of the challege cannot be exceeded, it doesn't say anything about <insert antonym of exceeded here>. The wording in the DoG, I think, would permit a challenger to build something smaller than stated in the challenge.

deckersr · February 7, 2008

Well done, IDW2K - I never read it that way before, but it actually seems quite clear - the language does lump the defender and challenger in the same type of boat. If a judge saw that as clear enough, that would be the end of the story.

If extrinsic evidence of the Deed's meaning with regard to masts is going to be introduced, I think the most relevant evidence would be past Cups. Did America compete against sloops and/or ketches? Were there other matches between differing rig types? This is direct evidence of the way the deed functioned.

This would be direct evidence of mutual consent matches, not DoG default matches.

paps49 · February 7, 2008

Jesus, can we go back to cleansing colons, this here's some serious shit?

SimonN · February 7, 2008

That question is like a floating fastball, fat and right over the plate. This Q and A should crush it outta the park:

Q: Has a one-masted yacht ever raced against a two-masted yacht in the AC?

A: Never after 1851, a fleet race. They were all schooners in '70. The NYYC barred sloops against Cambria, a schooner.

By the same arguement, they shouldn't have allowed a cat.

To answer Simon's question about why people believe they could show up in a vessel different from what they described in the challenge I would still answer that the poor wording of the DoG invites abuse. It says the dimensions of the challege cannot be exceeded, it doesn't say anything about <insert antonym of exceeded here>. The wording in the DoG, I think, would permit a challenger to build something smaller than stated in the challenge.

Still, this goes against other things that have been said. To suggest that you can build something smaller means interpreting the wording as to include something that isn't there. Everybody keeps saying "4 corners" but I cannot see the words that the boat can differ from the dimensions provided.

However, I think that if we do accept that the boat can be smaller, we are overlooking the requirement to provide "a certificate" of the required dimensions. A certificate is a lot stronger than other words that might have been used. The DoG could have said that the dimensions should be provided, but that would be less strong. In the same way. it could have said that the challenger must provide the maximum dimensions, which is what you are saying, in effect, that it says. But it doesn't say that. So, if you build something different from your certificate, why aren't you in breach!

The problem is that what I believe it all means can only be assumed, which isn't within the "4 corners". We know that the "shall not be exceeded" clause was added due to a boat that didn't float on its designed LWL. We know that when the DoG was written, there was no hope at all of designing a boat and that it would float exactly to its designed BWL and LWL. You had to splash the boat to find out what the actual measurements were. So, if your boat was accidently smaller, it would be OK but bigger was considered a no go.

idontwan2know · February 7, 2008

By the same arguement, they shouldn't have allowed a cat.

Please try to keep up, Simon. Precedent in prior cups is relevant because there is potentially ambiguous wording regarding the number of masts that the precedent can help clarify. There is no ambiguous wording regarding the number of hulls.

Still, this goes against other things that have been said. To suggest that you can build something smaller means interpreting the wording as to include something that isn't there. Everybody keeps saying "4 corners" but I cannot see the words that the boat can differ from the dimensions provided.

However, I think that if we do accept that the boat can be smaller, we are overlooking the requirement to provide "a certificate" of the required dimensions. A certificate is a lot stronger than other words that might have been used. The DoG could have said that the dimensions should be provided, but that would be less strong. In the same way. it could have said that the challenger must provide the maximum dimensions, which is what you are saying, in effect, that it says. But it doesn't say that. So, if you build something different from your certificate, why aren't you in breach!

The problem is that what I believe it all means can only be assumed, which isn't within the "4 corners". We know that the "shall not be exceeded" clause was added due to a boat that didn't float on its designed LWL. We know that when the DoG was written, there was no hope at all of designing a boat and that it would float exactly to its designed BWL and LWL. You had to splash the boat to find out what the actual measurements were. So, if your boat was accidently smaller, it would be OK but bigger was considered a no go.

FWIW, I think you're right on this, but it won't matter. GGYC will turn up with a boat with a 90' beam and SNG will have to come up with some seriously screwy measurements to challenge it. Fact is, both teams have every reason to turn up with a wholesome boat under the deed. Any boat can be challenged, but if either team were to try diving after loopholes it would be a very foolish risk.

idontwan2know · February 7, 2008

That question is like a floating fastball, fat and right over the plate. This Q and A should crush it outta the park:

Q: Has a one-masted yacht ever raced against a two-masted yacht in the AC?

A: Never after 1851, a fleet race. They were all schooners in '70. The NYYC barred sloops against Cambria, a schooner.

As further evidence of how George Schuyler would have viewed this issue, it is my understanding that during this period(and for quite a long time after), the NYYC classified boats by rig. Schooners raced against schooners, sloops against sloops.

SimonN · February 7, 2008

Please try to keep up, Simon. Precedent in prior cups is relevant because there is potentially ambiguous wording regarding the number of masts that the precedent can help clarify. There is no ambiguous wording regarding the number of hulls.

I don't think it is ambiguous but more importantly, I don't think this nwill come up

FWIW, I think you're right on this, but it won't matter. GGYC will turn up with a boat with a 90' beam and SNG will have to come up with some seriously screwy measurements to challenge it. Fact is, both teams have every reason to turn up with a wholesome boat under the deed. Any boat can be challenged, but if either team were to try diving after loopholes it would be a very foolish risk.

The issue isn't the extreme beam, which I am sure will be 90'. The problem is over the BWL and the SNG tedam have already said this is an issue. If the design is such that both ama's are are in the water when the boat is static, it will certainly make matters easier but if the beams are canted so as to get one of the hulls out when static and sailing, there will be major trouble.

deckersr · February 7, 2008

By the same arguement, they shouldn't have allowed a cat.

Still, this goes against other things that have been said. To suggest that you can build something smaller means interpreting the wording as to include something that isn't there. Everybody keeps saying "4 corners" but I cannot see the words that the boat can differ from the dimensions provided.

However, I think that if we do accept that the boat can be smaller, we are overlooking the requirement to provide "a certificate" of the required dimensions. A certificate is a lot stronger than other words that might have been used. The DoG could have said that the dimensions should be provided, but that would be less strong. In the same way. it could have said that the challenger must provide the maximum dimensions, which is what you are saying, in effect, that it says. But it doesn't say that. So, if you build something different from your certificate, why aren't you in breach!

The problem is that what I believe it all means can only be assumed, which isn't within the "4 corners". We know that the "shall not be exceeded" clause was added due to a boat that didn't float on its designed LWL. We know that when the DoG was written, there was no hope at all of designing a boat and that it would float exactly to its designed BWL and LWL. You had to splash the boat to find out what the actual measurements were. So, if your boat was accidently smaller, it would be OK but bigger was considered a no go.

Regarding what others have said, when it comes to modern interpretation of the DoG I trust what it says in the Mercury Bay appeal above all others. Here is an excerpt from that decision which explains what 4 corners means to the court.

. . . The legal issue we must determine is whether the donors of the America's Cup, as the settlors of the trust in which it is held, intended to exclude catamarans or otherwise restrict the defender's choice of vessel by the vessel selected by the challenger. Long-settled rules of construction preclude an attempt to divine a settlor's intention by looking first to extrinsic evidence. Rather, the trust instrument is to be construed as written and the settlor's intention determined solely from the unambiguous language of the instrument itself. It is only where the court determines the words of the trust instrument to be ambiguous that it may properly resort to extrinsic evidence. The rationale underlying this basic rule of construction is that the words used in the instrument itself are the best evidence of the intention of the drafter of the document. Therefore, we must examine the plain language of the Deed of Gift at issue here.

Contrary to Mercury Bay's contentions, nowhere in the Deed of Gift have the donors expressed an intention to prohibit the use of multihull vessels or to require the defender of the Cup to race a vessel of the same type as the vessel to be used by the challenger. . . .

Using this as our guide, we examine the DoG looking for wording that excludes a vessel larger than the declared dimensions. It is found in the following.

Accompanying the ten months' notice of challenge there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water-line; beam at load water-line and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded;

Next, we examine the DoG looking for wording that excludes a vessel smaller than the declared dimensions. I cannot find it.

So, within the four corners there is nothing that prohibits a smaller vessel. Lacking that, and based on the example the court set previously, I don't think the court would throw out the challenge on this alone.

Regarding the certificate issue, I believe you have something there. I hadn't considered the significance of certificate rather than simply a statement of some sort. The certificate is essentially a verification that the stated dimensions are truthful. If it is determined that the challengers certificate was intentionally misleading, I think the defender could declare the challenge invalid.

Of course this is a double edged sword, it works for SNG but it also works for GGYC. IF GGYC comes up with a plausible standard for measuring their boat, and SNG uses some other standard of measuring it and then seeks to have it disqualified for not measuring in, they will have a tough time proving that GGYC was intentionally misleading in their certificate.

In the case of the Thistle, Schuyler blamed the designer for providing bad dimensions to the challenger which they then used in the certificate and therefore the challengers unintentionally, through no fault of their own, provided an incorrect certificate. Therefore their challenge was allowed.

Theoretic · February 7, 2008

Firstly, beam and draft are not both directly speed producing factors. Narrow beam and deep draft may be as fast as wide beam and shallow draft, but a deep wide boat is likely to be slower than both. You only have to look at the trend in beam over the past 15 years in the ACC boats to see that.

You are absolutely correct as you used the word directly. Without it things could be different. Even if only ballasted monohulls are the subject as it seems you meant it is. Wider hull and deeper keelfin are speed producing factors provided that sailarea & mast height are increased as said factors allow them to be increased. I can't see this being the case over the past 15 years in the ACC-class. They did restrict sailarea as well as mast height didn't they.

Besides, if your point were to be true, a challenger would simply state length 90ft, beam 50ft, draft 50 ft and then design a yacht that lay somewhere inside those limits. In other words the dimensions would give the defender zero information about the challenger. This interpretation is counter to Schuyler's stated intent as well as being fairly ridiculous. I seem to remember Clean pointing out something about trusts not being allowed to be interpreted in a manner that was absurd. So I don't think your interpretation would stand up in court.

I think the BWL gives pretty much zero info about the challenger, in case of tris. It is totally undefined and thus ambiguous. As far as wording "certificate" goes, it just allows the challenger using outside body for measuring it for said certificate, and takes the burden out of the challenger regarding it's inaccuracy due to undefined term bwl.

Theoretic · February 7, 2008

I don't think it is ambiguous but more importantly, I don't think this nwill come up
The issue isn't the extreme beam, which I am sure will be 90'. The problem is over the BWL and the SNG tedam have already said this is an issue. If the design is such that both ama's are are in the water when the boat is static, it will certainly make matters easier but if the beams are canted so as to get one of the hulls out when static and sailing, there will be major trouble.

There might be another court case about it after racing, but so what. Nobody can be guilty for anything since the word BWL is undefined and the wording of DoG includes the "shall not be exeeded part". All that GGYC have to do is to find just one outside body to support their view of bwl being 90ft as stated in the challenge. No judge is gonna rule the craft illegal just because wording used in DoG is undefined.

paps49 · February 7, 2008

IMHO LE/RC will turn up in a certificate compliant boat and its game on. As S2 says there may be niggles to argue after its over, but even EB wouldnt be stupid enough to take court action after the fact.

And besides if his (EB) team is so hot, all they have to do is win it back in a "normal" AC34. Personally I think if he loses the DOG match, thats the last we will see of Mr Bertarelli.

SimonN · February 7, 2008

IMHO LE/RC will turn up in a certificate compliant boat and its game on. As S2 says there may be niggles to argue after its over, but even EB wouldnt be stupid enough to take court action after the fact.

And besides if his (EB) team is so hot, all they have to do is win it back in a "normal" AC34. Personally I think if he loses the DOG match, thats the last we will see of Mr Bertarelli.

I agree with you that they will turn up with a boat that they believe matches the certificate but having now read BB on the subject of measuring BWL (the Seahorse link in other thread) it seems that SNG will be going after that point in a multi. I suspect it will end up in court.

As for EB being stupid if he takes court action after the event, why? If he believes that the GGYC boat doesn't measure and he cannot challenge it before the race, why shouldn't he go to court after. Put the shoe on the other foot. Let's assume that SNG turn up with a boat that GGYC believes doesn't measure and the courts say "get on with the racing and sort out after" Would they be stupid to go to court after? Of course not. And surely this is what we would expect the court to say, based on Mercury.

Finally, I really don't think you understand EB if you think he will stop if he loses a DoG challenge. Nothing in his sailing history suggests that would happen. In fact, I would suggest that exactly the opposite would happen.

Theoretic · February 7, 2008

I agree with you that they will turn up with a boat that they believe matches the certificate but having now read BB on the subject of measuring BWL (the Seahorse link in other thread) it seems that SNG will be going after that point in a multi. I suspect it will end up in court.

As for EB being stupid if he takes court action after the event, why? If he believes that the GGYC boat doesn't measure and he cannot challenge it before the race, why shouldn't he go to court after.

If EB wins on water what would be the point for him to fight it over court after winning it ?

If BWO wins on the water, and SNG brings it in court, what's the result. I think GGYC can easily find at least some outside body to support their view it's legal boat. If SNG brings another body to show otherwise, it only proves that DoG is unclear on the matter. That is not GGYCs fault and thus doesn't chance the result on the water. Just wasting time and money of the teams & court, and so what, if the judge doesn't like it he sure has some means to get rid of it by making his decision fast. Meanwhile GGYC can continue on the next AC if it wants so, no need to waite, nothing SNG can do to prevent it. Court will decide then not SNG.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Let's assume that SNG turn up with a boat that GGYC believes doesn't measure and the courts say "get on with the racing and sort out after" Would they be stupid to go to court after?

If they win on the water and still go to court then yes, otherwise no.

Of course not. And surely this is what we would expect the court to say, based on Mercury.

Finally, I really don't think you understand EB if you think he will stop if he loses a DoG challenge. Nothing in his sailing history suggests that would happen. In fact, I would suggest that exactly the opposite would happen.

I don't think it matters who wins, the winner is not going to take it to court, the loser might, if they think there is a case that could change the result in court, pointing a uncertainty in wording of DoG might not be reason big enough to continue in court regardless who wins and who loses.

Stingray · February 7, 2008

I agree with you that they will turn up with a boat that they believe matches the certificate but having now read BB on the subject of measuring BWL (the Seahorse link in other thread) it seems that SNG will be going after that point in a multi. I suspect it will end up in court.

As for EB being stupid if he takes court action after the event, why? If he believes that the GGYC boat doesn't measure and he cannot challenge it before the race, why shouldn't he go to court after. Put the shoe on the other foot. Let's assume that SNG turn up with a boat that GGYC believes doesn't measure and the courts say "get on with the racing and sort out after" Would they be stupid to go to court after? Of course not. And surely this is what we would expect the court to say, based on Mercury.

Finally, I really don't think you understand EB if you think he will stop if he loses a DoG challenge. Nothing in his sailing history suggests that would happen. In fact, I would suggest that exactly the opposite would happen.

I expect we'll see Alinghi in '34 if '11, regardless of if he is the Defender or a Challenger. If Ernie was going to give up easily, then he would have walked away from a DoG fight, and yet he clearly hasn't.

As for the DoG Match: I think they will both show up with 90' Multi's. GGYC will bring a 90x90, and if Alinghi wants as much length and RM as possible then they probably will be close to that too.

As for them showing up with a <=115' schooner instead of a <=90' sloop, it seems very unlikely they would take that step. It's just way too risky, betting on how a court might view it, considering what history there is. And I think Grant S implies in the VS interview that the Defender needs to know something about the Challenger's characteristics because the Defender needs to know what to match it with.

Read the interview for the proper context of what he says, but here are some of what I believe to be exerpts that are relevant to the notion that they need to match the GGYC yacht:

--

Grant Simmer:

Let me tell you why it's important. In the old days, when somebody challenged for the America's Cup, they had to describe the vessel they were going to challenge in. That's why you have to submit a certificate of the vessel. You tell the Defender, "we are going to challenge you in a vessel that looks like this, a yacht that looks like this". In the early days, the New York Yacht Club used to say, "you have to tell us exactly the beam of the vessel, the waterline length, what type of boat it is, is it a keel yacht or a centerboard?" Then the NY Yacht Club would either design a boat or pick one out of its fleet in order to race the challenger's vessel.

The reason for providing the certificate is to describe the vessel, not to disguise the vessel.

What does this say about the boat that is going to challenge us to win the America's Cup? What does it tell us?

We believe the challenger has to describe its boat in order for the Defender to prepare for the match. So, they have to do that when they present their challenge and give you a ten-month warning. That's how it works. If that's not true then the whole argument doesn't matter. Why submit any certificate at all? Why not just say, "see you in ten months"?

If you read our argumentation you'll see that the person that wrote the Deed actually said, the reason for providing a certificate of vessel is so that the Defender understands the nature and details of the vessel the challenger is proposing to race.

It's fundamental that when you challenge you describe your vessel

--

hhn92 · February 8, 2008

Isn't this thread about what Schuyler would think, not EB or Simmer?

Look, as I stated the obvious before, GS did not contemplate a multi-hull being anything other than a novelty. Now, that does not preclude one being used but it needs to fit the 'box' of the Deed.

Now, how is a conventional multi-hull measured? Do they measure the offshore cats? If so, how?

I cannot believe that RC, TE, the designers, etc would issue a challenge with those dimensions and not have a pretty solid idea on how those measurements are arrived at. I do not think they are idiots, if they blow this, then maybe they are.

If GGYC shows up with a certifiable boat that meets conventional measurement dimensions of 90'x90' in the challenge, then EB is going to have a hard time arguing this point in front of a sailing jury first, as JC will probably admonish both teams to settle this themselves and to not show up in his court again.

But, nothing has totally gone by the norms so far...................

SimonN · February 8, 2008

Isn't this thread about what Schuyler would think, not EB or Simmer?

You are right. I think he would have taken the Cup back from EB because of teh Protocol and banned LE from ever sailing in the Cup again for using the DoG and courts to try to gain advantage!

Then he would have given it to NYYC, made them the defender and the cup would stay in NY for another 100+ years.............

paps49 · February 8, 2008

You are right. I think he would have taken the Cup back from EB because of teh Protocol and banned LE from ever sailing in the Cup again for using the DoG and courts to try to gain advantage!

Then he would have given it to NYYC, made them the defender and the cup would stay in NY for another 100+ years.............

You fucking Nancy, thats a girly option and Shuls was definately not one of those.

My point was whoever loses on the water would be laughed out of any YC in the universe if they then went back to court. Refer the prick from Chicago (cant recall the name, slum lord, pissed his name didnt get on some shitty cup) his actions have now made his family name synonomous with and a recognised noun/verb for similar actions ie Dickhead.. Do you really think EB or LE's egos could survive that?

Can anyone see Mahamed Ali getting his arse kicked by Joe Frasier and then wingeing in court his gloves were too big?? PLEEEAAASSSEEE get a grip.

mr surly · February 8, 2008

... it will certainly make matters easier but if the beams are canted so as to get one of the hulls out when static and sailing, there will be major trouble.

Why is this a problem?? Lower the upper hull's board into the water and bingo, back to ~90' beam.

PeterHuston · February 8, 2008

Isn't this thread about what Schuyler would think, not EB or Simmer?

Look, as I stated the obvious before, GS did not contemplate a multi-hull being anything other than a novelty. Now, that does not preclude one being used but it needs to fit the 'box' of the Deed.

Now, how is a conventional multi-hull measured? Do they measure the offshore cats? If so, how?

I cannot believe that RC, TE, the designers, etc would issue a challenge with those dimensions and not have a pretty solid idea on how those measurements are arrived at. I do not think they are idiots, if they blow this, then maybe they are.

If GGYC shows up with a certifiable boat that meets conventional measurement dimensions of 90'x90' in the challenge, then EB is going to have a hard time arguing this point in front of a sailing jury first, as JC will probably admonish both teams to settle this themselves and to not show up in his court again.

But, nothing has totally gone by the norms so far...................

Seems to me that this is going to be pretty simple - Ernie invoked that world reknown design/measurement expert Jerome Pels, who put on ISAF letterhead what was and wasn't a keel - and used stuff about the Olympics (where he now claims "Fair racing is possible" - as if it wasn't possible or probable recently?...but I digress).

So - Ernie has probably boxed himself into a very tight corner by lampooning Pels into being his latest bitch, and now Ernie could well be stuck with having to measure the GGYC boat in the way a Tornado is measured.

But then that will all assume by the time the DoG event is conducted (July '08 seems to not have any traction, but Oct '08 has more than a bit) that ISAF monkeyboy Pels doesn't turn around and say "well, catamarans are not part of the Olympics any more, so therefore not only do they not have keels, they aren't even really boats, so therefore given that it is not a boat, it can not be measured...."

Peter Huston

PeterHuston · February 8, 2008

Oh yeah, forgot to add this - my guess - GS would think Ernie is an idiot...

Peter Huston

MR.CLEAN · February 8, 2008

Ernie has probably boxed himself into a very tight corner by lampooning Pels into being his latest bitch, and now Ernie could well be stuck with having to measure the GGYC boat in the way a Tornado is measured.

DING DING DING.

You win a stuffed bunny from the top shelf.

paps49 · February 8, 2008

Why is this a problem?? Lower the upper hull's board into the water and bingo, back to ~90' beam.

Interesting, Newby and welcome. Measurement trim would probably be "Everything down".

Theoretic · February 8, 2008

Isn't this thread about what Schuyler would think, not EB or Simmer?

Now, how is a conventional multi-hull measured ?

For onedesign I don't know exactly, but accurately enough for any practical purpose for sure.

In many european rating systems :

only Loa, sailarea, mast height, max draft boards down and weight are usually measured.

100% sure BWL is not measured and in most (but not all) cases either is Boa.

So what would Schuyler do, I suppose he would change the DoG wording to give different set of measurements for multis and monos and might deny using engines during AC sailing.

SimonN · February 8, 2008

So - Ernie has probably boxed himself into a very tight corner by lampooning Pels into being his latest bitch, and now Ernie could well be stuck with having to measure the GGYC boat in the way a Tornado is measured.

Small problem with this in as far as there is no BWL measurement for a Tornado. In addition, there is nothing under ISAF regs, rules etc. that says how to measure BWL on a multihull. Having looked at every mulitihull rule I can find, there isn't a single reference to BWL.

paps49 · February 8, 2008

Small problem with this in as far as there is no BWL measurement for a Tornado. In addition, there is nothing under ISAF regs, rules etc. that says how to measure BWL on a multihull. Having looked at every mulitihull rule I can find, there isn't a single reference to BWL.

So under ISAF Bmax will suffice!!

hhn92 · February 8, 2008

For onedesign I don't know exactly, but accurately enough for any practical purpose for sure.
In many european rating systems :

only Loa, sailarea, mast height, max draft boards down and weight are usually measured.

100% sure BWL is not measured and in most (but not all) cases either is Boa.

So what would Schuyler do, I suppose he would change the DoG wording to give different set of measurements for multis and monos and might deny using engines during AC sailing.

Now, that's the type of response a I was looking for.

Based on this, and Simon's reasonable reply , there could be good things for either side: For BOR there is not anything in their opinion for EB to hang his hat on. For Alinghi, they can say we'll measure the thing like we want to, since there are no guidelines on how it should be done.

Now, is this true, there are no beam measurement for multi-hulls? Seems unlikely, but has this been true and overlooked for years? Maybe there has never been a need for this measurement? How would you know if somebody built a Tornado a couple of inches wide, to gain righting moment?

Smokey Yunick built a 1966 Chevelle a couple of inches smaller all around for aero-dynamic purposes, bending the rules by going into the 'gray' areas that were not covered. Somebody took notice, the car was banned and NASCAR instituted measurement criteria based on cars coming off the assembly line. (at least back then)

This seems like too big of a hole to not have been covered somewhere.

Stingray, any help here?

Theoretic · February 9, 2008

Now, is this true, there are no beam measurement for multi-hulls? Seems unlikely, but has this been true and overlooked for years? Maybe there has never been a need for this measurement?

Beam by it self is not speed producing factor and therefore does not in most cases effect rating.

If have your boat optimized for light winds and sail it in heavier winds you do have deficit but, it's your own fault. You could have used smaller sails for measurement and sailing and be given a fair rating. Also in practise different windage on different boats is greater problem and it's acts usually to the other direction, more cruising oriented multis have more windage, but less sails and therefore carry them beter. It's certainly not overlooked, but a known decision by people behind rating systems. Also widely known among multi racers. Also in cats having less beam means being capable of lifting a hull earlier and thus have less wetted area than wider cat. Beam can both increase or decrease speed potential depending on conditions, therefore is not counted on most rating systems.

How would you know if somebody built a Tornado a couple of inches wide, to gain righting moment?
This seems like too big of a hole to not have been covered somewhere.

Read my response again please. I didn't write that beam of tornado isn't measured. I wrote separate answers for onedesigns including tornado and for rating purposes limited to europe, since I do not know how things are done elsewhere.

How would you know is sailors on one tornado are 10kg heavier than on other one to gain RM ?

How about if they are taller and thus capable of shifting CoG further out ?

I'd expect these effects not to be taken account but in onedesign like tornado the boat certainly is measured very carefully including just about everything.

Stingray · February 9, 2008

Stingray, any help here?

In case you didn't read the other thread, there is a fair amount of discussion there too.

hhn92 · February 9, 2008

Read my response again please. I didn't write that beam of tornado isn't measured. I wrote separate answers for onedesigns including tornado and for rating purposes limited to europe, since I do not know how things are done elsewhere.

But it seems to indicate that outside of a one design, there may still be no beam measurement.

Theoretic · February 9, 2008

But it seems to indicate that outside of a one design, there may still be no beam measurement.

Correct, in most rating systems in europe that is. Reasons partly explained in my previous post, and to state it shortly, it's because more beam can make you slower or faster, how could that be taken accout on rating ? Well in theory it perhaps could be, but it would then be very, very, very complex issue and the measurement very expensive, producing multinumbered rating like ims. Besides I doubt there is enough knowlidge to do it properly anyway these days. Compare with IMS in monos, how popular is that. Most seem to like something more simple like phrf in usa. Only way to get perfect rating is to forget about rating alltogether and going into onedesign, mono or multi it's the same.

P_Wop · February 9, 2008

So, how many measurers can dance on the head of a tape-measure?

If the fixed 'keel' is immersed in measurement trim, can it be out of the water while sailing? If not, why not?

Shoot holes in this, please.....

SimonN · February 9, 2008

So, how many measurers can dance on the head of a tape-measure?

If the fixed 'keel' is immersed in measurement trim, can it be out of the water while sailing? If not, why not?

Shoot holes in this, please.....

These all measure in the way you say and I have no problem with them. However, you might as well just build a cat, because that is in effect what you would have.

The other "problem" is that the Alinghi team have already said that the other big issue is the "gaps". Simmer said

Once SNG tries to measure the vessel, to see whether it complies with the certificate they are going to have some difficult issues, particularly measuring waterline beam.
..............................If you look at the regulations in regard to multihull yachts, the normal description is the beam of the hull.

Butterworth also made comments about measuring of BWL and how you deal with the "gaps". His analogy is that with LWL, if you were to run your hand all along the boat from one end of the LWL to the other, your hand would stay under water all the time and that is what you would expect if you measure BWL. So, what heppens when your hand comes out of the water!

The whole point of what I am saying is not that one thing is right and another wrong. I am just pointing out that if anybody thinks that Alinghi will stop challenging the validity of the boat, if it is a multihull, they are mistaken.

paps49 · February 9, 2008

These all measure in the way you say and I have no problem with them. However, you might as well just build a cat, because that is in effect what you would have.

The other "problem" is that the Alinghi team have already said that the other big issue is the "gaps". Simmer said

Butterworth also made comments about measuring of BWL and how you deal with the "gaps". His analogy is that with LWL, if you were to run your hand all along the boat from one end of the LWL to the other, your hand would stay under water all the time and that is what you would expect if you measure BWL. So, what heppens when your hand comes out of the water!

The whole point of what I am saying is not that one thing is right and another wrong. I am just pointing out that if anybody thinks that Alinghi will stop challenging the validity of the boat, if it is a multihull, they are mistaken.

Actually Simon that was Snacks, with Rolf ROTFL in the background.

Barges!! we don now nothing about no Fuckin Barges. An we Dutch shuld now Fuckin Barges!!!!

paps49 · February 9, 2008

The whole point of what I am saying is not that one thing is right and another wrong. I am just pointing out that

This Simon is your whole modus operandi, dont let facts get in the way of a good obstuficiation (my word so my spelling).

The other is " I believe " when you know bloody well all that follows is complete "horse shit "

Stingray · February 9, 2008

These all measure in the way you say and I have no problem with them. However, you might as well just build a cat, because that is in effect what you would have.

The other "problem" is that the Alinghi team have already said that the other big issue is the "gaps". Simmer said

Butterworth also made comments about measuring of BWL and how you deal with the "gaps". His analogy is that with LWL, if you were to run your hand all along the boat from one end of the LWL to the other, your hand would stay under water all the time and that is what you would expect if you measure BWL. So, what heppens when your hand comes out of the water!

The whole point of what I am saying is not that one thing is right and another wrong. I am just pointing out that if anybody thinks that Alinghi will stop challenging the validity of the boat, if it is a multihull, they are mistaken.

Actually, what you are referring to was (I think) Schnackenberg, who was picking up and running with the "barge" bullshit, that Lucien really started.

--

Can you give us the in-brief of the BMW Oracle Deed of Gift challenge?

The length is 90ft, the beam at waterline is 90ft and the extreme beam is 90ft which suggests that the boat is plum sided at the extremes. The hull depth is 3ft and there is an extra mention of the draft with the boards down being 20ft. So to me, if you think of waterline length you imagine running your hand along from the bow of the boat, it goes under the water at a certain point and continues under the water until it comes up 90ft later and that's the waterline length.

Sounds like a bit of a barge to me?

Well if you use the same process to determine the waterline beam, then you go down at one point and you continue under water until you come up at another point and that's 90ft away, so yes I suppose 'barge' would probably be the best single word to describe what we are talking about.

What are the perceived advantages from the GGYC/BOR's point of view in creating a challenge such as this?

Perhaps, if they were thinking of opening up their design space and having smaller beams, the advantage would be that they are not limiting themselves, but I think in fairness to any Defender, they would want to stick to the boat that they have described.

I talked a little bit to Rolf [Vrolijk] about it, because the Dutch are renowned for designing barges and particularly barges with leeboards which can sail quite well. Even though he is excellent and inventive, it was obvious that he had no experience in barge design and neither does Dirk [Kramers] and so they are at a little bit of a handicap.

--

Chisnell summed that up well at: A DoG fight between CaTs…

--

Exhibit 1

Posted on the Alinghi website, where Tom Schnackenberg gave his views on the 90' long barge that he (apparently) believes Oracle will be using in the Deed of Gift challenge. We talked in the last post about Alinghi's latest legal contention to the New York State Supreme Court that the Golden Gate Yacht Club's (GGYC) challenge is invalid. The Société Nautique de Genève (SNG)/Alinghi argument is that an error on the GGYC boat certificate forces the club to turn up with a 90 foot wide mono-hull, and that the boat would be so unseaworthy as to be unfit for the race course, thus invalidating Oracle's challenge. Or something like that. Next thing we know, Schnackenburg appears on the Alinghi website discussing how little Rolf Vrolijk (Alinghi's head designer) knows about the sailing barges of his Dutch homeland, and how this puts Alinghi at a disadvantage.

It's a joke, Jim, but not as we know it.

--

Here is the relevant part if the Grant Simmer interview with VS:

--

Simmer: Let me tell you something that started their problems. Once SNG tries to measure the vessel, to see whether it complies with the certificate they are going to have some difficult issues, particularly measuring waterline beam.

Valencia Sailing: Why?

Grant Simmer: If you look at the regulations in regard to multihull yachts, the normal description is the beam of the hull.

--

Excerpt from the Sail World take on it: Silly Season in the America's Cup - Keels 'n Barge

--

Barge Theory

Turning to the next act of the America's Cup's silly season, there was the interview given by ACM's Tom Schnackenberg where he expanded on the "barge theory" that had been touted by Alinghi in respect of what a 90ft by 90ft yacht could look like. An extract from the interview published on the Alinghi website reads:

Can you give us the in-brief of the BMW Oracle Deed of Gift challenge?

"The length is 90ft, the beam at waterline is 90ft and the extreme beam is 90ft which suggests that the boat is plum sided at the extremes. The hull depth is 3ft and there is an extra mention of the draft with the boards down being 20ft. So to me, if you think of waterline length you imagine running your hand along from the bow of the boat, it goes under the water at a certain point and continues under the water until it comes up 90ft later and that's the waterline length."

Sounds like a bit of a barge to me?

"Well if you use the same process to determine the waterline beam, then you go down at one point and you continue under water until you come up at another point and that's 90ft away, so yes I suppose 'barge' would probably be the best single word to describe what we are talking about."

Of course the fallacy of this argument is that the "90ftx90ft Barge Rule" doesn't have a "no hollows" clause, which is typically inserted into class and rating rules for monohulls to ensure that a catamaran or trimaran type cannot evolve.

A good example of this the then 12ft class in New Zealand and Australia - which was a box rule - but did not have a "no hollows" clause. Auckland designer Jim Young produced a 12ft catamaran, which proceeded to blitz the field, and was quickly outlawed for the following year, but not before she had won the Interdominion Trophy.

It then follows that if there is no mention of a "no hollows rule" on which the Deed of Gift is silent, then clearly hollows must be permitted.

At the extremes of design , designers would produce a yacht which was 90ft of load waterline in length, but just touched the water at the extreme beam of 90ft to comply with the requirement for load waterline beam, but met the minimum drag caused by hull immersion.

--

Just wanted to set the record straight about the true origin on the gaps, barges, and the 'run your hand under the water' baloney, and on just some of the responses to it.

SimonN · February 9, 2008

Stingray

Thanks, I couldn't find it. The key factor is that 2 of Alinghi's senior people have raised issues over how a multi is measured. They don't seem to be talking about whether gaps are allowed. Just how to measure the thing. As we have seen, it doesn't matter what the press say or think, it doesn't seem to stop SNG pursuing a point in court, to the limit.

What I find hard to understand is why everybody gets so worked up whenI am suggest that Alinghi is going to continue their delaying tactics and will use every means, including the courts, to avoid the match and should they lose it, then try to get the whole thing overturned. Based on their current behavior, isn't that what is most likely to happen? Simply getting all worked up and attacking me isn't going to change that and it also isn't going to change just because the people on here and journalists say the arguements aren't strong.

Over a month ago, SNG challenged the legitimacy of the GGYC challenge. Most screamed that it was too late and had no substance. Everybody was saying that the judge would simply say get on with it and that would happen either at the first hearing or within days of it. We are still waiting, which is exactly what SNG want. Get used to it. This is what is going to happen for the next year or so, until either the challenge is ruled out, SNG win a DoG challenge or every legal route, appeal etc has been explored If anybody thinks that the judge will simply name a date and that EB will just roll over, dream on.

Or am I wrong? Is EB just going to roll over?

Stingray · February 9, 2008

Stingray

Thanks, I couldn't find it. The key factor is that 2 of Alinghi's senior people have raised issues over how a multi is measured. They don't seem to be talking about whether gaps are allowed. Just how to measure the thing. As we have seen, it doesn't matter what the press say or think, it doesn't seem to stop SNG pursuing a point in court, to the limit.

What I find hard to understand is why everybody gets so worked up whenI am suggest that Alinghi is going to continue their delaying tactics and will use every means, including the courts, to avoid the match and should they lose it, then try to get the whole thing overturned. Based on their current behavior, isn't that what is most likely to happen? Simply getting all worked up and attacking me isn't going to change that and it also isn't going to change just because the people on here and journalists say the arguements aren't strong.

Over a month ago, SNG challenged the legitimacy of the GGYC challenge. Most screamed that it was too late and had no substance. Everybody was saying that the judge would simply say get on with it and that would happen either at the first hearing or within days of it. We are still waiting, which is exactly what SNG want. Get used to it. This is what is going to happen for the next year or so, until either the challenge is ruled out, SNG win a DoG challenge or every legal route, appeal etc has been explored If anybody thinks that the judge will simply name a date and that EB will just roll over, dream on.

Or am I wrong? Is EB just going to roll over?

On 'gaps' - isn't that what all the 'hand underwater' talk is for? They are trying to make the case that the certificate says it is a barge, by the beam given.

But on the rest, I do think you are right - given what we see so far.

I like to think that there are limited avenues of appeals and fresh charges that can be brought. And I like to think that, once the clock starts ticking, Alinghi will face up to the Match like men. And it may be that, once they already have a lot invested in their Defense, that there's less motivation to head it off. It may even be true that there is room for some consent agreements that will benefit the event. It has the potential to be one hell of a spectacle. And some cooperation and signed agreements could also go a long way towards heading off more legal skirmishes.

I hope he puts up a great Defense, but I also like to think that it really doesn't matter all that much to Ernie if he wins or loses an AC33 DoG Match. He has as much said that Challenging was a lot more fun than defending. And he would presumably have the opportunty to be a Challenger again in 2011, and in his own Design even.

So there may be limits to how difficult they make it once they are fully committed, right?

RHough · February 9, 2008

What I find hard to understand is why everybody gets so worked up whenI am suggest that Alinghi is going to continue their delaying tactics and will use every means, including the courts, to avoid the match and should they lose it, then try to get the whole thing overturned. Based on their current behavior, isn't that what is most likely to happen? Simply getting all worked up and attacking me isn't going to change that and it also isn't going to change just because the people on here and journalists say the arguements aren't strong.

Simon is right here. SNG will use anything that they can find or imagine to fight GGYC/BMWO/RC&LE. They (and others like Origin) think that they should be able to run the AC as they see fit. The DoG allows any defender the same freedom that SNG is claiming as their right. Just because clubs have been playing nice for the last 50+ years (except for 1988) does not mean they have to.

People whinge about SNG wanting to control the Challenger series. This is nothing new, a challenger series can only happen if the defender consents to it. Thus, since the defender can refuse to allow a challenger series, they have control. Granted, past defenders have not tried to control the details to the extent that GGYC and SNG did in AC32 (through ACM) and AC33 took that 'vision' to new extremes, but the very existence of a CSS depends on the defender's consent. If the defender did not consent to the CSS, the challenger could not be eliminated. There would be no point in the other teams showing up, unless they wanted to sail for the Cup under the challenger's flag (and the DoG would prevent them from doing so).

What people are upset about is that what the AC is and what they want the AC to be are two different things. They don't want to see it, they want someone to blame. IMO, the view of the Cup held by many is like Don Quixote's view of Dulcinea, honourable and romantic but not based in reality. Dulcinea was a whore, available to the highest bidder. The AC is too. The AC is not sail racing, it is not a regatta, it is a unique prize that has value only as long as people pursue it. A whore's street price is much the same, the price is driven by demand.

Face it folks, the AC is what the DoG says it is. It is a defender controlled event. If it was not, the DoG could be used to enforce "challenger rights". There are none. SNG are just showing the world how any defender can control the Cup through the DoG. People don't like it, boo fucking hoo. The only solution to the AC not being run the way you want it to be is ... to win the damn thing and run it yourself.

So until you are ready to become the new king of the hill and become the trustee, stop whinging. I know it is tough to find that your high school sweetheart is a high class hooker. But that is the reality. I hope facing that reality doesn't drive anyone mad (like Don Quixote), but unlike Dulcinea, the Cup won't try to change, the Cup is what her pimp trustee makes of her. She won't wake up one morning and stop being a whore.

Stingray · February 9, 2008

In case anyone's interested, another one of these is up on Ebay right now.

I was very pleased with the quality, the price, and the packaging. It's the same seller.

I later found out thru the grapevine that Earl is going to great efforts and the profit (if any) is being used for a noble cause, it is given back to sailing.

..

Fwiw, and only slightly off topic - I picked this up at an E-Auction a couple days back and am looking forward to studying it more carefully:

Detail from the above:

The text in the ad said:

--

This is not a modern reproduction, but the actual 1934 printing offered by Yachting Magazine in anticipation of the 15th America’s Cup. Not only is it a fine work of art in its own right, but as the Cup is now entangled in legal wrangling it is a reminder of the J Class era, when Cup yachts weren’t floating billboards, the Defense was not run to a business model, and gentlemen made and kept gentlemen's agreements -- even after a rules dispute such as occured in the actual 1934 race.

The chart was drawn and illustrated by Ernest Clegg, an American artist who was justly renowned for his illustrated maps, and engraved and printed by the Beck Engraving Company, a premier outfit who, among other things, did the covers for the Saturday Evening Post. It was a first-class offering all around, but a flop; the magazine competed with itself by including a page-sized color reproduction in one of its issues and only a handful sold. It is these smaller versions that come up every once in a while. They can be identified by their small size, lower-resolution reproduction, and the Packard ad on the back which often bleeds through in framed versions. In contrast this version is of the highest-quality printing on heavy coated paper, single-sided of course, and is an impressive 20 x 16.5 inches in size.

The chart depicts the course off Newport, RI, and contains a history of the America’s Cup in Clegg’s magnificent calligraphy. It is illustrated with significant Defenders and Challengers up to that time: Puritan, Columbia, Reliant, Thistle, Valkyrie, and Shamrock, as well as the J Class Challenger Endeavour and the contenders for the defense.

The last picture shows the "half roll". The chart was half-rolled gently in 1934 and has taken a set. This can be dealt with by any competent framing shop, as the picture of the one hanging in my study (and an identical one hanging in the Museum of Yachting) shows.

--

hhn92 · February 9, 2008

Simon is right here. SNG will use anything that they can find or imagine to fight GGYC/BMWO/RC&LE. They (and others like Origin) think that they should be able to run the AC as they see fit. The DoG allows any defender the same freedom that SNG is claiming as their right. Just because clubs have been playing nice for the last 50+ years (except for 1988) does not mean they have to.

But that is the whole point, EB was/is not attempting to run it like the DoG states.

And where in the DoG does it state the Defender can tell the Challenger how to prepare for the match? Following EB's logic, he could schedule all the preparations of the challenger, how and when they could practice, and that the challenger would have to tune-up against the defending boat.

Now where is that in the DoG?

The DoG only instructs the Defender to accept a challenge as the Deed specifies, to prepare a boat for the defense, set-up the course and officiating of the match, and to be there at the appointed time ready to go.

Nowhere does it say one word about how the challenger should prepare or that the defender should be a party to those preparations.

RHough · February 9, 2008

But that is the whole point, EB was/is not attempting to run it like the DoG states.

And where in the DoG does it state the Defender can tell the Challenger how to prepare for the match? Following EB's logic, he could schedule all the preparations of the challenger, how and when they could practice, and that the challenger would have to tune-up against the defending boat.

Now where is that in the DoG?

The DoG only instructs the Defender to accept a challenge as the Deed specifies, to prepare a boat for the defense, set-up the course and officiating of the match, and to be there at the appointed time ready to go.

Nowhere does it say one word about how the challenger should prepare or that the defender should be a party to those preparations.

Two choices:

1. DoG defaults. GGYC chooses the dates and declares a boat. SNG chooses the place and writes the rules and sails any damn boat they please.

2. Agree to something else. What SNG will agree to has been clearly stated. If you don't like it, tough. The DoG does not require SNG to talk to you, the DoG gives SNG the rights to do any damn thing they please.

If you don't like what SNG has done *within the limits* of the DoG, what can you do? Not a thing, except try to win the Cup under the default terms.

The DoG says the challenger and defender *may* (if they want to) change the terms of the match to anything they want (within the very broad limits of LWL). If the challenger wants something the defender does not (fair rules, notice of venue, equal boats, a challenger series) there is nothing in the DoG to force those terms on the defender. So yes, the DoG says the defender can race against the challenger(s) if both sides agree to it.

I can't help it if you read into the deed more than what it says. Passion clouds perception.

SNG is showing us just how powerful the defender can be. The default terms are so bad, that it is sheer folly to challenge under them. Thus, to play the game, you agree to the defender's rules ... sign the protocol or stay home.

What doesn't everybody understand about that?

People have become addicted to the AC. SNG is the dealer. You get only the AC they are willing to give you ... or you have to go take it.

hhn92 · February 9, 2008

Two choices:
1. DoG defaults. GGYC chooses the dates and declares a boat. SNG chooses the place and writes the rules and sails any damn boat they please.

2. Agree to something else. What SNG will agree to has been clearly stated. If you don't like it, tough. The DoG does not require SNG to talk to you, the DoG gives SNG the rights to do any damn thing they please.

If you don't like what SNG has done *within the limits* of the DoG, what can you do? Not a thing, except try to win the Cup under the default terms.

I can't help it if you read into the deed more than what it says. Passion clouds perception.

SNG is showing us just how powerful the defender can be. The default terms are so bad, that it is sheer folly to challenge under them. Thus, to play the game, you agree to the defender's rules ... sign the protocol or stay home.

That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the premises and of the performance of the conditions and agreements hereinafter set forth by the party of the second part........IN TRUST, NEVERTHELESS, for the following uses and purposes:

This Cup is donated upon the conditions that it shall be preserved as a perpetual Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries......................................

The Challenging Club shall give ten months' notice, in writing, naming the days for the proposed races; but no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November 1st and May 1st if the races are to conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May 1st and November 1st if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere. Accompanying the ten months' notice of challenge there must be sent the name of the owner and a certificate of the name, rig and following dimensions of the challenging vessel, namely, length on load water-line; beam at load water-line and extreme beam; and draught of water; which dimensions shall not be exceeded; and a custom-house registry of the vessel must also be sent as soon as possible.............................

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.

In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup. All such races shall be on ocean courses, free from headlands, as follows: The first race, twenty nautical miles to windward and return; the second race an equilateral triangular race of thirty-nine nautical miles, the first side of which shall be a beat to windward; the third race (if necessary) twenty nautical miles to windward and return; and one week day shall intervene between the conclusion of one race and the starting of the next race. These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water, and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any times allowances whatever............................

It is distinctly understood that the Cup is to be the property of the Club subject to the provisions of this deed, and not the property of the owner or owners of any vessel winning a match.

AND, the said party of the second part hereby accepts the said Cup subject to the said trust, terms, and conditions, and hereby covenants and agrees to and with said party of the first part that it will faithfully and fully see that the foregoing conditions are fully observed and complied with by any contestant for the said Cup during the holding thereof by it; and that it will assign, transfer, and deliver the said Cup to the foreign Yacht Club whose representative yacht shall have won the same in accordance with the foregoing terms and conditions, provided the said foreign Club shall, by instrument in writing lawfully executed, enter with said part of the second part into the like covenants as are herein entered into by it, such instrument to contain a like provision for the successive assignees to enter into the same covenants with their respective assignors, and to be executed in duplicate, one to be retained by each Club, and a copy thereof to be forwarded to the said party of the second part.

GEORGE L. SCHUYLER, (L.S.) In the presence of THE NEW YORK YACHT CLUB H. D. Hamilton. by Elbridge T. Gerry, Commodore (Seal of the New York Yacht Club) John H. Bird, Secretary

Now, without any visions or passions, the Deed is very clear on how a defender and a challenger relate to the trust.

A challenger submits a challenge under the presciptions of the Deed, and then proceeds to prepare for the match.

A defender receives the challenge, and is bound to accept the valid challenge that matches the terms of the Deed.

Now, if the defender and challenger agree to meet and discuss terms of the match, then arrangements can be made for further conditions and provisions of the Cup match.

If the challenger and defender cannot agree to terms, then they are both obligated to a match under the terms prescribed in the Deed document. If the challenger does not withdraw, then the defender needs to prepare to face the challenging yacht, and to make provisions for the course and officiating of the match.

No more, no less. The defender cannot do 'any damn thing they please'.

Now in some people's passions, the idea has come-up that the defender can set the terms of a challenge and how it will be accepted, take it or leave it.

Poppycock.

RHough · February 9, 2008

No more, no less. The defender cannot do 'any damn thing they please'.

Now in some people's passions, the idea has come-up that the defender can set the terms of a challenge and how it will be accepted, take it or leave it.

Poppycock.

From your quote of the DoG, it boils down to: Default or what the defender wants. The DoG does not force anything on the defender beyond the default terms.

So yes, the defender has agreed to the default terms. These virtually guarantee that the defender win. How could you not win if you are free to choose whatever boat, whatever rules, and wherever you want to race?

Given the nearly sure win of the default terms, why would you (as the defender) agree to anything that does not suit you?

If you want no multiple challengers, don't agree to it (you don't have to under the DoG).

If you want to appoint the RC and Judges, don't agree to other terms (the default lets you choose RC and Judges).

The point everyone does not want to see is that the DoG does not protect the challenger in any way. The DoG protects the defender.

Now I'll be the first to wonder why SNG is trying so hard to avoid a match they are sure to win. I think that SNG's conduct (through EB's control) is poor sportsmanship. I think that honourable people would see that the default terms are too one sided, and since no sane person would challenge under them, as defender I would offer and agree to to terms that gave one or more challengers a fighting chance. This is exactly what SNG did with Protocol AC33, they gave multiple challengers a chance. GGYC (through LE's control) didn't like it and rather than walk away (like any sane person would do), they attacked the defender in court. I agree that someone should have. SNG went outside the bounds of the DoG when they accepted CNEV as the challenger. However, the terms of the Protocol do not violate the DoG.

The argument was made that no real club would challenge under the terms of Protocol 33, the same argument can be made about challenging under the default terms. Does anyone really think that the default terms are better for a challenger than the terms of SNG's protocol?

If the default terms were good for the challenger, where is the motive to agree to changes?

The only thing that provides motive for a mutual consent agreement is a sense of honour and fair play ... good sportsmanship. As soon as winning becomes the overriding motive, good sportsmanship tends to take a back seat to greed.

I'm sure that there are sportsmen in the world that will vie for the Cup on nearly equal terms, agreed to by all. EB and LE are not those sportsmen.

Until both of them are out of the AC and the 'event' stops being attractive to big money corporations (we are starting to see that now) the AC will remain perverted.

Stingray · February 9, 2008

Does anyone really think that the default terms are better for a challenger than the terms of SNG's protocol?

Hasn't GGYC made that determination? Maybe they feel that both situations are one-sided, but decided the default terms are the better choice?

I don't think the Defender has quite as much power as what you suggest.

* The Defender has to run it according to 'its' rules. Not some new, made-up ones.

* The Challenger gets to name the Challenge dates

* The uncertainties of any yacht race will still be there. Yachts, Sailing Rules, the Start, wind shifts, pressure changes, weather prediction, and.... sailors! I agree it's a big ask to win as Challenger, but the Defender does not control all of those elements.

klaxon · February 9, 2008

On 'gaps' - isn't that what all the 'hand underwater' talk is for? They are trying to make the case that the certificate says it is a barge, by the beam given.

But on the rest, I do think you are right - given what we see so far.

No, seriously I want this hand under water part explained !

After much research I found that, Pirate Master

I know it is not exactly what I was looking for to satisfy the jury but still an interesting piece from our soul mate

Apart from that perhaps even Smiley might have meant it different ???

Shall we ask Smiley or his inventor ?

Who was his daddy anyway ? Was not it Gummer Fossert ?

Stingray · February 9, 2008

This text form the Mercury Bay court decision http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/arc...ry_sandiego.htm

Just fwiw, there is another copy here at http://www.nycourts.gov/history/cases/merc...o.htm?nid=40294

This one is slightly better as it includes SUMMARY, HEADNOTES and POINTS OF COUNSEL. And then the same full OPINION OF THE COURT - which is what HHN's link also has.

Nice argument in that first post, idw2k. Some great responses too.

It'll get .. umm .. even more interesting if they ~do~ take a chance on a two-masted 115 footer. Could BB have been hinting at that, with his 64m mast comment? Yikes! :blink: Seems like a lot of money and effort to potentially risk in court, but I suppose anything's possible.

RHough · February 9, 2008

Hasn't GGYC made that determination? Maybe they feel that both situations are one-sided, but decided the default terms are the better choice?

I don't think the Defender has quite as much power as what you suggest.

* The Defender has to run it according to 'its' rules. Not some new, made-up ones.

* The Challenger gets to name the Challenge dates

* The uncertainties of any yacht race will still be there. Yachts, Sailing Rules, the Start, wind shifts, pressure changes, weather prediction, and.... sailors! I agree it's a big ask to win as Challenger, but the Defender does not control all of those elements.

Was GGYC less than truthful when they made all that noise about a multiple challenger event and asked EB and BB to *please* talk to us?

If GGYC has decided that the default terms are better than not racing or racing under Protocol 33, did they intend a multi-hull challenge all along?

Yes, any yacht race has some uncertainties so they are equal in that respect. The question then becomes; of the things that *can* be controlled what gives the challenger a better (more equal) chance, the AC33 Protocol or the DoG Defaults? Is some input to rules, terms of match, courses and boats sailed better than no input?

Getting CNEV tossed was the right thing to do, no question. +1 for LE -1 for NYYC (for not doing it) -2 for SNG for trying to pull a fast one.

Fighting against the GGYC challenge is the only thing that SNG can do, until the ruling they have a deal with CNEV and cannot (under the DoG) talk to GGYC. CNEV *could* withdraw and save SNG having to go through the motions in court.

I think it was a mistake for GGYC to provide anything past what the DoG requires in their challenge. There was no reason to give SNG an opening to exploit.

Any way you look at it, we will not see old style AC racing for years. Modern AC racing was perverting the event anyway (egos and teams having more say than challenging and defending clubs). A back to basics one on one match will force the potential competitors to re-asses their motives and decide if such an uncertain event is what they want to harness their future to. A real AC between EB and LE will be a breath of fresh air rather than a made for TV event born in some backroom and motivated by profit and greed.

Stingray · February 9, 2008

Was GGYC less than truthful when they made all that noise about a multiple challenger event and asked EB and BB to *please* talk to us?

If GGYC has decided that the default terms are better than not racing or racing under Protocol 33, did they intend a multi-hull challenge all along?

They put an offer on the table that plenty of teams wanted Alinghi to sign. They climbed down even after they won on November 27. The reaction here and elsewhere was 'shock and surprise' when Alinghi cut them off. And so I do think they were trying hard to get a reasonable AC90 multi-chall event. Look at that GGYC timeline they are keeping updated. And if that's what LE/RC wanted, then presumably it's also the plan for 2011, if they win the right to have a say in it.

Yes, any yacht race has some uncertainties so they are equal in that respect. The question then becomes; of the things that *can* be controlled what gives the challenger a better (more equal) chance, the AC33 Protocol or the DoG Defaults? Is some input to rules, terms of match, courses and boats sailed better than no input?

Getting CNEV tossed was the right thing to do, no question. +1 for LE -1 for NYYC (for not doing it) -2 for SNG for trying to pull a fast one.

Fighting against the GGYC challenge is the only thing that SNG can do, until the ruling they have a deal with CNEV and cannot (under the DoG) talk to GGYC. CNEV *could* withdraw and save SNG having to go through the motions in court.

I think it was a mistake for GGYC to provide anything past what the DoG requires in their challenge. There was no reason to give SNG an opening to exploit.

Any way you look at it, we will not see old style AC racing for years. Modern AC racing was perverting the event anyway (egos and teams having more say than challenging and defending clubs). A back to basics one on one match will force the potential competitors to re-asses their motives and decide if such an uncertain event is what they want to harness their future to. A real AC between EB and LE will be a breath of fresh air rather than a made for TV event born in some backroom and motivated by profit and greed.

I like to think that if this all works out then it will be a breath of fresh air. Awesome, even! And all the other teams will have more time to stategize for '11. There are a lot of teams who've at least expressed interest for that timeframe, we've seen numbers as high as 19.

I don't see why LE/RC would necessarily prefer to stay the Multi-hull path in '11 - even if it has some appeal to some of us, and a lot of appeal to you. It's mostly just you and BB who I have read suggesting there may be no return. And BB's reasons were more along the lines of incredulity, as in: 'How could anyone build a boat that powerful and not say You Wanna Have A Go? C'mon, Then, Have A Go!' Your argument is more appealing, but the powers that be seem decided already on the AC90's.

hhn92 · February 9, 2008

Some thoughts on going back to the multi-challenge format and the benefits of it:

1. There were some great stories of teams and the people that were involved that provided a lot of color to the event.

2. The innovations and creativity in working over the design rule, especially in the 12M era when there was still a lot of unkown design parameters to explore: twin rudders in '67, bendy rigs in '80, upside-down winged keel in '83, twin rudders and 'geek' keel in '87, twin-foil keel in '92, Hula in '03.

3. The dark horses coming out and being surprisingly competitive, mixing up the standings of the favorites. Look at AII from '87, they were on paper a powerhouse guaranteed to be in the final, and on the other end Blackaller or the French that were not either 1) as well funded (Blackaller) or previously non-competitive (French). 2) A New Zealand team that came out of nowhere and nearly ran away with it.

So, to me, going back to the 'traditional' late 20th century style AC is the way to go and provide an interesting and enjoyable Cup series.

Not EB's 'vision' thing.

paps49 · February 9, 2008

Stingray

Thanks, I couldn't find it. The key factor is that 2 of Alinghi's senior people have raised issues over how a multi is measured. They don't seem to be talking about whether gaps are allowed. Just how to measure the thing. As we have seen, it doesn't matter what the press say or think, it doesn't seem to stop SNG pursuing a point in court, to the limit.

What I find hard to understand is why everybody gets so worked up whenI am suggest that Alinghi is going to continue their delaying tactics and will use every means, including the courts, to avoid the match and should they lose it, then try to get the whole thing overturned. Based on their current behavior, isn't that what is most likely to happen? Simply getting all worked up and attacking me isn't going to change that and it also isn't going to change just because the people on here and journalists say the arguements aren't strong.

Over a month ago, SNG challenged the legitimacy of the GGYC challenge. Most screamed that it was too late and had no substance. Everybody was saying that the judge would simply say get on with it and that would happen either at the first hearing or within days of it. We are still waiting, which is exactly what SNG want. Get used to it. This is what is going to happen for the next year or so, until either the challenge is ruled out, SNG win a DoG challenge or every legal route, appeal etc has been explored If anybody thinks that the judge will simply name a date and that EB will just roll over, dream on.

Or am I wrong? Is EB just going to roll over?

Once the Judge names the date, EB runs out of options. Any legal debate will be following the match.

As I have said before even EB is not Girly enough to try and win a cup in court he lost on the water.

Protest room is one thing, its "in the family" so to speak. NYSC is a whole other thing and would expose him to ridicule even he could not stomach.

Stingray · February 9, 2008

Some thoughts on going back to the multi-challenge format and the benefits of it:

1. There were some great stories of teams and the people that were involved that provided a lot of color to the event.

2. The innovations and creativity in working over the design rule, especially in the 12M era when there was still a lot of unkown design parameters to explore: twin rudders in '67, bendy rigs in '80, upside-down winged keel in '83, twin rudders and 'geek' keel in '87, twin-foil keel in '92, Hula in '03.

3. The dark horses coming out and being surprisingly competitive, mixing up the standings of the favorites. Look at AII from '87, they were on paper a powerhouse guaranteed to be in the final, and on the other end Blackaller or the French that were not either 1) as well funded (Blackaller) or previously non-competitive (French). 2) A New Zealand team that came out of nowhere and nearly ran away with it.

So, to me, going back to the 'traditional' late 20th century style AC is the way to go and provide an interesting and enjoyable Cup series.

Not EB's 'vision' thing.

Me too, there's also just a lot more going on when you have many teams to follow. And up close, it's quite an experience having them all in such proximity. In one race, they hooked right around the spectator boat in prestart, the sights and sounds are amazing! It was my first AC experience.

I actually switched allegiances/admirations several times. The progression went something like ML, Shosh, BOR, LR, Alinghi, and finally - probably after Match Race 2, NZL.

If we get to the DoG Match I'll go in cheering for USA but will be happy to give full credit to whoever brings it - be that USA or SUI or both. And I think we (okay, maybe just me..) will learn a lot about a lot, before it's all over. Even with just the two teams to follow, mostly because it'll be so different.

Just since AC32 I've learned about X40's, gotten a touch familiar with Groupama, Brossard, Gitana, AlinghiCat, D35's, more on the Deed of Gift, Mercury Bay, a little of ancient Cup history, AC90 pro's and cons, legal procedures at the NYSC, politics in Valencia and Spain. It has a certain fascination that's not all bad - and things could get in gear again on the water quite soon, we already have X40's and you know what happens when one sailboat sees another sail.

So long as it isn't my money getting blown, I'm quite happy to be entertained by the Monster-Multi, Monster-Mash Shitfight, while also looking forward to the 2011 AC90 campaigns getting started up. That UITG idea sure seems promising, for example.

As AC fans, we're about to get spoiled!

edit: LOL, forgot to mention learning an awful effing lot about the K word too!

SimonN · February 9, 2008

Once the Judge names the date, EB runs out of options. Any legal debate will be following the match.

As I have said before even EB is not Girly enough to try and win a cup in court he lost on the water.

Protest room is one thing, its "in the family" so to speak. NYSC is a whole other thing and would expose him to ridicule even he could not stomach.

You really are being very niave. When the judge names the date, that is just the beginning of the fun, not the end of it! First there will be an appeal. Next, there will be the whole issue of the rules that the match will be sailed under. Then there might be issues over where it will be sailed (what if the Cuba story is actually true). Then we will have the whole measurement thing.

Next to say that EB won't continue through the courts should BOR win is just burying your head in the sand. If SNG have issues over the BOR boat and they cannot be heard before the match, why would they drop it after, if they lose? Try it the other way around. Imagine SNG turn up with a dubious boat and GGYC challenge it in court. Would you expect BOR to drop it if they got beaten? Of course not. You would be cheering them on, saying that they have to sort out SNG.

SNG/Alinghi have given every indication that they are going to stir up as many problems as they can over this. If they think there is any chance at all of getting GGYC chucked out, they will use it. And it doesn't matter what you or I think of their chances. It's what they think of the chance of getting it thrown out. Why will they do this? Because they know that however many times they lose in court, so long as they don't breach any court orders, they will not forfiet the cup while if GGYC lose even once, they are history. The only thing EB is risking is money. And if you think ridicule will put him off, it hasn't so far. Most of these guys have pretty thick skins.

RHough · February 9, 2008

So, to me, going back to the 'traditional' late 20th century style AC is the way to go and provide an interesting and enjoyable Cup series.

Not EB's 'vision' thing.

The wonder that was AC32 was EB's vision ... as shared by LE and BMWO.

All the things you mentioned as high points of the AC happened in an environment of agreement and friendship (at least each Cup started that way).

I'm not saying those things are bad. I'm saying that the deed does not provide more than a chance for them to happen. The deed does not guarantee 'an interesting and enjoyable Cup series'. Only sportsmen can provide that within the mutual consent clause.

As soon as someone decides not to play, there is fuck all that anyone can do.

Wanna be AC players: "The Trustee used to let us play the game and let us agree to the rules. Now he's changed his mind and wants to run the game the way he thinks it should be and it's not fair."

NYSC: "Tough, the game is controlled by the deed. If you want to play you have to play on the trustee's terms or the default. If you don't like either set of rules, stay home, don't play."

Wanna be AC players: "but ... but ... it's not fair! It's not interesting and enjoyable for the sponsors and fans."

NYSC: "Tough, take it up with someone who cares. I'm only ruling on what the deed says. Suck it up princess, play by the rules or stay home."

Yes, I think EB's vision sucks. I also think that placing your eggs in a basket as fragile as the goodwill of egomaniacal billionaires is asking for shattered dreams and disappointment.

Maybe this shitfight will kill interest in the Cup for years, I hope it kills the AC90 before one ever gets built. The AC should be an open rule, open budget, mind boggling extravaganza ... just what this one will be ... if we still care after the lawyers are done fucking with each other.

hhn92 · February 9, 2008

If SNG have issues over the BOR boat and they cannot be heard before the match, why would they drop it after, if they lose? Try it the other way around. Imagine SNG turn up with a dubious boat and GGYC challenge it in court. Would you expect BOR to drop it if they got beaten? Of course not. You would be cheering them on, saying that they have to sort out SNG.

If either one goes to court over the boats before the race, they will be shown the door with a big whack along with it.

The MB decision told them to go race, you cannot protest a boat before the race. JC is most likely over this whole deal and will admonish them to not show-up back in his court again unless it is really important.

paps49 · February 10, 2008

If either one goes to court over the boats before the race, they will be shown the door with a big whack along with it.

The MB decision told them to go race, you cannot protest a boat before the race. JC is most likely over this whole deal and will admonish them to not show-up back in his court again unless it is really important.

Ditto

klaxon · February 10, 2008

The wonder that was AC32 was EB's vision ... as shared by LE and BMWO.

All the things you mentioned as high points of the AC happened in an environment of agreement and friendship (at least each Cup started that way).

I'm not saying those things are bad. I'm saying that the deed does not provide more than a chance for them to happen. The deed does not guarantee 'an interesting and enjoyable Cup series'. Only sportsmen can provide that within the mutual consent clause.

As soon as someone decides not to play, there is fuck all that anyone can do.

Wanna be AC players: "The Trustee used to let us play the game and let us agree to the rules. Now he's changed his mind and wants to run the game the way he thinks it should be and it's not fair."

NYSC: "Tough, the game is controlled by the deed. If you want to play you have to play on the trustee's terms or the default. If you don't like either set of rules, stay home, don't play."

Wanna be AC players: "but ... but ... it's not fair! It's not interesting and enjoyable for the sponsors and fans."

NYSC: "Tough, take it up with someone who cares. I'm only ruling on what the deed says. Suck it up princess, play by the rules or stay home."

Yes, I think EB's vision sucks. I also think that placing your eggs in a basket as fragile as the goodwill of egomaniacal billionaires is asking for shattered dreams and disappointment.

Maybe this shitfight will kill interest in the Cup for years, I hope it kills the AC90 before one ever gets built. The AC should be an open rule, open budget, mind boggling extravaganza ... just what this one will be ... if we still care after the lawyers are done fucking with each other.

Somehow I have a feeling that AC90 will be back sooner than expected. At least I would be building it by now if I had all he had going. Why ? Because I would love to see how well my technical solutions work in a modern J class.

Stingray · February 10, 2008

Thanks, I couldn't find it. The key factor is that 2 of Alinghi's senior people have raised issues over how a multi is measured. They don't seem to be talking about whether gaps are allowed. Just how to measure the thing. As we have seen, it doesn't matter what the press say or think, it doesn't seem to stop SNG pursuing a point in court, to the limit.

Not disagreeing with the premise. They may well pursue the legal point, 'to the limit.'

But on 'what the press may say or think': I posted Sail World's response above. Here's the one in the recent Seahorse issue.

Responding directly to Tom Schnackenberg's words here:

.. So to me, if you think of waterline length you imagine running your hand along from the bow of the boat, it goes under the water at a certain point and continues under the water until it comes up 90ft later and that's the waterline length.

Sounds like a bit of a barge to me?

Well if you use the same process to determine the waterline beam, then you go down at one point and you continue under water until you come up at another point and that's 90ft away, so yes I suppose 'barge' would probably be the best single word to describe what we are talking about.

Seahorse says this:

My point in posting it is to argue that Alinghi pursuing the legal point 'to the limit' may well have a real limit. In other words, there's ultimately only so far they can go with it.

paps49 · February 10, 2008

Not disagreeing with the premise. They may well pursue the legal point, 'to the limit.'

But on 'what the press may say or think': I posted Sail World's response above. Here's the one in the recent Seahorse issue.

Responding directly to Tom Schnackenberg's words here:

Seahorse says this:

My point in posting it is to argue that Alinghi pursuing the legal point 'to the limit' may well have a real limit. In other words, there's ultimately only so far they can go with it.

Da Da Da Dats all folks

hhn92 · February 12, 2008

Not to hijack the thread, but some more study on Schuyler's thinking, and terminology of the day (again, from the William N. Wallace book 'The MacMillan Book of Boating' (Gus' long lost relative).

After Ashbury's first challenge and loss, which was not by the terms of the 'original' DoG from Stevens, Schuyler, et al, but 'mutual consent' ended with a fleet race that Cambria competed in and finished 10th, GS said this:

"It seems to me that the present ruling of the club renders the America's trophy useless as a 'Challenge Cup', and that for all sporting purposes it might as well be laid aside as a family plate. I cannot conceive of any yachtsman giving six months' notice that he will cross the ocean for the sole purpose of entering into an almost hopeless contest for the Cup..."

Part of the original issue with Ashbury challenging was he was personally challenging, not part of a yacht club challenge. The NYYC basically relented due to his persistence and the fact that he sailed over in a race against James Gordon Bennett's Dauntless and showed up on their doorstep.

The next year, Ashbury showed up with Livonia to challenge again. The club adjusted their stance on a challenge some, accepting a challenge from Ashbury to a best of seven match, but with the use of 4 boats to choose from, based on conditions of the day of the particular race. After the nasty protests by Ashbury that ballast was changed on one of the American boats, the Cup sat idle for 13 years.

Another issue from re-reading the book was over the 'keel' description. A few excerpts from various chapters where keels, ballast, and centerboards are discussed:

'Sappho, twice the conqueror of Livonia, was another of the large schooners, 134 feet in over-all length, 120 feet on the waterline, with a beam of 24 feet 9 inches, and a draft of 12 feet 8 inches. She was a keel schooner, although the centerboard type was much preferred around New York..........

....it was not uncommon for a centerboarder to lie in the mud at low tide where a keel boat would founder........

......deep British cutters, with their lead ballast placed outside in the keel........ (instead of in the bilge)

....Vindex had a cutter rig and a keel hull.......

Describing Puritan, designed by Edward Burgess for the 1885 Cup:

.......and an outside keel containing 48 tons of lead through which a centerboard was dropped.......

Talking about Edward Burgess' design style:

.....the purely American type of shallow hull with its ballast of lead or iron bricks laid inside. Burgess preferred a narrower, deeper hull, outside lead ballast set in the keel, an overhanging stern, a modified cutter rig, and a centerboard dropping through a cut in the keel.............

Another description:

.....Half models show the change in hull shapes from centerboarder to keel and deep keel types.....

Dr. William Everette (son of Edward Everette, who proceeded Lincoln with a 2 hr speech at Gettysburg):

"The Mersey builds her keels of steel, The Clyde her keels of flame, Our Burgess builds no keels at all, But he gets there just the same."

After all this, it seems from the language of this book, that during the change in hull design the description of keel was evolving into what we use it as today, an external appendage that contains an amount of external ballast. But this does not eliminate the original definition of the term.

My opinion: 'keel' as a description can be used to describe either condition, as a main structural 'backbone' of a hull, or an external appendage that is used to carry ballast for stability.

As a term 'keel' yacht to disqualify GGYC's challenge with, no.

Now, if you're still awake, flame on.

Brian Weslake · February 12, 2008

Not to hijack the thread, but some more study on Schuyler's thinking, and terminology of the day (again, from the William N. Wallace book 'The MacMillan Book of Boating' (Gus' long lost relative).

......................

After all this, it seems from the language of this book, that during the change in hull design the description of keel was evolving into what we use it as today, an external appendage that contains an amount of external ballast. But this does not eliminate the original definition of the term.

My opinion: 'keel' as a description can be used to describe either condition, as a main structural 'backbone' of a hull, or an external appendage that is used to carry ballast for stability.

As a term 'keel' yacht to disqualify GGYC's challenge with, no.

Now, if you're still awake, flame on.

To get an idea of the meaning of the term "keel yacht" from that time, you need to look at writings from the period, not something written in the late 20th century.

hhn92 · February 12, 2008

To get an idea of the meaning of the term "keel yacht" from that time, you need to look at writings from the period, not something written in the late 20th century.

Based on the writing style of the complete text and the book as a whole, I believe the author was writing using the terminology of the time, like 'keel schooner'. That is a term I have never heard before, or mentioned in this forum.

There are many examples of terms, and quotes, that he uses in various chapters of the book that makes me feel this way. A good number of the included items are quotes from people of that time. That's why I used them.

Like I said, my opinion from re-reading this book.

Stingray · February 12, 2008

Based on the writing style of the complete text and the book as a whole, I believe the author was writing using the terminology of the time, like 'keel schooner'. That is a term I have never heard before, or mentioned in this forum.

There are many examples of terms, and quotes, that he uses in various chapters of the book that makes me feel this way. A good number of the included items are quotes from people of that time. That's why I used them.

Like I said, my opinion from re-reading this book.

Thanks for taking the time with that post - good stuff there.

idontwan2know · February 12, 2008

To get an idea of the meaning of the term "keel yacht" from that time, you need to look at writings from the period, not something written in the late 20th century.

I've never been fully convinced that what "keel yacht" meant in 1877 really matters. "Keel yacht" is not a term used in the deed of gift, so we don't have to interpret it as George Schulyer would have. The document it was used in was produced in July of 2007, so I tend to think the issue is what "keel yacht" meant at that time.

klaxon · February 12, 2008

I've never been fully convinced that what "keel yacht" meant in 1877 really matters. "Keel yacht" is not a term used in the deed of gift, so we don't have to interpret it as George Schulyer would have. The document it was used in was produced in July of 2007, so I tend to think the issue is what "keel yacht" meant at that time.

Source: merriam-webster.com/dictionary

keel

7 entries found

Main Entry:

1keel

Pronunciation:

\ˈkçl\

Function:

verb

Etymology:

Middle English kelen, from Old English cçlan, from côl cool

Date:

before 12th century

chiefly dialect : cool

Main Entry:

2keel

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English kele, from Middle Dutch kiel; akin to Old English cçol ship

Date:

14th century

: a flat-bottomed barge used especially on the Tyne to carry coal

Main Entry:

3keel

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English kele, from Old Norse kjǫlr; akin to Old English ceole throat, beak of a ship — more at glutton

Date:

14th century

1 a: the chief structural member of a boat or ship that extends longitudinally along the center of its bottom and that often projects from the bottom; also : this projection b: ship2: a projection suggesting a keel; especially : carina 1

Main Entry:

4keel

Function:

intransitive verb

Date:

1832

1 : to fall in or as if in a faint —usually used with over 2 : to heel or lean precariously

Main Entry:

5keel

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English (Scots) keyle

Date:

15th century

chiefly dialect : red ocher

Main Entry:

bilge keel

Function:

noun

Date:

1850

: a projection like a fin extending from the hull near the turn of the bilge on either side to check rolling

— on an even keel also on even keel

: in a sound or stable condition

klaxon · February 12, 2008

The History of English: How a Language Grew

Yo !

SimonN · February 12, 2008

I've never been fully convinced that what "keel yacht" meant in 1877 really matters. "Keel yacht" is not a term used in the deed of gift, so we don't have to interpret it as George Schulyer would have. The document it was used in was produced in July of 2007, so I tend to think the issue is what "keel yacht" meant at that time.

I completely agree with this. These are the words of GGYC, not GS. The question is, what would anybody reading those words today, in the context of a challenge, believe them to mean.

hhn92 · February 12, 2008

I completely agree with this. These are the words of GGYC, not GS. The question is, what would anybody reading those words today, in the context of a challenge, believe them to mean.

1. Read the title of this thread.

2. Read my opinion.

3. Have your own conclusion.

Brian Weslake · February 12, 2008

1. Read the title of this thread.

2. Read my opinion.

3. Have your own conclusion.

If you read some authorities of the period - Dixon Kemp, W.P. Stephens, C.P. Kunhardt, Heckstall-Smith, Vanderdecken, as well as the NY Times, you will see very clearly that the primary meaning of "keel yacht" was a vessel that did not rely on a centreboard, sliding keel or daggerboard. That is, it would be the equivalent of what might be termed today a "fixed keel yacht", as opposed to a drop keel yacht, a canting keel yacht, a keel-centerboard yacht, or a sliding keel yacht.

It didn't need to be an externally ballasted or have a fin keel, the schooner America was reported in several places as being a keel yacht yet she had no keel appendage and only carried inside ballast. She just needed to rely on what keel she had for lateral resistance rather than use a centerboard.

paps49 · February 12, 2008

Who cares??

Theoretic · February 12, 2008

...that the primary meaning of "keel yacht" was a vessel that did not rely on a centreboard, sliding keel or daggerboard. ...
It didn't need to be an externally ballasted or have a fin keel, ...

A hobie 16 qualifies for that definition just fine and can therefore be called "keel yacht".

That is, it would be the equivalent of what might be termed today "a fixed keel yacht", as opposed to a drop keel yacht, a canting keel yacht, a keel-centerboard yacht, or a sliding keel yacht.

Yes, after this AC we may call hobie16 as "a fixed keel yacht", but before it, I don't think so.

shanghaisailor · February 13, 2008

On the subject of Bertarelli trying to introduce his new "Vision" I think Mr Schuyler would simply say

"If you don't like the conditions attached to my gift - give it back!"

SS

Sign In

What Would Schuyler Do?

Recommended Posts

idontwan2know 177

Link to post

Share on other sites

Theoretic 0

Link to post

Share on other sites

idontwan2know 177

Link to post

Share on other sites

MR.CLEAN 3,912

Link to post

Share on other sites

deckersr 0

Link to post

Share on other sites

P_Wop 2,160

Link to post

Share on other sites

Brian Weslake 6

Link to post

Share on other sites

deckersr 0

Link to post

Share on other sites

Brian Weslake 6

Link to post

Share on other sites

hhn92 43

Link to post

Share on other sites

SimonN 380

Link to post

Share on other sites

hhn92 43

Link to post

Share on other sites

deckersr 0

Link to post

Share on other sites

hhn92 43

Link to post

Share on other sites

deckersr 0

Link to post

Share on other sites

Stingray 50

Link to post

Share on other sites

Brian Weslake 6

Link to post

Share on other sites

MR.CLEAN 3,912

Link to post

Share on other sites

Brian Weslake 6

Link to post

Share on other sites

MR.CLEAN 3,912

Link to post

Share on other sites

Stingray 50

Link to post

Share on other sites

deckersr 0

Link to post

Share on other sites

deckersr 0

Link to post

Share on other sites

paps49 371

Link to post

Share on other sites

SimonN 380

Link to post

Share on other sites

idontwan2know 177

Link to post