AC40

shanghaisailor

Super Anarchist
3,140
1,282
Shanghai, China
It‘s stupid enough that the Kiwizi ”designers” didn’t foresee this through common math. They failed spectacularly and should all be fired forthwith. (When you can’t even blame Chinese manufacturing you know you’re in trouble.)
Er, it's an Australian owned, managed and supervised boatyard, especially this project. I doubt the yard is to blame in any way at all. Mark Evans runs a tight ship

But I get your point
 

nroose

Super Anarchist
5,308
328
Berkeley
So, AC72 was a boat. AC50 was a boat. AC75 is a boat. Now AC40 is a boat. And AC36 was an event. AC37 is a planned event. What do we do when we are going to have the 40th America's Cup?
 

accnick

Super Anarchist
3,519
2,518
I think it was IACC.
That was what it was originally, before what is now World Sailing basically claimed licensing ownership of the title "international" with regard to sailboat classes. The "I" was dropped from the ACC rule title after the 1992 AC, if I recall correctly.
 

shanghaisailor

Super Anarchist
3,140
1,282
Shanghai, China
Magic money tree been found has it? They couldn’t afford it this time, what makes you think they can afford it any other time?
2000 & 2003 both (according to official NZ Government reports) produced a benefit to the NZ economy of around NZ$1/2 Billion. If Barcelona makes a bundle out of AC37 it would serve NZ Government right.

There were very good reasons why the NZ Government 'investment' only returned 73 cents on the $ in AC36 not least because of locked borders due to COVID. It was also reported in another NZ Government report that NZ tourism was off 90% around the same time due to COVID.

Perhaps the two report authors didn't talk to each other.
 

shebeen

Super Anarchist
So, AC72 was a boat. AC50 was a boat. AC75 is a boat. Now AC40 is a boat. And AC36 was an event. AC37 is a planned event. What do we do when we are going to have the 40th America's Cup?
There was an AC45 too, but you make a very good point. I don't think whoever came up with the concept thought they would still be involved in 2034ish
 

nroose

Super Anarchist
5,308
328
Berkeley
They just need to go metric like J/Boats.
Uh... Yeah, for the boats. But they already have the AC40. It's not like they will be able to use metric time for the event name... The question rhetorical. I think they will just use the year. But then they have to know the year before they have a name for it. Or they will just magically forget the boat.
 

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,255
1,128
United Kingdom
Ironicly, if this had happened a week or two ago, they could have roled out Te Kahu, or started modifying their second AC40. But now they have already made this an LEQ12 they can't now use a new platform.
Oy, knobhead, stop posting stuff on the internet that is WRONG!

So... after further reading, I now believe that
1) The definition of LEQ12 includes AC40s
2) There is no rule that limits the amount of LEQ12s you can have (only that limits components)
3) Components only count to the quota if they are mounted on LEQ12 hull which isn't AC40 class legal.
4) A hull is the main body of the yacht, including the bottom, sides, transom, deck, cockpit and internal structure but not the mast, rigging, sails, appendages or fittings

So, you can have as many AC40s as you want, because they're LEQ12s and there is no limit to the number of LEQ12s you can have.

There is a limit to the number LEQ12 components you can have, but the teams don't have to worry about AC40 class legal part on AC40 class legal hulls as they are exempt from the quota.



My understanding too, only one LEQ12 skin allowed. AM could use something else, ETNZ cannot. Not aware of any clause in the rules for breakages, which always seemed a bit risky given the mast limitation. Not really in the interest of COR to agree to such a change at the moment. Though they might
So I think ETNZ can mount their banana foil and new wheel on their second AC40. The wheel isn't an LEQ12 component which number is limited, and the banana foil has already been taken from their quota. Their first AC$) hull surface hasn't counted against their quota as it was mounted on (part of?) a class legal AC40) hull.

Bit confusing, but I think it now makes sense.


That means INEOS / LRPP can mount lots of their LEQ12 equipment on their AC40 when they arrive. But, if they put an AC40 part on to their LEQ12 (mast, wing, rudder, sails) it will count to their LEQ12 quota.

The upshot of all of this is INEOS and LRPP have less interchangeability between their LEQs (test boat and AC40) than ETNZ does between two AC40s, even if one has been testing none class legal components, so long as the hulls themselves remain class legal.
 




Top