volvo goes both ways

[JeronimoII]

I said "most" do not return. Anyway, the three you mention not sure qualify as Dongfeng comes back due to its Volvo relation (it is partly owned by Volvo), Mapfre for financial returns due to the Spanish tax benefits (Alicante is obliged to deliver a team in its contract. The tax benefits are in place to help them fulfil this obligation). Vestas seems genuine as it has unfinished business  although I suspect they are going to have a very small involvement this time around (i.e. limited activation from their side).  But don't get me wrong, any reason is valid to join the race, being strengthening the business relationship with Volvo, financial gains, or unfinished business. The issue are the Puma's, Abu Dhabi, Groupama, Ericsson, Movistar/Telefonica, ABN Amro, SCA, etc. that came and went. 

 

[DickDastardly]

I'm speaking to Turner in a few hours.  Anyone with good questions for him, post 'em.

It's farly intuitive that VOR and the Americas Cup might consider a similar multi platform - essentially having two pinnacle events joining - even if just to the extent that they use the same inshore racing class.  You mentioned that VOR aimed to have have action happining each and every year - that's an AC ambition too.  Are we likely to see an announcement of coopertaion/integration between VOR and AC?

 

[jack_sparrow]

The potential for bringing IMOCA, AC, VOR and WS loosely into the same tent down the track is the masterstroke of this announcement today. A Gamechanger.

 

[SCANAS]

In summation, VOR realised they couldn't put on a decent ocean race all on their lonesome. 

 

[Soley]

In summation, VOR realised they couldn't put on a decent ocean race all on their lonesome. 

We have a winner!!

Open style boats are cool but should have made them their own class. 70 foot. Wanting to sell them off after they are spent to the IMOCA crowd seems very short sighted.

Cats inshore, while it will be good to watch, seeing the Offshore boats race inshore is fun and will be missed.

Overall grade for this idea: C-

 

[MR.CLEAN]

I said "most" do not return. Anyway, the three you mention not sure qualify as Dongfeng comes back due to its Volvo relation (it is partly owned by Volvo), Mapfre for financial returns due to the Spanish tax benefits (Alicante is obliged to deliver a team in its contract. The tax benefits are in place to help them fulfil this obligation). Vestas seems genuine as it has unfinished business  although I suspect they are going to have a very small involvement this time around (i.e. limited activation from their side).  But don't get me wrong, any reason is valid to join the race, being strengthening the business relationship with Volvo, financial gains, or unfinished business. The issue are the Puma's, Abu Dhabi, Groupama, Ericsson, Movistar/Telefonica, ABN Amro, SCA, etc. that came and went. 

You are citing sponsors who spent a fortune and did multiple races to support your thesis that sponsors do not do multiple races.  WTF

 

[magnum]

Not the switch to OD  but the media landscape has meanwhile changed dramatically that the budgets to participate with a team in the VOR are no longer justified. A lot of exposure to a limited number of viewers/followers. On top of that, apart from a maritime point of view, many of the stopovers are in not very relevant markets for a majority of  brands.   Interested to know how Mark thinks to get those two back in line.

Another question would be - Will they improve the online updates of the fleet and will they be able to scramble the AIS signal for each other (not for us) to make racing more attractive.

 

[terrafirma]

The potential for bringing IMOCA, AC, VOR and WS loosely into the same tent down the track is the masterstroke of this announcement today. A Gamechanger.

There is no doubting the fact VOR are not sustainable on their own. Introducing other success stories from outside the mix makes sense and is worth a try. Still a lot of work to be done....................

 

[MidPack]

Seems like they've avoided the issue by straddling the fence. Just adding cost to the equipment, maintenance and logistics (though not crew or management) - not good for sponsors? A round the world multihull that can't pick it's weather window is doable but daunting. And there are fast monohulls nowdays, e.g. current VOR, Vendee, etc. - that might appeal to the post-Boomer generations that are staying away from sailing in droves. We'll see how this non-decision works, hope for the best.

 

[Chasm]

Interesting.

The IMOCA conversion should be interesting. 8 more mid pack boats. Low cost, for volatile values of low.
At least the inport compromise is gone. That should add a bit of excitement.

 

[jack_sparrow]

Seems like they've avoided the issue by straddling the fence. Just adding cost to the equipment, maintenance and logistics (though not crew or management) - not good for sponsors? A round the world multihull that can't pick it's weather window is doable but daunting. And there are fast monohulls nowdays, e.g. current VOR, Vendee, etc. - that might appeal to the post-Boomer generations that are staying away from sailing in droves. We'll see how this non-decision works, hope for the best.

24 hr times indicate the VOR65 not exactly a clunker but won't beat a foiling 60. The Dongs 24 hr run of 540 nm would have given it the 24hr Mono World Record in 2005 taken by a V70 but still only a bees dick quicker two years ago and crewed than what a smaller foiling IMOCA 60, SH, can do today.

2015. VOR65 "Dongfeng" 540 nm or average 22.5 kts 

2017. IMOCA 60 "Hugo Boss"  536.81nm or average 22.36kts

Sorry can't quite see how a foiling 60' Mono is fence sitting and a non-decision with your speed argument that a foiling 60 is somehow slow compared to a VOR65 and a Open60? It will be quicker.

 

[Pizza on Fire]

The boat per se doesn't really make any difference. People don't really care whether the offshore part is done on 60ft monohulls or 100ft trimarans. The main issue with the VOR, as some pointed out correctly, is that the ROI isn't there, or at least it isn't as attractive as major, global sponsors would like it to be. So, being unable to increase the "R" part of the equation, they are left with the only viable option, to decrease the "I", thus increasing the ROI. That's simple math.

That's why:

1. The boats are leased and not bought. This significantly reduces the upfront payment a team has to make in order to have a boat. Sponsors can even join later in the cycle because expenses will be spread out over a longer period of time.

2. The foiling monohull is faster than the current VO boat, which can shave off a number of days from the offshore legs. You can then shorten the duration of the whole event by maybe a month, a 10% reduction in an event that lasts 10 months.

3. The introduction of the flying catamaran show is a boost to the hospitality part of the teams. Actually, for a global multinational such as SCA, the corporate hospitality program was crazy in Alicante. They had close to 5,000 guests in the week prior to the start. Likewise, for any global giant, this type of entertainment for guests, clients, potential clients, employees, VIP's, etc is extremely important. Take the example of Abu Dhabi as well. When the sponsorship was carried out by the Abu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority, the VOR made perfect sense. The AD name was splattered all around the world and during the stopover, thousands of people flocked to the city, filling Etihad airplane seats, hotels, restaurants, and stores. When the Abu Dhabi Sports Council took over, their goal was completely different and all those millions could be spent more effectively, building a local youth sports program for example. Thus, instead of reducing the duration of the VOR, the days saved from the introduction of a faster offshore boat could be added in the form of more "in-shore" racing. This can increase the value for a stopover city that pays €5 million for an event that lasts maybe a week, quite an expensive proposition. So, you can make the offshore legs shorter and the stopovers longer and, maybe, add daily regattas, with dedicated in-shore crews.    

 

[MidPack]

Sorry can't quite see how a foiling 60' Mono is fence sitting and a non-decision with your speed argument that a foiling 60 is somehow slow compared to a VOR65 and a Open60? It will be quicker.

Because inshore racing will be now be on multihulls. After leading the public to think they were considering offshore multihulls, "deciding" to have two completely different boats for inshore vs offshore for the first time in VOR history qualifies as "fence sitting" to me.

Please remind me where I said anything about the relative speeds of various monohull options? They could've changed that design/format without adding multihulls.

If you were a potential sponsor, and now you're confronted with two boats and the associated costs, maintenance and logistics, would you be more or less likely to sign on for a VOR campaign? If it pans out great, I'm not rooting against the sport.

 

[winchfodder]

Turner spewing  the usual corporate crap. 

"At the same time, the commercial offering has so many extra elements added to it making it a powerful business transformation platform. We remain one of the few global, professional, world-class sporting events with a great commercial package that goes with it, with an outstanding Business to Business product, along with a rich heritage and strong consumer, media and employee activation options, much of it built into the campaigns."

And they are dreaming about running it every two years when they are struggling to get boats on the line this year. 

How long before Volvo management figure it out and spend their money on something worthwhile. 

Long live the Vendee every four years. 

 

[bucc5062]

After watching the VG it seemed a logical step to take that boat and merge it into the overall RTW pro racing circuit.  Down the road there may be an ever lower cost of entry into the VG and the folks of SA can stop bitching about how much better the IMOCAs are to the VO boats since they'll be the same boats.  I think it will be interesting to watch a crewed IMOCA foiler (I figure smaller crews as well), but as we saw with VG, one snap of a foil and that team's chances are mud for any good placement in that leg (Assuming VOR allows them to replace it in-port).As to the foiling cats for in-port...no thanks.  Not interested and it takes away from the sense of starting and finishing all racing with the same boat.  Crews have to change style of sailing which may not help build overall skills and watching a set of multis zooming around, long runs to avoid tacks....ugh.  I find it a cheap toss to the speed demons who cream in their pants spending time watching a boat go fast in a straight line.  

How this keeps the overall cost of the race down is beyond me.  Two boats, and someone suggested a dedicated in-port team, wtf?  I'm not supporting a sponsor splashed piece of plastic, I'm supporting the meat bags sitting on it so the idea of switching out crews as well as boats just sucks.  If they allowed dedicated crews off shore vs in-port then please just take "Life at the extreme" out of the equation.

I got no question to Mr. Turner, but a statement, when you try to please a crowd, please try to take a look at the size vs the noise.

 

[yoyoboy]

As to the foiling cats for in-port...no thanks.  Not interested and it takes away from the sense of starting and finishing all racing with the same boat.  

Because we saw so much short tacking and tacking duals with the 70's and 65's. 
I've raced a VOR 70 inshore( Il Monstro), and minimizing tacks is important. 
And given a blank slate to design an inshore foiling cat, we are likely to see something capable of foiling upwind, if not pulling off foiling tacks. Remember that just a few years ago, foiling gybes were an accomplishment in AC boats, Moths and A class cats. The progression is there. 

 

[bucc5062]

Because we saw so much short tacking and tacking duals with the 70's and 65's. 
I've raced a VOR 70 inshore( Il Monstro), and minimizing tacks is important. 
And given a blank slate to design an inshore foiling cat, we are likely to see something capable of foiling upwind, if not pulling off foiling tacks. Remember that just a few years ago, foiling gybes were an accomplishment in AC boats, Moths and A class cats. The progression is there. 

From what I read above, they are using the M32s so no blank slate there.  As this is opinion I'll keep it simple, for me, I have no love watching foiling multi's race around in a bathtub.  I use to sail a multi hull.  I loved the speed, the thrills (and spills), but when it came time to race, I hated it enough that one day I got rid of it and want back to monohulls.  SO for me, Turner turns me off the VOR, but I guess he think it will turn on the next generation and good luck with that.  Most of them can't pick their head out of a screen long enough to pay attention to anything, much less a speed boat with a sail.

 

[southerncross]

From what I read above, they are using the M32s so no blank slate there.  As this is opinion I'll keep it simple, for me, I have no love watching foiling multi's race around in a bathtub.  I use to sail a multi hull.  I loved the speed, the thrills (and spills), but when it came time to race, I hated it enough that one day I got rid of it and want back to monohulls.  SO for me, Turner turns me off the VOR, but I guess he think it will turn on the next generation and good luck with that.  Most of them can't pick their head out of a screen long enough to pay attention to anything, much less a speed boat with a sail.

The cats are being opened up to a design tender process starting today at between 32 and 50 feet.  From front page...

 

[Chasm]

IIRC M32s this round for VIP sailing.

A matched set of this years AC boats would be funny. - Not feasible but funny

 

[MR.CLEAN]

After watching the VG it seemed a logical step to take that boat and merge it into the overall RTW pro racing circuit.  Down the road there may be an ever lower cost of entry into the VG and the folks of SA can stop bitching about how much better the IMOCAs are to the VO boats since they'll be the same boats.  I think it will be interesting to watch a crewed IMOCA foiler (I figure smaller crews as well), but as we saw with VG, one snap of a foil and that team's chances are mud for any good placement in that leg (Assuming VOR allows them to replace it in-port).As to the foiling cats for in-port...no thanks.  Not interested and it takes away from the sense of starting and finishing all racing with the same boat.  Crews have to change style of sailing which may not help build overall skills and watching a set of multis zooming around, long runs to avoid tacks....ugh.  I find it a cheap toss to the speed demons who cream in their pants spending time watching a boat go fast in a straight line.  

How this keeps the overall cost of the race down is beyond me.  Two boats, and someone suggested a dedicated in-port team, wtf?  I'm not supporting a sponsor splashed piece of plastic, I'm supporting the meat bags sitting on it so the idea of switching out crews as well as boats just sucks.  If they allowed dedicated crews off shore vs in-port then please just take "Life at the extreme" out of the equation.

I got no question to Mr. Turner, but a statement, when you try to please a crowd, please try to take a look at the size vs the noise.

Intent is for same teams to race inshore and offshore, with maybe one switch-in guy that would need to do at least one offshore leg.  But it's all quite open.  Biggest change is overall number of people...not a lot of meat bags left!