35th America's Cup

I don't know about you guys but I thought this round was incredibly boring, with very few lead changes during the racing. I blame the course layout for that, starting with the very first leg being a blast reach rather than a traditional upwind leg, where tactics and strategy figure in just as much as speed. With the first leg being a blast reach, it became just a drag race causing enough separation by the time they turned upwind, all the lead boat had to do was cover the trailing boat.

Blow the start?

Game over.

But even when Oracle won the start, they got rolled right away, which wouldn't have happened if the first leg had been a beat. Sure, they probably would have gotten passed later in the race, because it looked to me like ETNZ's boat was just faster, and/or Ashby is just that much better at trimming the wing.

I have much respect for and congratulations to ETNZ, they were clearly the better boat/team, but I still wish the course had been upwind/downwind rather than starting off with a blast reach. It just made it so dull to watch, not at all as exciting as the last cup in San Fran.

Perhaps the greater wind and tide out there in the SFO Bay added to the constant lead changes as well, but this time around it was really dull.

Not sure i'd agree with that Timbo, but I haven't seen an upwind start with these boats. Maybe they would push each other around more before hitting the line, but in my mind, it would end up being a very slow start to the race with each team trying to luff the other.

At least with the offwind start, they can hook or gap... Or maybe even peel a boat off at the mark?

I'd love to think these multihulls are good for more than one AC cycle, but I doubt the costs would justify.

I like the youth AC series, but only because it's fleet racing with folks that make more mistakes than the pros. Kind of like farm league for baseball.

Nationality rules would be cool, but we'd probably get destroyed unless USA could come up with a funding mechanism to attract the top talent.

And I REALLY want Ashby to spill the beans on all that development...

Press Conference here

Well, even IF there is a nationality rule, there are ways to become a citizen of another country. There have been nationality rules - particularly when NZ last held the cup if I remember correctly...and the people that were going through the paperwork to re-declare citizenship to meet the letter of the rule almost made it a farce. I do support a nationality clause but it won't ever work out close to the ideal that yearns for it. Added to which, instead of looking for that US talent, they'd probably look for ways to speed up citizenship applications....but I'm not convinced that we would necessarily be down and out if we had to draw largely from US talent resources. There would certainly be some long term needs to be addressed, though.

I do hope they don't move too far from this format so we can get another cup cycle within two years. If the go back to the drawing board, it would probably be at least three years before we have another event.

OK, so back to NZ control systems...the rear cyclist does have some sort of detailed controls and Outteridge suggests that he is indeed controlling the flight of the system. Having heard that before, I had wondered how he could possibly accomplish that with his head down...there is one shot showing his control device which is an interesting twist on the manual input:

So he seems to have a display that shows where the board is and where the board SHOULD be for stable flight. He has a slider lever that he can move up and down and chase the target. The slider switch should technically constitute a separate and isolate-able device from the data feedback system...and the input is manual. That's an interesting solution to the ruleset.

https://www.facebook.com/americascup/videos/1791831947509897/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

Well is that what it's come down to?

Not just the sailing, but really foil control?

Seems pretty stupid to me that they don't just let it be an 'open' format based on a box rule.

What I'd like to see is a max/min weight, max sail area, max foil area, and max hull length, then let the designers figure out what's fastest.

Brings up another issue, how do the A cats (and any other full foiling class) measure/handicap each other?

Do they restrict max sail area and foil area, min wt and max beam? Or just measure foils and sail area and minimum wt?

It seems to me, once the boat is up on the foils, all that matters is sail area (horse power) and foil lift/control. As we just saw, keeping the boat up on the foils, going fast, for the entire race is most critical.

Our 'Old School' idea of max hull length is no longer valid if you are going to spend the entire race up on the foils.

But still the physics is the same; Thrust (sail area) plus Lift (foil surface) must overcome Weight and Drag.

So, do we need a new measurement formula that measures Thrust+Lift vs Weight+Drag?

Can a Moth race head to head against a full foiling A Cat, if their L/D numbers match up?

That's what I'm wondering about.

Great vid! thanks

In the end, it's really about cost isn't it? Or at least, the PERCEPTION of cost. By going OD on a lot of the boat elements, conceivably an entry level team could spend less on getting into the event. By having more of the design open to development, that's more money and time to spend on developing the boat, more need to have multiple boats, and more need to have large crews to sail and man them all. The OD wrinkle was added to try and get the costs down so more competitors would sign up.

A-cats have a pretty basic set of design rules. It literally fits on one sheet of paper with the exception of the interpretations. They're available here: http://www.a-cat.org/sites/default/files/ISAF%20A%20CAT%20rules%202010_0_0.pdf

Rule #8 was added in order to limit foiling and it specifies a minimum

tip distance

for the daggerboards in a down position from the centerline of the boat (to limit the horizontal section of the foil) and that the boards must be inserted from the top of the deck. It does not limit the dimension of the board in any way other than those two parameters. If you build a board that's too thick or too long, you eat a drag penalty. Two short or too narrow and you don't get enough side bite or lift.

The rule works, mostly, but I think the guys figured out work-arounds faster than imagined. I would argue that the rules now making foiling difficult, but not impossible, but still pretty impractical for the common person sailing in the normal conditions. They've essentially straddle the fence with the rule and perhaps it was the right call. A-cat participation isn't terrible but practically none of the foiling guys show up to our lake regattas anymore (the conditions are not very likely to suit them) and I would argue that more than before choose to avoid events based on the forecast conditions. On the other hand, a full on foiling rule set would have made an entire foiling switch for the class and probably caused a lot of a-cat sailors to cut bait. Or a tighter rule making foiling all but impossible might have driven guys with money and time to other classes where they could foil. All decisions would carry some sort of damage to the class and I think all options were not great but that the class choose the better path.

At any rate, my point is that the a-cat class has a very short and very simple rule set - and it works. However, we also don't have billionaires in the ranks and the equipment war has been kept somewhat to a minimum just by cost and the free resources of the people that currently participate. You will spend a good deal of money to live at the pointy end of the fleet but you can also have a good result with an older non-foiling boat if the conditions are reasonably mild. Personally, I love sailing the boat...it's incredibly responsive and easy to handle/maneuver. I got back into A-cat even though everyone else is foiling just because it's a great way to spend an afternoon on the water.

What were the AC 'box rules' going into this regatta?

Seems they were allowed to change their foils, it was mentioned several times in that last race that Oracle had 'added some tip length' to their light air foils.

Was there a restriction on max foil size?

Still, I thought the last event (2013 in SFO) was much more exciting with more wind and more high speed sailing, (45kts vs 22 in Bermuda) with more lead changes, etc. and the tide in/out of the bay made picking the right side of the course so much more important as well.

This light air regatta in Bermuda about put me to sleep on most races. I wonder exactly where the Kiwi's will hold the next AC regatta.

Um, didn't they have reaching starts in SF???

Mike

They can use the H2-B program like the tech guys, or the H2-A program for hotel housekeepers? <img src="<>/sick.gif" alt="sick" title="sick" height="15" width="15" />

Yes, if the money is there, USA can develop a huge amount of talent. Knowing little of the details, I am under the impression that an aspiring sailor here in the US has to spend more time and effort fundraising than on any other aspect of their development.

I'd posit if they keep multihulls in some sort of box rule format, then they can continue with the youth AC series which might make sense as it gives sailing in general a track to pursue (Olympics, AC series, etc). Switching platforms too dramatically (say, back to OD monohulls) may cost more time in figuring out the best

track

to put potential sailors on.

If indeed we go back to non-foiling craft, will the marketplace still continue to develop this technology? I liked the concept of that foiling cat with the automatic controls (even the

oh sh$t

button they described in the video). The swiss-army monohulls look quite odd, but once those folks get a taste of foiling, what's stopping them from seeing the benefit of foiling cats...?

Maybe we should look more toward how they

handicap

various aircraft against each other?

Or how do Moths compare against each other? How is that box rule set up?

My only issue with a box rule is that it may not keep boat performance close enough to challenge the sailors abilities... It could turn out like the 33rd (?) AC with the cat vs. tri blowout.. That WAS like watching paint dry. The last two iterations were much more interesting since boats were closer in performance to each other.

I think this iteration did make substantial gains in the media presentation:

- races were held to a particular elapsed time, which makes for better scheduling
- good use of drones and on-board cameras. I'm sure the helicopter shots were expensive, but necessary
- digital overlay of distance to mark, laylines, tracks, wingwash, etc did add to the

show

, especially for those not fully versed in match sailing rules or tactics
- generally reliable video streaming
- better vignettes on the technology, teams, and training
- Commercials (at least for semi-finals and finals) didn't walk all over important race developments.
- The venue was gorgeous, but they could have spent less time taking video of the fans. I opine that sailing is generally not a (fixed position) spectator sport. I think I saw more of the race via streaming than those fans in the bleachers. What I DID miss, however, was the in-person interaction with the team bases, and the up close sense of the boats during docking.

Putting Draper, Cayard, and Outteridge on the mike was a plus, too.

The lighter air venue probably helped with the spectator fleet in that I don't personally like being anchored in 25+ kts just to watch a sailing race.

SO, how do you take these improvements and make it marketable?

The AC box rule was a one design wing (Sam mentioned earlier that this was just the leading edge/mast portion and that the flaps were open to individual design). I do know that the controls inside the wing were customizable. The hulls and beam shells were one design but you could customize the cockpits, fairings, and controls. The daggerboard foils were COMPLETELY open to development (they could be as long as desired) but teams could only build a limited number of foils - which INCLUDED models designated specifically for destruction testing. The foil itself by use and count was defined by a percentage of the original foil which is why they came up with the removable tip sections to be able to modify the foil to narrow down the wind range selection. You could really be up the creek if you significantly damaged a daggerboard and there was a bit of a challenge and some mouthing off back and forth about that when TNZ broke one during training in New Zealand.

I think the OD leading edge mast section was a stroke of brilliance because it prevented the teams from building them just strong enough to withstand sailing forces - You'll note that TNZ's mast didn't break when they capsized which is important to the safety of an overturned boat.

As to further developments of the design of these AC50s, why bother with the cranking crew? Is it just nostalgia that a large crew is needed? If they allow the battery powered computer sh!t to help with foils and the wing why not dump the

grinders/cyclists

and put in a hydraulic pump (electric, gas, solar, cold fusion)? Then we'd be racing with only two or maybe three real sailors, not Olympic bikers and steroid guys swapped out each race.

the AC J-class needed 16 crew.
The AC72 cats used 11 crew.
The AC50 boats used 6.

The IMOCA 60s get it done with ONE sailor. Don't you still call this sailing if doesn't use a huge crew or uses powered controls?

The entire wing was one design, as were the jibs. The controls for the wing were open development. The foils (daggerboards and rudders) were open but had to meet measurement formulas.

AC33 did just that and everybody bitched. AC35 was similar (grunt replaced generator) so I agree with you. And as for the battery powered computer sh!t to help with foils and the wing, there is no way NZ's boat would sail without the computer.

The AC45 was all about sailing. Everybody was busy pulling strings to sail the boat. Watching the yutes was refreshing.

BT Sports did a great job on this, usually the hour before scheduled race. NBC . . . not so.

At the risk of knowing this will likely have the same type of reactions as the nationality debate...

I think having grinding or pedaling stations just to run hydraulics is a complete joke. The boats should be manually controlled. I don't care if you call me old-fashioned, but the event should be about testing sailing skills, which includes moving sails (grinding stations are supposed to turn winches, not pumps, on a sailboat). Having computers tell you where to put the sails, and machines to put them there when an operator pushes a button, just isn't in the spirit of a sailing competition.

I know that a large portion of the event is pushing design boundaries, and maybe they can't make the boats foil without those things, but maybe that's not such a bad thing? Trust me, they'll figure it out eventually.

Mike

I was trying to think what might be an acceptable level of manual power to drive the boat. I find this more acceptable than the nose-to-a$$ cyclists. Others of you might might not...

Who's old enough to remember the Magic Christian engine room scene? <img src="<>/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin" height="15" width="15" />

NSFW

On the computer thing, you'll have to define that term... Tacticians and skippers have been using various implements (even back to quadrants, speed logs, telltales, and sextants) to gauge performance and determine all sorts of variables (COG, VMG, AWA, etc). So are we going back to the stone age here, or only back as far as (insert some tech era here)?

And should we step all the way back to

human power

only, as in dropping any force multipliers such as winches? So we're back to blocks and belaying pins?

If the winches were controlled via mechanical linkage vs. hydraulics, would that be acceptable?

Conversely, if future designs went full

fly by wire

, and the grinders were actually cranking generators for electrical power, would that be okay?

What's the difference between

kissy-face/onion breath

grinder and the

butt-to-nose

cyclors? Do the current grinders need some awesome sailing knack, or can they just be deck apes?

I liked the biker gang concept because they can use their hands for things other than cranking. I would have figured a recumbent bike setup to be more efficient, though.... but it might be hard to switch tacks from a seated position.

FYI
I relayed that link on Beachcats - someone just said they had a virus try and attack from that link.

i personally had no issues

My anti virus lit up during the post race coverage and stopped some kind of embed. I don't have the details because it crashed Avast. It might have been WannaCry. I was unable to log into anything. It took some serious doing to recover.

I agree - it takes too much of the

human element

out of it

I would rather they all race the youth boats

Jay, you make some good observations, and technology needs to evolve, but there definitely comes a point when it just doesn't seem like it's about the sailors anymore.

How many of you listened to the final presser? When Ashby was talking about the future, and being happy to be at this point in history, I was wondering if I might have been reading into that too much (as a sign that we might be heading back in the other direction). Grant Dalton made some very telling points about the direction this is likely to head (safety on the open ocean, etc.), and it looks like I probably wasn't being paranoid.

I'd say the chances of seeing foiling again are probably slightly less that 50%, just based on what I heard in that presser. But like all things America's Cup, who knows?

Mike

For that matter, why bother with any crew? It's silly to have a human tactician on a boat when each team could just have drones hovering all over the course. The drones could transmit windspeed and direction information to a remote computer that would then use VPPs and routing and aero programmes to work out the sail trim and steering and transmit those commands to servos and hydraulic pumps on the boat. You could also use radar controls for ride height. You wouldn't need sailors at all.

In fact we're dramatically limiting all-round speed by our luddite definition of what sailing is. We accept that sailing is driven by particles interacting with a sail, right? So why not accept that photons count just as much as air molecules? That would allow for solar panels to replace sails, so boats could go straight upwind and downwind and race even when there's no wind. 🙂

The new SolarCup50s could be used to develop solar technology and remote control that could be used for other sports. Imagine how much more fun the Tour de France this weekend would be if each team had just one riderless solar-powered bicycle instead of a bunch of domestiques cranking around the Continent.

Nice contrast Garda! This is a good way to define where you are - take it to the extreme and see how it looks from there.

There is certainly something about the hydraulic systems that disconnects the sailors from direct motion on the boats that bothers me. I have had some hesitation in accepting it and the general concept has been a little hard to sell to non-sailor engineers that I work with. I have mixed feelings about it, honestly....I started to say that I didn't think that they could control these boats without it - but the AC40(42?) seemed to do just fine...I would support eliminating the hydraulics for direct mechanical control.

That said, the level of computer control on the boats is on the cusp of getting out of hand too and I definitely do not want to see the level of involvement increase.

After watching the video yesterday that you posted with NZ using a joystick to keep his foil

in-line

with a computer displaying the optimal position, while on a bike, feeding the onboard hydrolics ... yea not exactly

sailing

However - this event is a big boy, big buck event - not really designed for the spectators - they can do what they want, but my interest decreases with all this tech

But wait, aren't canting keels hydraulic? And how about some of the rudder control systems?

I suspect we're all pontificating about where we want the technology to stop... Should we go back to square rigs and hemp rope, or all the way forward to the solarCup?

Should track/running events go back to dirt roads and no starting blocks (a la

Chariots of Fire

)? Or keep the rubber track and other enhancements?

The best sailors can adapt to any technology, platform, etc. and put it to best use. Whether it's using a wet finger held upright or a

follow the dot

screen.

The AC is a big to-do about a trophy. It's not really a cutting edge design competition (perhaps it should?). As pointed out in SA, not all of the technology displayed in past AC matches was truly beyond what may have already existed in sailing (even C-class has been using foils for years)..

If the AC series goal is to make this event marketable, then they have to do something outlandish to draw eyeballs (foiling in this case). If they want lots of competition, they have to make it cost-effective (box-rule or even OD).

Maybe the DOG should angle more toward a design competition rather than a glorified match race. Set up the venue, dates, course (W/L or otherwise) and event (Fleet/Match, series/races) and let them show up with whatever. Exclude any non-human sourced energy (or even stored energy if you so desire)

It's already a billionaire's game... The wining design would obviously have some potential revenue from sale of the technology.... probably easier and more quantifiable than marketing revenue.

Did anyone else watch this and come away with similar observations?

Also, Dalton started talking about connecting the AC to other major events (such as the VOR). Does anyone have any clue how they intend to pull that off?

Mike

I didn't get any kind of impression but if you ask how Dalts is going to pull something off the answer is usually:

Terribly, with a heaping dose of self-righteousness and smug defensiveness