AC37 - The Americas Cup Match GB vs NZ

[flaming]

Yeah... It's not looking good.

 

[Robin]

Yeah... It's not looking good.

I was watching on Eurosport via discovery plus and GB were leading- then the streaming failed and when it finally caught up we had lost. my tv was lucky to survive

 

[flaming]

I was watching on Eurosport via discovery plus and GB were leading- then the streaming failed and when it finally caught up we had lost. my tv was lucky to survive

The youtube feed has been very reliable.

 

[michael_w]

I'm looking forward to the start of the Vendee Globe ...

 

[Roberto]

The youtube feed has been very reliable.

Yes, though one should mute a good half of the commentaries; if one likes technical/racing tactics comments and not football fan like blurb, that is.
"IB is putting a lot of pressure on etnz, IB is pushing them hard" is next to ridiculous when Etnz are simply sailing upfront and increasing their lead. Thankfully when ETNZ is leading it's suddenly all a lot more silent
On the other hand there is a couple of persons talking about tactics (and aero/hydro stuff for the few interested) who are very interesting to listen to.

 

[bedouin]

Yeah... It's not looking good.

They have to hope for a change in conditions - they may be more competitive in stronger winds.

 

[14K478]

Oh dear.

I feel sorry for Sir Ben and Sir Jim.

They have got the best British result since 1964 and they have got back to 1964.

 

[Chris 249]

When you have a downwind finish in traditional match racing boats you expect the delta to reduce on the final leg - assuming the boats are in any way close at the last mark- as the lead boat either gets blanketed or sails extra distance to avoid being blanketed.
Doesn't happen in foiling boats.

I agree that the racing isn't as close as the hype makes out on a race by race, delta by delta, basis. But I think the point is more that for most of the racing it's felt like either boat was in with a shot if they got off the start better than their opponent. Even yesterday when the Brits made that silly error in the pre start and gifted the Kiwis control, they didn't really sail away. Which for a lot of the IACC period was not the case. So whilst the delta might have been closer, the result felt more nailed on in the IACC days, until the last cup in 2007, when it was all far too close so the rules had to be changed....

What that says about the quality of the event as a spectacle is another matter entirely.

Yep, the lack of a downwind wind shadow does reduce the trailing boat's options. And with fast craft, the way induced drag drops off with the square of the speed seems to mean that a fairly small improvement in design or technique causes as an outsize effect on speed and therefore separation between boats. Wind shadows often become irrelevant because the leader is too far away to be covered anyway no matter where the breeze is coming from.

My experience indicates that in fast craft the higher speed allows you to build up enough separation that you can be above and to windward, whereas a similar sailing edge in slow craft creates a much smaller lead and your opposition therefore has more chance of getting leverage to one side or the other, or catching you when you fluff a tack or small shift. It would be interesting to talk to others who sail a wide variety of boats.

One thing we haven't seen, as far as I know, is an attempt to sail sigificantly outside normal VMG angles to try to escape a cover, or a full-on down-speed tacking or gybing duel. It's quite possible that it's just not an option in AC75s generally or for Ineos against TNZ in particular.

Sad to see more claims on SA that Ben is too old. Surely if that was the problem they'd be losing out more on "his" tack than the other. And I think he's still younger than Andrew Landenberger was when he was fourth in the A Class worlds, just behind Tuke and Burling and ahead of Outteridge, for example. Ben's lack of small-foiler experience wouldn't be helping him but it seems his age is just being used by keyboard legends to put him down.

 

[flaming]

Ironically enough given the previous chat about how close or not the racing was, that was an incredibly close race yesterday. It seems clear to me that the only real difference at the moment is loss in the maneuvers, with NZ being significantly better in this regard. That factor gave them the lead, then they were absolutely masterful at positioning themselves in the best breeze and giving INEOS no road back.
For me, the one thing the baying mob on SA have got really wrong is that Ben and Co aren't up to it. They're completely missing just what an insane level the Kiwis are operating at.

One thing we haven't seen, as far as I know, is an attempt to sail sigificantly outside normal VMG angles to try to escape a cover, or a full-on down-speed tacking or gybing duel. It's quite possible that it's just not an option in AC75s generally or for Ineos against TNZ in particular.

I think the main issue is that there just isn't the ability to cover as we're used to, and if you sail outside of VMG you'll simply just take far too much time to get to the next mark and give up more time. Mid leg dialups are a thing of the past I fear.

 

[flaming]

Mozzy, as ever, with the brilliant analysis of where the difference is, and a good guess as to what is causing it.

 

[Seven Spades]

I can honestly say that this is a travesty. This is completely against the spirit of the Americas Cup if they want to do this made for TV sprint thing then fine but it isn’t the Americas cup. Just go to you tube and watch some of the racing from the IP’s and earlier and it was fantastic. The conditions were more akin to real sailing than this controlled nonsense.

 

[Roberto]

Mozzy, as ever, with the brilliant analysis of where the difference is, and a good guess as to what is causing it.

Nice
I haven't noticed if he said it, but in an interview ETNZ said their mainsail outhaul is handled by the helmsman, not by the sail trimmer.

 

[flaming]

Nice
I haven't noticed if he said it, but in an interview ETNZ said their mainsail outhaul is handled by the helmsman, not by the sail trimmer.

Yes, all the boats do that I think.

 

[flaming]

I can honestly say that this is a travesty. This is completely against the spirit of the Americas Cup if they want to do this made for TV sprint thing then fine but it isn’t the Americas cup. Just go to you tube and watch some of the racing from the IP’s and earlier and it was fantastic. The conditions were more akin to real sailing than this controlled nonsense.

The Americas cup has always been a design competition first, and a sailing competition second.

And the defenders have always set the rules. Claiming that "what it was" is what the cup is all about I'm afraid ignores the fact that "what the cup is about" could mostly be summed up as "changeable".

 

[Chris 249]

We'll have to differ on how changeable the Cup has been, Flaming. Until the 1988-ish, the AC was pretty much always sailed in boats that were, when the type was chosen, the fastest existing class of inshore-racing (but offshore capable) monos. That was pure, simple and it had been the case for over a century.

Even when the 12s were chosen, they were faster than the offshore maxi yachts around an inshore course (and around many offshore courses as well). They were also still actively raced. The only real exception was that apparently there were still four M Class racing in the USA and therefore strictly speaking the 12s were the second-fastest existing class of inshore-racing mono - but no M had been built for years and the building of new ones was effectively barred by a US/UK agreement.

 

[flaming]

We'll have to differ on how changeable the Cup has been, Flaming. Until the 1988-ish, the AC was pretty much always sailed in boats that were, when the type was chosen, the fastest existing class of inshore-racing (but offshore capable) monos. That was pure, simple and it had been the case for over a century.

Even when the 12s were chosen, they were faster than the offshore maxi yachts around an inshore course (and around many offshore courses as well). They were also still actively raced. The only real exception was that apparently there were still four M Class racing in the USA and therefore strictly speaking the 12s were the second-fastest existing class of inshore-racing mono - but no M had been built for years and the building of new ones was effectively barred by a US/UK agreement.

The IACC class, which debuted in 1992 was the first class created specifically for the cup, rather than adopted into it. (Ignoring the DOG match that preceded it) It marked the final change away from any pretense at a post cup life for the boats towards purpose created class specifically to race for the cup. There have now been more post 12s cups than there were cups raced in the 12s.

If we go again with the AC75s there will have been as many AC75 cups as J class cups.

The next cup will mean we've had as many foiling cups as IACC cups.

I don't think you can talk about the cup's history as if it stopped in 1988. The way the cup has evolved since then is every much a part of the cup as the years beforehand, and has a far bigger influence on what it is now in terms of boats sailed, people involved and the way it's run than the period beforehand.

 

[Chris 249]

The IACC class, which debuted in 1992 was the first class created specifically for the cup, rather than adopted into it. (Ignoring the DOG match that preceded it) It marked the final change away from any pretense at a post cup life for the boats towards purpose created class specifically to race for the cup. There have now been more post 12s cups than there were cups raced in the 12s.

If we go again with the AC75s there will have been as many AC75 cups as J class cups.

The next cup will mean we've had as many foiling cups as IACC cups.

I don't think you can talk about the cup's history as if it stopped in 1988. The way the cup has evolved since then is every much a part of the cup as the years beforehand, and has a far bigger influence on what it is now in terms of boats sailed, people involved and the way it's run than the period beforehand.

I'm not talking about the Cup's history as if it stopped in 1988 at all. I'm stating the facts that have applied across the majority of its history.

As you say, the IACC class was the first class to be created specifically for the Cup, and it was after a century of using existing classes. We cannot just ignore the fact that for over a century there was an un-changeable practise of using existing classes. The Cup class wasn't really very changeable in spirit across that time - it had a concept or style that was applied to different rating rules and designs, but the underlying concept remained the same.

The IACC class was very different to the AC72s and foilers, in that the IACCs were intended to be very similar to the style of non-IOR slender sportsboats and sleds that were coming out at the time - they weren't dramatically different to all existing classes and they were similar in speed to the maxi monos of the day, and very similar in dimensions to the next bunch (weight apart). So the IACC boats were largely an attempt to stick with trends but to follow on with the theme of AC history in a time when they felt (with logic) that they needed a new class. They could have changed to foiling multis then (they existed at the time) but they didn't because they knew the Cup's history (and much of its allure) was that it was sailed in the fastest inshore monohull class. The IACC class can be seen as an attempt to follow the Cup's course, rather than (as with the foilers and AC72 cats) an attempt to create a completely new style that had never existed anywhere else.

I had written words to the same effect in the earlier post but cut them for the sake of brevity.

The earlier events are arguably still vital to the current Cup, because they created the history that is the main allure of the Cup. If the Cup hadn't been sailed for over a century in the fastest mainstream monos of the day it may now be sitting dusty in an antique shop somewhere, and no one would even think of challenging for it.

Anyone is welcome to differ, of course, on how much the Cup's history should effect its current course, but I am NOT talking as if its history stopped in 1988. I think 1989 was an intelligent adaptation of the classic concept or style, but the cats and foilers have been aberation - and in some ways (ie number of entries) an unsuccessful one.

 

[TiggerToo]

I watched a few AC37 races over the past few weeks.

Maybe this is a bit of a personal view: but are sailing competitions all so boring? It really looks like F1. But with only 2 boats. Minus the crashes and the pit-stops.

The foiling boats are incredible, from an engineering/physics point of view. But as a spectator sport, they leave a lot to be desired.

 

[flaming]

I'm not talking about the Cup's history as if it stopped in 1988 at all. I'm stating the facts that have applied across the majority of its history.

As you say, the IACC class was the first class to be created specifically for the Cup, and it was after a century of using existing classes. We cannot just ignore the fact that for over a century there was an un-changeable practise of using existing classes.

The IACC class was very different to the foilers, in that the IACCs were intended to be very similar to the style of non-IOR slender sportsboats and sleds that were coming out at the time - they weren't dramatically different to all existing classes and they were similar in speed to the maxi monos of the day, and very similar in dimensions to the next bunch (weight apart). So the IACC boats were largely an attempt to follow on with the theme of AC history in a time when they felt (with logic) that they needed a new class. They could have changed to foiling multis then (they existed at the time) but they didn't because they knew the Cup's history (and much of its allure) was that it was sailed in the fastest inshore monohull class. The IACC class can be seen as an attempt to follow the Cup's course, rather than (as with the foilers and cats) an attempt to create a completely new style that had never existed anywhere else.

Well, if not stopped in 1988, you talk as if the pre 1988 history is more important than the post 1988 history. As if the direction of the cup now is "wrong" because it has changed a bit.

Which simply by definition cannot be true, because at its very core the cup is something that is raced in mutually agreed boats between defender and challenger. If the defender and challenger of record say "this is what we're racing the cup in" then by very definition that IS the cup. Because the deed of gift makes it absolutely clear that if they cannot agree what the cup should be raced in the challenger has the right to say "OK, 90 foot on the waterline, see you in 7 months". Pretending that because you don't like it, because the current boats have deviated in this way, or that way, from what came before, because to you it's not the "real" cup that it somehow isn't the cup, or isn't "true" to you ideal of what the cup should be, isn't, I'm afraid, valid.

The fact that there was a practice for over a century of using an existing class is an interesting historical fact, for sure, but it has no bearing on what is raced in this cup, or the next cup, or the 2145 cup. It was more a product of its time, in the same way that flying boats are a product of this.

The basic truth is that to decide what the next cup will be sailed in you need to win this one. That has always been the case. These days even the challengers are pre-selected as people who will agree with the broad approach the new defender has for the next cup.

 

[benjenbav]

I’d be interested in others’ thoughts on this: it seemed to me that in races 1-3 ETNZ was flown lower, closer to the water than Ineos Britannia. In race 4 the attitude of the two boats was much more similar and the racing also much closer.