Americas Cup 37 about to commence

[flaming]

I think the advertising slogans on the sails may tell us something, but this is now a competition between Formula One motor racing teams as well.

Yes, but mostly as a bi-product of being bankrolled by the same people.

Chris' stuff is great, really, and the history of the cup, and racing in general is endlessly fascinating. The problem is pretending that what someone said over 100 years ago has any bearing on the modern cup.

Neither is it, as many claim, "the F1 of sailing". Not in the sense of how it's run. F1 teams in the modern era generate cash for their owners. America's cup teams consume it. F1 teams have the luxury that the racing is not organised by the team that won last year to their special rules, but is organised by the FIA and Liberty. So they know in advance what the rules are, where the races are etc. And they have fan numbers, TV deals etc. This allows them to sell sponsorship with certainty over multi year deals. The F1 teams have a value and are bought and sold. America's cup teams really don't, and aren't.

We're less than a month from the conclusion of this cup, and we don't currently know where the next one will be, who will be the defender, who the challenger of record, what the boat class will be (though both teams have in theory signed up to use AC75s again) or even, most crucially, when it will be. This causes enormous problems for cup teams, especially ones who are not mostly funded by Billionaires. Right now they're out there trying to use the buzz around the current cup to drum up sponsors for their effort in the next one. But they cannot answer even the most basic of questions - what, where, when. And that's hard when you're looking for a budget of 10s if not hundreds of millions.
And without the money in place, you lose the best people....

Which is why the teams reliant on commercial sponsorship so often fail to make it to their second cycle. And why to be a perennial challenger you really need a tame Billionaire. Since 2000 only team NZ have ever really been the exception, and they've only really done it by winning it. After the disaster and heartbreak of the San Francisco cup in 2013, it took a monumental effort from them to get the funds in place to get to the Bermuda cup in 2017, and then win it. And even as holders now they have had to take the cash from Barcelona rather than host in Auckland.

If they don't win this time round, it's not inconceivable that they won't make the next one. NZ are talking about budget caps, extra racing in the meantime to drum up interest and provide value for sponsors, and a cup as soon as 2026. They have commercial sponsors to keep happy, new sponsors to find. INEOS don't. They don't need to keep sponsors happy if they win, just one man. They don't need a quick turn around. A budget cap doesn't help them. It's not at all out of the question that there isn't another cup until 2027 or even 2028 if INEOS win. With nothing concrete about venue or class announced until late next year. How do you raise sponsor money as NZ if that's the case? How do you keep the team in place, paying their wages?

 

[Chiara’s slave]

The big difference with a J class is that that fat, old billionaire who is paying for it, gets to go on it and enjoy it

Sir Jim has been for a sail on Britannia. In fact they had 3 sirs at once, I believe. I doubt any other Americas cup boat has managed that.

 

[14K478]

Sir Jim has been for a sail on Britannia. In fact they had 3 sirs at once, I believe. I doubt any other Americas cup boat has managed that.

Sir Jim is a slim and fit billionaire. In fact most of today’s billionaires are slim and fit, but afaik only Sir Jim has skied to the South Pole.

Sir Thomas Lipton had the King on board “Shamrock II” for trials - and she lost her mast!

HM asked if anyone had been hurt - luckily not - then pulled out his cigar case and lit up.

 

[SaltIre]

Sir Jim is a slim and fit billionaire. In fact most of today’s billionaires are slim and fit, but afaik only Sir Jim has skied to the South Pole.

Sir Thomas Lipton had the Prince of Wales on board “Shamrock II” for trials - and she lost her mast!

HRH asked if anyone had been hurt - luckily not - then pulled out his cigar case and lit up.

View attachment 184030

The caption says The King was there too.

 

[14K478]

The caption says The King was there too.

I had typed the text from memory before I checked the caption; I then corrected it but you were too quick for me!

I think most people know that Kaiser Wilhelm II remarked on “My uncle going boating with his grocer”.

 

[Chris 249]

Thanks for the kind remarks, guys. With so much archived stuff coming on line this is the best of times to be interested in sailing history.

Flaming, re "The problem is pretending that what someone said over 100 years ago has any bearing on the modern cup"; I addressed your claim that I was mistaken in "assum(ing) that the Americas cup's reason to exist has anything at all to do with promoting the sport." There is LOTS of evidence (only some of which I have posted) to confirm that the Cup's "reason to exist" DOES have things to do with promoting the sport. The AC exists because owners of the schooner America re-dedicated the RYS' trophy to promote the sport for good reasons. That is what I addressed. Please do not change the goalposts and claim that I was "pretending" anything.

However, personally I think that we should pay heed to the intent of the original creators of an event, partly out of respect to those who created it as a major event and partly because otherwise, we tend to reduce the options for development and representation. As an example, take the Moth class, which banned cats and then windsurfers. If the Moths had allowed cats and windsurfers, the Moth class as we know would no longer exist, modern foiling as we know it would therefore no longer exist, and the people who love Moths would no longer have a class to sail in. By stating that it was a dinghy class and not allowing itself to be taken over by newer forms of the sport, the Moth class preserved options for development in dinghies and given its fans a class to sail, and cat and windsurfer sailors have their own games to play. As an ex-Mothie who sails boards and cats I think it's a dramatically better outcome than if the Moth class' events were taken over by different disciplines.

In contrast the America's Cup - which was created and became legendary as an event for offshore-capable inshore-racing mainstream big monos - has now been taken over by very different types on two or three occasions. The very popular area of mainstream big boat sailing has now lost an event it created, and development and representation in our sport have been hindered. That's a bad thing IMHO, and we should avoid such destruction by respecting the wishes of those who created such legendary events.

You pose a very interesting point - is the America's Cup dramatically more of a dick-waving contest than many of the other ways the super-rich spend their money? The only America's Cup challenging owner I've sailed with (and that was only a couple of times) didn't seem to regard it as dramatically different from his IOR campaigns as far as I know, but I'm no expert. Were the AC efforts by Ellison, Bond, Turner, Raoul Giardini (sp) and Syd Fisher significantly more of a dick waggle than their campaigns in maxis, IOR boats or classic yachts? If so, where is the evidence? Is a multi-billionaire running an AC campaign really doing it as more of a status symbol than an IRC owner who happens to have the best IRC boat in a small club? Given the other ways they show status, the proportion of their wealth an AC can cost, and the wealth of their peers, is running an AC challenge really more of a demonstration of a gazillionaire's status than turning up to the Little Puddle SC in a nice car towing a new Laser or Merlin is to the average person? I honestly don't know, and it's an interesting question that can probably never be answered.

 

[flaming]

Thanks for the kind remarks, guys. With so much archived stuff coming on line this is the best of times to be interested in sailing history.

Flaming, re "The problem is pretending that what someone said over 100 years ago has any bearing on the modern cup"; I addressed your claim that I was mistaken in "assum(ing) that the Americas cup's reason to exist has anything at all to do with promoting the sport." There is LOTS of evidence (only some of which I have posted) to confirm that the Cup's "reason to exist" DOES have things to do with promoting the sport. That is what I addressed. Please do not change the goalposts and claim that I was "pretending" anything.

I'm not arguing at all that you are in any way mistaken about the history. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm arguing you're mistaken about the current reality, and missing the hijack that has really taken place on the cup post 2007, which is worth a discussion in its own right.

The historical reasons for the existence of the cup are not the same as the reason it exists as a current competition in its current form. That's my point. All sporting events morph from their initial concept, especially as they are taken ever more seriously over the years. See the Olympics for example...

Then just consider the way the cup has changed so, so drastically in the last 20 years, away from the point where we had 11 challengers in 2007, some in second hand boats and on tiny budgets from countries with no real sailing history (now THAT was promoting sailing to new audiences), to the absolute money pit that it is today.

Your examples of past owners aren't from the modern high performance foiling era, and all had a history in sailing that Ratcliffe, for example, does not. They all built up in sailing as owners and saw the cup as the pinnacle, but a logical one for them as sailors with money. As far as I'm aware Ratcliffe has never run a racing yacht as an owner in the same way. I'm not, by the way, suggesting that someone without a sailing background should be barred or anything, but you have to recognise that his motivations are different than people who are steeped in the sport.
Your point about the IRC owner also doing it for the status also misses one key point. The IRC owner is on board the boat during the race, usually as the helm. They generally love the sport first, buy the boat second. In the era of the 12s, and even the IACC boats they were also normally aboard during the racing, even if the dawning of the professional era meant they were usually relegated to spectators. None of the Billionaires are expected to be on the boats during racing this time, so yes, I do think that the motivation is different To draw the parallel with the IRC owner, nobody is buying an IRC yacht to win "puddle YC's" annual trophy whilst they themselves sit in the club watching....

It is not possible to make a compelling case that the cup, as it is today, exists to promote the sport. It just doesn't. Any promoting the sport that happens is a happy accident. It exists so that Billionaires pay elite sailors to sail boats, elite yacht designers to design them, and builders to make them. You can argue who's really benefiting the most, the sailors, designers and builders or the billionaires, but you don't write a rule that results in flying boats and budgets north of 100 million if "promoting the sport to grow its appeal" is your goal. Take away the Billionaires and the current form of the cup is not viable, it's simply far, far too expensive without the marketing appeal that would generate enough sponsorship to make it sustainable.
You can argue that it would be a good thing if it got a lot cheaper to compete, and I'd tend to agree, but suggesting that the people fronting the bills have "promoting the sport" as any real part of their motivation in sinking hundreds of millions of pounds into a yacht race that they won't actually take part in themselves does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[14K478]

Sir Thomas Lipton was definitely keen on sailing and specifically big boat inshore racing. Apart from his five Cup challengers he owned and campaigned another “Shamrock”, built in 1908 and originally numbered “Shamrock IV”, but after the launch of the Cup contender “Shamrock IV” she was no longer numbered but known to crew and spectators as “Shamrock 23 metres”.

She was designed by Fife and built by Dennys. She had been started as a Cup challenger in the J class of the Universal Rule, but the NYYC refused the challenge.

Rather than cancel the building of the boat, Lipton had her competed to rate 23 metres under the rival IYRU Rule and kept her for the rest of his life as his regular racing yacht for the British racing season each year. Thats 23 years of racing!

This is what tells me that Lipton was a real sailing enthusiast - he told Fife and Dennys to keep building her anyway.

Sir Thomas raced her round the coast in the UK “Big Class” against “Britannia”, “White Heather” and the others in the Big Class until his death. One of her racing flags is on the wall in the Ashbury Room of the RHYC.

I am not so sure about Sir Thomas Sopwith, but I’m happy to learn.

 

[DoubleEnder]

I think Ratcliffe is keen on ….Ratcliffe. The cycling, the Grenadier car, the AC and did you know you can now buy Ineos branded goods in the supermarket? I don’t think this makes him a bad man. He may or may not be that. I’d definitely rather see £€$ spent on boats and bikes than those terrible stupid Bezos rockets, but this is about The Man Himself I think

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I think Ratcliffe is keen on ….Ratcliffe. The cycling, the Grenadier car, the AC and did you know you can now buy Ineos branded goods in the supermarket? I don’t think this makes him a bad man. He may or may not be that. I’d definitely rather see £€$ spent on boats and bikes than those terrible stupid Bezos rockets, but this is about The Man Himself I think

Whilst I do sympathise with boats vs rockets, the billionaires with the big rocket dicks are doing it for the good of mankind, allegedly, which the boats and bikes have no such aspirations. It might depend on your view of space flight.

 

[14K478]

I promised four years ago that if Ratcliffe were to win the America’s Cup I would stop saying bad things about him.

 

[Laser310]

Whilst I do sympathise with boats vs rockets, the billionaires with the big rocket dicks are doing it for the good of mankind, allegedly, which the boats and bikes have no such aspirations. It might depend on your view of space flight.

Space X was always intended to earn a profit, and while it is privately held, everyone seems to think it is making a pile of money - mostly from Starlink, which it owns.

I imagine Bezos also wants to make money with his rockets, but I kind of doubt he will.

Having said that, NASA uses Space X to put satellites and other cargo in space because, apparently, Space X can do it for a fraction of the cost of NASA doing it. So I guess there is a benefit to humanity.., or at least the American tax payer.

 

[14K478]

I think this letter from the Committee of the New York Yacht Club to the Secretary of the Royal Irish Yacht Club, declining a challenge by Tommy Lipton in the then-new “J” class, sent in 1907, is relevant to this discussion:

Quote:

Dear Sir

At a meeting of the New York Yacht Club, held this evening, the challenge of the Royal Irish Yacht Club, forwarded by you on behalf of Sir Thomas J. Lipton, Bart.,
K. C V. O., under date of Sept. 13, 1907, for a match for the America's Cup, was laid before the club.

After a full discussion the following resolutions were offered by Commodore Ledyard, seconded by Commodore J. P. Morgan, and unanimously adopted:

Resolved.
First— That the America s Cup, held by this club as trustee under the deed of gift, is a trophy which stands pro-eminently for speed and for the utmost skill in designing, construction, managing, and handling the competing vessels, and should therefore be sailed for by the fastest and most powerful vessels that can be produced.

Second— That no agreement for any match for the cup should contain any provision which detracts from the merit of the trophy as representing these objects.

Third— That no agreement should be made with any challenger which imposes any other limitation or restriction upon the designer than such as is necessarily implied in the limits of water line length expressed in the deed.

Especially should no agreement be made requiring the contesting vessels to be constructed under any rule of measurement designed, as is the present rule of the New York Yacht Club, to produce a vessel of a special or limited type.

Fourth— That the importance of the event makes it desirable that the contesting vessels should be substantially of the greatest power and size permitted by the limitations of the deed of gift. Such vessels also furnish the most complete test of skill in designing, constructing, managing, and handling.

For these reasons matches for this cup should not be held between vessels of comparatively insignificant power and size. While the defending club cannot require that the challenging vessel be of any given size so long as she is within the limits permitted by the deed of gift, ii should not consent to any limitation upon the power or size of the defending vessel, other than such as is imposed by the deed.

Fifth— The New York Yacht Club is prepared to accept a challenge in accordance with the terms of the deed of gift, and to enter into mutual agreements with any challenger, similar to those which have governed matches for this cup for many years past.

It is also prepared to meet any qualified challenger in a series of races for this Cup, to be sailed boat for boat, without time allowance.

Sixth— The challenge of the Royal Irish Yacht Club fails to conform to the provisions or the deed of gift under which alone this club can accept any challenge in that it gives no dimension of the challenging vessel, and in that it imposes new and special conditions upon the type, size, and power of the defending vessel.

Moreover, it is of such a character that its acceptance would, in the judgment of the club, involve a complete abandonment of the objects for which the trust in respect to the America's Cup was constituted.

Seventh— That a committee be therefore appointed by the Commodore, of which he shall be one, with instructions to decline on behalf of the New York Yacht Club the challenge of the Royal Irish Yacht Club, with an explanation of the reasons of this club for its action.

The undersigned were appointed by the Commodore as the committee mentioned in the resolutions, and in accordance with the instructions therein contained, it is with great regret that we inform you that the New York Yacht Club declines your challenge.

We adopt this mode of communicating the result by cable in order that the action of the result may reach you officially in advance of any information through any other channel.

Very respectfully,
- CORNELIUS VANDERBILT, Commodore;
- LEWIS CASS LEDYARD,
- J. PIERPONT MORGAN,
- F. G. BOURNE,
- C. OLIVER ISELIN,
- EDWIN D. MORGAN,
- HENRY WALTERS,
- J. ROGERS MAXWELL,
Committee.

Unquote

The idea that a J class yacht is “of comparatively insignificant power and speed” is quite striking, but I think that the AC 75s are in the spirit of this letter. We can see that the NYYC had already abandoned the idea of seaworthiness in favour of “power and speed”.

Lipton decided to have the boat built anyway but to be measured under the equally-new IYRU metre rule as a 23 metre, and he raced her in Britain.

 

[Chris 249]

I think this letter from the Committee of the New York Yacht Club to the Secretary of the Royal Irish Yacht Club, declining a challenge by Tommy Lipton in the then-new “J” class, sent in 1907, is relevant to this discussion:

Quote:

Dear Sir

At a meeting of the New York Yacht Club, held this evening, the challenge of the Royal Irish Yacht Club, forwarded by you on behalf of Sir Thomas J. Lipton, Bart.,
K. C V. O., under date of Sept. 13, 1907, for a match for the America's Cup, was laid before the club.

After a full discussion the following resolutions were offered by Commodore Ledyard, seconded by Commodore J. P. Morgan, and unanimously adopted:

Resolved.
First— That the America s Cup, held by this club as trustee under the deed of gift, is a trophy which stands pro-eminently for speed and for the utmost skill in designing, construction, managing, and handling the competing vessels, and should therefore be sailed for by the fastest and most powerful vessels that can be produced.

Second— That no agreement for any match for the cup should contain any provision which detracts from the merit of the trophy as representing these objects.

Third— That no agreement should be made with any challenger which imposes any other limitation or restriction upon the designer than such as is necessarily implied in the limits of water line length expressed in the deed.

Especially should no agreement be made requiring the contesting vessels to be constructed under any rule of measurement designed, as is the present rule of the New York Yacht Club, to produce a vessel of a special or limited type.

Fourth— That the importance of the event makes it desirable that the contesting vessels should be substantially of the greatest power and size permitted by the limitations of the deed of gift. Such vessels also furnish the most complete test of skill in designing, constructing, managing, and handling.

For these reasons matches for this cup should not be held between vessels of comparatively insignificant power and size. While the defending club cannot require that the challenging vessel be of any given size so long as she is within the limits permitted by the deed of gift, ii should not consent to any limitation upon the power or size of the defending vessel, other than such as is imposed by the deed.

Fifth— The New York Yacht Club is prepared to accept a challenge in accordance with the terms of the deed of gift, and to enter into mutual agreements with any challenger, similar to those which have governed matches for this cup for many years past.

It is also prepared to meet any qualified challenger in a series of races for this Cup, to be sailed boat for boat, without time allowance.

Sixth— The challenge of the Royal Irish Yacht Club fails to conform to the provisions or the deed of gift under which alone this club can accept any challenge in that it gives no dimension of the challenging vessel, and in that it imposes new and special conditions upon the type, size, and power of the defending vessel.

Moreover, it is of such a character that its acceptance would, in the judgment of the club, involve a complete abandonment of the objects for which the trust in respect to the America's Cup was constituted.

Seventh— That a committee be therefore appointed by the Commodore, of which he shall be one, with instructions to decline on behalf of the New York Yacht Club the challenge of the Royal Irish Yacht Club, with an explanation of the reasons of this club for its action.

The undersigned were appointed by the Commodore as the committee mentioned in the resolutions, and in accordance with the instructions therein contained, it is with great regret that we inform you that the New York Yacht Club declines your challenge.

We adopt this mode of communicating the result by cable in order that the action of the result may reach you officially in advance of any information through any other channel.

Very respectfully,
- CORNELIUS VANDERBILT, Commodore;
- LEWIS CASS LEDYARD,
- J. PIERPONT MORGAN,
- F. G. BOURNE,
- C. OLIVER ISELIN,
- EDWIN D. MORGAN,
- HENRY WALTERS,
- J. ROGERS MAXWELL,
Committee.

Unquote

The idea that a 23 metre class boat is “of comparatively insignificant power and speed” is quite striking, but I think that the AC 75s are in the spirit of thus letter. We can see that the NYYC had already abandoned the idea of seaworthiness in favour of “power and speed”.

Lipton decided to have the boat built anyway but to be measured under the equally-new IYRU metre rule as a 23 metre.

It's great to discuss such things with someone who knows their history so well. The letter, like the NYYC's earlier rejection of Dunraven's challenge with the first Valkyrie, certainly shows that the NYYC heads of the time thought that the event should be sailed in the biggest and fastest existing class.

However, we also know that not long before, the NYYC had chosen to defend the Cup with vessels that were far smaller than the DoG allowed; for the 1881 defence the NYYC's officers formed a syndicate to try to buy the Arrow (61'5" LWL) as a defender and when that failed, they built the 65' LWL Pocohontas. They didn't build something bigger (like the 71' LWL Gracie which was almost selected as defender) and some sources say that they actually tried to match the size of the challenger. The British-owned boat that won the Cup, was only 61' LWL.

At the same time the active British racing fleet included five racing cutters over 79' LWL,, about 15 or more of over 60', and (like the USA) lots of far bigger two-stickers. The top US schooners like Grayling were about 25% bigger and often quicker than the winner of the AC around that time, so it seems that at least in 1881 the NYYC didn't think that the Cup had to be in boats of the greatest power and speed.

We also know that at the time of the first Valkyrie challenge, people like the influential NYYC member Robert Center put it on record that there were some members of the club who believed even then that the Cup should be sailed in normal, smaller boats like the 70ft LWL sloops.

And while the NYYC did try to keep the 90 footers in place, as we know they later abandoned that idea, and from then on until they lost the Cup they reduced the "power and speed" of the boats three times (firstly adopting the Universal Rule 75 footers, then the J Class, then the 12 Metres) and also agreed to increase seaworthiness and practicality several times - again with the adoption of the Universal Rule and the Js, then by agreeing to the J Class mast scantlings and accommodation rules, then by adopting the 12s, then by agreeing to change the cockpit rules to make the 12s more seaworthy. In that period they did, of course, decline Fairey's K Class challenge.

So it can be argued that the NYYC only twice(as far as I know) decided that power and speed trumped practicality and seaworthiness, and that was only for about five or six of the 25 or so challenges they recieved in that time. From that angle it seems pretty clear, IMHO, that while there were some who wanted the Cup to only be raced in the biggest racing machines, they were normally a minority, and for most of the time the NYYC and the challengers ensured that the Cup was raced in slower and more practical boats.

 

[Chris 249]

I'm not arguing at all that you are in any way mistaken about the history. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm arguing you're mistaken about the current reality, and missing the hijack that has really taken place on the cup post 2007, which is worth a discussion in its own right.

The historical reasons for the existence of the cup are not the same as the reason it exists as a current competition in its current form. That's my point. All sporting events morph from their initial concept, especially as they are taken ever more seriously over the years. See the Olympics for example...

Then just consider the way the cup has changed so, so drastically in the last 20 years, away from the point where we had 11 challengers in 2007, some in second hand boats and on tiny budgets from countries with no real sailing history (now THAT was promoting sailing to new audiences), to the absolute money pit that it is today.

Your examples of past owners aren't from the modern high performance foiling era, and all had a history in sailing that Ratcliffe, for example, does not. They all built up in sailing as owners and saw the cup as the pinnacle, but a logical one for them as sailors with money. As far as I'm aware Ratcliffe has never run a racing yacht as an owner in the same way. I'm not, by the way, suggesting that someone without a sailing background should be barred or anything, but you have to recognise that his motivations are different than people who are steeped in the sport.
Your point about the IRC owner also doing it for the status also misses one key point. The IRC owner is on board the boat during the race, usually as the helm. They generally love the sport first, buy the boat second. In the era of the 12s, and even the IACC boats they were also normally aboard during the racing, even if the dawning of the professional era meant they were usually relegated to spectators. None of the Billionaires are expected to be on the boats during racing this time, so yes, I do think that the motivation is different To draw the parallel with the IRC owner, nobody is buying an IRC yacht to win "puddle YC's" annual trophy whilst they themselves sit in the club watching....

It is not possible to make a compelling case that the cup, as it is today, exists to promote the sport. It just doesn't. Any promoting the sport that happens is a happy accident. It exists so that Billionaires pay elite sailors to sail boats, elite yacht designers to design them, and builders to make them. You can argue who's really benefiting the most, the sailors, designers and builders or the billionaires, but you don't write a rule that results in flying boats and budgets north of 100 million if "promoting the sport to grow its appeal" is your goal. Take away the Billionaires and the current form of the cup is not viable, it's simply far, far too expensive without the marketing appeal that would generate enough sponsorship to make it sustainable.
You can argue that it would be a good thing if it got a lot cheaper to compete, and I'd tend to agree, but suggesting that the people fronting the bills have "promoting the sport" as any real part of their motivation in sinking hundreds of millions of pounds into a yacht race that they won't actually take part in themselves does not stand up to scrutiny.

Sure, you're right when you say it's "not possible to make a compelling case that the cup, as it is today, exists to promote the sport. It just doesn't." While Coutts pretended the move to cats would promote the sport, he was completely wrong IMHO. As you say, the multi-challenger events of early days seemed to do a much better job of that.

However, the Cup was initially intended to promote the sport. As you say it has now been hijacked into something very different, and IMHO the way it has changed is far greater than the way sporting events normally morph over time, and it hasn't been a good thing.

I don't know anything about Ratcliffe or his motivations but since I'm stuck inside with an injured hand, I'll look at other owners in the foiling era;

Bertelli of LRPP is a lifelong sailor - when he was 30 he won the Italian IOR championships crewing on the amazing Tuscany B/G - a beaten-up hacked around 23 foot production boat turned into a quarter tonner using a Soling rig and sails. It showed potential at the 1/4 ton worlds around 1974, then when the 1/2 ton worlds came to Italy the owner cut it in half and added a bit to the middle. He put extra panels in the Soling sails, extended the Soling spars, and did well in the worlds again. Bertelli now owns and sails the boat.

Tuscany is just one part of Bertelli's collection of yachts; it includes his 62' S&S from 1972), two Herreshoffs, two 12 Metre, a supermaxi etc. So Bertelli is not just a AC syndicate head in both foiling and pre-foiling days, he's also clearly very much a hands-on sailor.

Ellison - sailed his own maxi in Hobarts etc before moving into IACC boats and then the foiling era.

Bertarelli - sailed as a kid, did very well in Swiss multihull racing, got into IACC boats then foilers. (Sadly, when Googling about his earlier sailing history I see he's one of the guys who lies about foiling, like claiming that people under 30 grew up on Moths rather than Lasers. FFS, there's just 20 Mothies in Switzerland and over 200 Laser sailors. I like my foiler but why does foiling turn some people into such BS artists?)

Stephan and Ortwin Kandler, OE - long term sailors with a Farr 45, IMS 50, etc.

Hap Faith, American Magic- sailor from 7, worked in a sail loft at 13, done Transpacs, IMS and maxi success.

Doug Devos, American Magic - life long sailor, IOR 50s, TP52 (including world titles as an owner/driver I think), long ocean races, etc.

Torbjorn Tornquvist, Artemis - steered his TP52 to the world title in 2005 and did well in RC44s.

So looking at that lot, they are clearly all very much sailors bar Ratcliffe, and therefore not really any different to AC backers of earlier days.

In the era of the 12s, most of the owners were NOT aboard for the racing. In the entire history of the 12 Metre finals it appears that just three to five "owners" (actually part owners in syndicates) sailed aboard - Briggs Cunningham and Harry Sears on Columbia, Eric Ridder on Constellation, and perhaps Connor in 1987 and Turner in '77.

Half a dozen or so owners or syndicate heads tried to make the Cup sailing on their boat but didn't get through to the selections - Bich, Matthews (Vim), Pelle Petterson, Charlie Morgan, Chandler Covey, Ted Hood, North, Gordon Ingate, and Ted Turner. Turner, Hood and Connor all took on roles as "just" a skipper at one stage and also as a syndicate contributor at a different time, IIRC.

Given that a typical 12 Metre syndicate seems to have been around 5 people and there were about 48 syndicates or individual owners who tried to get their 12 into the Cup, it looks as if only about one in 20 owners raced aboard their 12 in the AC or the major lead up events. It certainly was NOT normal. One or two other owners may have had a race aboard in the LVC or trials but not as a serious crew candidate.

Incidentally, the vast majority of the owners who sailed aboard 12s seem to have deserved their spot - De Ridder. Petterson, Connor, North and Turner had all won world titles and/or Olympic medals, Morgan and Hood were champion ocean racers and Ingate was a top ocean racer and an Olympian.

Sure, most IRC owners sail aboard but that doesn't mean that they aren't also using their boats as a status symbol, which is the point. Certainly in the past there were prominent IOR owners who rarely, if ever, sailed aboard - they just found the fun in the challenge of organising a successful outfit.

So while there is some difference in that today an owner or syndicate member probably can't get aboard his AC boat even for a tuning sail, the current generation seem to be passionate life-long sailors and probably in it for the sporting angle pretty much in the same way as many AC owners in previous generations or in other big boats.

 

[Chris 249]

Just to return to the current match, it's great that Ben Ainslie has shown up the critics who say he's too old and can't stay cool. The age criticism seems to be a refrain from people who have never foiled, never sailed a really quick craft and never won a title and are (perhaps falsely) convinced that foilers need faster reflexes. Ainslie may not be able to win a Moth or A Class title due to his lack of time on small foilers but on the AC75s with their computer-control systems it may be a very different story.

It would be good to see the Cup go home, and maybe Sir Jim would be good for it - the professional sailors who win the Cup and try to make it into F1 on water do more harm to the event than most billionaires who win it, IMHO.

 

[dunedin]

Just to return to the current match, it's great that Ben Ainslie has shown up the critics who say he's too old and can't stay cool. The age criticism seems to be a refrain from people who have never foiled, never sailed a really quick craft and never won a title and are (perhaps falsely) convinced that foilers need faster reflexes. Ainslie may not be able to win a Moth or A Class title due to his lack of time on small foilers but on the AC75s with their computer-control systems it may be a very different story.

It would be good to see the Cup go home, and maybe Sir Jim would be good for it - the professional sailors who win the Cup and try to make it into F1 on water do more harm to the event than most billionaires who win it, IMHO.

As OP on this thread which has proven great for the LV Cup, and now a fascinating diversion on cup history, I have opened a new thread for the historic Americas Cup Match now starting ….

 

[SaltIre]

As OP on this thread which has proven great for the LV Cup, and now a fascinating diversion on cup history, I have opened a new thread for the historic Americas Cup Match now starting ….

Which of the three Americas Cup threads should we post in, and is three enough?
Here's a link to your new one: AC37 - The Americas Cup Match GB vs NZ

 

[dunedin]

It's great to discuss such things with someone who knows their history so well. The letter, like the NYYC's earlier rejection of Dunraven's challenge with the first Valkyrie, certainly shows that the NYYC heads of the time thought that the event should be sailed in the biggest and fastest existing class.

However, we also know that not long before, the NYYC had chosen to defend the Cup with vessels that were far smaller than the DoG allowed; for the 1881 defence the NYYC's officers formed a syndicate to try to buy the Arrow (61'5" LWL) as a defender and when that failed, they built the 65' LWL Pocohontas. They didn't build something bigger (like the 71' LWL Gracie which was almost selected as defender) and some sources say that they actually tried to match the size of the challenger. The British-owned boat that won the Cup, was only 61' LWL.

At the same time the active British racing fleet included five racing cutters over 79' LWL,, about 15 or more of over 60', and (like the USA) lots of far bigger two-stickers. The top US schooners like Grayling were about 25% bigger and often quicker than the winner of the AC around that time, so it seems that at least in 1881 the NYYC didn't think that the Cup had to be in boats of the greatest power and speed.

We also know that at the time of the first Valkyrie challenge, people like the influential NYYC member Robert Center put it on record that there were some members of the club who believed even then that the Cup should be sailed in normal, smaller boats like the 70ft LWL sloops.

And while the NYYC did try to keep the 90 footers in place, as we know they later abandoned that idea, and from then on until they lost the Cup they reduced the "power and speed" of the boats three times (firstly adopting the Universal Rule 75 footers, then the J Class, then the 12 Metres) and also agreed to increase seaworthiness and practicality several times - again with the adoption of the Universal Rule and the Js, then by agreeing to the J Class mast scantlings and accommodation rules, then by adopting the 12s, then by agreeing to change the cockpit rules to make the 12s more seaworthy. In that period they did, of course, decline Fairey's K Class challenge.

So it can be argued that the NYYC only twice(as far as I know) decided that power and speed trumped practicality and seaworthiness, and that was only for about five or six of the 25 or so challenges they recieved in that time. From that angle it seems pretty clear, IMHO, that while there were some who wanted the Cup to only be raced in the biggest racing machines, they were normally a minority, and for most of the time the NYYC and the challengers ensured that the Cup was raced in slower and more practical boats.

I think this shows that the New York Yacht Club were notoriously fickle and changeable in their approach - and would flex the rules to suit what they thought was their best chance to retain the Auld Mug. Which is hardly surprising for a club of changing individuals, and determined to keep what they thought of as “their” trophy.
Initially the British sporting gentlemen put up with this in a genteel manner.

Later things regularly ended up at a bemused New York Court.

The most extreme example was when the NZ got fed up with US (but now not NYYC) prevarication and instigated legal proceedings which resulted in the “Deed of Gift” match, where they turned up in a maximum 90ft LWL (132 ft LOA) monohull.
They were out manoevered by the US who responded with a catamaran, and after much more legal fees the most un-matched event was sailed in 1988 - A DEED OF GIFT CHALLENGE

 

[dunedin]

Which of the three Americas Cup threads should we post in, and is three enough?
Here's a link to your new one: AC37 - The Americas Cup Match GB vs NZ

Is there three - I only saw this one I started previously for the LV cup and the new one for the Match, the one you linked to, both in the Racing forum