I'd love to see this back in SF, with a ton of entries. I just don't want to see this go back through courts to make that happen.

Mike

All that depends on whether or not the protocol is still alive. There are two documents governing this event at the moment. The DoG that basically says that as long as the defender and challenger are in agreement, anything goes. It also has specifics about what constitutes a valid challenge and how they are ordered/accepted. Then there is the protocol most recently agreed to by the defender and Australia under which two teams have signed up (Luna Rossa and I forget who else). If that protocol remains valid, then it is still the master document defining the event. If, for some reason, that protocol becomes invalid, then we're back to the deed of gift.

As I understand it, there is a minimum number of challengers needed by a certain date in order for the current protocol to survive (I think they need two or three more paid up in the next couple of months). This is defined in the current protocol that Australia and Oracle negotiated. IF that happens, the protocol is still in place and the next challenger was the next guy that has already officially entered and been accepted under this protocol. If that doesn't happen, the protocol evaporates and we're back to the basics of the DoG and then the question becomes did someone else submit an official DoG challenge after Australia?

Oracle wants this to be a commercial and sustainable event. It seems to me that Ellison wants this to be somewhat of his legacy - I don't think it's working out the way he wants it to and I bet they're taking a long hard look at what it's going to take to get more teams involved. They also don't want to lose either...so there's that.

IF they would make it truly more affordable, like do it in full foiling AC45's, they'd have plenty of entries and plenty of exciting racing, which might garner better mainstream TV coverage.

BUT...that also would increase the competition and thus the chances of losing the Cup.

...and it's the America's Cup, not the Extreme/Formula 40s or whatever that's called (which is also a cool event, just not the AC)...

Affordable / one design has never been what this event is about.

Mike

Well, it's not going to be much of an event, if nobody shows up.

True... but who cares, right?

Mike

It's by billionaires FOR billionaires. That's what makes it fun (and highly litigated).

Us underlings are just there to sit quietly, toss a few kugarans at mall junk, and stay out of the way.

Do you guys get the daily Scuttlebutt email/sailing news? Today's has a pretty good article about the AC and lack of commercial viability. I disagree with his view that they should go back to using mono-hulls. I can't even count how many of my non-sailing friends were (finally) watching the last cup, due in large part to the amazing speeds the flying cats were showing. If it goes back to mono-slugs, I doubt I'll even watch it.

From Scuttlebutt:

The 2007 America’s Cup in Valencia, Spain delivered the most commercially viable event in the history of the Cup:

- 60M euro profit distributed to the teams ­ yes, a profit!
- 11 Challengers
- 9 Countries

This was not that long ago, and the 2007 numbers carried on from the 2000 and 2003 America’s Cup in New Zealand, which showed sponsors a positive upward trend in the ‘commercial’ development of the event.

Unfortunately, the wholesale changes that were instituted for the 2013 event have not shown a significant change to make the commercial ‘product’ better. The current model has, and will continue to, deliver less teams which equals less commerce.

The math is actually pretty simple:
Less Teams = Less Countries = Less Broadcasters = Less Exposure = Less Sponsors Interest = Less Commercial Return.

So how do we get more teams to compete?
- Lower the cost significantly
- Use a platform type that is available and used by a wider group (owners, sailors, designers, builders, etc.)

While the technology and cool factor of the AC72 foiling cats was impressive, it didn’t deliver a significant boost in the audience numbers to justify 1/3 of the teams competing in the last event. And for this current cycle, it once again is showing less interest in teams competing in AC62′s.

If the goal is to create a commercially sustainable event, the math points to monohulls. If the America’s Cup announced that the event was to be held in TP52′s tomorrow, you’d have ten challenges in a heartbeat!

The current plan is too full of contradictory elements. The boat type is a hindrance to attracting challengers, yet its coolness has convinced organizers that it will attract viewers. And organizers only want four quality challengers to provide close competition, yet this limits the audience pool from which to attract viewers.

The sweeping changes so as to sell a ‘sexy’ event appear doomed. The market reality is that the America’s Cup is a tier 2/3 niche sport at best. Our current audience is small but highly wealthy, exclusive, passionate and global. We must speak to our core fan first (the “Flintstones”) before trying to attract new fans.

If the organizers become more humble in their approach, and build the ‘product’ reputation by delivering consistency, there is a chance of doing more good than harm. Currently, I worry that the later is being done.

The article makes a ton of sense and only points out what we all know is true.

The important part from the article:

The math is actually pretty simple:
Less Teams = Less Countries = Less Broadcasters = Less Exposure = Less Sponsors Interest = Less Commercial Return.

So how do we get more teams to compete?
- Lower the cost significantly
- Use a platform type that is available and used by a wider group (owners, sailors, designers, builders, etc.)

While the technology and cool factor of the AC72 foiling cats was impressive, it didn’t deliver a significant boost in the audience numbers to justify 1/3 of the teams competing in the last event. And for this current cycle, it once again is showing less interest in teams competing in AC62′s

Like I said when the AC62 was announced, WRONG BOAT! Nobody can afford it. Either stick with the already operational 72's or go with the already available 45's. The 45's would be so much cheaper, and with more foiling development, would be nearly as fast (30kts's instead of 40kts's, but it's all relative, until you get down to 12knts the mono slugs would be doing).

Commercial viability, costs, venue. These are always issues.

I tend to think the big Gorilla in the room is I.S.A.F.

I still think there is a happy medium in using multihulls and that it's not just monohull vs. catamaran that is causing the problem. We are on the bleeding edge of the foiling technology and it's expensive to develop. The design teams are huge and the boats are gigantic.

I think Morelli had the right idea last year. Ditch the wings but keep foiling. Go to soft sails and only give up a couple degrees of pointing ability. The costs go down quite a bit - boats can be left in the water every night, shipping costs are significantly reduced, development costs are reduced (although the exterior shape of the wing is OD, the control systems are not).

Then you look at the size of the boats. Would something less than 62 feet help? I don't know but costs do scale with size.

Every one of these items reduces the advantage that a wealthy defender has to keep winning so it may be a tough sell.

Regardless, I firmly believe that there is a happy formula under which foiling catamarans can be very successful in the AC - the answer isn't as simple as just switching to monodulls.

Timbo, Even if it went to 45' boats, do you think Oracle would spend any less money? The actual boat may cost less, but I would assume they would be dumping more money in other places.

I would like to see the 72s again, make some design packages available. Some way to share shore crews/cranes could result in savings.

See, that's the real "Problem". Larry doesn't really want MORE competition, because it increases the chances he'll lose, and then lose control of the Cup.

He wants to present the appearance of making it cheaper, and 'increasing competition' but he'll always have mo'money than anyone else, to dump into what ever HE decides to race it on.

That's also why nobody else wants in. There are not 10 Bazzillionairs in the world who want to get into a spending war with Larry. They all know he's going to tilt the money tables in his direction, so...what's the point of blowing a bunch of dough only to be outspent and out sailed, by Larry's team...again. It will never be "commercially viable" until he makes it more fair for everyone else (or 10 teams) to compete on an even field. And if they do go back to Monohulls, nobody's going to watch it...again.

That's not true. Foiling 72's were a novelty to the non sailing public and I doubt we'll see the same interest from that demographic. Wasn't the most commerically successful cup in 2007 on monohulls? Someone had to be watching the monohulls with interest. The non sailing public is never going to have any interst in watching sailing until it is dumbed down to the point that the Kanye and Kim groopies can follow it. Throwing in a sex tape wouldn't hurt either.

I'd watch the cup series if they did it on TP52's as long as they did it somewhere with wind and waves! Fremantle comes time mind for some reason.

I do agree with you though, it's an event for the .01%er's and always has been and they couldn't give two sh!ts about a viewing audience.

Where are all the new beachcat sailors this last cup was supposed to deliver to our regattas?

If it goes back to monoslugs - I'd rather watch paint dry.

It'd be no better than watching soccer... sit there on your butt for an hour and a half to watch NOTHING happen whatsoever.



That two regattas I did with my buddy John were a direct result of the AC. He happened to be in Venice (the worst venue ever) for the 45 races there and he got hooked. Never sailed a day in his life prior to the day I took him out on the N20 where his trap wire broke and we went over.

He's got his own beater boat now on Lake Fairview that he put-puts around in.

I know I heard a lot of questions from friends during the last AC, and many guys said they had sailed when they were kids, and now they were looking at getting back into it.

I steered them all towards used Hobie 16's, as cost is always a factor if you have kids, and there are not too many Dad's out there who can spend $20K on a new toy (me included!).

If that's your analogy and watching sailing has to more exciting than watching the last World Cup showcasing the brilliance that is Tim Howard then dude maybe sailing really isn't your thing.

The sad part of watching Tim Howard was...the rest of his team gave him NO support! Heck, they didn't even start playing until the final 5 minutes, when that rookie from Tampa got the one goal! Where was he earlier in the series, and why did the US Coach wait so long to put him in?

Now, back to the big Cats vs. Mono for the AC debate.

I remember watching many of the 12 meter AC regattas, and later regattas when they switched to the AC boats. As soon as one boat got ahead, they pretty much stayed there for the rest of the race....slowly going nowhere at great expense.

We thought the same thing was going to happen last year, but the speed of the big cats proved they could catch up, close huge gaps and even pass, with several lead changes all in one race. It was by all accounts the most exciting AC racing in years, if not of all time.

How they could even consider going back to mono's, and watching paint dry, is beyond me, but nothing would surprise me when you get the ego's of Billionaires involved in making those decisions.

Unless they keep it foiling, I doubt it will draw the TV coverage or non-sailing audience of the last one. As to the "Commercial Viability" of it, well, they need more teams to enter and compete, as the Scuttlebutt article points out.

So how do you get more teams to enter?

You have to make it 'more fair' i.e. cheaper, i.e. smaller (foiling) cats...with soft sails, or, if a wing, figure out a better/cheaper way to raise/lower and stow it.