They can use the H2-B program like the tech guys, or the H2-A program for hotel housekeepers?



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?

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"