# Another America�s Cup entry destroyed



## Tanley (Aug 20, 2009)

*Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Artemis America


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Get rid of those flying hull big cats. They just killed someone. Stick to the monos.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

As cynical and awful as it may sound, I don't think that the death of a crewman is enough to shake these guys from their commitment to these boats and this format. They have invested so much time and money into them that I think the only thing that will make the Oracle team abandon the boats is if they just prove to be so fragile that they can't run the races (enough of the participants run through their allotment of two boats), or if the racing community decides they're too expensive/dangerous to operate and they decline to participate in future cups.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a different cup holder (if Oracle loses) change back to monohulls or some less extreme version of a catamaran.


----------



## mbetter (Jun 13, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Andrew Simpson is the deceased sailor.

News Story


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



mstern said:


> As cynical and awful as it may sound, I don't think that the death of a crewman is enough to shake these guys from their commitment to these boats and this format. They have invested so much time and money into them that I think the only thing that will make the Oracle team abandon the boats is if they just prove to be so fragile that they can't run the races (enough of the participants run through their allotment of two boats), or if the racing community decides they're too expensive/dangerous to operate and they decline to participate in future cups.
> 
> I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a different cup holder (if Oracle loses) change back to monohulls or some less extreme version of a catamaran.


Racing by its nature is dangerous. Its not like AC participants are being killed regularly like the heyday of Formula 1 auto racing.

Its sad a sailor was lost, but its hardly a common occurrence and while I don't love the Cats like the mono's of old, it seems the new boats and new format are helping bring the AC back from the brink of anachronism.


----------



## Philzy3985 (Oct 20, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

This sucks.

How much time needs to go by until they use the "danger" as a marketing tactic to draw more audiences to the "excitement"

There is too much money poured into the show that is big cat racing to allow anything to stop it now.


----------



## KIVALO (Nov 2, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

This is a shame, RIP.

I too wish they would go back to the mono-hull but not because of any perceived danger, I just like the mono-hulls a LOT better. 
Just my $0.02.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PalmettoSailor said:


> Racing by its nature is dangerous. Its not like AC participants are being killed regularly like the heyday of Formula 1 auto racing.
> 
> Its sad a sailor was lost, but its hardly a common occurrence and while I don't love the Cats like the mono's of old, it seems the new boats and new format are helping bring the AC back from the brink of anachronism.


I agree in some respects. The entire sports world now rotates around danger and avoiding it. It has always been this way. Remeber ABC's "and the agony of defeat". But it should not be "and the agony of death". But these boats are pretty dangerous when they capsize. You are what 40 feet above the water if your on the upwind hull when she is flying- the drop alone is enough to kill you. You can get killed on a mono also, but still much safer- a knock down should not kill anyone, although it still could, still a lot safer.

The other thing, with these cats, what does the winner really prove to anyone? Just too many variables to make or break the race that has nothing to do with sailing.

I would rather see these guys and gals race a nice heavy duty mono in 40-50 knots with 20 foot seas, now that would be exciting.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PalmettoSailor said:


> Racing by its nature is dangerous. Its not like AC participants are being killed regularly like the heyday of Formula 1 auto racing.
> 
> Its sad a sailor was lost, but its hardly a common occurrence


These cats have not been raced for that long, time will tell.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I would prefer AC to be raced in a one design format. Everyone on the same style boat, same style sails, same number of people. They it would be a race about strategy and crew skills


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Very sad that someone died.. time will tell how that ultimately affects the format and venue if this historical event.

I get the 'one design' angle.. it's true that the AC has never really been about the best sailor(s) and more about developmental design - both below and well above the waterline. Not a big fan of the cats either but I think if you went to pure one-design that this event becomes 'just another match race' and would lose whatever lustre it retains.

Still, tough day today....


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I don't understand the title: "Another America's Cup entry destroyed" There was already a cup entry destroyed? Is Artemis renouncing to the cup?

What was destroyed was a boat and sadly an human life.

I agree with faster. AC is mainly about design development more than anything else. It has been always about that. There are other match races with one design boats. There is even a World Match racing tour that is a kind of world championship raced in identical boats.

Regarding boat and sail development I cannot remember any edition as exciting as this one, with the development of wing sails and foiling. Pure beauty those cats flying away.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Faster said:


> I get the 'one design' angle.. it's true that the AC has never really been about the best sailor(s) and more about developmental design - both below and well above the waterline. .


I thought it was an international sailing competition where the country who can afford to hire the most Kiwis gets sailing bragging rights for 3 years.


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> I don't understand the title: "Another America's Cup entry destroyed" There was already a cup entry destroyed? Is Artemis renouncing to the cup?


This is the second boat destroyed, Oracle destroyed their first


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Sad day for sure. But I think they are definitely on the right track with the multis and the new format. I watched the entire AC45 World Series. It was really great stuff.

These 72s are absolutely bleeding edge. Stuff like this is part of the game...unfortunately. I don't think they should pull away from this direction...but I do think they ought to bring the scale of the big boats down some. It shouldn't just be about the first boat to break or fall over. That said, they'll figure it out.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Just by the by - who are the designers of these things? I can't imagine that Farr, Peterson, Holland, Frers and all my other heroes are doing them.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

i'm divided. On one hand, I am extremely *PISSED* that a man, a olympic champion with a family no less, is dead. The billionaires that run this show (here's looking at you Ellison) will say some platitudes, but will NEVER do the honorable thing and cancel the event in order to figure out if they are putting other people at risk. After all, their egos must be salved. What ges me most is someone will inevitably stand up and say "We all have to go, and at least he died doing something he loved"....tell that to his kids and family in a decade or so when everyone has forgotten about the 2013 America's Cup and we're onto the next billionaire ego diversion.

On the other hand, pushing the boundaries of physics and engineering is what humans do. People have died in every endeavor...flight, rocketry, etc.

Still, I'm mostly angry that the only people that are left to pick up the pieces here are this man's family...for a blatant display of ego that this Americas Cup has become. The race is a joke...and I'm honestly not going to tune it. This was the last straw. Its been building, starting with the fragility of the Volvo boats and what that race has become too.


----------



## Tanley (Aug 20, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

To clarify, at the time of the original posting, a member of team Artemis was listed at the same URL as being in serious condition, not a fatality. The article has since been updated to reflect the loss of life which was not included in the initial reporting. The tragic loss is paramount here and I would not have posted the original thread had this outcome be known. Our thoughts are with the family and friends impacted by this tragedy.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

This spectacular possibility of catastrophe is likely to bring more spectators. Consider that this could have happened when racing next to a competitor and taken them out too.

I'm not good with it.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



SloopJonB said:


> Just by the by - who are the designers of these things? I can't imagine that Farr, Peterson, Holland, Frers and all my other heroes are doing them.


Very good designers obviously among the greatest contemporary NA: Artemis is designed by JK, Oracle has an huge design team and I don't understand who is the main NA.

Team

Luna Rossa and Team New Zealand are designed by Morrelli & Melvin

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Tanley said:


> The tragic loss is paramount here and I would not have posted the original thread had this outcome be known. Our thoughts are with the family and friends impacted by this tragedy.


+1. My heart goes out to that family.

And I will also say this - knowing EXACTLY what these words mean - he died doing what he loved. There is _a lot _to be said for that. It does actually ease the pain somewhat.


----------



## Morild (Mar 31, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Faster said:


> Very sad that someone died.. time will tell how that ultimately affects the format and venue if this historical event.
> 
> I get the 'one design' angle.. it's true that the AC has never really been about the best sailor(s) and more about developmental design - both below and well above the waterline. Not a big fan of the cats either but I think if you went to pure one-design that this event becomes 'just another match race' and would lose whatever lustre it retains.
> 
> Still, tough day today....


I disagree with that. I think it was very much about the crew in the 12 metre days. I would really recommend everyone reading "Born to win" of John Bertrand, describing how they (He and his crew) won the cup in 1983. (I know this is very much a U.S. forum, so sorry for bringing that race up  )

Yes they had the wing-keel, but I believe it is safe to say today, that was not the reason for the victory.

Anyway, I loved to watch the 12 metres. I don't watch AC anymore, but would definately if they brought those gracious boats back.
What a sight to see them going to windward in heavy wind and seas


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> This spectacular possibility of catastrophe is likely to bring more spectators. Consider that this could have happened when racing next to a competitor and taken them out too.
> 
> I'm not good with it.


Yeah, it seems they've finally figured a way to try to take sailing _Mainstream_...

There's a reason why the two races NASCAR runs each season at Talladega are right up there with Daytona in terms of 'popularity'...

As we saw yet again last weekend, this is it:






This is particularly saddening to me, as I've always thought that the best thing that could happen in America to attract the general public's interest to sailing, and the America's Cup in particular, would be to have San Francisco Bay as the venue... There's not a more spectacular, or spectator-friendly sailing venue anywhere in the world...

The most spectacular sailing conditions the Cup has ever seen, was when the Doctor came calling off Freemantle... Watching those old videos of those boats racing in 25 knots or more, 5-6 foot seas, it was some awesome stuff... Only problem was, it was so far offshore, nobody could watch it other than on TV... SF Bay certainly has the potential to match those conditions, but with the added bonus of a gigantic natural amphitheater with one of the world's most beautiful cities and harbor as a backdrop, and the ability to set turning marks literally within a stone's throw of spectators on shore... I've shot a few Big Boat Series years ago in the Bay, the visuals are absolutely spectacular, everywhere you look, no venue could be better made for television...

Call me old-fashioned, but the remarkable history of America's Cup racing speaks _Tradition_, to me... the switch to multihulls is disappointing, but of course perhaps that's just me...


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

My traditional heart yearns for the 12-meter days of the 50s and 60s, not least because I grew up around, and worked in, a boatyard that built two of the last wood 12s, both beautiful and faster than their records (Easterner and Nefertiti).

And my heart is with one-design racing in identical boats and rigs, I never enjoyed figuring out who owed who time. I wanted to know if I was faster right then, and what place I'm in right then. So one-designs and frostbiting in small identical dinghies against the best of the summer competition who couldn't outspend poor me, was the best winter (or anytime) fun.

That said, I think the Cup has always been the "space program" of sailing, where new designs and materials get dreamed up, tried out, and eventually (some of them) become mainstream. The risks in sailing are less than in the NASA space program, but the same attitude and outlook applies--the rewards are worth the risks, or they have been so far, in space. Now we have to see if they are too, in sailing.

Final idea. If I don't like the drag-race cats and wish they'd race boats that could actually tack, then that's good reason to continue on with the cats. I'm usually too much of a traditionalist and should not be listened to regarding "progress", including here.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Morild said:


> ...
> 
> Anyway, I loved to watch the 12 metres. I don't watch AC anymore, but would definately if they brought those gracious boats back.
> What a sight to see them going to windward in heavy wind and seas


What heavy seas? Actually these boats can sail with more wind. Lot's of races cancelled for excess of wind with the last AC monohulls, I mean over 20K i know , I was there


----------



## Morild (Mar 31, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> What heavy seas? Actually these boats can sail with more wind. Lot's of races cancelled for excess of wind with the last AC monohulls, I mean over 20K i know , I was there


Yes yes ok, everything is relative 
I will rephrase then: Love to sea them going to windward in 20 knots of wind and seas to go with that. 

Was there.. Like, on board?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Morild said:


> Yes yes ok, everything is relative
> I will rephrase then: Love to sea them going to windward in 20 knots of wind and seas to go with that.
> 
> Was there.. Like, on board?


I would have loved that. No, I mean in Valencia seeing the races live. Some races were postponed for excessive wind.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Morild said:


> I disagree with that.....
> 
> Yes they had the wing-keel, but I believe it is safe to say today, that was not the reason for the victory....


Not the sole reason, certainly, but I believe it was a factor - psychologically even, if not pure performance. Obviously the boats were very close or it would have been a sweep.

In any event the AC has never been a 'pure one-design' situation by the normal definition..


----------



## Morild (Mar 31, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Faster said:


> Not the sole reason, certainly, but I believe it was a factor - psychologically even, if not pure performance. Obviously the boats were very close or it would have been a sweep.
> 
> In any event the AC has never been a 'pure one-design' situation by the normal definition..


Yes ok, but the phsycological part is for me a fair part about being "the best crew" 

But I agree it was never a pure one design event, but it pushed some interesting innovation, maybe it still does. I am just not being thrilled by the whole "crazy-cat" thing these days.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Hate to say it but I agree with Paulo on this one. Purpose of a race is to go fast. Faster you go more races you win. Drives advances in design and materials. All to the good. However, as suggested in other threads and by earlier posts in this thread the AC and some other races at this level have increasingly less relevance to the average sailor. We are not likely to sail anything close to these boats and will likely remain in displacement or semidisplacement boats. We are unlikely to make use of rigid sails or hydrofoils. We may benefit from material advancements ( soft shackles, W+S hydro generators etc.) but it's gotten to the point when you watch the race you really don't know what's going on. In the "good old days" you could watch the AC and appreciate the tactitian,skipper, bowman etc. and relate to their decisions and skill. Now it's "oh wow look at that" which gets old fast.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Morild said:


> ...
> But I agree it was never a pure one design event, but it pushed some interesting innovation, maybe it still does. I am just not being thrilled by the whole "crazy-cat" thing these days.


The problem with the AC monohulls was that while the boats should have represented the pinnacle of sailboat technology and speed they were in fact overall relatively slow boats. They were fast upwind but really slow downwind and they could not be sailed with strong winds.

I guess that conservatives had keep them that way for too much time and when they were overcome....the change for multihulls was inevitable.

The old AC monohulls, I mean the last ones, could be beaten in pure speed by several racing monohulls of the same size. The same cannot be said regarding the AC 72. They are the fastest sailboats around and that's how it should be in my opinion.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Sorry when you have to equip everybody with crash helmets and emergency air bottles NOT a go IMHP

While not OD it has for the most part been a box rule of some type

The sport is supposed to a match racing game of who has better tactics and can control the race


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



tommays said:


> ...
> The sport is supposed to a match racing game of who has better tactics and can control the race


Then the boats should be exactly the same and obviously they are not.

That counts too but less than the design match, it is more of a design match than anything else.

On the last edition Oracle was so evidently superior in performance that Allinghy did not have any chance and for what I have saw the same will happen this year.

Did you saw the design team for Oracle? Have a look, they are more than the crew

Team

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I don't count any of the stuff like the Dennis Conner 1988 catamaran defense as anything but a piss poor example for the sport


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

i like one design racing but this is not the venue for that, there is a few year old transition of coming up with the highest tech boat and a crew to sail it hard and smart trying to take home the cup. That does not need to change.

Catamarans, disposable, boats, wind limitations need to go away. You should get one boat and if it cant handle the winds and waves you are out.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

When the ACC class boats replaced the 12's, several of the participants complained that the design was too light and the boats were too fragile. I was then reminded of the old saw about how the perfect racing sailboat is one that is built just strongly enough to survive to the finish line. Light weight, big sails, wins races.

I doubt we'll ever see the days when the boats from the last Cup races compete again. Can you imagine any boat today repeating what Intrepid and Courageous did, winning the cup in consecutive campaigns? Those boats weren't just the fastest boats of their day, they were durable. You can still charter them today. Many of the boats we see racing for the Cup this year will likely be piles of scrap before the end of the competition, and none will be design-competative fifteen minutes after the last race.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Morild said:


> Yes ok, but the phsycological part is for me a fair part about being "the best crew" .


But wasn't that exactly the reason the Americans won the original cup? They put the money and strategy into the boat. And it beat the immensely talented traditional English crews of that day. From the very prescient Wired article on the Oracle crash...



> The origin myth involves Queen Victoria watching a winner-take-all race around the Isle of Wight between a Yankee schooner named the America and 14 of the best boats in Britain - including the cream of the elite Royal Yacht Squadron. When a lookout spied the America coming toward the finish line in first place, the Queen asked who was in second. The answer: "Ah, Your Majesty, there is no second."
> 
> The America won because its owners experimented with novel nautical technologies and spared no expense in building it (some things never change). In the 19th century, a ship in private hands that could beat the best that the British had to offer was something extraordinary - an example of private money rivaling the power of a great nation. The Cup has been a totem to tycoons ever since.


The Boat That Could Sink the America's Cup | Autopia | Wired.com


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I would like to see the AC go back to a competition between countries and not corporations. In recent years the idea that these are national boats is nonsense. It is one rich guy's company against another's with the key question being who can afford to buy the best Kiwi talent. Also the new developments have made it far too expensive for many countries, including NZ, to compete. Would be nice to see it go back to something cheaper and more national in character, not necessarily in 12s but something that did not look like a floating billboard. What about a rule that allowed monohulls to about 15 m with a course that required lots of course changes. Anything goes in terms of hydrofoils, wingsails, etc. Hope I am sounding curmudgeonly enough. BTW, I got to sail on an AC class boat in Auckland. They have a couple there for tourists and at certain times you can race. Sweet machines and awesome to steer but a lot of work. Four coffee grinders with eight admittedly out-of-shape tourists to pull the main up.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



> But the most telling thing I heard while visiting the repair shop came from Coutts, the CEO. I asked him what would happen to the radical new wingsail design after the Cup was over. "No matter who wins," Coutts said, "they are definitely going to make changes: make the boat smaller, bring the team budgets down, stuff like that." In other words, the CEO of Team Oracle now acknowledges that the AC72 is an overreach.


Nuff said.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



mstern said:


> I doubt we'll ever see the days when the boats from the last Cup races compete again. Can you imagine any boat today repeating what Intrepid and Courageous did, winning the cup in consecutive campaigns?


I want to go back the old days when you built the boat at home crewed it with people from your own country, sailed it to wherever the competition was taking place then sailed it back home.


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



killarney_sailor said:


> I would like to see the AC go back to a competition between countries and not corporations. In recent years the idea that these are national boats is nonsense. It is one rich guy's company against another's with the key question being who can afford to buy the best Kiwi talent.


Never _was_ national, except nominally. The field _America_ beat to win the trophy that now bears its name were all yachts owned by wealthy Brits, aristocrats and industrialists; _America_ was built entirely with funds from a NYYC syndicate -- ie, Hamptons money.

Look at the names peppering the race: Ashbury, Barr, Morgan, the Earl of Dunraven, Lipton, Vanderbilt, Rothschild, Turner.... Every boat has to fly a flag, and tying it to a nation gins up enthusiasm amongst the Great Unwashed. But for the most part the Cup was and is a pissing match for wealthy individuals & yacht clubs. Always using mercenaries and professionals for crew. Always trying to poach talent and ideas from other camps. It's corporate to the bone & always has been.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



bobmcgov said:


> Never was national, except nominally. The field _America_ beat to win the trophy that now bears its name were all yachts owned by wealthy Brits, aristocrats and industrialists; _America_ was built entirely with funds from a NYYC syndicate -- ie, Hamptons money.
> 
> Look at the names peppering the race: Ashbury, Barr, Morgan, the Earl of Dunraven, Vanderbuilt, Rothschild, Turner.... Every boat has to fly a flag, and tying it to a nation gins up enthusiasm, but for the most part the Cup was and is a pissing match for wealthy individuals & yacht clubs. Always using mercenaries and professionals for crew. Always trying to poach talent and ideas from other camps. It's corporate to the bone & always has been.


Yes you are right. That does not mean that I would like it would be something else and I am not talking about the boats. It would be nice if it was in fact a nations match in what regards sailing and technology. I mean only sailors from that nation, boats built and designed there by nationals. It could be promoted by an association of all nation sailing clubs with the sponsorship of rich guys that belong to the several sailing Clubs.

As it is, it is so expensive (the sponsorship don't pay it) and dependent of billionaires money that the nation that has more professional sailors, more racing boats and more sail races cannot afford to have a boat competing on the AC.

Yes, I know, I am dreaming

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> I want to go back the old days when you built the boat at home crewed it with people from your own country, sailed it to wherever the competition was taking place then sailed it back home.


That's the reason AC staid in America for so long. I mean you could not make a boat strong enough to sail safely the Atlantic and able to compete with a much lighter and fragile boat designed only for racing inshore the AC in the US.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Its interesting how this accident has brought biases to the surface. Its clear there are lot of people that don't like the new AC boats or the format created for them, but the AC has always pushed the state of the art of boat design and the AC72's are definitely the leading edge of sail propelled craft. Also, its arguably the only thing keeping the AC alive, though there are no doubt those that would prefer to see it die rather than evolve.

There was little to no hue and cry over the boats or race format when many sailors were lost on the Farallon's or N2E (only the skipper/crews were vilified in those cases), or when VOR sailors have been lost. Some did express opposition to "cruise races" formats that resulted in the loss of Rule 62, but again it was mainly the skipper that bore the brunt of the sailing communities scorn.

For me, all these accidents and more at even lower levels or racing provide evidence of my assertion that sailing and especially racing, by its nature, is dangerous and sailors are occasionally killed participating at every level from club racing right up to the top. If you don't like the new AC boats, that's great, but don't fool yourself into thinking the new boat or format is more or less dangerous than any other. There just is no evidence to support that assertion at this point.

If you want old school mono-hull racing identical boats, there is the Congressional Cup, NYYC, One Design racing all over the country, etc.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Its important to keep this in mind. It's their event, they can race whatever they want and make whatever rules they want. Much of our discussion is like criticizing two sailors that leave the marina to race each other and suggest we know better.

However, in the context of whether the race can or will attract spectators or make money, its entirely fair game. I do not think that risking their lives on fragile boats or creating a NASCAR style anticipation is acceptable. National pride would be a much better reason to draw spectators. While it never was national, the mystique of Stars and Stripes certainly felt national in Dennis Connor's day and he often raised money from several, albeit mega-wealthy, sponsors. It wasn't just one guy with all the money. That said, I believe he was also the guy that turned the corner to full-time year-round paid crew.

So, they can do whatever they want. They can't risk others lives for their own amusement or to attract money from spectators.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> It's their event... attract money from spectators.


I think that that is the biggest problem with this particular edition: Not attractive to sponsors and probably not self sustained without billionaires money.

The boats and the development are just too expensive to make this event a commercially attractive one. It is possible that Artemis will have not the money to recover from the loss of a boat but even if they continue only with one boat they will not stand a chance to have the money to continue development at the same level of Oracle, not even close.

Several teams that started the way to the AC had given up for lack of sustainability in what regards sponsorship.

Yes, I agree with Palmetto that the AC should be the top in sailing research in what regards racing boats and I don't like the level of conservatism on this forum where most people don't follow or like sail races but when they express an opinion about the biggest sail racing event they suggest it should be raced in good old designed boats.

The AC has to be a success not only in what regards sailing development but also in what regards commercial success and sustainability. They should not look to the stock cars races as a model, but to F1.

Extreme sports are dangerous and sailing at the limit is as dangerous as any other. Sure the risks should be limited but if they are not doing it in an extreme way and were using older safer, slower boats, then they would not be at the edge of sailing and that is what AC is all about.

I don't think it is their event, it is the biggest sailing event and it belongs to all that love sail racing.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

No one has a gun to their head or family hostage when they sign on to do a AC race. They go into it fully cognizent of the risks involved. Yes it is a platform for development. However, it remains a coastal race without the glamor, long term physical, and psychological demands of the long distance ocean races. It similarly lacks the ability to engage most sailors emotionally ( same issue basketball now faces for similar reasons hard to personally identify with giants playing game nothing like what you did as a kid. With AC can't identify with the boats, nature of sailing or skill set). Also it doesn't engage the general public anymore. Had opportunity to watch the races off R.I and Coronado. Like to watch F1 but NASCAR not so much. Watching the boarders and hydroplaners go for a speed record is a kick but you know from the start it's out there and a different world from yours. Will take a pass on AC and just watch the "highlights"


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> .......I don't think it is their event, it is the biggest sailing event and it belongs to all that love sail racing.....


I'm with you on the emotion of this statement, but I know you are fully aware of it being factually untrue.

If not for the modern need to fund boats beyond the edge of even the most wealthy in the world, there wouldn't be advertising, sponsors or spectator events. All these are influencing current decisions beyond simply designing cutting edge technology to win.

Even F1 has limits to what they will allow. Anyone can make the car go faster.

That's my problem with modern AC. While I'm not personally attracted to the Cats and Tris, its the fact that they are pushing beyond the limits of safety and it feels they are doing so for attention, to go faster and be more exciting, not advancement.

Are tactics as relevant as they used to be? Most spectators don't understand the tactics. At that level, I would even be one of them. The best crewed boat used to have a chance to beat the best engineered boat. Not anymore. What is getting attention, therefore sponsors, is raw speed and thrill.

Good for them, as long as they aren't risking lives doing it. And they presently are.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> The boats and the development are just too expensive to make this event a commercially attractive one. It is possible that Artemis will have not the money to recover from the loss of a boat but even if they continue only with one boat they will not stand a chance to have the money to continue development at the same level of Oracle, not even close.


Maybe this is Larry Ellison's plan to just outspend his competitors until they can't afford to compete. It worked for Reagan.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> Maybe this is Larry Ellison's plan to just outspend his competitors until they can't afford to compete. It worked for Regan.


It's not inconceivable, but typically narcissistic to have no one to compete with. The irony is that you can't really say you're the best, if you can't prove it against a similar field. That will get to him.

Who's Regan?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> Maybe this is Larry Ellison's plan to just outspend his competitors until they can't afford to compete. ..


I guess you are right there and it was the reason Alinghy went out of the game.
The others were not so bright and took more time to see that they did not have a chance. It seems to me that is evident for all know.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> It's not inconceivable, but typically narcissistic to have no one to compete with. The irony is that you can't really say you're the best, if you can't prove it against a similar field. That will get to him.
> 
> Who's Regan?


Whoops can't spell, I meant Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> Whoops can't spell, I meant Ronald Reagan.


Then the politics backfired on you, didn't it. Maybe you should leave it out of a sailing forum.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Then the politics backfired on you, didn't it. Maybe you should leave it out of a sailing forum.


I was referring to US vs Russia in the cold war, I did not think the theory we outspent the USSR would have been so controversial.

"Mr. Ellison tear down this wall."


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> That's the reason AC staid in America for so long. I mean you could not make a boat strong enough to sail safely the Atlantic and able to compete with a much lighter and fragile boat designed only for racing inshore the AC in the US.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


That's true -- and of course, as soon as the NYYC got their trophy home, they began poisoning the well so no one else could compete. First with the 'on your own bottom' rule, then changing the Deed to limit what constituted a 'legitimate Challenger', then designing Defenders so complex & expensive, few could afford to meet them on those terms. Sound familiar?:laugher

The J class yachts, which were somewhere between a One Design and a Box Rule, were a fine example of the type: originally a toy of the go-go Teens and Twenties, they continued to be the platform of choice even thru the darkest Depression -- which many industrialists coasted thru quite unscathed. Sticking to such monstrously expensive boats winnowed the field of potential challengers, especially from Europe where the Great Depression was so very much worse.

Amusing historical footnote: _America_ was a purpose-built racer that needed substantial temporary bracing to cross the Atlantic in one piece; that bracing was removed for the famous regatta.

A good parallel might be professional baseball. Teams align themselves with cites or states and cultivate fan bases to underpin the brand. But really, the teams do not belong to the fans, or to the cities. They are the toys of extremely wealthy individuals or families: Wrigley, Bush, Busch, Selig, Anschutz.... And they don't just hire players from the local area. They shop for the best talent, anywhere in the world. European football, same way: Chelsea FC is the plaything of Roman Abramovitch, who owns roughly 800 linear feet of megayachts and his own Boeing 757. He fires managers three times a year and god help Larry if he ever turns his attention to sailboat racing.:laugher

So I guess the question is, when these egos -- this self-indulgence -- start killing people, when professional sailors desperate for a gig become grist for a billionaire's mill, do we call the owners out?

I dunno. Mr. Simpson was an Olympic Star medalist. He had no illusions about the sketchiness of _Artemis_, the potential for havoc. He had other choices in life, and he bought into the AC program. True, the owners keep pushing the limits of sailing tech waaaay ahead of what materials engineering or crew can really manage: "Let's build a 72-foot wingsail beach cat! Oh hell, let's built a 72-foot wingsail *Moth*!" And the choice of SFBay will come back to haunt them all. But while Simpson's death is an _acute_ tragedy for those close to him, I'm strangely more bothered by the thousand garment workers pinned under a building in Bangladesh. Who had fewer choices. That's another example of people pushing limits ... including every one of us who want to find out just how cheaply a T-shirt can be made.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> I was referring to US vs Russia in the cold war, I did not think the theory we outspent the USSR would have been so controversial.
> 
> "Mr. Ellison tear down this wall."


Politics is politics. Best not to bring it up at the dinner table. We've all done it and learned the hard way. Let's go back to our regular programming.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The American football analogy is a good one. There have been many improvements to safety as the years go by, or the owners would eventually assume too much liability. Even the concussion issues lately will be addressed.

AC sailing is clearly going the other direction. The risk associated with the 72 cats is obviously much greater than the 12m.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> Yes, I agree with Palmetto that the AC should be the top in sailing research in what regards racing boats and I don't like the level of conservatism on this forum where most people don't follow or like sail races but when they express an opinion about the biggest sail racing event they suggest it should be raced in good old designed boats.
> 
> The AC has to be a success not only in what regards sailing development but also in what regards commercial success and sustainability. They should not look to the stock cars races as a model, but to F1.


As for the conservatism on SN, I think it's definitely there...but what I like about this forum is that it's SAILnet...not just CRUISERSforum. Though those of us who love racing are in a minority - we're still brilliant...and right...and here.

As for the Nascar/F1 analogy - you're absolutely right. I honestly think the ACWS was the absolutely best thing to come out of all this. That is a sustainable event that is really exciting to watch. I think it will continue as its own event.

But what makes it so fun to watch is THE BOAT. Yes it's great to see Coutts or Peyron or Spithill or Barker, etc. work their crews and strategies - but it's the boats and their speed that create the dazzle. The acceleration of those things is amazing. And screaming along at 25+ knots (and, yes, the crashes) is what FINALLY makes sailing fun to watch for most people.

So those arguing for "the good old days" in slow-ass monos...well the past is the past for good reason.

Think about what these 72s are doing! They are reaching speeds in excess of 40-FREAKIN'-KNOTS!!! AND THEY ARE FOILING!!!

_*This is a sailboat going as fast or faster than many motor powered vessels!!!!*_

They are doing the right thing with the technology. I have no doubt. It's just that, like the Wired article (and Coutts) said, they've jumped a little too far too fast and need to get it under control. But they don't need to abandon it.

Push on lads!


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> Get rid of those flying hull big cats. They just killed someone. Stick to the monos.


OMG, I'm going to stop taking baths because I just heard that one can die in 2 inches of water!
At least Bart died doing something he had a passion for, and was quite good at, by all accounts.
Beats rotting away with cancer or some such, which happens to those his age, too.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Smack, have you seen what the inside of a NASCAR drivers seat looks like these days? The safety of the driver is paramount and the cars have very strict rules intended to improve safety each year. The NFL has made great strides in seeing that the quarterbacks are not broken into bits anymore.

I'm good with the thrill, just not with the abandonment of safety. All of these sports spilled some blood before they got it. I just see AC going the other way from these risky sports analogies, as the spectacular crashes of the cats has been going on for a while and it was just a matter of time before one killed someone. Everyone knew it.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



capta said:


> OMG, I'm going to stop taking baths because I just heard that one can die in 2 inches of water!
> At least Bart died doing something he had a passion for, and was quite good at, by all accounts.
> Beats rotting away with cancer or some such, which happens to those his age, too.


I am sure everyone participating in this race feels the loss of Mr Simpson and thinks more about the danger of these boats. I doubt they that any of the participants are having second thoughts on their career choice at this point, even with the recent tragedy. There is a danger in so many things you do in life. The amount of sacrifice the participants in these events have made just to be able to sail for a living, sail as fast as they can and possibly be part of winning AC team; they are not giving that up for anything.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PalmettoSailor said:


> If you don't like the new AC boats, that's great, but don't fool yourself into thinking the new boat or format is more or less dangerous than any other. There just is no evidence to support that assertion at this point.


Seriously??? Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there, bigtime...

Until now, perhaps the most dramatic - and potentially tragic - catastrophe that occurred in modern AC racing was the sinking of ONE AUSTRALIA in the trials off San Diego... Watching this video, it appears to have happened in slow motion, compared to the suddenness and violence of the pitchpoling and capsizing of the cats we're seeing today:






Compare with what happens to some of the crew aboard Coutts' AC 45 last year:






Now, extrapolate that up to the size of an AC 72, with the potential for crew falling from a height of 50-60 feet, through the wing as Coutts himself did, or on top of part of the rig, or boat... If you watched any video of the aftermath of ORACLE's AC 72 capsize, the most terrifying aspect is the manner in which the rig gave way, and the hulls folded over on top of the whole affair... All those guys dangling from the netting in such a situation, could be immediately pinned underneath it all... From the accounts and pictures I've seen, that appears to be pretty much what happened to ARTEMIS this week...

But what frightens me most about these boats, is the fact that the remarkable speeds they're achieving - unlike a Formula 1 car, for example - does not appear to be matched by their nimbleness, or maneuverability... Something goes wrong, if a wing can't be eased quickly enough, or whatever, the ability of the helmsman to control the boat can essentially vanish... Watch this, keeping in mind these are among the best sailors on the planet:






At the speeds these 72-footers will be crossing tacks, closing speeds potentially in the range of 60-70 knots, that sort of mistake does not even bear thinking about...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Smack, have you seen what the inside of a NASCAR drivers seat looks like these days? The safety of the driver is paramount and the cars have very strict rules intended to improve safety each year. The NFL has made great strides in seeing that the quarterbacks are not broken into bits anymore.
> 
> I'm good with the thrill, just not with the abandonment of safety. All of these sports spilled some blood before they got it. I just see AC going the other way from these risky sports analogies, as the spectacular crashes of the cats has been going on for a while and it was just a matter of time before one killed someone. Everyone knew it.


True - but safety is an evolution...always. Nascar is the perfect example of this. Think about the HANS system - or restrictor plates - or whatever. Everyone knew these were problem areas too before something was finally done after fatalities. Safety follows innovation. That's just the way it's always been in sport.

I don't think that the AC is by any means _abandoning_ safety. But to expect them to pull away from pushing it JUST for "safety" (however that is defined) is an unreasonable expectation. What about the moon mission? Was NASA being irresponsible?

It will all come together. Remember, these are the FIRST vehicles of these kinds in history. The Wright brothers didn't even wear helmets!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I don't disagree with all these activities originally taking on risk. But whether it is flight, space missions or formula one racing, the next evolution of the activity was safer than the last.

This specifically not the case with AC racing at the moment. They amp'd up to cats, then to 45s, then to 72s. All the while, they were getting more and more dangerous, with more accidents and injuries.

That's my point.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I also agree that these crews are all big boys and should be able to make their own decisions. (any girls? that's another thread  )

However, there is no mistaking the lifetime status of having "I was crew on an Americas Cup race boat" on your resume. All will be involved in the sport to make a living for their lifetimes. Whether applying for a job at a sailing school, university coach or yacht club, that is extremely valuable. They are vulnerable to being in a position to have to take on whatever risk is presented to have that value.

(on a completely unrelated track, I've only met a few sailors over my lifetime that were AC crew. Ironically, each was somewhat of a jackwad. Not sure what to make of that.  )


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I work in construction. According to OSHA 721 people were killed in construction accidents in 2011.

Should I stay home and not earn a living? It is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the AC.

Give me a break. $.02


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

My issue with AC isn't that anyone was ever hurt or killed. Its that they are making it more dangerous, not less.

How about next year in construction, we remove the guards from the saws, ask you to put the wood through faster and make the ladders more fragile?  It would never happen, but is exactly what the AC looks like to me.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

It is an elective event , the AC. If I were forced to work in unsafe conditions your line of argument would have merit. But at least here, in New England, I'm not forced to do anything except pay taxes. These sailors are not forced either. They are pursuing something unique and frankly amazing. Human beings die by the thousands every day engaged in nothing more than sitting around waiting for food. Wouldn't you rather go out as the test pilot of the fastest sailboat on the planet? Of course no one wants to die, or get hurt, but someone smarter than us created adrenaline. Why not use it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I'm not really following the difference. Every member of each crew is paid and its their career and job. They intend to leverage this experience into the next job. In fact, I see that as worse. They almost have to take this risk to qualify for the top jobs that might think a former AC crew member was who they wanted to hire.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

"I'm not really following the difference"

Ok


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Is it always up to someone else to minimize your exposure to risk; or can it be a personal decision.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Alden68 said:


> Is it always up to someone else to minimize your exposure to risk; or can it be a personal decision.


When you are calling all the shots, I'm good with it being yours. These paid crew members have zero say in the matter. If they want/need the resume/job, others are deciding the risk for them. Just like a construction worker.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Ok. I don't agree with you but, as my wife says, if everyone thinks like me we'd be in big trouble.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Whether it's a sail boat, America's Cup yacht, commercial fishing boat, tug boat or mega-yacht; if you don't take the job, someone else will. Period. If it's your profession and you have a family to support, you will quickly be black-listed if you seek only the perfect boats. It doesn't matter whether you are cook or captain; there are hundreds of folks out there who will gladly take your position, never mind the prestige of the America's Cup.
I took a tug and barge from St. Thomas to St. Barths (and back) in the days before GPS without a even a functioning compass or radio. When I wanted a shower, all I had to do was go down into the engine room and stand under the pin holes around the waterline to get a great saltwater stream. Steering by the stars is not a very good navigational method, by the way. We all knew the risks, but we needed the work, so we shut up and did the job.
I agree with those above that it seems we are going backwards on safety at the moment, but imagine being master of the first ULCC and finding that once the water under the keel gets shallow enough (somewhere around 70 feet, if I remember correctly and a draft of 125 feet), the vessel becomes completely unresponsive to the helm. Surpise! And dangerous!
When the Bounty was lost (a monohull I believe) many felt that something should be done. The company has been strangely silent; perhaps the captain was given little choice on when the boat needed to be in Florida?
These cat sailors are venturing into uncharted waters, so to speak, and errors, some unfortunately fatal, must be expected. But in time, as with every other innovation, understanding and practice will lead to grand advances in equipment, knowledge and safety.
Sailing is still the safest sport, I believe. It is certainly much safer than the average American's commute each and every day.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> I don't disagree with all these activities originally taking on risk. But whether it is flight, space missions or formula one racing, the next evolution of the activity was safer than the last.
> 
> This specifically not the case with AC racing at the moment. They amp'd up to cats, then to 45s, then to 72s. All the while, they were getting more and more dangerous, with more accidents and injuries.
> 
> That's my point.


I agree with you. And, apparently, so does Coutts. It was too much too soon. Maybe going down to a 60? I don't know. But I do love that they are creating/driving boats that can foil at 40+ knots. THAT IS COOL!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> I agree with you. And, apparently, so does Coutts. It was too much too soon. Maybe going down to a 60? I don't know. But I do love that they are creating/driving boats that can foil at 40+ knots. THAT IS COOL!


We had the 45s in Newport this past summer. Very cool, although, they wrecked one of them too.

The wing is pretty cool in general and an outstanding advancement in technology. However, would you sail one to Bermuda? They need to figure out how to tame it.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

We are not supporting this activity like we did in the past.it remains an interesting diversion but is no longer embraced like the French embrace their long distance sailors. There must be a reason.
As regards safety bikers say"even in a group you still ride your own ride".lots of more dangerous ways to make a living farming +fishing come to mind


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

What I don't get is that they realized early that they would be foiling, yet did not allow attitude control. It strikes me that this half way status is foolish. If they didn't want foiling they could have very simply prevented it.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

was an interesting description of a novice to these types of boats ( although an experieinced sailor) in one of the recent rags. Apparently helming these craft is totally different and not all all like the "seat of your pants" viiseral affair we all do intutively. Just like the autopilot may stear the boat faster than a human helmsman not unlikely a computer getting input from all components may be faster and safer on these as well.Run fast you're more likely to trip- on land and sea. Be a kick to do it though.


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Remember this?

"Watching sailboat racing is like watching grass grow."

My, how things have changed.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Golf increased its viewership, without needing clubs that could kill the players. That's watching grass grow.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Golf increased its viewership, without needing clubs that could kill the players. That's watching grass grow.


No but if the oracle team designed them a club that could hit a ball faster than the speed of sound you can be sure they would all be using it.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

It's not just some of us bone head sailnetters that think the AC 72's are too dangerous:
From Wikipedia:
2013 America's Cup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"*AC 72 Safety Controversy*
On May 9th 2013 the Swedish team first AC 72 flipped in the second overturn of these boats in under a year resulting in the death of olympic medalist Andrew James Simpson, one of the members of the team. He was a British sailor nicknamed Bart who had won a gold medal at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, as crew for skipper Iain Percy in the Star class.[21][22]The AC 72 capsized while sailors were training Thursday in the San Francisco bay just north of Treasure Island. According to media reports structural damage may have been the cause.[23] Emergency crews performed CPR on one of the sailors, according to the San Francisco Fire Department. Ten people on board were transferred into an Oracle Racing support boat.

Investigations into the incident will be led by the U.S. Coastguard to determine whether this was an isolated incident or if the current America's Cup safety regulations are sufficient. This was the second of the new 72-foot catamarans to crash in training.[24]

The power and speed of the catamarans used in the America's Cup, rather than traditional one-hulled boats, has attracted criticisms in the past after Sir Keith Mills cancelled his British Team Origin campaign for the 2011 event, due to concerns over safety.[25] Stephen Barclay, the chief executive officer of the America's Cup Event Authority, has promised a full inquiry into the events which led to Simpson's death and has refused to rule out the possibility of postponing the July 4 start of the Louis Vuitton Cup series, which determines the challenger to compete in the America's Cup.[26] The future of the 2013 America's Cup was put further in doubt after Patrizio Bertelli, the owner of team Luna Rossa - who are due to compete in this year's race, told organisers he was considering withdrawing his team from the competition on safety grounds.[27]"


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



tommays said:


> Sorry when you have to equip everybody with crash helmets and emergency air bottles NOT a go IMHP
> 
> While not OD it has for the most part been a box rule of some type
> 
> The sport is supposed to a match racing game of who has better tactics and can control the race


Where is that written. If you want to see that watch the Olympics. They use one designs. AC is a different animal.

The sport is also about innovation, design and material advance as well. It sent confined to one dimension. The winning team if I remember defines the type of racers for the following AC. I like they are all different.

I also appreciate the 12 meter boats of old and have sailed on 5 of them. I also appreciate the new technological marvels. They intrigue a different part of me.

Dave


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> I want to go back the old days when you built the boat at home crewed it with people from your own country, sailed it to wherever the competition was taking place then sailed it back home.


Why don't we go further back to wood boats and square riggers.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

That is also my understanding. The team that wins the AC cup then writes the rules for the next race. I am sure a team (from a country that does not have a high value for life) could design a multi-hull that would not only be incredibly fast, but would also kill the entire crew in the event of a capsize or pitchpole, but is that want we want to see?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> Why don't we go further back to wood boats and square riggers.


That actually might be interesting, have some wooden tall ship clipper races. A much better investment in boats than the throw away AC 72's.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PalmettoSailor said:


> Its interesting how this accident has brought biases to the surface. Its clear there are lot of people that don't like the new AC boats or the format created for them, but the AC has always pushed the state of the art of boat design and the AC72's are definitely the leading edge of sail propelled craft. Also, its arguably the only thing keeping the AC alive, though there are no doubt those that would prefer to see it die rather than evolve.
> 
> There was little to no hue and cry over the boats or race format when many sailors were lost on the Farallon's or N2E (only the skipper/crews were vilified in those cases), or when VOR sailors have been lost. Some did express opposition to "cruise races" formats that resulted in the loss of Rule 62, but again it was mainly the skipper that bore the brunt of the sailing communities scorn.
> 
> ...


And the Olympics


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> That is also my understanding. The team that wins the AC cup then writes the rules for the next race.


That is not the case. The winner gets to choose the venue and the boat design criteria. The winner does not get to rewrite the Deed of Gift, which is the ruling document for the America's Cup.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> Why don't we go further back to wood boats and square riggers.


Scurvy and gangrene


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PalmettoSailor said:


> Its interesting how this accident has brought biases to the surface. Its clear there are lot of people that don't like the new AC boats or the format created for them, but the AC has always pushed the state of the art of boat design and the AC72's are definitely the leading edge of sail propelled craft. Also, its arguably the only thing keeping the AC alive, though there are no doubt those that would prefer to see it die rather than evolve.
> 
> There was little to no hue and cry over the boats or race format when many sailors were lost on the Farallon's or N2E (only the skipper/crews were vilified in those cases), or when VOR sailors have been lost. Some did express opposition to "cruise races" formats that resulted in the loss of Rule 62, but again it was mainly the skipper that bore the brunt of the sailing communities scorn.
> 
> ...


My problem with the new AC 72's is the design itself seems dangerous, and for what benefit, yea it goes fast, but at what cost. I got no problem if a team wants to go out and build the fastest boat that is highly dangerous (and teams have and do this- and break all kinds of sailing records with them), but I don't think a race like the AC should promote the sailing of dangerous boats. The AC is supposed to be a spectator sport. I do not think the race should include an elevated risk of dying.

The other deaths in sail racing you refer were due primarily (or maybe entirely) to human error. With the AC 72's I think we got an equimpent problem.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> The American football analogy is a good one. There have been many improvements to safety as the years go by, or the owners would eventually assume too much liability. Even the concussion issues lately will be addressed.
> 
> AC sailing is clearly going the other direction. The risk associated with the 72 cats is obviously much greater than the 12m.


Agreed. But it takes the concussion incidents, or Earnharts death in NASCAR, to bring attention to make the safety changes which they can make.

There is nothing more dangerous than professional bike racing. Look at the Tour de France. Hurtling down a 15% grade 13000 ft mountain at speeds in excess of 75 mph on super pressurized 3cm tires on Regular roads with only a helmet on.

There is only so much safety you can really bring into bike racing....or AC racing without ruining it. It's the athletes choice wether to assume that risk.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Chef, I thought we had a truce?

None of the analogies you used took their safety record and changed the equipment to make it worse in the following race.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Chef, I thought we had a truce?
> 
> None of the analogies you used took their safety record and changed the equipment to make it worse in the following race.


We do. Nothing personal or sarcastic in my post. 

Do you think we shouldn't even answer each other? If so let me know as I can follow that protocol too?

In fact I agreed with what you had said for the most part

i think that the results of the previous crash caused them to include the extra oxygen in this go around. Like professional bike racing there will be a point at which they can not do much more. The risk will be inherent to the sport.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> ...
> i think that the results of the previous crash caused them to include the extra oxygen in this go around. Like professional bike racing there will be a point at which they can not do much more. The risk will be inherent to the sport.


I agree but not yet, I mean, that cannot be done more. Obviously these boats and the accidents that can happen introduces new problems to safety.

For example on this accident the sailors fell forward and the boat turned over them. It seems to me that one of the things that can have contributed to this tragedy is the auto-inflating PDF.

If the sailor had not an auto inflating PDF eventually he could have dived under the boat and swim to safety...but with a PDF pining him against the overturned boat? How could he dive? He had to get ride of the PDF and that is not easy being pushed against a boat over his head.

Of course, this is speculation and I don't know if that was the case but it is possible that they come to the conclusion that for this type of boat makes more sense a manual activated PDF.

Of course I am assuming they have auto inflating PDFs and did not yet arrived yet at this conclusion.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sailwatcher (Nov 29, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The thread has gotten long. I was up in Hollywood when this horrible accident occurred to my favorite team. But I'll chime in briefly anyhow.

I do like the look of the boats. And it took me a while to be onboard with cats in this AC. However, I'd kind of rather see a boat of similar size to what you see in your local harbor, cat or mono. Watching these boats, I feel like the sail is way too large for the platform of the boat.

I'm not a boater nor a design engineer. Just a new boat racing fan who watched the RC44's in my home port of San Diego and was thenceforth hooked. But I wonder about lengthening the platform maybe 1.5x, and shortening the sail system by maybe a third. Not sure how feasable all that is, but the sail is way too tall.

I don't dislike one-design racing (obviously), but I do think to some extent, the design has been part of the AC and should remain so. But, safety should be part of the design. You won't ever get the danger down to zero and still have good racing, but you can make things better.

As much as I have looked forward to AC34 going on as scheduled this year, I might be OK for the relevant people to call for a completely new design, thus delaying it into the same time next year. But I haven't really read everything related to this conversation.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Fstbttms said:


> That is not the case. The winner gets to choose the venue and the boat design criteria. The winner does not get to rewrite the Deed of Gift, which is the ruling document for the America's Cup.


What I meant was the rules for boat design, not rules for the race.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> We do. Nothing personal or sarcastic in my post.
> 
> Do you think we shouldn't even answer each other? If so let me know as I can follow that protocol too?
> 
> ...


Nope, I'm good. I thought you introduced the idea of refraining. Reply all you like.

I still don't agree with the bike race analogy. There was no significant inherent risk of dying in AC racing until recently. Arguing that the alternative is to go back to square riggers is not what anyone is suggesting. As you make advancements in the capabilities of these boats, they should not become more dangerous in the process. Race cars today are faster and more advanced than their prior generations, but are safer at the same time. That's impressive.

How hard was it to make a bigger boat with a larger wing on technology that already existed? AC has left the safety out of their advancements. Clearly there are actual competitors in the race that feel this way, as news articles are reporting.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



tommays said:


> Sorry when you have to equip everybody with crash helmets and


Besides sailing my favorite sports require helmets, protective gear, chances of bodily harm or death. If I was younger, skinnier and a better sailor I would take the risk for an opportunity to sail one of these boats.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

At this point EVERY TIME they have a bear away situation the boats are in danger of a pitch poll that can destroy the boat and kill crew

I really do not feel this is something they anticipated when scaling up the boats ?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> If I was younger, skinnier and a better sailor I would take the risk for an opportunity to sail one of these boats.


I would have too. But then again when I was younger, I did not think I could die.

When in my twenties, once was sailing in 50+ knots in the Tasman Sea. Tried to put up a storm jib on the bow of an 85 foot motor sail to try to stabilize her in the 30 foot plus seas. I had no life jacket, no harness, nothin but my hands. While I was holding the sail down by sitting on it, and waiting for partner to hoist sail, a wave washed over the deck with 3 feet of green water and carried me 15 feet across the deck and into a stanchion where I was stopped from going overboard. I hit my head and split open my ear lobe. The crew in the pilot house was a little concerned when they lost sight of me for several seconds. We went ahead and hoisted the sail, the 1-inch down haul line broke and the sail went to the top of the mast. We finally got the sail down and called it a day. I did not realize how much risk we were taking without proper equipment and training. At the time, I thought nothing of it- too stupid to know better...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The smaller boats do that too...even with more frequency. Probably they thought that size would help to eliminate that. It diminish the frequency but did not eliminate the possibility.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Exactly, the risk with the smaller boats was already known. I would love to hear whether they really thought a larger, faster version would be less risky. Seems to defy logic, but I'm open to hearing that they thought it would, even if they are being proved wrong. I would feel better about that.

As it stands, it seems Ellison was just upping the ante.


----------



## okapi3 (Apr 14, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I agree completely with Art H. The way the AC is now, it's just a competition between enormous bankrolls funding boat engineering. With all this emphasis on extreme engineering (and danger) maybe they're trying to attract the NASCAR crowd.
Paul


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



okapi3 said:


> I agree completely with Art H. The way the AC is now, it's just a competition between enormous bankrolls funding boat engineering. With all this emphasis on extreme engineering (and danger) maybe they're trying to attract the NASCAR crowd.
> Paul


Agree, just look at the money spent on just their rigid hull inflatables... And those are used mostly to haul back boat pieces.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Been reading a little past history of the AC. Seems the lawyers are the people really benefiting from the race...
2010 America's Cup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Smack, have you seen what the inside of a NASCAR drivers seat looks like these days? The safety of the driver is paramount and the cars have very strict rules intended to improve safety each year. The NFL has made great strides in seeing that the quarterbacks are not broken into bits anymore.
> 
> I'm good with the thrill, just not with the abandonment of safety. All of these sports spilled some blood before they got it. I just see AC going the other way from these risky sports analogies, as the spectacular crashes of the cats has been going on for a while and it was just a matter of time before one killed someone. Everyone knew it.


How can you seriously talk about the abandonment of safety when you have all kinds of mandatory PPE I use by AC crews? As well as PPE which may or may not be discretionary- such as air tanks to allow 3 -4 minutes breathing underwater?

This is called risk mitigation- there are many ways to conduct a risk assessment- and then to mitigate excessive risk, in order to bring it back into the realm of acceptability.

Are we so arrogant as to believe that the teams, the designers, and the officials haven't conceived of this very scenario?

It's all just a bunch of high horsery from folks that are too timid to take on that level of risk themselves- and find it uncomfortable to live in a world where there are those who are willing to sack up and go out there life on the line for something as pointless as sailing a billionaires boat. Then on the otherhand If this guy died sailing his pearson triton singlehanded on a circumnavigation thi place would be a cacophony of blowhards demanding to know who payed for the search and rescue- if any attempt was made at all- griping like they had to sign that check themselves personally. Sailing isn't about as pointless and self indulgent an activity as anything in existence - but there's this constant chorus of those decrying sailing in races, or singlehanded, or in a small boat, or when it's windy, or if where you want to go is the same direction that the wind is comin from. So for all those who are going on about how irresponsible or unsafe all this is- I say sell your boat. Sailing is irresponsible at its core. We aren't out here shuttling goods from
Continent to continent or filling or holds with clean burning whale oil with which to keep the streetlights lit.

This guy- with a solid background that afforded him the experience to make an informed decision said "this activity is both safe and well paying enough for me to engage in"

The guys writin the checks have so far determined that their exposure to risk is also acceptable- whether or not they are out on an AC 72.

I find the prevalence of the attitude that "it's not safe enough because someone died doing it" to be at its core indicative of the absolute decay of the American spirit- which historically sought out and thrived on adventure- in pursuit of goals as lofty as "building a new nation" to as mundane as just trying to keep food on the table.

I'm no big fan of the billboard boats. I don't care who paid for it or even who built it since they aren't cranking out rides I can get a seat on anyway. - I'm interested in who designed it and who is sailing it- so maybe they can make that change- keep the boats appearance a bit less commercial.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> ...sack up and go out there...


Well-played my good man.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> How can you seriously talk about the abandonment of safety when you have all kinds of mandatory PPE I use by AC crews? As well as PPE which may or may not be discretionary- such as air tanks to allow 3 -4 minutes breathing underwater?
> 
> This is called risk mitigation- there are many ways to conduct a risk assessment- and then to mitigate excessive risk, in order to bring it back into the realm of acceptability.
> 
> keep the boats appearance a bit less commercial.


One article says he was held down 10 minutes. Maybe they need 20 minutes air- 2x SF.

The freakin ad is what paid for the boat. If you don't like the ad, pony up the money your self.

People do not have to die to push the limit. If you know the equipment sucks- fix it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I've flown aircraft to runways I can't see.

I've ridden my motorcycle across half the countries in Europe and the Alps.

I've been an instructor for deep wreck and black water rescue diving.

I've sailed offshore in severe storms and zero viz.

I know risk and my spirit is just fine. It's not about eliminating risk, it's about continually getting better at managing it and reducing incidents. I understand there are professional teams that refused to compete in this AC because they thought this boat was too risky and another currently considering pulling out. Even the X-games have begun to eliminate some events, as they are too risky, despite the fact that there is no shortage in willing competitors.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Alden68 said:


> I work in construction. According to OSHA 721 people were killed in construction accidents in 2011.
> 
> Should I stay home and not earn a living? It is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the AC.
> 
> Give me a break. $.02


I also have over 30 years in construction trade. Never been on a site where someone had a major injury. Most construction accidents are due to not following safety standards and OSHSA regs. Construction can be very safe, if safety is practiced.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

well said 

QUOTE=c. breeze;1029672]How can you seriously talk about the abandonment of safety when you have all kinds of mandatory PPE I use by AC crews? As well as PPE which may or may not be discretionary- such as air tanks to allow 3 -4 minutes breathing underwater?

This is called risk mitigation- there are many ways to conduct a risk assessment- and then to mitigate excessive risk, in order to bring it back into the realm of acceptability.

Are we so arrogant as to believe that the teams, the designers, and the officials haven't conceived of this very scenario?

It's all just a bunch of high horsery from folks that are too timid to take on that level of risk themselves- and find it uncomfortable to live in a world where there are those who are willing to sack up and go out there life on the line for something as pointless as sailing a billionaires boat. Then on the otherhand If this guy died sailing his pearson triton singlehanded on a circumnavigation thi place would be a cacophony of blowhards demanding to know who payed for the search and rescue- if any attempt was made at all- griping like they had to sign that check themselves personally. Sailing isn't about as pointless and self indulgent an activity as anything in existence - but there's this constant chorus of those decrying sailing in races, or singlehanded, or in a small boat, or when it's windy, or if where you want to go is the same direction that the wind is comin from. So for all those who are going on about how irresponsible or unsafe all this is- I say sell your boat. Sailing is irresponsible at its core. We aren't out here shuttling goods from
Continent to continent or filling or holds with clean burning whale oil with which to keep the streetlights lit.

This guy- with a solid background that afforded him the experience to make an informed decision said "this activity is both safe and well paying enough for me to engage in"

The guys writin the checks have so far determined that their exposure to risk is also acceptable- whether or not they are out on an AC 72.

I find the prevalence of the attitude that "it's not safe enough because someone died doing it" to be at its core indicative of the absolute decay of the American spirit- which historically sought out and thrived on adventure- in pursuit of goals as lofty as "building a new nation" to as mundane as just trying to keep food on the table.

I'm no big fan of the billboard boats. I don't care who paid for it or even who built it since they aren't cranking out rides I can get a seat on anyway. - I'm interested in who designed it and who is sailing it- so maybe they can make that change- keep the boats appearance a bit less commercial.[/QUOTE]


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> I've flown aircraft to runways I can't see.
> 
> I've ridden my motorcycle across half the countries in Europe and the Alps.
> 
> ...


I'm maybe reading too much into Mills' and Barclays' quotes - but I have little doubt that much of the risk they were talking about was financial as much as danger. At US$10M+ a pop, for a new, unproven design that you know is going to need to be tested to breakage, that's a very tall order. Much easier to wait it out and see what happens.

The cost factor is the biggest issue to me (not the safety or necessarily the size). The cost kept too many teams on the sidelines. You're seeing the same thing in the VOR with the move to the VO65. Costs have to come down to increase participation - otherwise you have a boring race between too few compeitors.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

How can you say the equipment sucks? Does your boat tool along at 45mph? How many lives were lost trying to fly faster than the speed of sound? Crappy equipment strikes again right?

Ah- 20 minutes of air- both arbitrary and impossible to store without affecting mobility etc, certainly a novel approach to what is already quite a physically demanding activity. Would a scuba tank on your back help or hinder your efforts on your own (non crappy) boat?

Is it A) possible or B) likely that further hampering these crews under the weight and bulk of additional PPE designed to comfort those watching from home would result in less efficient crews- and more frequent catastrophic capsize or other sailing related failure?

If I were paying the bills there would be a likeness of myself giving the finger in the spinnaker. Properly befitting both my ego and my desire for a less commercial appearance. Sadly- no spinnaker= no canvas that I find suitable for my purpose= making my decision not to finance an AC72 far more simple than any debate about the inherent risks involved in sailing the beast.

I'm sorry- I just reread your post and it is clear that you have applied a well trained eye to the situation with an acumen that I couldn't hope to match- and that intense scrutiny has led to the conclusion that "the equipment sucks" precisely which equipment sucks- and could you be a bit specific in regards to "sucks" ie "is under spec for the anticipated loads" or "demonstrates an incomplete understanding of physics" etc- I don't know- something a bit more quantitative.

I'm just beginning a refit- and I don't want my equipment to "suck"


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> I'm maybe reading too much into Mills' and Barclays' quotes - but I have little doubt that much of the risk they were talking about was financial as much as danger. At US$10M+ a pop, for a new, unproven design that you know is going to need to be tested to breakage, that's a very tall order. Much easier to wait it out and see what happens.
> 
> The cost factor is the biggest issue to me (not the safety or necessarily the size). The cost kept too many teams on the sidelines. You're seeing the same thing in the VOR with the move to the VO65. Costs have to come down to increase participation - otherwise you have a boring race between too few compeitors.


That is not what these guys are saying:
2013 America's Cup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2013 America's Cup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"AC 72 Safety Controversy
On May 9th 2013 the Swedish team first AC 72 flipped in the second overturn of these boats in under a year resulting in the death of olympic medalist Andrew James Simpson, one of the members of the team. He was a British sailor nicknamed Bart who had won a gold medal at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, as crew for skipper Iain Percy in the Star class.[21][22]The AC 72 capsized while sailors were training Thursday in the San Francisco bay just north of Treasure Island. According to media reports structural damage may have been the cause.[23] Emergency crews performed CPR on one of the sailors, according to the San Francisco Fire Department. Ten people on board were transferred into an Oracle Racing support boat.

Investigations into the incident will be led by the U.S. Coastguard to determine whether this was an isolated incident or if the current America's Cup safety regulations are sufficient. This was the second of the new 72-foot catamarans to crash in training.[24]

The power and speed of the catamarans used in the America's Cup, rather than traditional one-hulled boats, has attracted criticisms in the past after Sir Keith Mills cancelled his British Team Origin campaign for the 2011 event, due to concerns over safety.[25] Stephen Barclay, the chief executive officer of the America's Cup Event Authority, has promised a full inquiry into the events which led to Simpson's death and has refused to rule out the possibility of postponing the July 4 start of the Louis Vuitton Cup series, which determines the challenger to compete in the America's Cup.[26] The future of the 2013 America's Cup was put further in doubt after Patrizio Bertelli, the owner of team Luna Rossa - who are due to compete in this year's race, told organisers he was considering withdrawing his team from the competition on safety grounds.[27]"


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Sorry - I meant Mills and Bertelli (not Barclay). I still stand by the comment though. They talk about safety - they think about cost. I have little doubt about that.

Think about it- no one is keeping them from designing a wing full of holes that can be fully depowered in a turn. Of course, they wouldn't be competitive, and we're back to cost.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> I've flown aircraft to runways I can't see.
> 
> I've ridden my motorcycle across half the countries in Europe and the Alps.
> 
> ...


My quote o you had nothing to do with questioning your courage , experience- what have you- by way of clarification.

It was specifically to address your Statement regarding abandoning safety or whatever- I'm not digging back to requote it- that was ridiculous in light of the fact that crews this go round are wearing far more PPE than in previous iterations- and that this is specifically in response to the touchier nature of the sleds- and faster speeds reached.

The rest of it had little to do with you specifically and the overall attitude of timidity and nervousness that is so prevalent in this thread as well as other threads that address safety. Odd that on this board it mos frequently comes back to safety- while so rarely coming back to adventure. Sad really.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> Sorry - I meant Mills and Bertelli (not Barclay). I still stand by the comment though. They talk about safety - they think about cost. I have little doubt about that.


I take people for their word, until they prove otherwise.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> My quote o you had nothing to do with questioning your courage , experience- what have you- by way of clarification.
> 
> It was specifically to address your Statement regarding abandoning safety or whatever- I'm not digging back to requote it- that was ridiculous in light of the fact that crews this go round are wearing far more PPE than in previous iterations- and that this is specifically in response to the touchier nature of the sleds- and faster speeds reached.
> 
> The rest of it had little to do with you specifically and the overall attitude of timidity and nervousness that is so prevalent in this thread as well as other threads that address safety. Odd that on this board it mos frequently comes back to safety- while so rarely coming back to adventure. Sad really.


And tell us about your adventures.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

In the world of yacht racing - I never take anyone at his word. Heh-heh.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> In the world of yacht racing - I never take anyone at his word. Heh-heh.


Could be the difference. I mostly deal with people that sail or are watermen/women, not yachties.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> Sorry - I meant Mills and Bertelli (not Barclay). I still stand by the comment though. They talk about safety - they think about cost. I have little doubt about that.
> 
> Think about it- no one is keeping them from designing a wing full of holes that can be fully depowered in a turn. Of course, they wouldn't be competitive, and we're back to cost.


Are they dropping out now because its too dangerous- or because its a done dream. Why throw good money after bad if you know you can't finish out a campaign. Risk mitigation at work. It goes like this- hmmm for a few more million we can get Halfway through this campaign and then drop out once we total (if we toTal) the other boat...the PR sure will play well if we drop out - no one will think us chickens hit. We can then rally behind the official investigation and possibly it will result in a platform we can win on next year."

So- maybe they will drop out. It seems like a sound way to mitigate unexcesary risk exposure for them at this time. And yes I mean financial- for though no one wants to see sailors die unecessilry- (come on auto spell- why are you abandoning me) no one really cares either- though the meek platitudes we offer strangers probably help us sleep at night.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> And tell us about your adventures.


 One time I was sailing a sunfish and it capsized and I was stung by jellyfish- over and over as I attempted to right the craft- yikes!! Quite an adventure. (I felt like crappy equipment was in play there- so I sure do sympathize with the dudes on those ac72 clunkers)

One time- I was sailing on a hobie 16 and pitchpoled. Wow! What an adventure and yardsale.

This other time I was in California and a guy got hit on the side of the head by a bear trying to eat his cooler (the guys- not the bears) and we had to put his ear back on with duck tape an paper towels. Admittedly that was more his adventure than mine- but wow was it a big adventure.

There was another one, but it wasn't that exciting. I went to a movie one time - this is in a theater mind you- and my sister- we are going way back now, ET was the film- my sister, a few years younger than me got fruit punch as a drink and it was so far from anything she had experienced in the world of drink that she began shrieking at full 3 year old volume "they're poisoning me" over and over and had to be taken out of the theater.

So there ya go- I think that's got it covered.


----------



## hasher (Aug 12, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Here is a great link to Ted Turner and Walter Cronkite.
1977: Ted Turner - 60 Minutes - CBS News

"Sports is like war without the killing."

My mother wouldn't let me play football.

I told my son he couldn't have a motorcycle in college.

I have had a couple motorcycle crashes.

My son told me about his motorcycle after I had no purse strings to pull.

Now I ride my motorcycle without a helmet when legal. My girl likes speed. I like safety and speed when prudent.

Sport is not to die. Or risk death. More risk on my couch than riding my bicycle on the streets. Which I do often.

Went to see the (boxing) Golden Gloves Championship at age 18. The crowd was not stirred by good boxing. When the lanky guy in the heavy weight division turned the stump's face into hamburger the crowd went wild. That is not sport. Haven't been back.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Ah screw it


----------



## hasher (Aug 12, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I can't get the link to work.

It was Ted Turner's quote.

I am just throwing out a little thought on risk and how we evaluate it.

I am very comfortable with the risks I take. I'd like my children to minimize their risks. My mother was the same.

I know people like to see the envelope pushed and call it sport.

Look at Hockey. Look at Football. Yes, the participants aren't forced at gunpoint. But they are lured by money. Look at the issue with concussions today. There is a blood lust with the fans. NASCAR is big where I live.

Don't float a boat that won't float. If you do, don't call it sport.

Just an opinion.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I don't think safety is even factored into the designs of these boat. They are designing the boat to go fast. They are then strapping O2 tanks on the crew and stocking the first aid kit on the chase boats to mitigate the danger in the designs. Safety is secondary to speed, durability is secondary to speed. These are super wealthy, super competitive individuals backing these campaigns to take home the cup. The sailors on the boat are also super competitive and willing to put it all out there to take home the cup. Everything is secondary to speed and winning.

Besides the chance of catastrophic failure and pitchpoling there is the chance of collision with these ultra high speed non maneuverable boats. Having watched the previous cat races, I feel that also has the potential for fatalities. There are a lot of ways that these boats are dangerous.

The comparison to Nascar is not really accurate. As Nascar as a sport has been evolving for decades. America's Cup changes venue and boat parameters every 3 years. These drag racing cats have been being developed for a few years. The drag racing cats 3 years from now there will be different parameters and different boats.

I think any crash or tragedy will cause a new band aid added to the racing of boats that are dangerous. Each crash will also teach ways to help mitigate the dangers. I believe in the recent death the sailor was missing for a while before being discovered.

I would think lessons learned is 
Better accounting of crew after crashes.
More support boats with rescue divers.

Maybe the cup itself can provide a fleet of safety boats to supplement the team boats. Knifes and O2 bottles won't help an incapacitated sailor and the potential for that to happen on these boats seams greater than in past AC races.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> The comparison to Nascar is not really accurate. As Nascar as a sport has been evolving for decades. America's Cup changes venue and boat parameters every 3 years. These drag racing cats have been being developed for a few years. The drag racing cats 3 years from now there will be different parameters and different boats.


I think this is a critical issue and likely a reason why this debate will rage on for years. Whoever wins the cup next may likely change the boats to water ballasted sharpies. In just a few years teams will have to fund R&D, test and train crews on what I am sure will be the fastest sharpie to ever touch its keel to water. These teams do not have the luxury of decades to refine their designs and technologies to ensure all the air-bags and bumpers are adequate enough to keep the lawyers at bay. You take the current technologies and push them as far as you can in the time allotted and then hold on to your ass and compete.

The level of accomplishment these people must feel is overwhelming, as I'm sure their sorrow is overwhelming when there is a tragedy. However, they won't stop; human spirit being what it is will always move forward and push the limit of whatever frontier it can find. It defines us as a species.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> Sorry - I meant Mills and Bertelli (not Barclay). I still stand by the comment though. They talk about safety - they think about cost. I have little doubt about that.
> 
> Think about it- no one is keeping them from designing a wing full of holes that can be fully depowered in a turn. Of course, they wouldn't be competitive, and we're back to cost.


Safety would be a convenient excuse. However, plenty of teams bailed by saying it cost too much and the boat is disposable anyway, even if it completes the race. Not really sure why they need the excuse, what's the additional cost if you wreck it and then bail. If they're not really worried about safety, they could just pound away until they're out of boats.

If you mean the financial liability of hurting someone, that's safety.

The LV cup is probably going to settle this one way or the other. For better or worse. Seriously injure or kill another crew member and I'll bet the AC goes on ice. I would not be surprised to see race restrictions on wind speed and/or wave height before this happens.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

That issue right there is to me the crux of why these boats aren't the answer. Forget that they are disposable- forget that they exist or this one series of events exclusively and will never be heard from or seen again. It's that we end up with a boat that is too one dimensional from a performance standpoint. The safety issue doesn't bother me, I'm comfortable with people taking their lives in their own hands. It's the fact that we have an event tailored to spectators- but are going to end up with races cancelled because of what- it was windy that day??? I say you run what you brung- and the idea of some real carnage on the course has some appeal- sailing those boats to the absolute edge of what man has conceived of- controlled flight between two mediums- it's brilliant- but I say in for a penny - in for a pound, and the fact that its blowing 35 with 9-10 swell is no reason to cancel the event. In fact- maybe NOT canceling races is all the encouragement teams will need to more well rounded designs. Sure- I want to see big ass cats go twice the wind speed- but it would be even cooler if after a pitchpole or capsize they got out and ha to right the boat and keep sailing.

Bottom line- if you offer an "out" due to weather- you will see boats that can't handle weather. You want safer rides- then don't cancel races because of weather. Period. You will see more robus designs with a sail or wing that is "reefable" because it'll be known the new this boat HAS to function whether its blowing 6knots or 35 knots.

Box rule match racing is as exciting as it gets- whether I watch a blow out due to superior technology/ exploitation of the rule- or if the boat are evenly matched and its super tactical.

Edit: I'm not opposed to a weather call- but changing the standard now, mid stream, sends the wrong message- and will proliferate increasingly one dimensional designs in this event.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> .....Bottom line- if you offer an "out" due to weather- you will see boats that can't handle weather......


This is a good point. However, I would think they are in a jam between the lesser of two evils now. Going forward, I completely agree.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I would also think that all those griping about it being nothing more than an ego stroke for billionaires would enjoy seeing Ellison and company, as well as the other teams, told- "hey- you got the boat you wanted in the venue you wanted- now deal with it"


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> ... but I say in for a penny - in for a pound, and the fact that its blowing 35 with 9-10 swell is no reason to cancel the event. In fact- maybe NOT canceling races is all the encouragement teams will need to more well rounded designs. Sure- I want to see big ass cats go twice the wind speed- but it would be even cooler if after a pitchpole or capsize they got out and ha to right the boat and keep sailing.


Well, I think there quickly becomes a point where that sort of argument becomes silly - akin to suggesting that NASCAR and IndyCar should be running on ovals in the rain... If you believe the boats should be capable of racing in the sort of conditions you describe, then perhaps the course they sail should be changed... Send them outside the Golden Gate to the Farallones, and the boats would be designed to handle the anticipated conditions...

These AC boats are as close as we have to an F1 car on the water... They are intended for a pretty specific purpose and conditions, and are not 'convertible' to be able to run the Paris-Dakar Rally after something as simple as a ride-height adjustment...



c. breeze said:


> I would also think that all those griping about it being nothing more than an ego stroke for billionaires would enjoy seeing Ellison and company, as well as the other teams, told- "hey- you got the boat you wanted in the venue you wanted- now deal with it"


Well, I tend to doubt many critics of what the AC has become "enjoyed" seeing the tragedy that transpired last week...


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Putting words in my mouth then, are you? Not to strong with conjugation, perhaps? I doubt many or any people enjoyed seeing a guy drown either. Maybe re-read what you quoted- and recognize that I was offering _potential future_ discussion- rather than discussing an event that had already transpired. In fact it was this event _in the past_ which would generate this *future * discussion.

If you take issue with my opinion- then take issue with it. I don't even know you and yet I have enough respect to respond to what you _actually say/ type_

If you want to discuss ideas that I might eventually put forward- well speculate on, maybe it what it lacks in content and intrinsic value will be made up for in entertainment value, Jon.

I personally- and you would have to dig back all the way to the page before this one to notice- have no issue with the current design, nor it's potential to be less safe than what many people seem comfortable with. I personally am enthralled by the boats- regardless of whether they are "safe" or not. I personally think that alot I the talk regarding FAA type oversight of construction methods and materials is ridiculous.

I also put forward a rather basic and common sense notion that I will repeat here- I will use quotation marks- as I am actually saying this.

"If there is concern that the boats have become too one dimensional to be effective as a platform for competition, or that the boats are no longer safe enough- then the course of action that is most basic, and requires the least amount of interference from governing bodies and committees is to let any team that so chooses drop out now- or at the time of there choosing. However, modifying the standards of the weather call- at this point- will send a very clear message that designs that are increasingly fragile, unpredictable, and one dimensional will be catered to, and if that message is sent- designs that fit that description will continue to proliferate."

Note that I haven't endorsed or suggested a course of action, I have only pointed out some of the logical consequences of some of the courses of action currently on the table for consideration- thereby allowing those with reasonable reading comprehension skills to draw their own conclusions- and possibly continue the discussion- based on some limited but reasonable understanding on the several facets of the present dillema.

I, for one, remain comfortable with the knowledge that (gasp) sailing and - this is an even bigger (gasp) competition at the highest level are not without potentially fatal risk.

Don't try cheap shots like quoting me out of context in concert with a lackluster quip to get any communicating done. If your going to argue a point- make sure it's one in contention- anything else is a waste of time and makes you seem foolish.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

That last bit was heavy handed and inappropriate.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> I went to a movie one time - this is in a theater mind you- and my sister- we are going way back now, ET was the film- my sister, a few years younger than me got fruit punch as a drink and it was so far from anything she had experienced in the world of drink that she began shrieking at full 3 year old volume "they're poisoning me" over and over and had to be taken out of the theater.


I think this might be the best thing to come out of this whole thread. Classic.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

There's some saying about blind pigs and truffles that comes to mind...

Hahaha. I hate argueing on the Internet cuz there's no point- I mean even less so than in real life- so I'm glad for the opportunity to inject something other than... Heated discussion.

It's only sailing for chistsake...

I'm glad you're able to see humor where you find it these days- I doubt my own resiliency were the tables turned. I could learn alot about mental health from you. Cheers smack.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> Besides the chance of catastrophic failure and pitchpoling there is the chance of collision with these ultra high speed non maneuverable boats. Having watched the previous cat races, I feel that also has the potential for fatalities. There are a lot of ways that these boats are dangerous.


This is actually a very, very good point. This is where the real danger lies...when the boats are actually racing _together_. Think about it, both 72' boats up on foils at 40+ knots, screaming to the weather mark just yards apart and having to make a big, edgy move...

That's going to be very hairy.

These dudes are seriously ballsy.


----------



## kjango (Apr 18, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I would like to see the America Cup go back to being the America cup . To me it's like one step away from having airplanes in a sailboat race .


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> How can you seriously talk about the abandonment of safety when you have all kinds of mandatory PPE I use by AC crews?...


Anyone who has dealt with workplace safety knows that PPE is the _last_ line of defense. Here's a good reference from OSHA:



> Using personal protective equipment is often
> essential, but it is generally the last line of
> defense after engineering controls, work practices,
> and administrative controls. Engineering
> ...


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

So, the boats are set... That's a done deal
Venue is set... Also a done deal
Administrations have hired what are arguably the bes workers money can buy- done deal

As mentioned above rescheduling "work" may - that means "might" have a short term positive impact on safety - though in the long term actually stands to work against an over all safer "work environment" in this case.

So... We have crews outfitted in more/ improved PPE than in previous events- as a last line of defense...

Last of defense or not- I fail to see how an improved last line I defense represents an "abandonment of safety considerations" or whatever the the exact quote was.

So while that is an instructive excerpt, it doesn't really address the point I made.

Which is only this- these guys aren't bounty crew. They are about as well trained and informed as anyone can get. They are in fact THE ONLY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. None of us- or anyone else has the kind of experience they do- and the fact that they (those who do) remain willing to participate sends a very clear message "we, the participants of these events, certify and endorse that it is safe"

Maybe qualify that with an "enough."

There's lots of folks out there who wouldn't take the gamble- and the majority of them will never, could never be in the position to make that decision- why? Underqualified.

Are you qualified? I'm not. I wish I was- I'm confident that getting to participate in this activity (I'm not calling it sailing right now) would be worth it. The cutting edge. Flight in 2 mediums, air and water- simultaneously.

People are shocked they can't jibe etc- why? It's essentially brand new. This has as much in common with moth as it does a laser- not a lot.

So maybe give me, the crews, the engineers, and the wright brothers a break with all this "it's just not safe"

*its also possible that a mundane workplace leads to mundane views on workplace safety. I'm not willing to take my life in my own hands and run a lathe in a machine shop jrunk wearing a necktie- which leads me to this- what are the real threats to sailors- sun, and hydration

Yet hundreds of sailors are out every weekend DRINKING ALCOHOL, while not drinking water and wearing sunscreen. Now- much like the lathe example above- that's a little high risk for me personally. So- I utilize my last line of defense (PPE) as well as mitigate se
Of the environmental factors- IE, no booze on board (at least underway), and plenty of water. It's the responsible thing to do.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



TakeFive said:


> Anyone who has dealt with workplace safety knows that PPE is the _last_ line of defense. Here's a good reference from OSHA:


Injecting OSHA requirements in this discussion. Just doesnt seem really relevant

Racing in ANY sport is much more dangerous inherently as you are testing limits. Sitting on top of a liquid fuel or solid fuel rocket isn't safe. Skiing downhill isn't safe. Going aroung the world singlehanded isn't safe.

You will never convince many of the cautious sailors on here that any racing should allowed except in a bathtub with Wind less than 20 knots. And a 30000 lb monohull.

To me interfering in the AC in the steed of safety is not justifiable and questionable reasoning to pick on this one example of sport. If you don't like the format, the catamarans, or the big billionaires, that's a different is cushion.

Dave

No way. Next you'll want the Tour de France racers to use "big wheel tricycles"' ,


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> Injecting OSHA requirements in this discussion. Just doesnt seem really relevant...


Totally relevant. I'm not suggesting that crewing on these boats should meet OSHA standards. But I am advocating the universality of the concept that work practices are always the first line of defense, and PPE the last line of defense.

For example - Rule #1: Don't fall overboard. The PFD is is the last resort - once you're in the water, your chances of survival are drastically reduced.

Second example: Keep your head out of the way of the boom. A helmet would never fully protect you.

Etc etc.

The concept is universal, and totally relevant here. The person that I was responding to was suggesting that the PPE requirements prove that safety was not abandoned. I think the presence of PPE proves little.

AC is a dangerous endeavor, and will always be. But I think it could be done more safely than it is now.

That's my opinion, based on years of taking the lead in workplace safety. You're not going to change my opinion on this one.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> Putting words in my mouth then, are you? Not to strong with conjugation, perhaps? I doubt many or any people enjoyed seeing a guy drown either. Maybe re-read what you quoted- and recognize that I was offering _potential future_ discussion- rather than discussing an event that had already transpired. In fact it was this event _in the past_ which would generate this *future * discussion.


Sorry, you'll just have to pardon my abysmal reading comprehension skills, I suppose...

So, are you suggesting that a a future destruction of another AC boat, or a repeat of the sort of accident that occurred last week, is not still within the realm of possibility, and the sort of thing the organizers and competitors might yet again have to "deal with"?



> Originally Posted by c. breeze
> 
> I would also think that all those griping about it being nothing more than an ego stroke for billionaires would enjoy seeing Ellison and company, as well as the other teams, told- "hey- you got the boat you wanted in the venue you wanted- now deal with it"


Seems to me, LATITUDE 38 strikes the right note, here (bolded portion mine):



> While the edgy, ultra-high-speed nature of AC72 racing was meant to spur Cup enthusiasm from both sailors and non-sailors, Thursday's accident has caused some Cup-watchers to claim that technical innovations of this new generation of boats are not yet sufficiently tested and refined to be safe, especially in brisk SF Bay conditions.
> 
> No doubt a wide range of opinions and concerns will be expressed tomorrow when representatives from all four AC teams (Oracle Team USA, Artemis Racing, Luna Rossa Challenge and Emirates Team New Zealand) will sit down together for a earnest discussion of the mishap and its consequences. "The meeting with the teams is a crucial next step," Murray said. "We need to establish an open flow of information to ensure this review meets its goals of fact-finding and putting us in a position to recommend changes, if necessary." We expect this will be a closed-door session, and we suspect some strong opinions will be voiced about the viability of AC72s for Cup racing in typical Bay conditions, as there have been critical grumblings - especially from the New Zealanders - for many months. (Naturally, we would love to be a fly on the wall of those sessions.)
> 
> ...


No easy solutions, with an event of this magnitude, and this much money involved... Allow me to make one more analogy to motor racing, the sport I know best...

I now have the same sense of foreboding as I've had going into particular race weekends in the past... Most recently, the IndyCar season finale 2 years ago in Las Vegas...

Everyone in the paddock knew the potential for disaster that race presented.. Running a field of 34 on a wide, high-banked 1.5 mile oval, cars flat-out 100% of each lap, everyone I knew fully expected someone to get hurt... Right from the opening laps, it was obvious the format was simply all wrong, and the race only made it to Lap 11 before the reigning Indy 500 Dan Wheldon lost his life in a horrific shunt which involved virtually half the field...

Hopefully, my gut feeling is wrong about this one, and the remainder of the AC will be run without a hitch... I wouldn't put money on it, however, and can only hope that any further calamity will only involve damage to the equipment, and not the sailors themselves... AC racing never has carried anything remotely close to the sort of risk that motor racing does, in entire 130+ year history of the Cup, only ONE sailor had ever been killed prior to last week... What might be deemed an 'acceptable risk' in a sport like motor racing still has no place in AC racing, in my view...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> ....I fail to see how an improved last line I defense represents an "abandonment of safety considerations" or whatever the the exact quote was.
> 
> .....


I suspect it was my comment, but I haven't gone back to find it either. I did reference the abandonment of safety with respect to designing a new boat that increased risk, unlike every other sport that fights to decrease it. The fact that they are trying to mitigate that increase with PPE would not change my point. The net is still an increase. I believe they could have amped up performance and not increased risk to the point that anyone was going to have any significant risk of death.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> Injecting OSHA requirements in this discussion. Just doesnt seem really relevant
> 
> Racing in ANY sport is much more dangerous inherently as you are testing limits. Sitting on top of a liquid fuel or solid fuel rocket isn't safe. Skiing downhill isn't safe. Going aroung the world singlehanded isn't safe.
> 
> ...


The racers, owners, promoters and all others are now looking into the cause of the accident and what can be done to prevent future accidents. That is all we are doing here. Maybe some of us carry it to the extreme and say ban multi-hulls altogether, but hey this is the internet. Seeing this is the first death as a result of a capsize of any boat in the history of the AC, it should be looked at. And with the previous capsize of the AC72, we are lucky there was not another death. There is nothing wrong with trying to make things safer, in fact it is what people that take the most risk do.

From:
Surf Rescue: Brian Keaulana - National Geographic Adventure Magazine

Winter storms bring some of the biggest waves in the world to Oahu's North Shore, and few are as familiar with giant surf as Brian Keaulana.

An innovator in water safety risk management, Keaulana is routinely tapped to teach the best big-wave riders in the world how to react to a wipeout in gargantuan (40-foot-plus or 12-meter-plus) waves. His uncanny ability to rescue surfers from seemingly impossible situations makes Keaulana an incredible asset at big-wave competitions around the globe.

In one particularly notable rescue, in 1993, on Oahu's northwest shore, Keaulana saved a tourist trapped in the "Moi Hole"-a sea cave nestled among a particularly violent convergence of volcanic rock, heavy swells, and churning tides. The fact that Keaulana was able to get in (and out) in one piece was heroic; that he did so using a Jet Ski was revolutionary.

Soon after, Keaulana was promoted to lifeguard captain of the Makaha coastline, a position first held by his father, Buffalo, also a legendary waterman.

Then, Hollywood came calling: Keaulana has worked on Waterworld, In God's Hands, and Blue Crush and today is one of the most sought-after surfing stuntmen in the industry (he's currently working on the second season of Beyond the Break). And somehow the 45-year-old still finds time to compete, taking first in the stand-up paddling and tandem surfing competitions in his father's Big Board Surfing Classic last February.

Adventure spoke with Keaulana about using Jet Skis to save lives, the risk management while riding giants, and who you don't want to be with in the water.

How long have you been a lifeguard?
Keaulana: It's hard to say, exactly. My father has always been a big influence. He's one of the pioneer surfers and was born and raised right on the beach at Makaha on the west end of Oahu. He was the only person appointed by the governor to be the lifeguard on Oahu's West Shore. I grew up seeing my father rescue so many people, it was a lifestyle.

How did using Jet Skis for big-wave rescues come about?
Keaulana: In 1993, I was surfing Waimea Bay in the Eddie Aikau [Big Wave Invitational] and I wiped out pretty bad. When I was tumbling underwater, I was thinking, God here I am, in the same position of the people I see when they drown. When I came up, the next wave was even bigger. There with me in the impact zone was a friend on a Jet Ski saying, "Brian, you alright?" I relaxed and focused on that-that, wow, there's somebody right here.

Was that a ligh-bulb-over-the-head kind of moment?
Keaulana: I was just amazed that a piece of technology could get into a zone that dangerous. I went out and bought a Yamaha Waverunner and started practicing making rescues. It was hard to pick the surfers up, so I modified a bodyboard with waterholes and adapted it to more like a sled so that you could grab on to it when it went by. We started practicing with our own guys and brought it to a contest. From then on it was kind of history.

*You've taken classes in military risk management. 
Keaulana: They were talking about bombs and explosions and my friends were saying, "Brian, what are we doing in this class?" I was converting everything the instructor said into impact zone, or currents &#8230; putting everything they were saying into the context of being in the water. When you think about it, the ocean can be a war zone. *

How do you surf a giant wave with minimal risk?
Keaulana: For any break, you need to know it like you know your own house. You need to know the topography of the reef, the caves, the crevices, what marine life frequents, which way the currents flow depending on swell direction, wind direction, tide, how high, low, so that you know exactly what creates certain types of dangers. What's really important to us is where the rubbish line is. This is the area where all the currents dump driftwood and debris. If we're going after someone who's knocked out it's the first place we'd check.

Is there anyone who rides big waves who shouldn't?
Keaulana: There are surfers who're out there for money and recognition. Then there're the adrenaline junkies. It depends what drives a person, because then you find out what their behavior is. You want to know if you're dealing with an individual or a team player. When you surf really large waves, it's not if but when something goes down, you want to know who's going to back you up.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> ......You will never convince many of the cautious sailors on here that any racing should allowed except in a bathtub with Wind less than 20 knots. And a 30000 lb monohull......


Isn't that just an inflammatory way of mocking those that disagree with you? I don't even believe you really think anyone actually feels that way.

Those that object, including me, are not overly cautious. We see no reason that billionaires should risk the lives of their paid chauffeurs for their and others amusement. This could be done more safely and should be, IMO. Doesn't make me a bathtub sailor.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

People are shocked they can't jibe etc- why? It's essentially brand new. This has as much in common with moth as it does a laser- not a lot.

The pitch-pole thing has been and issue on cats since the Hobie 14' because it has such small holes it was very easy to bury one But you did Not get pitched all that far

Now your pretty much getting pitch-poled from a if you cant hold on or its a fatal height


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



tommays said:


> People are shocked they can't jibe etc- why? It's essentially brand new. This has as much in common with moth as it does a laser- not a lot.
> 
> The pitch-pole thing has been and issue on cats since the Hobie 14' because it has such small holes it was very easy to bury one But you did Not get pitched all that far
> 
> Now your pretty much getting pitch-poled from a if you cant hold on or its a fatal height


Agree. I used to sail Pridle 16 across the Ches Bay. Once I was midway across from Annapolis and single hand with full sail and tried to tack. She would not go with the 25 knot southerly and 5 foot wind swell. Just could not get her through the winds eye. I really wanted to tack as there was a huge ship headed up the bay and I was getting ready to cross the shipping channel. I did not want to jibe as I knew for sure I would capsize the boat when the wind caught. I crossed the bow of the ship and headed to the calm of the western shore where I could tack and sailed back to annapois Put the Prindle away and got my windsurfer. I had a few pitch poles with the P16. Never wanted a P18 as I was afraid of getting impalled on the single spreader that mast had.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Isn't that just an inflammatory way of mocking those that disagree with you? I don't even believe you really think anyone actually feels that way.
> 
> Those that object, including me, are not overly cautious. We see no reason that billionaires should risk the lives of their paid chauffeurs for their and others amusement. This could be done more safely and should be, IMO. Doesn't make me a bathtub sailor.


Gracious no I wasn't mocking you as a bathtub sailor at all. I was saying we could get so safety conscious that all we would have left in races in a bathtub with less than 20 knots of wind.

Minnie I am confused,

You chide me for my hyperbole, it was no more hyperbole than your statement mocking the PROFESSIONAL sailors who race in the AC as " paid chauffeurs to billionaires."

I believe the individual who lost his life, Brian Simpson was an Olympic Champion wasn't he. So are you then referring to him as a "chauffeur to a billionaire and others amusement."

These people who race are the pinnacle of the racing sailors around the from around world. Have you looked at the list of names and Captains who race in this and the AC45 series. Russel Couutz, James Spithill, Micheal Menninger,
Nathan Otterbridge, Tom Slingsbury, just to name a few. The crews of the boats are the tops in Olympic sailing around the world.

To call these men "chauffers" is mocking them. They are the best. They are the brightest. The are the cutting edge. They certainly are to be respected as the ultimate racing sailors. The certainly have enough brains and common sense to make an informed decision on risking their lives as opposed to being pawns of billionaires.

Damn Id give my left ,,,,, to go racing and sailing for a day with Russel Cuuntz or James Spithill


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JonEisberg said:


> Seems to me, LATITUDE 38 strikes the right note, here (bolded portion mine):
> 
> *"As exciting as AC72s are to watch, in light of Simpson's death we, too, have to wonder if research and development of this new class of boats isn't still too much in the experimental phase to be ready for competition before a world-wide audience just 51 days from now."*
> 
> ...


As I said before...this is exactly the problem...too much, too big, too soon. But I sure hope they don't abandon the cats or the format. They're on to something truly great.

(PS - _I'm_ the bathtub sailor around here and don't you forget it!)


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Just to be difficult- I'm a hacker have nothing close to the smallest fraction of the skill set of a PGA golfer. They are playing a different game from me but I can appreciate what they do. Watch extreme games kids playing sports I never played and won't never be able to play at their level. Fun to watch but have trouble relating. See long distance sailboat racing as the first (consider those folks the pinnacle of racing sailors) and current AC as the second. just saying
never liked dennis connors either


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The paid crews are indeed the best but they are also being paid to drive someone else's boat for our amusement. Some disagree, but I say they have no choice but to accept these risks that shouldn't be imposed upon them. The engineerring of these boats is flawed. It doesnt require turning the clock back a century to fix. Further, they aren't in this conversation, I did not mock them and the use of chauffeur was metaphorical not hyperbole.

The bathtub comment was specifically directed at the "cautious sailors on here", so we'll respond to it. I'm good with that.


----------



## T37SOLARE (Feb 1, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

FWIW, The Americas Cup Organisers just released a statement that the games will go on:

America

Personally I'm on the fence on theses monsters, but looking forward to seeing them in 2 weeks while in SF.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

To say that someone doesn't have a choice has to be an incredibly inaccurate statement. We all have choices to make and we make them freely every day, regardless of our profession.

Every athlete paid to compete in a spectator sport is there for our amusement. Are you saying that is bad?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Alden68 said:


> To say that someone doesn't have a choice has to be an incredibly inaccurate statement. We all have choices to make and we make them freely every day, regardless of our profession.
> 
> Every athlete paid to compete in a spectator sport is there for our amusement. Are you saying that is bad?


Technically, they have a choice. Practically, how do they turn down being crew on an AC boat? The opportunity may never come again. Damn the torpedoes.

All other spectator sports have made incremental efforts to be safer year upon year. Nothing bad about amusing us, we only owe them better than the risk of the AC 72s in return.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



T37SOLARE said:


> FWIW, The Americas Cup Organisers just released a statement that the games will go on:
> 
> America
> 
> Personally I'm on the fence on theses monsters, but looking forward to seeing them in 2 weeks while in SF.


But why be on the fence? Bad **** can happen when any boat gets upside down. There was a 14 yo girl killed last year in Annapolis when her 420(or Laser or whatever) turtled while racing or practicing to race. Nobody thinks racing 420's(or lasers or whatever) is too dangerous.

As has been noted previously these guys are at the top of the sport and know what they are getting into. Rather that presuming they are coerced into sailing on these boats by the lure of money and fame, I presume they LIKE the challenge of sailing faster than almost anything on the water and the money and fame are nice perks. In short, I don't think anyone involved feels they are being sent to the slaughter.

I read some of these posts and am reminded of Aesop's Fox and the grapes.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

You make a good point. However what if this wasn't for sport? What if this was a project to create a new breed of sailing craft and these men & women were pioneers. We would owe them nothing. Does that change because we call it a race and watch it on tv?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> As I said before...this is exactly the problem...too much, too big, too soon. But I sure hope they don't abandon the cats or the format. They're on to something truly great.
> 
> (PS - _I'm_ the bathtub sailor around here and don't you forget it!)


No way Steve.....I see your racing stripes


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Alden68 said:


> You make a good point. However what if this wasn't for sport? What if was a project to create a new breed of sailing craft and these men & women were pioneers. We would owe them nothing. Does that change because we call it a race and watch it on tv?


Great point. I actually think this is Ellison's mission - to push this event to a completely new place. He is, without doubt, pioneering the AC. I say good on him.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Technically, they have a choice. Practically, how do they turn down being crew on an AC boat? The opportunity may never come again. Damn the torpedoes.
> 
> All other spectator sports have made incremental efforts to be safer year upon year. Nothing bad about amusing us, we only owe them better than the risk of the AC 72s in return.


This isn't about amusing us. These men race and compete from within and would do it if no one watched. It's their nature.

So a top notch sailor, a gold medal winner in the Olympics will not get another chance? There are a few of them actually. Russel Cuuntz won't get another chance? James Spithill won't get another chance? Does really ring true does it?

Many of these men will be in the Volvo and other dangerous Races testing the edge. And again, and again.

It's what they do. They are not coerced by anyone else. Its not like the Bounty crew who had no experience, or if they said no wouldn't get another ride. They do it by choice. Their choice. They are driven by their own competition from within. They are men with free thought not chauffeurs or little boys.

God bless Simpson. God bless the Five sailors who have died in the Volvo races, They died reaching for the goals the set for themselves. God bless the wife and children he left behind.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PalmettoSailor said:


> I read some of these posts and am reminded of Aesop's Fox and the grapes.


Yeah, here's some more 'sour grapes' from two of the bravest, most accomplished sailors on the planet:

Webb Chiles... 5 solo circumnavigations, first American to sail around Cape Horn alone, sailed halfway around the world in an 18' open boat... Hardly a timid soul:



> wrong boat?
> 
> Our single handing pal Webb Chiles offers a brief comment on the AC tragedy&#8230;
> 
> ...


And Grant Dalton... 5 Whitbread/Volvo Races, skippered the maxi cat CLUB MED to victory in The Race in 2001, setting the record for the fastest circumnavigation at the time... Managing Director of Team New Zealand, here's what he said after ORACLE's capsize last November:



> Team New Zealand boss Grant Dalton previously told Fairfax Media about his misgivings and yesterday's accident appears to have justified those.
> 
> The wind limits for cup racing have been placed at 33 knots at this stage although Dalton is "highly doubtful" they can be raced in that wind.
> 
> *"These boats will be terrifying in a big breeze,"* he said.


Again, that's from the man who skippered this 120-footer RTW in 62 days, via the Great Capes and Southern Ocean...


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

If there weren't any cameras and there wasn't any prestige- these guys would be out there doing this.

It's as much about pushing yourself as far as you can go- as much as it is about pushing the equipment and changing the game. Men make the challenge so they can rise to it. Are the AC72s ready? Hell no. They aren't robust enough- they can't be adequately depowered we all know that.

Again- all the better reason to make these guys run the boats they chose in the venue they chose. Don't soften the challenge- nothing is gained from that- keep the bar that they set for themselves- and be amazed at what you see come out of it.

Chrisake- let the human spirit soar- let theseem rise to the occasion- tame the beasts- and demonstrate again the indomitable will to adapt and overcome.

It's certainly no for everyone. As for workplace safety- risk assessment, risk management- if your nine to five fits into the scope of what OSHA thinks you should do, and you aren't factoring in concepts like ground and air medevac, ammo resupply, vehicle crossroads, most likely and most dangerous courses of enemy action- so on and so forth- if you don't have team leaders doing PCC's and squad leaders performing PCIs- I you don't do rehearsals and rock drills- if you don't train to the point that your actions become a collective action rapidly executed without applying a deliberate decision-making process- we probably don't have much to discuss when comes to "safety in the workplace"

Because you just haven't had to lay it on the line.

And no- I'm not going to discuss my myriad adventuresssss- outside if those outlined earlier.

Minne- yes it was your statement re abandonment of safety considerations etc. I get distracted by broad brush strokes that leave myriad streaks and gaps in the overall finish...

And the simple fact remains- the guys who are the sole subject matter experts are by and large staying on the boats.

Only the second fatality in 130 years? Remarkable. Why aren't we celebrating that track record- It should be held aloft as an example to other sports.

Anyone remember the opening sequence of the right stuff? Talking about the sound barrier and the bell x1- it wound up with this quote "men came to the high deserts of California to ride it- they were called test pilots, and no one knew there names"

It's not about fame. It's not about money. It's just that voice inside your head that tells you to hurry up when there's someone walking a few steps ahead or behind you. Of you don't have it- you'll never understand but it won't let you rest. It says "hear that- they're right behind you- maybe catching up- maybe not- maybe they just think you can't get away" he says "they are right there- you have to pass them- or they'll think you can't". It says "jeez dude- it's a hill- just run up it- what's the problem- why aren't you trying?"

So if you don't hear that voice everyday- pushing you every step turning your every waking moment into a contest with yourself- because your fellow man isn't always there to compete against- you might be a happy and content soul- but that's all you'll ever be. And you'll never grasp what makes a man willing to go out and leave it all out on the field- holding nothing back for the return trip.

To me that is just impossibly bland.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> If there weren't any cameras and there wasn't any prestige- these guys would be out there doing this.


Hmmm, I don't think so... Who would pay the bills?

Take away the cameras, and the prestige - these logos would disappear overnight... Corporations are not in the habit of spending millions to plaster their brand on the proverbial tree falling in a forest, with nobody around to hear the sound...


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> Anyone remember the opening sequence of the right stuff? Talking about the sound barrier and the bell x1- it wound up with this quote "men came to the high deserts of California to ride it- they were called test pilots, and no one knew there names"
> 
> It's not about fame. It's not about money. It's just that voice inside your head that tells you to hurry up when there's someone walking a few steps ahead or behind you. Of you don't have it- you'll never understand but it won't let you rest. It says "hear that- they're right behind you- maybe catching up- maybe not- maybe they just think you can't get away" he says "they are right there- you have to pass them- or they'll think you can't". It says "jeez dude- it's a hill- just run up it- what's the problem- why aren't you trying?"
> 
> So if you don't hear that voice everyday- pushing you every step turning your every waking moment into a contest with yourself- because your fellow man isn't always there to compete against- you might be a happy and content soul- but that's all you'll ever be. .


 Probably just pasteing this in anywhere else in this thread where I feel I should respond- as I just really don't have much else to say about it. What alot of y'all need to feel- is clearly not the same as what these guys need to feel- be it the owners or the crews- and so you act in a tremendously condescending fashion toward it. You sound like PTA moms. I often feel this is an arrogance born of insecurity- sort of the self inflated notion that if someone does sailing its because you were a bit rash with your advice in sailnet- sort of the opposite of false bravado. There is this prevalent attitude that you need to save the rest of sailing world from itself.

If its not there- if that's not the attitude- it sure comes off as such. Now don't get me wrong- I'm really enjoying the discussion and a lot of good points have been brought up- and we are already seeing developments that to an extent had been discussed here- so it's not without merit. Just passionate on my views about the dangers of taming the human spirit


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



mad_machine said:


> I would prefer AC to be raced in a one design format. Everyone on the same style boat, same style sails, same number of people. They it would be a race about strategy and crew skills


If watching one-design racing is your thing, go down to your nearest sailing club, you'll probably see it there.

AC has for more than a century been at the cutting edge of sailing - this is not a club sport.

Personally, I can't wait to see these boats do battle. I have watched ETNZ and Luna Rosa sailing in our local harbor and it is breathtaking to see them sailing that fast that a 400hp chase boat can't catch them.

Bring it on!


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> Injecting OSHA requirements in this discussion. Just doesnt seem really relevant
> 
> No way. Next you'll want the Tour de France racers to use "big wheel tricycles"' ,


I think OSHA should have a special division to regulate all international sporting events. I might have to miss the Olympics following the new "Sporting Safety" division takes over.

That reminds me I had decided to boycott the next summer Olympics when the IOC canceled Wrestling in favor of Rythmic Gymnastics.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, here's some more 'sour grapes' from two of the bravest, most accomplished sailors on the planet:
> 
> Webb Chiles... 5 solo circumnavigations, first American to sail around Cape Horn alone, sailed halfway around the world in an 18' open boat... Hardly a timid soul:
> 
> ...


Jon,

Would you not agree that these boats have shifted the paradigm to the point these guys are somewhat out of their experience zone?

Yes, 25 knots on any of our boats is not that big a deal, then again we won't be doing 35-40 knots in that wind.

I think its more accurate to say, turning any sailboat that's doing 35-40 knots is going to be terrifying.

I'm not trying to say I think these boats are SAFE. I'm saying, that racing is dangerous, and racing the fastest, most cutting edge boats against other similar boats is about as dangerous as it gets. I expect these teams will be taking a harder look at what they can do to quickly de-power to reduce the chances of this happening again. NASCAR didn't become as safe as it currently is overnight, and a lot of drivers paid for those safety lessons in blood. What I am saying is, that's the nature of the beast.

I share the opinion that this format is ever going to make AC racing mainstream.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Agree with Jon on this one. We've watched AC in light air off S.D. and heavy air more then once. These boats are fascinating but a distortion - a very small segment- of what sailing is about. It has become a ninch race. Much like the boarders and planers racing in ditches to get flat water while they go for speed records. Like the difference between the salt flats and general road racing. This is not to take away from the technology, skill and courage of this endeavor but it makes for high light films not not engagement for the general public.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Ah yes. As opposed to the good old days when everyone loves watching the AC...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



outbound said:


> Agree with Jon on this one. We've watched AC in light air off S.D. and heavy air more then once. These boats are fascinating but a distortion - a very small segment- of what sailing is about. It has become a ninch race. Much like the boarders and planers racing in ditches to get flat water while they go for speed records. Like the difference between the salt flats and general road racing. This is not to take away from the technology, skill and courage of this endeavor but it makes for high light films not not engagement for the general public.


And the Tour de France is a very small segment of what bike riders are about
And formula 1 is a small segment of what driving a car is about
And so on.

These guys are pushing the edge


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I'm trying to think of another sport where some major teams and/or high profile professionals are saying their event or sport has become too dangerous. That's distinct from someone who may think its time to reduce danger they've been accepting all along. This is the case of professionals in the sport saying this new evolution has gone too far too fast, without sufficient engineering around safety.

The discussion has never been about whether there should be any danger, but some continually try to paint the other safer point of view into that corner. It's about whether they have gone beyond the cutting edge, into the bleeding edge.

On another point, this is the cache resume race of a lifetime. No other matches it, IMO. Not every crew member will have multiple shots at it. I would be curious how many crew do repeat. Maybe that's changing, now that they're paid. The few I've met over the years only got in one race. I may try to track one down and see what he thinks of this new format and the risks his younger colleagues are taking.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> And the Tour de France is a very small segment of what bike riders are about
> And formula 1 is a small segment of what driving a car is about
> And so on.
> 
> These guys are pushing the edge


Many different ways of pushing the edge...

Personally, I am FAR more impressed by what this kid did last year, than anything Larry Ellison will spend tens of million$ to accomplish on SF Bay this year... If any sailor has truly and so purely demonstrated the "indomitable will to adapt and overcome" - to borrow c. breeze's words - it's Matt Rutherford:

Sailor Matt Rutherford welcomed home in Annapolis after sailing solo around the Americas - Washington Post



> The entire trip cost around $35,000, all things included. At this point we have raised over $100,000 for CRAB and the number is still rising. So thank you all for your contributions. Until next time.
> 
> Solo Around the America's Under Sail | An audacious attempt at sailing the Northwest Passage and circumnavigating entirety of both continents, to benefit Chesapeake Region Accessible Boating












To be clear, I was among those who expressed doubts about the likely success of Rutherford's venture from the beginning... He certainly proved me wrong, and I can only hope the AC guys manage to do so, as well...


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

That trip is totally mind blowing. The mental fortitude it required not too mention plenty of extremely "technical" sailing. A stunner for sure. 
And I appreciate that sentiment of hoping the AC guys make it too- but the fatalism... It's just overplayed. I know that you as well as all of us are going to be pretty giddy and bubbly for a little while if this race does come off without another catastrophe. But it will still all be tainted, because a guy died. Bu the problem is- it'll be more than that- it'll be "a guy died- and there were rich guys imcolved" and all the connotations that come with it.

People can hate Larry Ellison because he's spent millions developing a toy, while praising Matt Rutherford for raising money for a charity- but it just starts to sound like a social agenda more than anything at that point- especially if they were a naysayer until Matt was successful. But when you keep it at the sailing level- there's not a lot of difference- Matt was going to go if it didn't raise 6 dollars- Larry's gonna go if it costs 50 million. The commitment to the challenge is there regardless. Those two guys were going to find or make a way for that trip they were on because they had to.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PalmettoSailor said:


> Jon,
> 
> Would you not agree that these boats have shifted the paradigm to the point these guys are somewhat out of their experience zone?
> 
> ...


I don't know, when a guy like Grant Dalton makes such a statement, I'll sit up and take notice... I don't believe these boats are _that_ far out of his "experience zone", after all...

He would have seen similar speeds aboard a boat almost twice as large, on CLUB MED during The Race... Among the mountainous seas of the Southern Ocean, at night, while basically circumnavigating Antarctica... Thousands of miles from land, no team support or rescue boats on scene, the possibility of a quick rescue slim to none, the prospect of a man overboard likely ensuring a fatality...

For him to say that sailing these AC72s in a breeze of 25+ knots in the comparatively protected waters of SF Bay, with instant assistance/rescue/medical treatment close at hand, is _"terrifying"_... well, considering the source, that speaks volumes, to me...

BTW, for anyone who hasn't read Tim Zimmerman's THE RACE, I recommend it highly - a terrific read...

Amazon.com: The Race: Extreme Sailing and Its Ultimate Event: Nonstop, Round-the-World, No Holds Barred (9780618382705): Tim Zimmermann: [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%[email protected]@[email protected]@51%2BxZ72jQuL


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> I'm trying to think of another sport where some major teams and/or high profile professionals are saying their event or sport has become too dangerous. That's distinct from someone who may think its time to reduce danger they've been accepting all along. This is the case of professionals in the sport saying this new evolution has gone too far too fast, without sufficient engineering around safety.
> 
> g.


Football has a major lawsuit concerning concussions I believe


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JonEisberg said:


> Many different ways of pushing the edge...
> 
> Personally, I am FAR more impressed by what this kid did last year, than anything Larry Ellison will spend tens of million$ to accomplish on SF Bay this year... If any sailor has truly and so purely demonstrated the "indomitable will to adapt and overcome" - to borrow c. breeze's words - it's Matt Rutherford:
> 
> ...


I agree about Matt. I met him in Annapolis a few months ago at a speaking engagement. Quite a story.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> Football has a major lawsuit concerning concussions I believe


That's an example of wanting to reduce a risk that has been accepted up until now, not one that was increased as a result of taking on more risk. Exactly what the AC should be doing, but first took a huge step backwards.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> People can hate Larry Ellison because he's spent millions developing a toy, while praising Matt Rutherford for raising money for a charity- but it just starts to sound like a social agenda more than anything at that point- especially if they were a naysayer until Matt was successful. But when you keep it at the sailing level- there's not a lot of difference- Matt was going to go if it didn't raise 6 dollars- Larry's gonna go if it costs 50 million. The commitment to the challenge is there regardless. Those two guys were going to find or make a way for that trip they were on because they had to.


For the record, I don't "hate" Larry Ellison...

While he does not appear to be a particularly nice man, I certainly respect the remarkable success he has achieved in his life, both in business, and sailing... My primary gripe with him, as with many other American yacht owners of vast wealth, is that he can't be bothered to fly the Stars & Stripes from the stern of his private cruise ship...

I do find it amusing, however, that a man of such impressive accomplishment and station in life, might still have some _'Mine's Bigger'_ issues to deal with... (grin)



> Reported to have originally cost of more than $290 million, rumour has it that Rising Sun's length was extended by some 18m during construction (her project name was LE120, rather indicating an original length of 120m) to ensure she was larger than the 126.2m Octopus belonging to Microsoft's co-founder, Paul Allen.
> 
> Top 100 largest Super Yachts and Luxury Yachts in the world - Boat International


----------



## steve77 (Aug 5, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> And the Tour de France is a very small segment of what bike riders are about
> And formula 1 is a small segment of what driving a car is about
> And so on.
> 
> These guys are pushing the edge


Formula 1 yes, but anyone can buy basically the same bikes that are used in the TDF. The main difference between your bike (if you buy the same model) and Lance Armstrong's bike is that Armstrong has full time mechanics responsible for keeping his bike running like a Swiss watch. Well, he did at one time.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

If the AC 72's continue to have accidents and people continued to die, how long would the race sailing community allow this format to continue, with no boat engineering or operations changes? Is one too many, or is it many more?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> If the AC 72's continue to have accidents and people continued to die, how long would the race sailing community allow this format to continue, with no boat engineering or operations changes? Is one too many, or is it many more?


There will be a next iteration to the format at the next AC. That's what happens every time.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



steve77 said:


> Formula 1 yes, but anyone can buy basically the same bikes that are used in the TDF. The main difference between your bike (if you buy the same model) and Lance Armstrong's bike is that Armstrong has full time mechanics responsible for keeping his bike running like a Swiss watch. Well, he did at one time.


Yes agreed Steve. I in fact have a Trek bike similar to ones used. The point is however that I was making is that there is only so much safety can be helpful in a race which pushed the limits of the racer. It is an evolving thing in the F1 and AC racers, but the sports will always remain unsafe by their very nature.

Dave


----------



## azguy (Jul 17, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Since I first saw the Cat's race I did not like them in the AC format. I miss mono hull racing, the AC was my only fix on TV.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*racing and risk management:*



casey1999 said:


> If the AC 72's continue to have accidents and people continued to die, how long would the race sailing community allow this format to continue, with no boat engineering or operations changes? ...


Accidents happen in race boats. With the AC72 only two accidents happened. It is very unfortunate that in only two accidents one sailor died.

I expect more accidents I don't expect nobody else to die. If on one of the accidents someone more dies then the organization will have a safety problem and probably that will lead to some changes on the boats or in the wind conditions they are fit to race.

People have died on the VOR, on the Vendee Globe and even on minor races like those fatal accidents in California races. Living involves risks. Racing involves bigger risks. It all has to do with those risks to be acceptable or not to the racers and to the racing community. I don't think that the sailing community has nothing to do with this. Most of them don't don't give a rat's arse about sail racing.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

With all the chase boats around on a near shore confined course, I don't think the AC had any significant risk of death at all, until the wing hit the scene. Then, rather than engineer the safest way to use it, they amp it up to 72 feet. Woohoooo. Wait, what happened?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: racing and risk management:*



PCP said:


> Accidents happen in race boats. With the AC72 only two accidents happened. It is very unfortunate that in only two accidents one sailor died.
> 
> I expect more accidents I don't expect nobody else to die. If on one of the accidents someone more dies then the organization will have a safety problem and probably that will lead to some changes on the boats or in the wind conditions they are fit to race.
> 
> ...


That is what I am asking. How many would have to die in the training leading up to the AC to have the races stopped and considered too dangerous. Many hear are saying racing is dangerous- yea we all know that. And you are even saying Living involves risk-- good point, I always thought I would live forever. But if you say racing is dangerous, how many would need to die before you said, whoa, these AC 72's are too dangerous?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: racing and risk management:*



casey1999 said:


> That is what I am asking. How many would have to die in the training leading up to the AC to have the races stopped and considered too dangerous. ...


I have already replied to that:*"If on one of the accidents someone more dies then the organization will have a safety problem and probably that will lead to some changes on the boats or in the wind conditions they are fit to race".*

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I'll say this. 
I have 100% respect and admiration for all the crew sailing those AC72's. I cannot imagine sailing in 30 knots of wind with a 130 foot fixed sail to deal with. I scare myself at times sailing in 30 knots with a double reefed main and reefed jib on my mono.
May God be with them.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: racing and risk management:*



PCP said:


> I have already replied to that:*"If on one of the accidents someone more dies then the organization will have a safety problem and probably that will lead to some changes on the boats or in the wind conditions they are fit to race".*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


You can repeat it all you want. It does not make it right.

You don't need to wait for someone to die to determine the level of safety. Do some searching on "Failure Mode and Effects Analysis" and "Safety Pyramid." If you understand safety culture, you will understand the absurdity of waiting for someone to die before determining whether there is a safety problem.

I am not saying that these vessels are too unsafe - I do not have the data for that - so don't go accusing me of being a bathtub sailor. But the data are out there, and if properly analyzed, appropriate changes could be made before another person is killed. In fact, I suspect there is enough data on weather and boat performance from the trials run so far to get a good estimate of how many more sailors would die if none of the current practices are not changed. Hopefully they are doing those calculations and determining acceptable weather conditions for a go-no-go decision right now.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> I'll say this.
> I have 100% respect and admiration for all the crew sailing those AC72's. I cannot imagine sailing in 30 knots of wind with a 130 foot fixed sail to deal with. I scare myself at times sailing in 30 knots with a double reefed main and reefed jib on my mono.
> May God be with them.


Casey, you are not a top professional sail racer. I did not race in sailboats but I raced in motorcycles and I was not even a professional but if a less experienced motorcycle rider (without a lot of race experience) tried to do some things I used to do he would crash with great danger to his life. If I tried to do some of the things professional top riders, sometimes in the same race, were doing it was me that would crash with great risk to my own life.

It is normal that you or me would not be able to race or even sail a Ac72 without endanger ourselves and others.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: racing and risk management:*



PCP said:


> I have already replied to that:*"If on one of the accidents someone more dies then the organization will have a safety problem and probably that will lead to some changes on the boats or in the wind conditions they are fit to race".*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Something is just sitting in my stomach poorly. One person dying is not enough to change anything, but two people is. I want to get that, but it really just doesn't sit well.

I think the problem I'm having is it just wasn't totally unexpected that a violent episode could happen on these hulls, therefore, the first should probably be a wake up call. Someone mentioned a death on a Laser. That's more understandably a freak accident, with incredibly low odds.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

So should we have never launched another the Space Shuttle after Challenger? Should we stop flying in airplanes because 'some have crashed'? I can understand where people are trying to apply logic to an event like this, since, sadly a life was lost; but let's not go overboard. The boat suffered some sort of structural failure; or they pitch-poled, we don't know which yet. _All catamarans_ are subject to a pitch pole, and all racing sailboats are subject to the potential for a structural failure (such as keels falling off and hulls failing due to oil-canning). I'm not saying that mistakes may not have been made, let's find out what they were before everyone starts calling it a NASCAR pile-up attraction.

On a side note, there are fatal accidents on SF Bay during the summer several times per month. Lots of pleasure boats have some sort of failure or another; and there are also the people who go out on kiteboards and can't get back in or just drown. Is anybody putting limits on doing the high risk activity? No; the USCG just goes out to recover them or try and help boats in distress. The local news has stopped reporting on most of these accidents since there are just too frequent.

If you have not witnessed one of the AC72 boats sailing at 40+ kts with both hulls out of the water; you really don't know how amazing these sailboats are, and the skill required to sail them. You can watch it on Youtube but it still does not give the same impression as seeing it with your own eyes. We've watched Oracle 17 sail past us on three occasions and it was amazing to see each time.

The America's Cup (among others) is a race that has always encouraged pushing the envelope of sailboat designs; and has benefited us all by development of those innovations. To say that it should be a one design race or confined to a certain type of boat is a misunderstanding of the history of the event. It's always been about who can build the fastest boat (to a set of design criteria) and sail with the best crews; regardless of cost. Recent rules regarding cost limitations were agreed upon in this AC. Ellison could have spent way more than he is on the current boats (just look back to the last AC; that boat cost over 300M)

Before the cats were sailing everyone was complaining about how slow and fragile the monohulls were; and that they could not be raced in over 12 kts of wind. Now everyone is complaining about the speed and safety of the cats. What do you guys expect? Artemis did not design their first 72' boat to be foiling; so they were in the process of making/testing design changes to help get them up to speed with Oracle 1. In their first practice race Oracle just sailed away from Artemis; so changes were required. I don't know if they modified it to be foiling or if they changed the boat in other ways.

The main issue with safety on these boats is getting trapped beneath the trampoline netting if the boat gets flipped; and on that issue I call question to the use of PFD's that are only going to pin the victim beneath the wreckage. IMO they should be wearing manual inflate devices so that they don't have to deploy it if they are stuck under something (and yes, I know there is the possibility of head injury).


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> Casey, you are not a top professional sail racer. I did not race in sailboats but I raced in motorcycles and I was not even a professional but if a less experienced motorcycle rider (without a lot of race experience) tried to do some things I used to do he would crash with great danger to his life. If I tried to do some of the things professional top riders, sometimes in the same race, were doing it was me that would crash with great risk to my own life.
> 
> It is normal that you or me would not be able to race or even sail a Ac72 without endanger ourselves and others.
> 
> ...


That is not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that these guys and gals are the best and I respect and admire that. They are very brave and have a huge amount of skill and strength. I just hope that are not sailing on "defective" equipment or in conditions the equipment is not capable of.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: racing and risk management:*



Minnewaska said:


> Something is just sitting in my stomach poorly. One person dying is not enough to change anything, but two people is. I want to get that, but it really just doesn't sit well.
> 
> I think the problem I'm having is it just wasn't totally unexpected that a violent episode could happen on these hulls, therefore, the first should probably be a wake up call. Someone mentioned a death on a Laser. That's more understandably a freak accident, with incredibly low odds.


A deadly accident does not form a pattern. It can be just bad luck. I have seen many accidents like those on the Artemis (even in multihulls with about the same size) without nobody being killed. It does not mean that they cannot be killed, just that is not probable.

In Moto GP racers cab be killed and sometimes they get killed. That is just not frequent and that makes the risk acceptable. Sailing will not be the same, well it is not the same from some years now. Speeds increased dramatically. If someone goes overboard on a VOR 70 doing over 30K in freezing waters the chances of recovering him alive are very slim. In fact that have already happened with tragic results. That's not a reason to limit sailboat speeds or to race in old slower boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> The main issue with safety on these boats is getting trapped beneath the trampoline netting if the boat gets flipped; and on that issue I call question to the use of PFD's that are only going to pin the victim beneath the wreckage. IMO they should be wearing manual inflate devices so that they don't have to deploy it if they are stuck under something (and yes, I know there is the possibility of head injury).


There is also the issue of the extreme height you will be at if you do capsize or pitch pole if you are on the "high" side going over.

And with things like Challenger, NASA stopped flights until the design could be reviewed and corrections made.

As it may be considered timid to halt the AC 72's, it could be considered reckless to continue racing until we know why we have had two capsizes and what could be done to correct the problem, if there is a problem.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> So should we have never launched another the Space Shuttle after Challenger?.......


This is what's killing me about the arguments that they are not out of balance on risk management. This is an exact example of the way to handle the AC, but is presented like we're out of step. No one stopped launching Space Shuttles. They stopped until they improved the safety of them.

It's not expected to be perfect. It's not expected to be the last improvement. No one that I read above is arguing to eliminate risk. They should make them safer than they have and the warning signs are loud and clear and someone died already. That got the shuttle grounded, but they launched many more.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Remember a race years ago in Fishkill, N.Y. There were whoops then a jump. Guy planted his front wheel after the jump and went down. Next one over landed on him. In any racing activity risk of death exists. As speed and complexity increases so does risk of design/material failure and death. Death/injury mitigation occurs after these events occur. This seems true in all racing endeavors. Can't fault AC for this. Believe guy died wearing an intact helmet, chest plate etc.(best stuff of the time). Could get rid of the jump but then race watered down. See issue of questioning if 72' too extreme. See issue if foiling ,hard sails and control at these speeds has been worked out. Don't see issue with pushing the edge but do see issue with whether it's being done in a thoughtful manner. Amazing to watch these boats but still have trouble relating as it is so alien to what we do.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

From what I have heard on radio and TV today, seems that the good money is on the reason for the accident being dodgy boat design or structural strength and that the Cup will continue as planned.

When I saw the first pictures of the wreckage it was reasonably easy to assume that the boat broke in half and caused the accident rather than the accident causing the boat to break in half.

As I said in an earlier post, we have watched these boats for some time training in Auckland harbor and even in 10 knots of true wind the boats were doing 20 knots of boat speed.

How many others on this board remember watching the last AC when the Oracle trimaran took down the headsail on an upwind beat because the headsail was slowing the boat down. This is counter-intuitive enough for me to understand that nothing about these boats is normal.

I reckon that if safety is to be enhanced it should be through placing a limit to windspeed. If a boat can do double the true windspeed then sailing it in 30 knots plus with a sail that can't dump wind is a little crazy (IMHO). They should cancel all sailing if the true windspeed exceeds , say, 20 knots.

Anyway, I still can't wait for this racing to begin.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Going back to the last AC when Oracle trounced Bertarelli's cat and remembering how easy it was for Spithill to catch the cat in the start box on a port tack, they are hopefully going to change some rules about the dial-up sequences, etc. Spithill was miles away when Bertarelli tacked to port and with the unbelievable boat speed of the trimaran, he was onto the cat before they could blink.

The fact is that if a boat is caught on a port tack and earns a penalty, the other boat will finish the race and be back in it's pen by the time the penalised boat does a 360 to unwind his penalty.

One wonders how many of the old racing rules have become redundant with the new format of vessels, if any.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Agee it's likely old rules are not appropiate to this design but time will make it apparent.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Minnewaska & Casey - I did not say that there should not be a root cause analysis; and some mitigation of risk. But to say that the entire AC72 fleet should be scrapped is a bit extreme don't you think?

I'd say that the boats should sail in less wind (like in the previous AC monohull events) but it's rare that the winds are lower than 25kts in the summer afternoons here on SF Bay. There have been days where Oracle did their practice sail on the South side of the SF Bay Bridge, likely because wind conditions were too high on the central bay; and we are still early in the sailing season here.

I don't really see much difference between an AC-72 flipping over or the larger offshore racing cats that have done so out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. At least these boats have trained rescue crews on chase boats. A 40' fall into water would not be fatal but falling against the wing sail could be. Spithill broke ribs when the 45 tipped over; so I'd assume injuries could be worse if someone fell onto the wing of the 72's. Tethers could be another safety consideration; but I don't think someone sailing a boat that has the potential to flip over would want to be clipped to it either.


----------



## TropicCat (Oct 14, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> I'm trying to think of another sport where some major teams and/or high profile professionals are saying their event or sport has become too dangerous.


That would be NASCAR where back in the day they installed restrictor plates to keep the cars under 200MPH. Now they limit a bunch of parameters to keep the speeds down.



Minnewaska said:


> That's distinct from someone who may think its time to reduce danger they've been accepting all along. This is the case of professionals in the sport saying this new evolution has gone too far too fast, without sufficient engineering around safety.


AC72 crew dogs are the fastest sailors on the planet. They know the risks and wouldn't have it any other way. Hell, if I was 30 years younger, I'd be right there with them begging for a crew slot. These guys have the "right stuff".

As for these boats.... I think they have to tweak some more. AC72s all have engines, not to power the boat but to run the genset which in turn poweres the computer equipment necessary to sail these boats. I think they went a boat too far. I'd like to see multihulls in the America's Cup, but controllable boats which don't require a genset to manage the boat.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Omatako said:


> ...
> I reckon that if safety is to be enhanced it should be through placing a limit to windspeed. If a boat can do double the true windspeed then sailing it in 30 knots plus with a sail that can't dump wind is a little crazy (IMHO). They should cancel all sailing if the true windspeed exceeds , say, 20 knots.
> 
> ....


There is a limit on the windspeed (30K?) like there was a (a lower) limit for AC monohulls. That cannot change know, it is part of the race rules and the boats were supposedly designed to be able to sail on those conditions. If some can't...well, good for the one(s) that can i(f the wind blows withy that strength on racing days).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> .....But to say that the entire AC72 fleet should be scrapped is a bit extreme don't you think? ....


This is what many on your side of the discussion continually suggest is the opposing view, but it isn't. No one advocating a safer platform is suggesting such a draconian solution. Misrepresenting or exaggerating the opposing point of view should be left to politicians. It devalues one's own point of view. 

In fact, unless we have a serious engineer among us that is familiar with the intricacies of the cat/wing, we aren't going to figure out the exact solution. Neither would we have figured out the solution to the failed shuttle launch, race car deaths, car accident deaths or even football concussions.

What we can do is process the input of many professionals who suggest this is too risky (being very different from objecting to any risk) and the instability and the injury rates that have been proven by example. Then insist they figure out how to make it safer and remain exciting.

That's how race cars became safer, while more capable, at the same time. Goodness, even passenger cars are safer and more capable.

It can be done.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



TropicCat said:


> That would be NASCAR where back in the day they installed restrictor plates to keep the cars under 200MPH. Now they limit a bunch of parameters to keep the speeds down...


Good example. So, why can't AC do something to limit its risk?


----------



## TropicCat (Oct 14, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Good example. So, why can't AC do something to limit its risk?


They can and they should. I propose they eliminate the computer control. Let them handle the fixed wing manually. If it means they have to reduce the wing area, then they should reduce it.

The idea that they will attract NASCAR type crowds to America's Cup races because the crowds will come for the crashes, is fool hardy. Who has the numbers....? Only 3% of America has been on a sail boat...or knows someone with a sail boat? Only 5% of them have been on a catamaran???

They will never be NASCAR.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Good example. So, why can't AC do something to limit its risk?


What risk? In many races around the world (AC series) with many boats with many accidents and many sailors involved nobody got seriously injured. Regarding the development of the bigger boats only two accidents and an unfortunate dead.

Racing in any discipline that involves speed has risks and people die accidentally doing that. People die too crossing roads. Racing has a bigger risk than crossing roads it all has to do with what is an acceptable risk, for crossing roads and for racing. One accidental dead in all AC campaign, included all the races on the AC series don't seem to me the alarming and excessive risk you seem to believe exist, in what regards racing. Facts do not point that way, at least yet.

Maybe the substitution of automatic PDFs by manual ones can be enough to prevent or diminish greatly rare accidents like this one.

One thing is for sure the AC is not anymore a race where old millionaires could be part of the crew and even steer the boat while racing, like on the other editions. This one is for athletes on the top of his physical and mental abilities and that is one of the changes that this AC brought to the sail races. It is a good one. Racing at top level should be like that: something a "normal" sailor could not dream of being able to do something about one should ask: "How the hell can they do that?".

That is what happens on all other speed racing sports and in that aspect Chief is right when he refers racers going downhill at 100km/h around bends on a bicycle: "How the hell can they do that?" and also regarding risk, to understand that the risk exists but what would be a deadly one, if you or me where on one of those bicycles around bends at 100km/h, it is a manageable one when on that bicycle is a top racing cyclist. That does not means that if he loses control and go against a tree he would not be as dead as me or you only that the chances of that happen are a lot smaller (but they exist).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> What risk? In many races around the world (AC series) with many boats with many accidents and many sailors involved nobody got seriously injured. Regarding the development of the bigger boats only two accidents and an unfortunate dead...


I am surprised that you are willing to make a statement like that without a shred of statistical support.

The first thing you do in assessing risk and safety is to normalize the number of accidents and injuries on exposure hours. OSHA specifies a total recordable case rate, which is the number of injuries per 200,000 man hours. It is a very good metric, because 2000 hours is a typical number of hours worked by a full time employee in a year. So the TRC rate gives, on average, how many injuries would be suffered in a year by a workforce of 100. It's a very nice way to put it. In addition to TRC for injuries, you can do the same calculation for near misses, first aid cases, and fatalities, and stack them to develop a safety pyramid with near misses on the bottom and fatalities on the top. Typical benchmark pyramids exist that can predict how many fatalaties you might have in the future based on your history of less severe injuries. Unfortunately, AC72 has already started to fill in the top of the pyramid. 

It would be pretty straightforward to calculate a TRC and fatality rate for a common class of monohull racing, and then do the same for the AC72s so far, and compare the rates. Then you get a much better picture of how safe/unsafe the AC72s are relative to other boats.

It would be a lot better than simply saying "only two accidents and an unfortunate dead." I suspect that a calculated TRC would show these boats to be much more dangerous than any predecessors.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> ....One accidental dead in all AC campaign, included all the races on the AC series don't seem to me the alarming and excessive risk you seem to believe exist, in what regards racing. Facts do not point that way, at least yet.


The discussion is about a boat that has sailed for only a few months, not the risk associated with every race since the beginning.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Although a TRC metric would be useful believe it would be some time before a meaningful ( low estimate of the error) number could be generated due to the low N. Also believe next subsequent race will involve boats that will contain major technologic advance. Therefore any number generated would not apply to the boats currently racing. However, very interested in the concept of the race being a totally human endeavor with no genset or powered aids. Believe this would limit speeds and increase safety and is a very intelligent idea. Also, restoring more humanity into the equation would enhance the race.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> > Originally Posted by TropicCat
> > That would be NASCAR where back in the day they installed restrictor plates to keep the cars under 200MPH. Now they limit a bunch of parameters to keep the speeds down...
> 
> 
> Good example. So, why can't AC do something to limit its risk?


Not necessarily, as is so often the case, the solutions are not quite so simple... It's not very hard to make a compelling case that restrictor plates on the superspeedways in NASCAR have actually made the racing _MORE_ dangerous, not less... It creates the sort of flat-out pack racing that virtually guarantees "The Big One" happening at some point - usually in the final laps - at tracks like Daytona and Talladega...

Charlie Doane has a pretty interesting take on the state of the AC, written shortly before last week's tragedy... He makes the very good point that the best chance the AC has to penetrate the consciousness, and engage the interest, of the non-sailing public, is to create the sort of story line that involves the _personalities_ of those involved... After all, the most memorable AC meetings in history have always featured characters that were somewhat larger than life - Sir Thomas Lipton and Charlie Barr, The Mouth from the South Ted Turner, and of course the closest thing the AC has ever seen to the Average Everyman, Dennis Conner... Unfortunately, a guy like Larry Ellison is a pretty tough sell, not being a particularly appealing character to many outside of the yachting world... As a result, it seems we've now moved on towards an attempt to create the sort of spectacle that rivals the X-Games, or an event many have likened to NASCAR on Water...

What such comparisons overlook, however, is the real reason for the success of NASCAR... More than the spectacle itself, the genius of the marketing of NASCAR is the promotion of the Drivers as _PERSONALITIES_, and the encouragement of Rivalries between them... If there was one single moment that put NASCAR on the map of general public awareness, it was the fistfight between Donnie Allison and Cale Yarborough after their last-lap crash at Daytona in 1979... It was the first time the 500 had ever been broadcast live, and much of the nation was stuck indoors that day due to a major blizzard, millions were probably watching their first NASCAR race ever, and came to realize "Hey, these good ol' boys mean _BUSINESS_..."






The marketing of personalities like Dale Earnhardt, and the perpetration of Soap Opera storylines and rivalries - that is the real genius of NASCAR, not to mention the primary reason why they have been able to attract the interest of so many women to the sport... Selling the personalities of people like Larry Ellison or James Spithill to the American public? Damn, that's gonna be a tough sell, indeed - far easier to go with an X-Games type spectacle, instead...

Anyway, I thought Doane's was an interesting take...

AMERICA'S CUP CONUNDRUM: Need We Worship Larry Ellison?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

First let me say I understand thoroughly OSHA and TRC rates



> It would be pretty straightforward to calculate a TRC and fatality rate for a common class of monohull racing, and then do the same for the AC72s so far, and compare the rates. Then you get a much better picture of how safe/unsafe the AC72s are relative to other boats


.

Comparing AC72 with a small survey, which will skew, the rate to a well established base like mono hull racing. That statement is unrealistic at the present time. That is not the only statistic IMHO that is relevant here. This one seems somewhat cruel, because I value every individual life, but here goes.

I don't really care what the extrapolated TRC rate is for Americas Cup racers is because the TOTAL number of deaths will never be very high. Why...because there are very few participants and likely there will always remain like that. You want to take on a real cause....and make a real difference where it counts, take on something which will make a real difference than these extreme sport cutting edge test pilots...take on ParachIt would be pretty straightforward to calculate a TRC and fatality rate for a common class of monohull racing, and then do the same for the AC72s so far, and compare the rates. Then you get a much better picture of how safe/unsafe the AC72s are relative to other boats.
uters or better yet take on bike riders safety

I think is amusing that you want to apply OSHA rules and regs and TRC rates to this. Its applying a metric in one area which doesn't make sense in another. Oh you can relate it somehow as it will determine risk assessment rate, but who cares. We already have established this extreme racing is beyond the normal means of workplace safety inherently and nothing....nothing short of not doing it will change that. Lets do it with marathoners, mountain climbers, bike racers, parachuters, base jumping, skateboarding, driving a car, small aircraft flying, power boat racing etc.

Understand and do go misquoting or extrapolating I don't care about safety. I do. Make it as safe as possible without destroying the purpose of it. I believe in personal choice. If I wish to go fast and* it wont harm anyone else *but me....don't tell me I cant do it. I am an adult. I know the risks. I am responsible for my choices. I don't need you to protect me from myself. These guys have a choice. If someone with two kids and a wife chooses to do this I am sure they talked and thought about the consequences thoroughly. It is tragic as any life lost is tragic.

QUOTE=TakeFive;1031006]I am surprised that you are willing to make a statement like that without a shred of statistical support.

The first thing you do in assessing risk and safety is to normalize the number of accidents and injuries on exposure hours. OSHA specifies a total recordable case rate, which is the number of injuries per 200,000 man hours. It is a very good metric, because 2000 hours is a typical number of hours worked by a full time employee in a year. So the TRC rate gives, on average, how many injuries would be suffered in a year by a workforce of 100. It's a very nice way to put it. In addition to TRC for injuries, you can do the same calculation for near misses, first aid cases, and fatalities, and stack them to develop a safety pyramid with near misses on the bottom and fatalities on the top. Typical benchmark pyramids exist that can predict how many fatalaties you might have in the future based on your history of less severe injuries. Unfortunately, AC72 has already started to fill in the top of the pyramid. 

It would be pretty straightforward to calculate a TRC and fatality rate for a common class of monohull racing, and then do the same for the AC72s so far, and compare the rates. Then you get a much better picture of how safe/unsafe the AC72s are relative to other boats.

It would be a lot better than simply saying "only two accidents and an unfortunate dead." I suspect that a calculated TRC would show these boats to be much more dangerous than any predecessors.[/QUOTE]


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



TakeFive said:


> I am surprised that you are willing to make a statement like that without a shred of statistical support.
> 
> ....


Not a shred of statistical support? The AC45 multihulls have been sailing and racing for two years now and done an incredible number of hours without any serious causality. Multihulls almost the size and speed of the AC72 had raced for years without any serious causality. The 6 SC72 on the water have made a good number of sailing hours with only one bad causality that eventually can be attributed to bad luck and the use of an auto inflating PDF.

I would say that without being a closed case facts seem to indicate that this series is not excessively dangerous as some want to make belief based in a random accident that resulted in one death. Death in accidents happens in all speed racing, are an unavoidable consequence of that type of racing. Sure, everything should be done to lessen the risk, if that is an excessive one. It remains to be seen if it is the case. Evidence till know does not point to an excessive risk.



TakeFive said:


> It would be pretty straightforward to calculate a TRC and fatality rate for a common class of monohull racing, and then do the same for the AC72s so far, and compare the rates. Then you get a much better picture of how safe/unsafe the AC72s are relative to other boats.
> 
> It would be a lot better than simply saying "only two accidents and an unfortunate dead." I suspect that a calculated TRC would show these boats to be much more dangerous than any predecessors.


Probably it is only you that sees the necessity of proving that the old mono-hull AC racing was less dangerous than the present one.

Get slower and even older designed sailboats than the old AC monohulls and the danger will be even smaller. Who wants that?

The Danger in what regards racing has much to do with speed. It makes no sense to have the F1 of the seas cup raced on old and slow sailboats. They should be the top in what regards speed and design and they finally are just that. Of course they are more dangerous to drive, so it is a F1 regarding a Tourism race car....so what?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I know there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion on this, but I maintain that the crew have little to no actual choice. That discussion with their wives would go like this, hypothetically:

"I was offered a spot on an AC team."

"Isn't that incredibly dangerous and these new boats might really crash into each other and hurt people? I'm worried about the kids."

"Yes, but if I say no, I will never be offered another opportunity like it. I have to say yes, or hurt my career."

JMO.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> The discussion is about a boat that has sailed for only a few months, not the risk associated with every race since the beginning.


It is the same type of boat. The AC45 can sail over 30K, the AC72 over 40K, not a very big difference besides the AC72 is a more stable boat and less prone to capsize or pitch pole. I don't see why the discussion of the many accidents suffered by the AC 45 and their consequences should not be pertinent for the discussion. The type of accidents that can happen on both boats are very similar.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JonEisberg said:


> Not necessarily, as is so often the case, the solutions are not quite so simple... It's not very hard to make a compelling case that restrictor plates on the superspeedways in NASCAR have actually made the racing _MORE_ dangerous, not less... It creates the sort of flat-out pack racing that virtually guarantees "The Big One" happening at some point - usually in the final laps - at tracks like Daytona and Talladega...
> 
> Charlie Doane has a pretty interesting take on the state of the AC, written shortly before last week's tragedy... He makes the very good point that the best chance the AC has to penetrate the consciousness, and engage the interest, of the non-sailing public, is to create the sort of story line that involves the _personalities_ of those involved... After all, the most memorable AC meetings in history have always featured characters that were somewhat larger than life - Sir Thomas Lipton and Charlie Barr, The Mouth from the South Ted Turner, and of course the closest thing the AC has ever seen to the Average Everyman, Dennis Conner... Unfortunately, a guy like Larry Ellison is a pretty tough sell, not being a particularly appealing character to many outside of the yachting world... As a result, it seems we've now moved on towards an attempt to create the sort of spectacle that rivals the X-Games, or an event many have likened to NASCAR on Water...
> 
> ...


The problem with marketing them as personalities like NASCAR and other sports have- is that the tradition is of an international competition- country vs cointry

Also- these guys are all transient, the turnover rate is way higher.

Marketing the boats as personalities. Like is done with monster tucks ie Bigfoot and gravedigger- that is the way of the televised sailing future. Although- 5 or so years in- all big racing will be televised and marketed this way- and then the skippers can have dramaticized or even real rivalries similar to wrestling.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JonEisberg said:


> ....
> What such comparisons overlook, however, is the real reason for the success of NASCAR... More than the spectacle itself, the genius of the marketing of NASCAR is the promotion of the Drivers as _PERSONALITIES_, and the encouragement of Rivalries between them... If there was one single moment that put NASCAR on the map of general public awareness, it was the fistfight between Donnie Allison and Cale Yarborough after their last-lap crash at Daytona in 1979... It was the first time the 500 had ever been broadcast live, and much of the nation was stuck indoors that day due to a major blizzard, millions were probably watching their first NASCAR race ever, and came to realize "Hey, these good ol' boys mean _BUSINESS_..."
> 
> ...
> ...


I don't understand why the Nascar comparison. Nascar as a form of racing is looked at a particular American thing by the World's top racing community. There are not a top pilot that wants to race in the Nascar series except if a huge amount of money is offered to him and even so many woold refuse becaise that would mean the end of his carrier as a top pilot. Regarding racing Nascar is not top racing, not top technology, not top pilots and all the world except US won't give a rat's ass about it.

You guys act like the America's cup was an American thing or if the Americans were the ones more interested in it. They are not. There is a much bigger interest in the America's cup (as it is in all sail racing) in Europe, Australia or New Zealand.

If you want to go to car racing analogy stop with that ridiculous analogy with a technically back water very limited (to US) and particular form of auto racing and compare it with the one that has top internationalization, top technology, top pilots and top cars: the F1. The AC 72 are for other sailboats as the F1 is for other cars.






Yes, accidents happen in top racing at top speed, in F1 or on the AC if that one is raced in top boats at top speed. Who wants less?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> I know there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion on this, but I maintain that the crew have little to no actual choice. That discussion with their wives would go like this, hypothetically:
> 
> "I was offered a spot on an AC team."
> 
> ...


 It seems you don't know top sail racers. If the place was offered to any, they would be jumping with joy all over the house

Regards

Paulo


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

It could hurt my career to say no. Hahaha. This isn't blowing the boss under his desk- these serfs aren't being served up as cannon fodder to satisfy their lord's bloodlust. One doesn't arrive at the absolute pinnacle of a field based on the argument that "it might hurt the career not too"

The drive to be at the absolute top of ones chosen game - be it doctoring, lawyering, teaching, sailing, dog grooming, acting, bar tending, waitin tables, being a bell boy, cop, gardener, auto mechanic, or roller derby girl has almost nothing to do with the weakass desire to "be successful" and everything to do with being in a constant state of competition- with oneself if there's no one else around.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> I know there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion on this, but I maintain that the crew have little to no actual choice. That discussion with their wives would go like this, hypothetically:
> 
> "I was offered a spot on an AC team."
> 
> ...


That makes sense except these guys many of them were Olympic Champions, Gold medal winners, already at the tops of their sport in many ways.

I have been faced with career choices before as I am sure you have. I have given up advancement early on because I felt it wasn't a good move for my family and wouldn't be there enough time for them, let alone dangerous.



> I maintain that the crew have little to no actual choice


I really cannot understand how you say they have no choice. Of course they have choice. It isn't slavery. No one is compelling them to do it. They have free will. Saying they have no choice means no ownership for their actions.

What I think is that the enticement is greater than the risk to them. Two things go with that. These guys are SUPER competitive so the NEED to be the best and the fastest overrules sometimes their decision making. Secondly never underestimate the individual ego factor. This feeds that for them also.

All of them could have great careers and good money making careers based on what they had done in the Olympics and before the AC races. They themselves choose.

Saying they had no choice is like saying Tiger Woods had no choice but to follow his inner pressures and have multiple affairs on his wife. Saying they had no choice is like saying Bobby Bonds had no choice but to take steroids to stay competitive. They have no ownership for their actions

They have choice and this is what they chose to do, Yes make it as safe as possible without intruding and destroying what it is. There will be another iteration in the next AC. I venture to say no matter what it is they wont be putting restrictor plates in the boats.

Dave


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

And again- it's just so terribly condescending. Oh these poor dumb brutes- they haven't any choice in the matter- it's up to us to protect them. It's the sailnet PTA mom syndrome.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> I don't understand why the Nascar comparison. Nascar as a form of racing is looked at a particular American thing by the World's top racing community. There are not a top pilot that wants to race in the Nascar series except if a huge amount of money is offered to him and even so many woold refuse becaise that would mean the end of his carrier as a top pilot. Regarding racing Nascar is not top racing, not top technology, not top pilots and all the world except US won't give a rat's ass about it.
> 
> You guys act like the America's cup was an American thing or if the Americans were the ones more interested in it. They are not. There is a much bigger interest in the America's cup (as it is in all sail racing) in Europe, Australia or New Zealand.
> 
> ...


Paulo, trust me, I fully appreciate how much more apt is the comparison of AC racing to F1, as opposed to BASSCAR...

However, we are discussing a premier yachting event taking place in America at the moment, and the discussion largely centers around the efforts and measures taken to make the event more intriguing to the American general public... F1 is so low in our general awareness of worldwide motorsport for many of the same reasons that yacht racing is... Poll the average American to name the most notable motor racing fatality, for example, I would guess close to 90% in this country would name Dale Earnhardt... I'm not sure much more than 1 in 10 of Americans have a clue who Ayrton Senna was, on the other hand...

I think one comparison between this generation of AC boats and NASCAR still applies, however... When these AC72s are up to speed, they possess nothing remotely close to the remarkable ability of an FI car to change direction quickly... in terms of 'nimbleness', they seem to be much closer to a 3,500 pound Sprint Cup car being pressed into a 30 degree banking at 200 mph... When things start going wrong, for the most part the driver's just along for the ride...

btw, have you seen what the former F1 designer Mike Gascoyne is now up to?

http://sailinganarchy.com/2013/05/15/f1-to-gor/


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JonEisberg said:


> ...
> 
> btw, have you seen what the former F1 designer Mike Gascoyne is now up to?
> 
> f1 to gor | Sailing Anarchy


No I did not know, but it seems to me that the only thing he is up to is having the good taste (and I hope the sense of business) to Sponsor a great solo British solo sailor in a great race that I hope it will be far bigger in the next edition: A circumnavigation race on 40 class racers with a duo crew (Round-the-world race).

The boat (Caterham Challenge) will be an Aquilaria RC3 40class racer, the new version of a production racer designed by Marc Lombard.

Akilaria Class 40, Akilaria 9.50 - Akilaria Europe chantier Mc Tec Boats Tunisie

By the way, I love Caterham. It is almost impossible to desire the same car since a kid but that is what happens to me and the Lotus 7 designed by another car genius (Colin Chapman) 60 years ago. As you know the car today is called Caterham and it is as fast and amusing to drive as it was the 7 on its days.

Since they are sponsoring racing sailboats let me go a bit out and show you this (imagine how those guys on the Ferraris and Porsches, with 3 times the horsepower and 5 time the cost should be feeling not being able to go away from those oldies. That are the kind of "old shoes" I like):











Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> Minnewaska & Casey - I did not say that there should not be a root cause analysis; and some mitigation of risk. But to say that the entire AC72 fleet should be scrapped is a bit extreme don't you think?
> 
> I'd say that the boats should sail in less wind (like in the previous AC monohull events) but it's rare that the winds are lower than 25kts in the summer afternoons here on SF Bay. There have been days where Oracle did their practice sail on the South side of the SF Bay Bridge, likely because wind conditions were too high on the central bay; and we are still early in the sailing season here.
> 
> I don't really see much difference between an AC-72 flipping over or the larger offshore racing cats that have done so out in the middle of the ocean somewhere. At least these boats have trained rescue crews on chase boats. A 40' fall into water would not be fatal but falling against the wing sail could be. Spithill broke ribs when the 45 tipped over; so I'd assume injuries could be worse if someone fell onto the wing of the 72's. Tethers could be another safety consideration; but I don't think someone sailing a boat that has the potential to flip over would want to be clipped to it either.


1. After a complete review, then it could be decide if the AC 72's should be scrapped all together.

2. I would rather see a boat design that can handle any wind strength below say 45 knots. That is just my opinion. But to me a boat should be able to handle high winds.

3. My opinion is the AC should not be as risky of a race as say an open ocean around the world race. I think the risk of death in the AC should be a very remote possibility. I see the AC more of like an olympic compition of down hill ski racing where risk of death is not a high probability, although they are pressing the limit of people and equipment.

4.You say a 40 foot fall (into water) would not be fatal. I would say it may not be fatal, but it might. Say you land flat or head first, then a good chance you will go unconsious and drown. Problem with teathers, now, because of height we would be looking at OSHA type fall protection: max 6 foot tether, body harness, shock absorbing lanyard- on a boat that just won't work.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

So at 2 fatalities in 130 years- you think it's less safe than which round the world race? 2 fatalities in 130 years makes it more likely than a fatality in the Olympics / run up to the Olympics? Hmmm. Do you read the things your typing?

What is coming across loud and clear is your personal disappointment with the perceived quality / safety of the experience. Perhaps due to a lack of available jobs since you turned down a crew position in the AC... No? That's not the case?

My question becomes- will you tune out? Or will you continue to complain they aren't havin their race the way you want them to have their race? While you watch in fascinated horror- praying for that next casualty that will prove you right?

I will be out sailing tomorrow- is there anything I should be doing to make the experience more to your liking? Or more comfortable for you?

Just because the ego demands the largest audience possible be able to view the proceedings- doesn't mean the proceedings are designed as easily palatable entertainment for the viewer. If a guy is walking around showing off his badass Rolex, his 22 year old maxim model trophy girlfriend and his deep pockets- he's not doing it for your entertainment, he's doing it for his own. Whether or not you are comfortable with the show
Suggesting he change it so its more to your taste sounds silly


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> So at 2 fatalities in 130 years- you think it's less safe than which round the world race? 2 fatalities in 130 years makes it more likely than a fatality in the Olympics / run up to the Olympics? Hmmm. Do you read the things your typing?
> 
> What is coming across loud and clear is your personal disappointment with the perceived quality / safety of the experience. Perhaps due to a lack of available jobs since you turned down a crew position in the AC... No? That's not the case?
> 
> ...


The other fatality you speak of in the AC training was a piece of broken gear that hit a sailor. It was not a capsize or break apart of an entire boat.

I have not been watching the AC, and don't plan to. I do read the news paper where the major accidents of the AC are printed. I do not plan to watch the upcoming AC races. The thing that turned me off wsa the type of boat they are using- one that cannot be controlled. Speed is nothing without control. As another poster posted, the AC's have a generator to power the computer and controls and winches. To me these AC's are then power boats. But if you like watching them, great, "Ain't that America".

That is the whole point of the AC, to get viewership. Doesn't matter if I don't watch it, but if a 100,000 don't watch it, then it matters.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> Just because the ego demands the largest audience possible be able to view the proceedings- doesn't mean the proceedings are designed as easily palatable entertainment for the viewer. If a guy is walking around showing off his badass Rolex, his 22 year old maxim model trophy girlfriend and his deep pockets- he's not doing it for your entertainment, he's doing it for his own. Whether or not you are comfortable with the show
> Suggesting he change it so its more to your taste sounds silly


The AC is not just about some rich guys sailing their toys:
America's Cup planning endures rough waters - Business - Boston.com


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

From:
America's Cup CEO Stephen Barclay on the Race's Competition and Tragedy - Businessweek

*America's Cup CEO Stephen Barclay on the Race's Competition and Tragedy
May 16, 2012*
America's Cup is the Super Bowl of the sailing world. We have a preseason, the America's Cup World Series, and playoffs, the Louis Vuitton Cup. If you measure the audience in terms of ratings and spectators, these events stand head and shoulders above anything else in sailing. My role as the chief executive is to conduct those events. The Cup is a medium-size business, employing over 100 people, with tens of millions of dollars a year in revenues and expenses. It's a bit of a handful to manage.

In recent years, we've wanted to put the Cup on a sounder financial footing and make it accessible to people other than the very, very wealthy. To do that, we needed to bring the race in from 10 miles offshore to where people can see it. For the sake of television, the races had to start on time. You can't have this huge buildup to a race and then have the television saying, "delayed due to lack of wind," which is a huge problem in sailing.

The answer to these issues was to use a catamaran instead of the monohull boats we've traditionally used in the Cup. Catamarans are very fast, can sail in very light or strong winds, and get so close to the shore that fans can hear the sailors talking. But sailing can be dangerous. What we have is the best sailors in the world, and the best designers in the world, pushing the boundaries. Like in all sports, when you put the best out there-be it race cars or skiing, or the Knicks-the best want to win. In those situations, sometimes things go very wrong. We had one of those situations [on May 9].

When the Artemis Racing boat capsized in San Francisco Bay, I heard about the accident about 10 minutes after it happened. I was immediately shocked. We heard one of the sailors was missing-followed by elation that they'd found him. That elation rapidly drained away as I became aware he was undergoing CPR. Thirty minutes later, Andrew Simpson (above, center, with Olympic teammate Iain Percy) was pronounced dead. It was an enormous loss. The America's Cup is like a family. Like any family, they bicker and quarrel at times. But everyone is just tragically feeling the loss.

*I think it's far too raw to be able to know the impact of this tragedy on the event and on the boats. I don't want to prejudge anything. Andrew was a huge competitor. He had an Olympic gold medal. He had the brains to go with the brawn. He will help us come up with an answer.* - As told to Aaron Kuriloff "


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Odd- it seems that is exactly what it's about. Especially when it references "wide eyed city supervisors being bamboozled by Ellison"

Whose getting everything they want- Larry- the boats, the venue, etc.

Please let me know what the AC is about? Fundraising for SF? Advertising for corporations? Bringing sailing into the mainstream? Providing viewers with wholesome family entertainment?

If any of those were the goals- there's plenty of money tied up in the event to pull of those goals. Those aren't the goals however- from the outset this was suppose to be the most balls out sailing race ever. And boy did they get that in spades.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

From:
CEO: America's Cup changes 'just rumors' - SFGate

"The boats, which can exceed 45 mph, were chosen for the 34th America's Cup by the Oracle team and its owner, Larry Ellison, after they won the Cup in 2010. *The catamarans were designed in part to attract a young audience accustomed to watching extreme sports on television*."

Read more: CEO: America's Cup changes 'just rumors' - SFGate


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Way off topic,

Who cares who Ayrton Senna is and why should I care to know. Why would the American public watch FI...which they don't or care about it. It doesn't interest our pedestrian tastes obviously. They don't relate to the drivers for one or the cars for two.

As far as technical superiority, its apples and oranges. F1 drivers drive essentially the same courses over the same distance roughly 20 times a year with no two races in the same country. They drive cars which look nothing like what the general public drives. I cant remember the last F1 driver who even attempted to in a NASCAR car and was even able to crack the top 20. And Vice versa. Same for the Nascar drivers the other way.

The NASCAR cars require a tremendous team effort during the race as the conditions change constantly with the heat of the track and constant adjustments are made to the camber, springs air pressures etc., while in F1 you got what you got when you start basically.

Two different types of racing. As a spectator. and I have been to F1 races, they are boring as hell as the cars pass you little square of the course once every two minutes or so maybe 50-100 times.

Way different skill on the F1 course rather than in the tight proximately on the NASCAR races.

Both interest me for different reasons. Both require a different skill set and both test the limits of speeds in a confined area and are dangerous.

Getting Americans to go to F1 races is like asking Americans to give up football for soccer. We like our NASCAR. You like your F1/ We are uncivilized ******** beer drinkers and chips and salsa and you are sophisticated wine drinkers and brie eaters. We like the intricate strategy of football at every position vs. soccer which is very straightforward and much less cerebral.

As far as NASCAR being about 30 degree banked ovals. They all are different...the don't all have banking...its not the same in every corner...and they race bumper to bumper in relatively equal cars. Many of them come from dirt tracks etc. Lots of the drivers are 35-45. F1 Boys are rich brats who while they may ridicule the NASCAR guys for riding in a circle wont dare try and go out and "hang" with them. First time one of them would get bump drafted they'd crap in their pants. F1 drivers drive with almost no contact. NASCAR..its the norm in close quarter racing

Both types of cars and drivers are to be admired. Some car advances you see in your everyday driving cars have been developed in NASCAR.

I admire both types of drivers for taking the risk at the edge of speed. Having driven an oval alone at 160 steady mph in a NASCAR was daunting and scary as hell. Amp that up to 1805-200,at temps of 200 plus and add 42 other cars, no thanks.

NASCAR to its credit does try and keep safety in mind, but its has always been a reactive one. Just like will happen with the Americas Cup. The improvements come in increments after they have crash's and sometimes even death. HANS and safer barriers were a direct reaction to Earnharts death. Air flaps..to prevent rollovers on the roof going backwards, Catch fences to prevent the cars or parts from sailing off into the crowds and killing the spectators. Fuel cells to prevent explosive fuel etc.

No sport wants to see their top attractions which draw the spectators killed. That went out with the Romans. Besides eventually there would be no one left. AC will morph...just not in the middle of this years races.



JonEisberg said:


> Paulo, trust me, I fully appreciate how much more apt is the comparison of AC racing to F1, as opposed to BASSCAR...
> 
> However, we are discussing a premier yachting event taking place in America at the moment, and the discussion largely centers around the efforts and measures taken to make the event more intriguing to the American general public... F1 is so low in our general awareness of worldwide motorsport for many of the same reasons that yacht racing is... Poll the average American to name the most notable motor racing fatality, for example, I would guess close to 90% in this country would name Dale Earnhardt... I'm not sure much more than 1 in 10 of Americans have a clue who Ayrton Senna was, on the other hand...
> 
> ...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> From:
> CEO: America's Cup changes 'just rumors' - SFGate
> 
> "The boats, which can exceed 45 mph, were chosen for the 34th America's Cup by the Oracle team and its owner, Larry Ellison, after they won the Cup in 2010. *The catamarans were designed in part to attract a young audience accustomed to watching extreme sports on television*."
> ...


and what's wrong with that? Who wants to watch boring sail? We, that love to watch sail races, love speed. The ones that don't love sail racing yet may love it if it is exciting enough (opposite of boring).

We that love sailing want young people to be attracted by it we want them sailing and for that we have to make it attractive for them. It seems that Larry Ellison is making a favor to the sailing community creating conditions to attract young people.

On another register the inquiry has started and what we know now is quite confusing:

*With Artemis, the speculation is that loads on the crossbeam, which links the two hulls, in front of the mast caused the girder to fail at its intersection with the port hull, after which the whole structure immediately collapsed: The port hull snapped in half just in front of the rudder, and the rigid wing fell over. Parts of the wing were seen being picked up by chase boats in the water around the main vessel.*

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/05/andrew-bart-simpson-artemis/

*The description was given by Outteridge's father to reporters at the Australian Newcastle Herald newspaper and appeared to suggest that the Swedish catamaran had begun to break up before it capsized.

In the article Outteridge's father is quoted as telling Herald reporters how his son had described the crash in a phone call:

"Nathan told me [the turn] didn't seem any different to any other occasion. The bow dug in a little bit but he said that's not unusual. The next thing he heard a cracking noise and the boat went on its side. Before it capsized it snapped in half, Nathan described it as folding like a taco shell."

Today however, Artemis Racing's communications department issued an email with the following statement from Nathan Outteridge appearing to contradict how his father had been reported:

"The description of the accident in the Newcastle Herald while quoting my father is not correct and does not reflect the facts. Unfortunately it has been relayed by other media. Right now, we are all still mourning and working to understand what happened. I hope everyone can respect this and I thank all those who have expressed support."
*

http://www.sailracingmagazine.com/a...e-refutes-newcastle-herald-crash-description/

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> and what's wrong with that? Who wants to watch boring sail? We, that love to watch sail races, love speed. The ones that don't love sail racing yet may love it if it is exciting enough (opposite of boring).
> 
> We that love sailing want young people to be attracted by it we want them sailing and for that we have to make it attractive for them. It seems that Larry Ellison is making a favor to the sailing community creating conditions to attract young people.
> 
> ...


Nothing is wrong with that, I am all for it. Others though think the skippers are sailing just for themselves.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Alot of the arguments you put forth seem to come from a perspective that has trouble differentiating between entertainers- and competitors.

The guys sailing the boats- the competitors- are their to compete. And if you think that's because of an audience- it says more about your lack of understanding of that personality than anything else. and that's ok, your lack of a frame of reference here is what separates pundits from players. Armchair quarterbacks from the guys on the field.

No one crewing is sitting back wondering if it'll make for good enough tv, or if it'll alienate middle America. There is an official party line, and no one wants to stry far from it- but at the end of the day- the competitor is there to compete.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



c. breeze said:


> Alot of the arguments you put forth seem to come from a perspective that has trouble differentiating between entertainers- and competitors.
> 
> The guys sailing the boats- the competitors- are their to compete. And if you think that's because of an audience- it says more about your lack of understanding of that personality than anything else. and that's ok, your lack of a frame of reference here is what separates pundits from players. Armchair quarterbacks from the guys on the field.
> 
> No one crewing is sitting back wondering if it'll make for good enough tv, or if it'll alienate middle America. There is an official party line, and no one wants to stry far from it- but at the end of the day- the competitor is there to compete.


There are many parties involved with the AC. Clearly you do not understand this. You read somthing and comprehend it the way you see fit.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Maybe I'm just tired after a long day, but I think I would just repeat myself as I disagreed with recent posts. Those posts also being the repeat of their author's previous writings. Of course, one or two did add a national or other dig, as if that would make their point persuasive. At least it was new material. 

Not shocked that ultimately these debates never change anyone's mind on either side of the discussion. Mine is not changed.

Cheers.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Yea,
I'm going to bug out and going sailing for a few months.
Aloha


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



TakeFive said:


> It would be pretty straightforward to calculate a TRC and fatality rate for a common class of monohull racing, and then do the same for the AC72s so far, and compare the rates. Then you get a much better picture of how safe/unsafe the AC72s are relative to other boats.


So if we did a TRC on deaths in Formula 1 car racing in the 1950's 60's and 70' and compared it with deaths in ordinary 4 wheeled passenger vehicles over the same period and compared the rates ???

The F1 fraternity would not have been able to make their sport safer because it would have been banned.

General Motors alone over the last 50 years have produced many hundreds of millions of cars so world production must be into several billion if all car makers are counted compared to several thousand F1 cars over the years. (Statistical fact: GM produced its 100 millionth small block V8 about 8 months ago)

In a motoring TV program in the UK (Top Gear), ordinary drivers took ordinary "super cars" (McClaren F1, Lamborghini) around a popular European race track and recorded higher speeds than F1 cars. So the safety measures taken in F1 to reduce deaths has really worked 

I am not going to do hours of research to prove this point but I would be willing to bet on the fact that the TRC process outlined would see an immediate end to Formula 1.

On the day that the international community puts yacht racing under the control of OSH, yacht racing world-wide will end because then it will no longer be any fun and that is the primary reason why people do it.

As always, just my opinion(s).


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> "I was offered a spot on an AC team."
> 
> "Isn't that incredibly dangerous and these new boats might really crash into each other and hurt people? I'm worried about the kids."
> 
> ...


My response would have been "I wasn't planning on taking the kids on the boat with me."

Just kidding.

But the choice to do or not to do a job of work irrespective of what that job may be is available to every living soul that is not an imprisoned slave. To say that the job is made dangerous and a person is forced to do it because he has no other choices is simply naive. Everybody gets to choose where they do not want to work.

So a world-class yacht crew refused to sail on a perceived death-trap and from then on is unemployable? Yeah right.

Besides, if the job is that dangerous that you want to say no, why would you want another opportunity like it?

These boys race these boats because they wouldn't want it any other way.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Omatako said:


> So if we did a TRC on deaths in Formula 1 car racing in the 1950's 60's and 70' and compared it with deaths in ordinary 4 wheeled passenger vehicles over the same period and compared the rates ???
> 
> The F1 fraternity would not have been able to make their sport safer because it would have been banned.
> 
> ...


Let me repeat again: I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT OSHA TAKE CONTROL OF RACING. I am only pointing out that their methodology of calculating risk and incidents provides useful statistical data upon which rational conclusions can be made, instead of some of the silly ideological rhetoric that I am hearing here.

As for your fears that the statistics would be so damning that they would bring about the death of F1, AC72 or any other extreme endeavor, I can only say:


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

It was an interesting discussion the first couple times. And it did get challenging trying to present the argument in a fresh light- each a bit brighter than its forerunner. Striving to convey some crucial bit of information that might possibly tie the picture together for the daft bastard behind the other screen. Hoping with each tap on the iphone this misspelling- this one, the one autocorrec is dealing with rohht this second- this is the screentap that via the magical algoritms of ios6.something will be converted into the blinding- no- the healing light if truth...Everything I know about pearls and swine i learned on line. Ever have that feeling? You begin to have some self doubt about your ability to pen a coherent thought. All the while wondering- how can these guys be missin what an extraordinary bit of sailing this is and praising their efforts, rather than chastising them like wayward children. But then- does it matter? No- that is the crux o my argument after all.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Omatako said:


> ......To say that the job is made dangerous and a person is forced to do it because he has no other choices is simply naive. Everybody gets to choose where they do not want to work.


Naive? Really? I've played sports at the top of my game. College Division 1 linebacker. I may know the mentality better than you give me credit for. You play hurt, you play dangerously, you do what you're told or you don't get to play. They aren't conscious go-nogo decisions. If you want to play, you take whatever opportunity you get.



> So a world-class yacht crew refused to sail on a perceived death-trap and from then on is unemployable? Yeah right.


As has been so common for the opposing view, that is a complete exaggeration of my point. I never said they wouldn't get any other job, I said they were not going to be asked to crew on an AC boat again. For most, the opportunity doesn't come up multiple times, its one and done. Take it or leave it. I propose that the lure of having your one shot takes the decision away.



> These boys race these boats because they wouldn't want it any other way.


Ironically, we seem to agree, but can't do the rest of the math together. You are recognizing that the crews have an insatiable itch that must be scratched. Therefore, the owners can make those boats nearly as dangerous as they like and these crews will say yes, its what they do. Its not a choice. We're so close to being on the same page.

Let me take one more analogous shot at this (a night's sleep and cup of espresso, must have me delusional to want to keep going and think anyone is ever going to change their mind  ). I never met a D-1 quarterback that wouldn't sell his mother to get a shot at the NFL. Same mentality as these AC crew members. It wouldn't matter what rules, what equipment, who or where they were playing. They would take it. Turn one opportunity down and the NFL isn't going to call again. They would still be employable elsewhere, as coaches, maybe to play in the CFL, or whatever.

However, if you asked the quarterbacks themselves if they would like tougher rules on roughing the QB, better equipment, rules that slowed guys like me down, they sure would. But, they don't get to choose. With or without a safer environment, they believe they have to take the job as is. It's not because that's the way they choose for it to be.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Minnie- Good points regarding football players but I don't think you can fully connect the dots in the argument; especially when you say the owners of the AC boats are free to develop these boats to be as dangerous as possible. Don't jump on me for paraphrasing but you can't possibly believe that anyone is trying to ignore the safety of these crafts. WTF are the millions of dollars for? It's not for the paint job. It's for the lightest and STRONGEST building materials that are currently feasible to use and the research to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that those materials are assembled properly and in a fashion that makes sense given the purpose of the overall design.

Using your analogy means that football franchise owners are knowingly retarding helmet, pad and cup design as well as the rules in order to line their pockets. I don't think that is the case.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The football analogy only applies as I offered it. Only to the mentality of the players. You can't extend the analogy to a point that I didn't make.

You also can't stretch the accusation to say I was suggesting the AC owners/designers completely ignored safety.

My point has and continues to be that they have made these craft more dangerous, while other sports strive to make their next gen equipment less dangerous and more capable at the same time. Following that fact, I do not believe the crews have any choice but to accept that increased danger, even if they or their loved ones would prefer not to.


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Therefore, the owners can make those boats nearly as dangerous as they like


How should we interpret?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Alden68 said:


> How should we interpret?


I'll clarify, so no interpretation is necessary. They have not completely ignored safety, the crews have spare air and pfds and practice jumping off 30 ft platforms, as some examples. They have made the boats as dangerous as they like, more dangerous than the last generation, in order to be more exciting and/or win.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

My guess is most of the people competing in the AC in this death defying boats are doing so because this job was already taken.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

jephotog- OMG- ????how do you train to do that for the first time?????

As regards AC-please realize if the boats break and people die as the owner you are out a whole lot of money and you lose the race. To say they are not concerned is to say regardless of whether they are unfeeling toward crew ( which I doubt) they are stupid ( which I highly doubt).


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Others will have to forgive my continuation of this digression, if you have no interest in F1, simply skip over this response...



chef2sail said:


> Way off topic,
> 
> Who cares who Ayrton Senna is and why should I care to know. Why would the American public watch FI...which they don't or care about it. It doesn't interest our pedestrian tastes obviously. They don't relate to the drivers for one or the cars for two.


Note To Self:

Never, EVER begin a discussion of F1 racing by acknowledging the name of the Fastest Man Who Ever Lived means nothing to you... (grin)



chef2sail said:


> The NASCAR cars require a tremendous team effort during the race as the conditions change constantly with the heat of the track and constant adjustments are made to the camber, springs air pressures etc., while in F1 you got what you got when you start basically.


Apparently, you haven't looked at the steering wheel of an F1 recently... The capability of the drivers to make changes to the cars during the race boggles the mind - hell, at Monaco next week, they might be making brake bias adjustments _for individual CORNERS_ during the course of a single lap... Not to mention, the telemetry between the pit and the car on the track, while allows the teams to initiate changes to such computerized functions as engine mapping, and the monitoring of tire pressures, and so on... It's laughable to assert the level of technological complexity of NASCAR is even in the same solar system as F1, much less the same planet...










01. BOOST » F1 cars have an electric-hybrid system known as KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) that regenerates braking energy, then boosts acceleration-at the push of a button-via an 80-hp electric motor. Another feature that increases speed is the movable rear wing that flattens to reduce drag. The wing is controlled by a foot pedal.

02. LAP TIME

03. HARVEST » Regulates the amount of energy "harvested" during braking. The regen system can alter the feel of the brakes, and because these guys drive with exacting precision, they're picky about tactile feedback. This knob lets them customize.

04. DOWNSHIFT PADDLE

05. MIX » Adjusts the engine's air-fuel mixture to balance power and fuel economy. F1 cars don't refuel during a race, but economy is still vital-fuel adds weight.

06. BITE POINT » The race start is critical because the cars begin from a stop and the initial sprint is a prime overtaking opportunity. The bite point adjusts how the clutch engages as the drivers release the paddle, so they can execute a perfect launch.

07. BPF » During practice starts, the driver uses the "bite point find" to record the clutch behavior. Engineers use the data to instruct the driver where to set the bite point dial.

08. CLUTCH PADDLE

09. BBAL » Displays the front-rear brake balance, a critical adjustment that drivers make to fine-tune the braking performance. Most passes are done in the braking zones.

10. REVERSE GEAR

11. SHIFT LIGHTS

12. LIMITER » Restricts the car's speed to the pit-lane limit, 62 mph.

13. ENGINE PARAMETERS

14. UPSHIFT PADDLE

15. TORQUE » The 2.4-liter V8 revs to 18,000 rpm and delivers north of 700 hp. That's a handful in a 1400-pound car, so the drivers use this knob to adjust the engine's torque curve, depending on track conditions.

16. TYRE » Teams use roughly half a dozen different tires that vary in construction and diameter. This dial tells the computer which tires are fitted so it can calculate wheel speed.

17. CLUTCH PADDLE

18. DIFFERENTIAL » Thanks to electronic controls, the characteristics of the rear differential can be tailored for corner entry, midpoint and exit-each with 12 settings. Frankly, we're amazed that the drivers can detect such minute rear-end differences during cornering events that last for maybe a few seconds. But that's why they're paid millions.



chef2sail said:


> Getting Americans to go to F1 races is like asking Americans to give up football for soccer. We like our NASCAR.


Yes, we Americans are primarily interested in the forms of sport we excel at... No other nation is so fond of proclaiming our football, basketball, and baseball teams _"WORLD CHAMPIONS"_ in professional sports leagues such as the NFL, NBA, and MLB that are not contested beyond our own borders. We are the ultimate "Homers", if a global sport like World Cup Skiing doesn't have an American competitor like Lindsey Vonn at the top at a particular time, it has little interest for most of America... Hence, the lack of general interest in F1, we've only produced 2 World Drivers Championships since 1950, while countries such as Austria and Finland have produced twice as many... This sort of chauvinism that exists in our cultural view of worldwide sport goes a long way towards explaining the widespread lack of interest in an event such as the Americas's Cup, of course...



chef2sail said:


> You like your F1/ We are uncivilized ******** beer drinkers and chips and salsa and you are sophisticated wine drinkers and brie eaters. We like the intricate strategy of football at every position vs. soccer which is very straightforward and much less cerebral...
> 
> ...Many of them come from dirt tracks etc. Lots of the drivers are 35-45. F1 Boys are rich brats who while they may ridicule the NASCAR guys for riding in a circle wont dare try and go out and "hang" with them. First time one of them would get bump drafted they'd crap in their pants. F1 drivers drive with almost no contact. NASCAR..its the norm in close quarter racing


OK, we get it... You've seen TALLADEGA NIGHTS - The Ballad of Ricky Bobby...

(grin, bigtime)


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



outbound said:


> jephotog- OMG- ????how do you train to do that for the first time?????


I think you start off in Sabot's at a young age.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Naive? Really? I've played sports at the top of my game. College Division 1 linebacker. I may know the mentality better than you give me credit for. You play hurt, you play dangerously, you do what you're told or you don't get to play. They aren't conscious go-nogo decisions. If you want to play, you take whatever opportunity you get.
> .....


I don't think the analogy is valid. The sailors on the AC cup are not University sailors, they are the best, really at the top. If you were one of the best quarter backs on the country you could say no to any trainer. There would be 10 teams wanting to buy you anyway. The guys on the AC are that good.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The American Cup Races should go back to the "J" boats or even the schooner that the race is named after.

Remember this is food for thoughts. But think about it.


----------



## c. breeze (Feb 18, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> The football analogy only applies as I offered it. Only to the mentality of the players. You can't extend the analogy to a point that I didn't make.
> 
> You also can't stretch the accusation to say I was suggesting the AC owners/designers completely ignored safety.
> 
> My point has and continues to be that they have made these craft more dangerous, while other sports strive to make their next gen equipment less dangerous and more capable at the same time. Following that fact, I do not believe the crews have any choice but to accept that increased danger, even if they or their loved ones would prefer not to.


So- someone else said it- what I was getting at bug couldn't quite convey - boats that fall apart and kill people don't win. None of these teams want to lose, therefore they designed boats to be as safe as possible. Anyway- I do think its worth noting that every generation of equipment is designed to be an improvement over the previous iterations perceived shortcomings. That means many things- but the part to focus on is that performance is why drives innovation and development in the field- not safety. So If an improvement in performance can be complimented by improved safety- it is, if that can't be accomplished- the modifications are made to improve the performance- relying on previous safety measures to remain adequate until such time as performance upgrades or whatever are called for.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Boasun said:


> The American Cup Races should go back to the "J" boats or even the schooner that the race is named after.
> 
> Remember this is food for thoughts. But think about it.


He He, that boat is so easy, I mean the America schooner, that I was the captain of a replica for half an hour while doing my unlimited Captain's examination. I put it sailing downwind butterfly style with opposed sails. Got the sailors scared because they didn't know if I knew what I was doing

I wish I could sail the AC72 as easily as the America replica but I am afraid that is just for top sailors. The AC cup should not only be raced in the fastest boats but also in boats that demand the best sailors to be sailed, otherwise what would be the point?: The Ac would only be another sailboat race and not the fastest sailboat race and that's the spirit of it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> The football analogy only applies as I offered it. Only to the mentality of the players. You can't extend the analogy to a point that I didn't make.
> 
> You also can't stretch the accusation to say I was suggesting the AC owners/designers completely ignored safety.
> 
> My point has and continues to be that they have made these craft more dangerous, while other sports strive to make their next gen equipment less dangerous and more capable at the same time. Following that fact, *I do not believe the crews have any choice but to accept that increased danger, even if they or their loved ones would prefer not to.*


Really??? They are free to quit at any time and get a real job.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



T34C said:


> Really??? They are free to quit at any time and get a real job.


I fell some animosity against sail racing Do you mean a professional sail racer is not a real job?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

A thing to consider is that we want the cup to go the team with the best designed boat crewed by the best sailors, not to the team most willing to endanger the lives of their crew.

Racers will accept a much higher level of risk that the rest of us are comfortable with. That is part of what makes them racers.

A few years ago there was a CART race scheduled for the Texas Speedway, a course designed for slower NASCAR races. The highly banked corners allowed the CART cars to run full out all the way around the track, meaning they were pulling over 5 Gs for a lot of the course.

Every one of the drivers did a series of test laps. So every one of the drivers knew that they were nearing blackout, losing all peripheral vision and becoming disoriented. And they were all willing to race like that.

It was only when a doctor noticed that one of the drivers wasn't able to walk in a straight line for quite a while after his test laps that they started interviewing other drivers and learned of the danger.

The governing body decided this was a level of risk they could not take, and canceled the race just hours before race time. It cost them tens of millions.

The racers were willing to take the risk, they would have gladly driven into that bloodbath. And the winner wouldn't have been the best driver, the winner would have been the one lucky enough to not black out at the wrong time or to get hit by someone else who blacked out at the wrong time.

It wouldn't have been a contest of skill, it would have been televised Russian Roulette.

If it is the case that the Artemis boat broke up before it crashed, and if it is the case that this structural weakness is endemic to these boats, then we're basically watching a dice game, not a game of skill. You roll snake eyes and your boat cracks up. Next roller step up to the table, please.


----------



## EJO (Jan 10, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Minnesail you're right on that is what racing is all about, push it to the end of the ability. If it is running, driving, or sailing, biking, F-1, WCR, and so on. Push man and machine to the limit in order to win.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> Good example. So, why can't AC do something to limit its risk?


I think this is the crux of the debate. The definition of risk in _racing_ is completely different than the definition in virtually any other endeavor.

Racing of this kind is really _ONLY_ ABOUT MANAGING EXTREMELY HIGH RISK. And everyone involved knows that.

This level of risk has been inherent in the RTW ocean races for a long time. But it's completely new to the historically "gentlemanly" AC. AND it's completely counter to virtually every norm in the broader understanding of "prudent seamanship". I think this is the real disconnect.

IT'S _LITERALLY_ ABOUT PUSHING MAN AND MACHINE TO THE POINT OF FAILURE. Period.

So, if we accept the fact that EXTREMELY HIGH RISK is inherent in the endeavor, it becomes a very different conversation.

The AC has finally become all about _real racing_. That's a good thing in my book.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> .. Why would the American public watch FI...which they don't or care about it. They drive cars which look nothing like what the general public drives.. ...
> 
> As far as technical superiority, its apples and oranges. .. You like your F1/ We are uncivilized ******** beer drinkers and chips and salsa and you are sophisticated wine drinkers and brie eaters.........


Dave I am not trying to change American tastes and I believe the reason they will not like AC is because AC has a lot of common with F1 and nothing to do with Nascar: The faster sailboats, the faster cars, the most technological advanced sailboats, the most technological cars, the most expensive race sailboats, the most expensive race cars, the most world wide top race sailboat series, the most world wide top race cars series, the biggest budget race sailboat series, the biggest budget race cars series....and has you say, AC72, like the F1 *"they drive cars (or sailboats) which look nothing like what the general public drives"*

Regarding the technological differences in a car they can be measured by the lateral forces the car can sustain while breaking on curving (grip). A Nascar racing car can generate 2G forces, a F1 more than the double, 5G. Technology can also be measured in the engines, regarding the horsepower produced by a given size of engine. Th F1 and the Nascar have about the same power, 750hp, both are naturally aspirated but the F1 engine is more than 2 times smaller than the Nascar engine (2400cc to 5780cc) and that contributes to very different weights on the cars, the F1 weights almost 1/3 than a Nascar car and that makes it much faster.

A good way to measure technological sophistication is money invested in each car: A Nascar car costs $1.5 Million, a F1 $7.0 million or the team bubget: The 20 top time budget, Nascar- 6.5 million, F1 - 325.0 million.

You can get a good idea of the difference in technological sophistication just regarding both steering wheels:





Well, That one is a 4 year hold one, today they are more sophisticated but I guess you got the general picture.

Like the F1, the AC72 races are going to be pretty boring, if we look to the competition only. The chances are that a boat will be far more faster than another and it will win easily but like the F1 we don't like them just for the competition (that is much bigger on Nascar) but by the human and technological achievement and that is also what AC72 is about.

and Dave...the Brie is alright but it is a pretty cheap cheese, we like more sophisticated ones like Roquefort, Parmigiano Reggiano or Serra da Estrela

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

IMHP the most compelling cup was the one we lost to the wing keel and the huge interest in its unveiling after the event

You certainly had a HUGE field trying to get into the game at that point in time and for a good while after VS the 3-1/2 we have right now

Nascar is how it is on propose as they already have issues with the car cost going beyond what sponsors can support

During testing they do full on car telemetry and the problem is still the cost of turning that into useful information


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnesail said:


> A thing to consider is that we want the cup to go the team with the best designed boat crewed by the best sailors, not to the team most willing to endanger the lives of their crew.
> 
> Racers will accept a much higher level of risk that the rest of us are comfortable with. That is part of what makes them racers.
> 
> ...


It can not be endemic to "these boats" because each of the boats is designed and built separately. They all will have different strengths and weaknesses depending on the design/build teams input.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> I think this is the crux of the debate. The definition of risk in _racing_ is completely different than the definition in virtually any other endeavor.
> 
> Racing of this kind is really _ONLY_ ABOUT MANAGING EXTREMELY HIGH RISK. And everyone involved knows that.
> 
> ...


I basically agree with you, but keep in mind they used to sail wooden racing boats from Europe to the US to race in the AC on their own bottoms, without any electronic aids...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

serra great heese, we eat parmeseano arergiano too as well as the blue cheese aged by the monks in the caves. There are some pretty outstanding bries in France. Actually.

Your point about F1 is well taken.

Dave

QUOTE=PCP;1031848]Dave I am not trying to change American tastes and I believe the reason they will not like AC is because AC has a lot of common with F1 and nothing to do with Nascar: The faster sailboats, the faster cars, the most technological advanced sailboats, the most technological cars, the most expensive race sailboats, the most expensive race cars, the most world wide top race sailboat series, the most world wide top race cars series, the biggest budget race sailboat series, the biggest budget race cars series....and has you say, AC72, like the F1 *"they drive cars (or sailboats) which look nothing like what the general public drives"*

Regarding the technological differences in a car they can be measured by the lateral forces the car can sustain while breaking on curving (grip). A Nascar racing car can generate 2G forces, a F1 more than the double, 5G. Technology can also be measured in the engines, regarding the horsepower produced by a given size of engine. Th F1 and the Nascar have about the same power, 750hp, both are naturally aspirated but the F1 engine is more than 2 times smaller than the Nascar engine (2400cc to 5780cc) and that contributes to very different weights on the cars, the F1 weights almost 1/3 than a Nascar car and that makes it much faster.

A good way to measure technological sophistication is money invested in each car: A Nascar car costs $1.5 Million, a F1 $7.0 million or the team bubget: The 20 top time budget, Nascar- 6.5 million, F1 - 325.0 million.

You can get a good idea of the difference in technological sophistication just regarding both steering wheels:





Well, That one is a 4 year hold one, today they are more sophisticated but I guess you got the general picture.

Like the F1, the AC72 races are going to be pretty boring, if we look to the competition only. The chances are that a boat will be far more faster than another and it will win easily but like the F1 we don't like them just for the competition (that is much bigger on Nascar) but by the human and technological achievement and that is also what AC72 is about.

and Dave...the Brie is alright but it is a pretty cheap cheese, we like more sophisticated ones like Roquefort, Parmigiano Reggiano or Serra da Estrela

Regards

Paulo[/QUOTE]


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnesail said:


> A thing to consider is that we want the cup to go the team with the best designed boat crewed by the best sailors, not to the team most willing to endanger the lives of their crew.
> ....


The best team (boat/crew) will be the one that arrive first. To arrive first they have to manage to not capsize or break the boat. If they endanger the lives of the crew they will break, capsize or pitchpole and will not win the race.

Even on Ocean races today top boats are so powerful that the crew has to manage the speed and conditions to where the boat can handle safely. The times where big sailingboats could be sailed at full blast without fear of breaking is gone. Stress management is needed and it is a part of racing.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



chef2sail said:


> serra great heese, we eat parmeseano arergiano too as well as the blue cheese aged by the monks in the caves. There are some pretty outstanding bries in France. Actually.


I am surprised you know the cheese da serra. I thought we eat them all

I have been in the French caves and eat the cheese there. I found out they keep the best and export the other. If you go to France don't miss that. They do a salad with nuts and Roquefort that is something.

Back on topic:

After the tragic dead of the British sailor the German sailing federation had officially retired their team of kids from the Youth America's Cup.

Surprise:

The kids say that with or without official support they are going to race!!!!

*"They want their dream and don't want to give up: After the official withdrawal of their team from the Youth America's Cup, the young German sailing team with skipper Philipp Buhl Sonthofen and Erik Heil from Berlin wants to achieve participation even without support.. ... ... "We want to try it ourselves," said the 23-year-old Laser European Champions Buhl, "we got a chance to participate in the America's Cup, and that may be a chance in a lifetime. We want to fight for it. We've come this far and want to go till the finish. We believe that sailing on the smaller catamarans is far less risky than the AC-72 boats. "*

http://www.yacht.de/sport/news/im-alleingang-auf-cup-kurs/a80195.html

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



T34C said:


> Really??? They are free to quit at any time and get a real job.


I would not suggest that. I waited till I was almost 40 for my first real job. I now miss my fake life.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> The kids say that with or without official support they are going to race!!!!
> 
> *"They want their dream and don't want to give up: After the official withdrawal of their team from the Youth America's Cup, the young German sailing team with skipper Philipp Buhl Sonthofen and Erik Heil from Berlin wants to achieve participation even without support.. ... ... "We want to try it ourselves," said the 23-year-old Laser European Champions Buhl, "we got a chance to participate in the America's Cup, and that may be a chance in a lifetime. We want to fight for it. We've come this far and want to go till the finish. We believe that sailing on the smaller catamarans is far less risky than the AC-72 boats. "*
> 
> ...


I think the last line about the safety of the smaller boats is for the sake of the crew's mothers. My guess is the sailing youth would be making up stories of safety, holding car washes and bake sales if that is what it took to race the AC105s no matter what the danger.

The question is how many sailors in the current AC race would give up the opportunity to participate for a different sailing job that was safe, and paid the same as the AC? My guess is very few.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> I would not suggest that. I waited till I was almost 40 for my first real job. I now miss my fake life.


It didn't say I recommended it, just that it was an option.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnesail said:


> A thing to consider is that we want the cup to go the team with the best designed boat crewed by the best sailors, not to the team most willing to endanger the lives of their crew.
> 
> Racers will accept a much higher level of risk that the rest of us are comfortable with. That is part of what makes them racers.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I was at that race... I'll never forget, I was up on the roof of the grandstand, must be the equivalent of 7-8 stories above the track, on Friday afternoon... I was kneeling down, changing film, when I heard the sickening thud of Mauricio Gugelmin's car hitting the inside wall exiting Turn 2... His car continued the full length of the back straight, and went into the outside wall in Turn 3 with an impact recorded at over 100 Gs, if memory serves... That brought a real pall over the paddock for the remainder of the weekend, everyone realized they were venturing into truly uncharted territory running at that track, and there were a lot of relieved people on Sunday morning when CART made the correct call to cancel the race...

Unfortunately, the memory of that weekend that lingers most clearly with me, was the spectacle of fans booing the teams as they loaded the cars back into the transporters, and driving out of the paddock that afternoon past drunken yahoos cursing anyone leaving the premises, in front of their motorhome draped with a hand lettered bedsheet signifying that "CART" stood for:

_*C*owards *A*ren't *R*acing *T*oday..._

Perhaps a better analogy to the fix the AC now finds itself in, is the farce that was the 2005 US Grand Prix at Indianapolis, when only 6 cars started the race after concerns over the safety of the Michelin tires forced the teams running on Michelins to withdraw from the race at the end of the formation lap... An attempted compromise to install a chicane to reduce the speeds through the final banked Turn 13 where the Michelins had failed during practice could not be agreed to, primarily due to the fact that Ferrari - running on Bridgestone tires which had exhibited no such problems - perceived they had a real advantage for the race, and refused to agree to such an accommodation...

I fear another similar situation might be brewing in San Francisco, where one or more teams may believe they have a real shot at winning (or retaining possession) of the Cup, an be resistant to any sort of compromise in the interest of greater safety of the competitors overall...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/sports/othersports/20prix.html?_r=0


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> I am surprised you know the cheese da serra. I thought we eat them all
> 
> I have been in the French caves and eat the cheese there. I found out they keep the best and export the other. If you go to France don't miss that. They do a salad with nuts and Roquefort that is something.
> 
> ...


I have been in tha caves also eating the cheese. The salad you refer to is the pear or peach salad with Roquefort. The history of the cheese is astounding as well as how they produce the penicillium.

Dave


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

This appeared in the WALL STREET JOURNAL yesterday... Bruce Knecht has done a lot of writing about sailing and maritime subjects, his book THE PROVING GROUND is one of the best about the 1998 Sydney-Hobart disaster, it's a riveting read...



> May 17, 2013, 6:33 p.m. ET
> 
> *Larry Ellison's Dangerous America's Cup*
> 
> ...


In addition, what I thought was a very good proposal from LATITUDE 38, written after the first capsize of ORACLE last October:



> *A Modest Proposal*
> 
> October 17, 2012 - San Francisco Bay
> 
> ...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Quote:
*...." He hoped the supercharged catamarans would catapult the 162-year-old event into the modern age and transform it into a spectator sport fit for TV.

In terms of the hardware, Mr. Ellison has succeeded. When the wings and wind are properly aligned, the 72-foot boats-or AC72s, as they are known-literally lift out of the water, supported only by the foils on their daggerboards, the retractable keels that drop down from each of the hulls. The vessels skim across the water at speeds of close to 50 miles per hour."*

I agree, they are really a beautiful thing to watch and to sail:






Quote:
... *"British sailor Andrew Simpson's death is the latest evidence that the current competition is fundamentally flawed."*

And why a solitary and only grave and fatal personal accident is evidence of that?

This accident was not even similar to the one with Oracle and It seems to me a double case of bad luck: the boat breaking without warning and collapsing in a way that trapped a sailor behind it.

The Hydroptere capsized at near 60K without any serious causalities, lots of capsizes with the smaller AC45, a capsize with the AC 72 and nobody hurt seriously. Why a bad luck dead is evidence of something except bad luck.

http://valenciasailing.blogspot.pt/2008/12/lhydroptre-capsizes-after-reaching.html

Racing is dangerous, racing with more speed is more dangerous but I don't see evidence that this racing is more dangerous than car racing or motorcycle racing at top level. Slow boat racing was less dangerous true, but what kind of racing sport is raced in slow machines when there are fast ones? who wants to race in slow boats? Who wants to see slow boats racing?

Quote:
*"... The wipeout came as a surprise to many-but not to the sailors. They already knew that AC72s are dangerous, overpowered beasts that are always skating on the edge of catastrophe."
*

This is simply ridiculous. Here you have a practice race where you can see that the boats as far from being overpowered or at the edge of catastrophe and they are still learning how to sail those boats. Put it on full screen and enjoy


----------



## Alden68 (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Is it just me or does losing the foils tame the beast and sill leave a very, very fast boat? Bearing off is dangerous in any high powered, high speed sailboat. The foils seem to Make the boats erratic as they make maneuvers.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I agree with Paulo - that was a stupid story. Way too hysterical.

The 72 is an incredible boat (watch that video!). They all just need more time to tame it a bit.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> I agree with Paulo - that was a stupid story. Way too hysterical.
> 
> The 72 is an incredible boat (watch that video!). They all just need more time to tame it a bit.


I'd give my eye tooth to get one way. They are cutting edge.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Enjoy your AC 72's, for those that are all for them. I'll bet this is the last year they race in the AC with them. Frekin nuts to be on one of these things in 33 knots- that is almost 40 mph with a sail you cannot de-power- frekin nuts....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/s...ght-after-death-of-sailor.html?pagewanted=all

*Italian Team Seeks Change in America's Cup Wind Limits After Sailor's Death*By CHRISTOPHER CLAREY
More than a week after the death of British sailor Andrew Simpson in a training accident, none of the four America's Cup teams have withdrawn from the competition, which is still scheduled to begin in early July in San Francisco.

Enlarge This Image

Stephen Lam/Reuters
Luna Rossa had been training on the water in its AC72 for more than 40 days in Auckland, New Zealand, before its arrival in San Francisco, said Francesco Longanesi Cattani, a spokesman for the team. 
But the teams have made significant proposals for change, none more publicly than Luna Rossa Challenge, whose team principal, the Italian fashion mogul Patrizio Bertelli, made it clear on Friday that the team wanted lower wind limits for racing or it would consider not participating.

Bertelli's team then chose to ignore a general directive from the America's Cup review committee not to sail until Wednesday, deploying its one and only AC72 yacht on Saturday for its first full on-water training session in San Francisco Bay.

"Psychologically for the team, it was important to go out sailing in order to restart and focus on our end," said Francesco Longanesi Cattani, a spokesman for the team, in an interview Sunday. "It was also an opportunity in ideal conditions to test the boat after she had arrived here."

Longanesi said Luna Rossa had been training on the water in its AC72 for more than 40 days in Auckland, New Zealand, before its arrival in San Francisco.

Though America's Cup officials have expressed disappointment in the decision, there will apparently be no disciplinary repercussions with Tom Ehman, vice commodore of the Golden Gate Yacht Club, who called the review committee directive a recommendation.

"It's not a hard and fast requirement, at least not at this stage," Ehman said by telephone.

Consensus remains elusive at this tense, uncertain stage. The San Francisco Police Department is investigating the death of Simpson, a two-time Olympic medalist, who was trapped under the wreckage of Team Artemis's AC72 after it capsized in San Francisco Bay on May 9.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported last week that Oracle Team USA, the American team that will defend the Cup, is changing the black skin on its wing sail to a transparent film to make it easier to see and thus find a crew member if one were to end up in the water after an accident.

"Andrew was apparently trapped under debris, and they couldn't see him," Ehman said. "Should the bottom section of the wing be clear? Should the trampolines be clear? The experts are all working on this sort of stuff."

Artemis has communicated little publicly since the accident. The AC72 boat it intended to sail in San Francisco was not scheduled to arrive until later this month.

"I know Artemis is also respecting the process, and they have not pulled out of the competition," Ehman said. "That's certainly one of the things they are considering, but there's no indication at this point of that from any of the teams. And Patrizio Bertelli, in fact, gave quite a strong endorsement for pressing on."

Bertelli, chief executive of Prada and a longtime challenger for the Cup, was more circumspect in Friday's news conference at the team's temporary base in Alameda, Calif., than he had been in interviews with the Italian news media earlier in the week.

Luna Rossa, for now, appears committed to competing in the AC72 yachts, the big, fast catamarans with wing sails that represent a new age for the America's Cup, which began in 1851 and has traditionally been contested in much slower monohull yachts with soft sails.

"In order for a boat to be safe, the crew must feel safe, and they need to trust their boat; this is primordial," Bertelli said. "I have asked our sailors if they trust the boat, and our sailors have told me they do trust the boat and that they can sail on it. Obviously, we are going to look at technology and any tools that can help us to be safer. Also it's very important to reduce the wind limits to around what we ask and to race as per the protocol and the class rule.

"We will not tolerate the bending of the rules using as an excuse the latest fatality, and we will respect the rules of the protocol and the class rule as they have been approved. We are absolutely in favor of discussing with all the other teams to try to find common solutions to the problems we face, but we will not accept any imposition."

The existing rules in the protocol, the guiding document for this year's competition, call for racing to take place in winds of up to 25 knots for the early rounds of the challenger series, known as the Louis Vuitton Cup. Those limits are to be increased to 28 knots for the final of the Vuitton Cup and then to 33 knots for the America's Cup match in September, pitting the winner of the challenger series against Oracle Team USA, which is owned by the American billionaire Larry Ellison and represents Golden Gate Yacht Club.

Luna Rossa, which - unlike its competitors - has only one AC72, is asking for wind limits to be lowered to 20 knots for the entirety of the Vuitton Cup racing and then to 25 knots for the America's Cup, Bertelli said.

Ehman, who worked for Oracle in its successful challenge for the Cup in 2010, said he understood other teams were also pushing for changes in the wind limits.

"It wouldn't surprise any of us if that's a recommendation that comes out of this, and they get the winds down lower," Ehman said.

Races have regularly been postponed in previous Cups because of too much or too little wind. One of the objectives in setting them higher this time was to improve the sport's marketability and reach so television networks could count on a race taking place in its scheduled time slot.

"One of the things we all want to do is, at the appointed race hour, we want to be able to start," Ehman said, "because you're going to have tens of thousands of spectators and a television audience.

"However, safety has to come first."

*In an interview in Alameda several days before the accident, Max Sirena, the skipper of Luna Rossa,** explained his own comfort zone in an AC72 after his team's extensive training in its yacht in Auckland.

"Over 20 knots, it's a completely different game, I can tell you that," Sirena said. "For sure, you enjoy sailing these boats up to 18, 19 knots.

"Over 20, you start to be scared about the boat, because they are super powerful. Over 20 knots, you just cannot depower the boat as much as you want." *


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I don't think sailing needs this type of spectator:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/s...-risks-enter-americas-cup.html?pagewanted=all

*New Technology and Risks Enter a Venerable Event*By CHRISTOPHER CLAREY
Published: May 10, 2013

On a sun-kissed afternoon in the Bay Area last week, *Larry Olson, a 39-year-old from San Francisco, backed his car into a parking space next to Marina Green, flipped up the hatch to create a viewing platform and watched with his young children as Artemis Racing's America's Cup catamaran sped by in the stiff breeze on San Francisco Bay. *
*"My daughter's preschool is near here, so we always come and sit and watch them practice," Olson said. "These are amazing boats, and we're kind of hoping they'll flip one. It happened once before. It's kind of like watching a Nascar race." *

*This is a new era in the America's Cup, with perhaps a new, larger audience. No one ever pulled up a chair with the realistic expectation that a 12-meter yacht might capsize. *

But there is a dark side to the novelty: true and persistent danger. The sailors, even weathered veterans, have been genuinely on edge even as they embrace the new thrill of the new-age boats. And on Thursday the danger turned fatal in San Francisco Bay when Artemis's AC72 capsized while bearing away, or turning from the wind, during a training exercise.

One of Britain's leading sailors, the Olympic gold medalist Andrew Simpson, died after being trapped under the inverted catamaran, Cup officials said. The craft had broken into pieces, its huge wing sail lying flat on the water.

The question is whether the America's Cup, first contested in 1851, has gone too far in its high-technology hunt for modern-day relevance and market share.

"We know this is a risky boat, what happened to Artemis today could happen to us in the future," said Max Sirena, the skipper of the Italian challenger Luna Rossa.

Keith Mills, former owner of a British team that abandoned plans to participate in this Cup, told The Daily Telegraph on Friday that safety was a factor in his decision.

"Seeing what those boats were capable of, speeds of up to 40 knots, frightened the life out of me," he told The Telegraph. "The class rules looked like they were dangerous boats to sail. At 40 knots, the control is minimal. Hit a big wave and that is it."

On Friday, while members of the Artemis Team grieved in private and other teams took a respectful break from training, the fallout was still visible as Iain Murray, the craggy-faced veteran sailor and regatta director for the 34th America's Cup, fought to maintain his composure as he commented on Simpson's death.

"Let me start by saying that Andrew was a very good friend," Murray said, his voice breaking, at a news conference. "He has been one of those larger-than-life figures in our sport. It's hard to believe he's gone.

"It's fair to say Andrew was doing what he loved. It was his passion, and Andrew was used to doing everything in life at the fullest and to the highest level he could. This will not lessen the tragedy that has passed, and of course we need to look at what has happened and understand the consequences."

While the San Francisco Police Department conducts an inquiry into the fatal accident, Murray, a 55-year-old Australian, will lead the America's Cup internal investigation with support from the United States Coast Guard.

Though a bear-away move is tricky, Murray will try to determine what caused the catamaran to flip on what was apparently smooth water in relatively typical weather conditions for San Francisco Bay. He will also try to determine why Simpson was not located and recovered in time despite extensive safety precautions - on and off board the AC72 - that included scuba divers and support staff from both Artemis and Oracle Team USA, the America's Cup defenders who were training nearby.

"What went wrong yesterday was we lost the person," Murray said. "And that's what we need to find out: how you lose a person in a small boat with a lot of people looking."

Murray also will try to determine if these new and spectacular multihulls, capable of speeds exceeding 40 knots, are safe and stable enough in their existing form to allow the America's Cup preliminaries to go ahead as planned on July 5 with the challenger series known as the Vuitton Cup.

Stephen Barclay, chief executive officer of the America's Cup event authority, did not rule out significant changes, even cancellation.

"I have every expectation we will host a spectacular event here this summer," Barclay said. "But I'm not going to prejudge it. Iain will conduct his review, and we will see the outcome and recommendations of that."

Last Oct. 16, an AC72 owned by Oracle Team USA, the defender of the America's Cup, capsized during training in San Francisco Bay and was extensively damage, although the crew escaped with only minor injuries.

Lisa Ramsperger, a spokeswoman for Oracle Team USA, said the team had increased its safety training and revised its safety and recovery plan. Its sailors wear portable oxygen supplies, meant to be used if they are trapped underwater, and Murray indicated that members of the Artemis crew on Thursday, including Simpson, had similar equipment.

If true, something could have kept Simpson from getting access to that oxygen during the approximately 10 minutes that officials say he was trapped before rescue and medical crews were able to begin performing cardio pulmonary resuscitation on him, both on chase boats and on the dock of the St. Francis Yacht Club.

"It appears Bart was trapped under some of the solid sections of the yacht, out of view and out of sight to the myriad of people on board trying to locate him, including proper divers with apparatus," Murray said, using Simpson's nickname. "All the crews in these boats had been trained in underwater; they all carried oxygen and were meant to be prepared for the worse."

The British Olympian Iain Percy, the sailing team director and tactician for Artemis, was on board when the accident occurred. He and Simpson won a gold medal together in the Star class at the 2008 Olympics and a silver at the 2012 Games. Percy was one of the key reasons Simpson decided to join Artemis in February.

The psychological impact of Simpson's death could be far-reaching for Artemis. Murray said that Nathan Outteridge was steering the boat during Thursday's accident. Outteridge has been expected to be the main helmsman for Artemis in San Francisco.

Barclay said he had had no indication that Artemis intended to withdraw from the Cup. The team is awaiting delivery of its second AC72 next month: a yacht that has been redesigned to compete with other teams that have already launched boats capable of foiling - sailing with both hulls out of the water with the lift generated by angled hydrofoils attached to daggerboards.

"We're foiling on toothpicks essentially now," Paul Cayard, the chief executive of Artemis, said before the accident.

Foiling on the downwind legs is considered essential to success in this year's Cup, but Artemis's first AC72, the one now in ruins, did not have that capacity. Murray said that did not necessarily make it a less risky proposition to sail.

Asked if two capsizings and one death meant this class of boats was too dangerous, he answered by reeling off a series of fatalities in sailing over the years.

"I was involved in the Sydney-Hobart Race when six people died," he said of the 1998 race that was struck by a huge storm. "We have to live with these things, and we have to go forward in the best way we can."

Citing the technological progress in the sport's equipment, Murray said: "It's what these guys want to do. They want to take sailing to the next level, and these boats provide that platform."


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> Enjoy your AC 72's, for those that are all for them. I'll bet this is the last year they race in the AC with them. Frekin nuts to be on one of these things in 33 knots- that is almost 40 mph with a sail you cannot de-power- frekin nuts....


If the sail cannot be depowered enough they have to redesign the sail. It would be a bad precedent to change the rules and the protocol at the middle of an AC. I am not sure that can be done even if all agree. The rules were made by the one that had the right to do them. The boats were designed to perform according to those rules and in what regards wind they are:

*"The existing rules in the protocol, the guiding document for this year's competition, call for racing to take place in winds of up to 25 knots for the early rounds of the challenger series, known as the Louis Vuitton Cup. Those limits are to be increased to 28 knots for the final of the Vuitton Cup and then to 33 knots for the America's Cup match in September,"*

So if the boats cannot sail safely over 20k.... they have to make alterations on the boat and sail to make that possible and not change protocol.

Alterations cannot be directed. I mean they have a maximum sail size but they can make them small if they want. Of course that will give an advantage in light winds for the ones that will have a bigger sail...but for what I understood the conditions between 20K and 30K are pretty frequent in S Francisco bay and it will be of no use winning some races to have the boat capsized on another.

Probably there will be a way to modify the sail to allow it to be depowered, some movable parts that can open or close letting pass the wind or catching it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Where did this concept that wing sails can't be de-powered come from? A sail generates lift (gets its power from the curvature of the outer surface) a wing sail has the ability to be flattened more than a traditional sail. Thats how they get a semi solid surface to function on both tacks. They have the ability to bend the wing in an indefinite number of positions adding more or less power, on each tack. that also gives them the ability to leave the wing virtually flat on both sides and effectively powerless.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



T34C said:


> Where did this concept that wing sails can't be de-powered come from? A sail generates lift (gets its power from the curvature of the outer surface) a wing sail has the ability to be flattened more than a traditional sail. Thats how they get a semi solid surface to function on both tacks. They have the ability to bend the wing in an indefinite number of positions adding more or less power, on each tack. that also gives them the ability to leave the wing virtually flat on both sides and effectively powerless.


Quote:
In an interview in Alameda several days before the accident, Max Sirena, the skipper of Luna Rossa, explained his own comfort zone in an AC72 after his team's extensive training in its yacht in Auckland.

"Over 20 knots, it's a completely different game, I can tell you that," Sirena said. "For sure, you enjoy sailing these boats up to 18, 19 knots.

"Over 20, you start to be scared about the boat, because they are super powerful. *Over 20 knots, you just cannot depower the boat as much as you want."*

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Afternoon winds in "The Slot" (the clear air zone east of the Golden Gate Bridge between Angel Island and Treasure Island) are usually 25-35kts with higher gusts from early June to late September/October. This area has a daily afternoon SCA warning, which only gets dropped when the pressure difference decreases by lower inland temperatures. The pressure gradient formed between the hot inland valley and the coast creates a Venturi effect at The Gate.

I think it would be very difficult to find event days in July where the predicted wind is lower than 25kts. They could hold the race earlier in the day but the wind comes up quickly when it starts blowing so there is not much time between the light morning air and winds above 25kts.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> Quote:
> In an interview in Alameda several days before the accident, Max Sirena, the skipper of Luna Rossa, explained his own comfort zone in an AC72 after his team's extensive training in its yacht in Auckland.
> 
> "Over 20 knots, it's a completely different game, I can tell you that," Sirena said. "For sure, you enjoy sailing these boats up to 18, 19 knots.
> ...


Interesting comments. I wonder how much of that issue is related to the wing sail, and how much is related to it being a foiling boat without articulating foils (limiting its handling characteristics), namely the winglets on the rudders. (???)


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



T34C said:


> Interesting comments. I wonder how much of that issue is related to the wing sail, and how much is related to it being a foiling boat without articulating foils (limiting its handling characteristics), namely the winglets on the rudders. (???)


Depowering I think it has to do with the wing. Control may have to do with the winglets on the rudders.

This is all new territory that only had been explored by the Hydroptere in what regards big sailingboats. Lots of things to master and learn regarding not only one territory but two: Fixed wings and foiling.

I confess that I find foiling more interesting in what regards boat development. I cannot see how a fixed wing can be used on a cruising boat but then I can be wrong

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> If the sail cannot be depowered enough they have to redesign the sail. It would be a bad precedent to change the rules and the protocol at the middle of an AC. I am not sure that can be done even if all agree. The rules were made by the one that had the right to do them. The boats were designed to perform according to those rules and in what regards wind they are:
> 
> *"The existing rules in the protocol, the guiding document for this year's competition, call for racing to take place in winds of up to 25 knots for the early rounds of the challenger series, known as the Louis Vuitton Cup. Those limits are to be increased to 28 knots for the final of the Vuitton Cup and then to 33 knots for the America's Cup match in September,"*
> 
> ...


 Paulo,
The rules have changed:

America's Cup News and Information - from CupInfo.com

Regatta Director Recommendations
Issued at 1600 May 22, 2013 (PDT) to AC34 Competitors,
Golden Gate Yacht Club, & America's Cup Event Authority
1. AC72 Yacht
1.1. AC72 Yacht Structural Review: Competitors in consultation with ACRM to
collectively identify and complete a process of competent third party review or
testing process of the structural integrity of the platform and wing.
1.2. Daggerboard Rake Control Hydraulic System: Competitors in consultation
with ACRM shall identify and complete a process of competent third party
review and testing process of their daggerboard rake control hydraulic systems
to ensure an acceptable safety margin and level of reliability.
1.3. Rudder Elevators:
a) minimum total area 0.32 m2 per rudder;
b) minimum depth of elevators on rudder span of 2.1m;
c) maximum elevator span of 1.4m;
d) rudder elevators to be symmetrical in plan form and allowed to extend
beyond maximum beam of the Yacht; and
e) elevators permitted to be adjusted until warning signal.
1.4. Crew Restraints: Competitors to effectively restrain crew through bearing-off
manoeuvres, severe deceleration, or capsize, such as installation of cockpits,
foot-straps, handholds, tether and/or belay points.
1.5. Maximum AC72 Yacht Sailing Weight: The maximum sailing weight specified
in AC72 Class Rule 5.10 shall be increased by 100kg.
1.6. Soft Sails: Competitors limited to carrying two soft sails and eliminating the
minimum weight in 26(c) of the AC72 Class Rule.
1.7. Guest Racers: No guest racers aboard an AC72 yacht whilst racing.
1.8. ACRM Personnel: AC72 Class Rule 25.1(b) to be modified to remove reference to
"ACRM personnel" - this was originally intended to be a camera person and it
has since been agreed to remove such a person from the boat.
1.9. Soft Coverings and Soft Fairings: Soft coverings and soft fairings shall be
made of predominantly see-through/transparent material.
2. Personal Equipment
2.1. Buoyancy Aids: Worn buoyancy aids worn by crew to have a quick release
mechanism.
2.2. Body Armour: Armour incorporating protection for spine, puncture and impact
wounds is to be investigated by Competitors and managed by ACRM.
2.3. Electronic Head Count System: An electronic Head Count System to be
investigated by Competitors and managed by ACRM.
2.4. Crew Locator Devices: Underwater crew locator devices to be investigated by
Competitors and managed by ACRM.
2.5. Breathing Apparatus: Underwater breathing apparatus to be carried and
capable of hands free operation, the volume of air to be carried to be
!
investigated by Competitors and managed by ACRM.
2.6. Helmets: Helmet standards (high visibility colours and specifications) review by
Competitors managed by ACRM, with the assistance of recognised expert
advisors.
2.7. Self-lowering Equipment: Equipment capable of self-lowering to be carried by
each crewmember.
3. Additional Support Equipment
3.1. Support Boat Limits: Remove present limit of four support boats per
Competitor (art. 35).
3.2. Two Rescue Boats: Minimum of two rescue boats to support each AC72 yacht
whilst sailing.
3.3. Rescue Divers & Rescue Swimmers: Two divers with supporting rescue
swimmers ready to enter the water immediately, one diver and one rescue
swimmer on each rescue boat.
3.4. Paramedic: A minimum of one paramedic (or an appropriate medical
practitioner) on one of the rescue boats.
3.5. Defibrillator: An AED device (defibrillator) to be carried on the rescue boat
carrying the paramedic (or an appropriate medical practitioner) who shall be
trained in its use.
3.6. Recovery Nets: Rescue nets to be installed on all supporting and rescue
boats to recover crew.
3.7. Safety Channel for Competitors: A dedicated safety channel for inter-team
safety communications.
3.8. One Way Communications: One-way communications permitted from AC72
yacht to chase boat during all sailing and racing operations.
3.9. Regardless: ACRM's vessel Regardless to be notified, and be placed on stand
by for recovery operations upon each sailing of an AC72 yacht.
4. Race Management
4.1. Round Robins: Number of Louis Vuitton Cup Round Robins reduced from
seven (7) to five (5) to allow for more maintenance periods.
4.2. Soft Marks: Soft marks to replace mark-boats.
4.3. Starting Procedures: Racing Rules to be reviewed by skippers and
Competitor rules advisers with ACRM to remove potentially dangerous
situations including agreeing an alternative starting procedure.
*4.4. Wind Limits: Reduced to 20kts in July, 21kts in August, and 23kts in September
(as measured pursuant to art. 21.1), but with additional wind limit adjustments for
tide and sea state.*4.5. First Mark: First mark to boundary to be approximately 45 seconds.
4.6. Buffer Zones: Safe buffer zones around course boundaries and obstructions
to be determined by ACRM.
4.7. Start Time: Flexible start time and flexible pre/post race programme based on
wind and projected tidal flows.
!
4.8. Post Race Dock - In: Eliminate the planned dock-in after racing at Pier 27, but
skippers to be transferred to a dock-in show at Pier 27 approximately 45 minutes
after a race.
4.9. No-Race Fine: Remove fines for not competing (art 21.2 (d)).
4.10. Race Course Debris: Process to inspect and endeavour to clear course of
debris and obstructions with assistance from Army Corps of Engineers.
4.11. Capsize While Racing: Upon a yacht capsizing it shall be disqualified and the
race awarded to the other yacht, to allow efforts to be concentrated on capsized
yacht.
4.12. Develop Standard Operating Procedures Between Competitors for
Rescue: ACRM shall develop common safety procedures between competitor's
rescue boats, medical personnel, and divers.
5. Future Sailing: Each Competitor must take full and sole responsibility for their own
sailing arrangements.
6. Existing ACRM AC72 Safety Recommendations (revised May 22, 2013)
Except to the extent that some of the recommendations may have been altered by the
above, the AC72 Safety Recommendations notified to competitors on November 21, 2012
as revised on May 22, 2013 (copy below) form part of these Regatta Director
recommendations.
Important additional notes to be read in conjunction with the recommendations
(i) These recommendations are made by the Regatta Director after the Review
Committee interviewed team personnel from all Competitors, and will be refined
as the further work identified above is completed.
(ii) The majority of the Regatta Director recommendations represent a consensus
of the Competitors.
(iii) These recommendations do not alter the responsibilities assumed and allocated
by the provisions of the Protocol or any other rules or document referred to in
the Protocol.
(v) Each Competitor is responsible for the method of implementing the
recommendations.
(vi) No recommendations can cover all possible risks or address risks that are
specific to Competitor specific designs.
(vii) No recommendations can ever eliminate risk of injury or death in what is an
inherently risky activity, and the participants must assume full responsibility for
all risks involved.
(viii) Each Competitor and crew member remain responsible for their own safety at
all times. Each Competitor and crew member must continue to make their own
decision to race, or to continue racing.
Iain Murray
Regatta Director
!
AC72 Safety Recommendations
(Issued November 21, 2012 & Revised May 22, 2013)
Safety Recommendations that should be implemented immediately
1. Personal Equipment
• ACRM recommends that each crew member wear:
a) Personal flotation meeting the requirements of RRSAC 40(a) worn as the
outermost garment. Note that crewmember names would need to appear
on the flotation device
b) A helmet meeting the requirements of RRSAC 40(b)
c) At least one knife that is accessible by either hand
d) A personal air supply of at least 45 liters
e) A harness with a tether or belay device
• ACRM recommends that there be a separate maximum weight allowance for
personal safety equipment.
2. Training
• ACRM recommends the following training:
a) Personal air supply training
b) Training which mimics escaping from under the net when the platform is
capsized
c) At least two crew members on board shall have completed First Aid
Training with specific course content focused on treating injuries more
likely to occur on board the AC72's and how to deal with them while out on
the water
3. AC72 Equipment
• ACRM recommends the following equipment on the platform:
a) Righting lines permanently attached to each corner of the platform with all
righting lines accessible when the platform is at any orientation
b) Knives in the four corners of the trampoline accessible when the platform is
upright or capsized
c) Four spare personal air supplies of at least 80 Liters each on the trampoline
4. Rescue Boats and Equipment
• A rescue boat with at least 3500 kg towing capability
• ACRM recommends that the team rescue boat carry the equipment listed in
Attachment A as a minimum.
Safety Recommendations that need to be considered
1. Establishing common emergency drop off zones with the local authorities.
2. Establishing common safe recovery areas for capsized yachts.
3. 1K liters of flotation in the top of the wing to keep it afloat until a team rib can access it.
• The preference seems to be inflatable air bags
• ACRM believes it is best to allow the teams to determine how they prefer to
implement this.
• A separate minimum weight allowance would be added for this equipment.
!
Attachment A
Team Rescue Boat Minimum Equipment List
Medical Equipment
• Medical backpack
• Comprehensive First Aid Kit
• Spine Board x 1
• 2 x Yellow foam waist rings with tethers
• 1 x bag of various pump/air splints
• 1 x small Trauma Kit
Cordage
• 2 x 130 tow rope, 25mm diameter nylon/polyprop, breaking strength of 5 ton.
• 1 x 100 meter anchor line, Anchor.12mm polyprop
• 100m of 16mm spare line
Dive Equipment
• 1 x complete dive kit
o BCD with integrated weights
o Fins
o Mask
o 1 x regulator, gauge, low pressure hose
• 1 x drysuit/wetsuit
• 1 x Pony bottle with back harness and single regulator
• 2 x 10 liter dive tanks
Salvage Equipment
• Airbags


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> Depowering I think it has to do with the wing. Control may have to do with the winglets on the rudders.
> 
> This is all new territory that only had been explored by the Hydroptere in what regards big sailingboats. Lots of things to master and learn regarding not only one territory but two: Fixed wings and foiling.
> 
> ...


My understanding is a wing sail is like an airplane wing. It always has an air foil shape and therefore if air moves over its surfaces, it will provide lift and therefore forces on the rig. This differs from a soft sail that if you luff, it depowers as the velocity of the air on both sides of the sail can be equalized and therefore no lift or force on the rig is developed.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> Afternoon winds in "The Slot" (the clear air zone east of the Golden Gate Bridge between Angel Island and Treasure Island) are usually 25-35kts with higher gusts from early June to late September/October. This area has a daily afternoon SCA warning, which only gets dropped when the pressure difference decreases by lower inland temperatures. The pressure gradient formed between the hot inland valley and the coast creates a Venturi effect at The Gate.
> 
> I think it would be very difficult to find event days in July where the predicted wind is lower than 25kts. They could hold the race earlier in the day but the wind comes up quickly when it starts blowing so there is not much time between the light morning air and winds above 25kts.


New rules state 23 knots max. It will be interesting how this plays out. One of the main reasons to use the AC 72's was to have a fixed definite start date/time for the TV viewing audience. As all sailors know, a schedule is the most dangerous thing to have when sailing.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> Paulo,
> The rules have changed:
> 
> America's Cup News and Information - from CupInfo.com
> ...


 No they have not. These are only recommendations not an alteration to protocol.

*"These recommendations are made by the Regatta Director after the Review 
Committee interviewed team personnel from all Competitors, and will be refined as the further work identified above is completed.

(The majority of the Regatta Director recommendations represent a consensus 
of the Competitors.
( These recommendations do not alter the responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the Protocol or any other rules or document referred to in the Protocol.
( Each Competitor is responsible for the method of implementing the 
recommendations"*

http://www.cupinfo.com/downloads/ac34-ac72-safety-recs-draft-052213.pdf

This promises to be hot with only one month to the races. How can recommendations be mandatory or alter protocol?

They say that the the *majority *of the Regatta Director recommendations represent a consensus of the Competitors. It is needed only one that does not agree with something out of the protocol, including wind limits for that particular recommendation to be void and the protocol to have precedence.

This is going to be interesting to follow

Anyway I think the wind speed alterations is a mistake. They were there from the beginning, the teams had to draw boats that could handle the conditions.

If they can't, well, they have just to modify the boats or the wings.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

and that is what I was talking about:

"But the issue of reducing the wind limits for the regatta is likely to prove the most divisive for the teams.

The regatta director's recommendations advise the wind limit be reduced to 20kts in July, 21kts in August, and 23kts in September, with additional wind limit adjustments for tide and sea state.

*Team New Zealand managing director Grant Dalton told the Herald at the weekend his team made trade-offs with the design of their boat to ensure it was robust enough to cope with the wind range originally set down in the protocol, and extensive testing had shown their boat was reliable in heavy conditions...

"We have confidence in our boat - design, engineering and construction -and the sailing and support crews. We have invested a lot of time and money on safety."

*."

Yachting: Safety increases recommended for America's Cup - Sport - NZ Herald News


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> No they have not. These are only recommendations not an alteration to protocol.
> 
> *"These recommendations are made by the Regatta Director after the Review
> Committee interviewed team personnel from all Competitors, and will be refined as the further work identified above is completed.
> ...


We have the US Coast Guard:

From:
Committee recommends safety measures for America's Cup

The new recommendations are not binding until the Coast Guard gives its stamp of approval. *Only it has the authority to issue a marine permit for the series of races to take place this summer on San Francisco Bay.*


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> We have the US Coast Guard:
> 
> From:
> Committee recommends safety measures for America's Cup
> ...


You seem not to understand. The protocol has precedence over anything. The protocol are the rules for this AC edition and was published on September 2010 and cannot be changed in the middle unless all agree with that.

As I said they can modify the boats to be safer. NZ guys says that theirs was designed for the protocol conditions and it is safe with those conditions.

It would be a new one, I mean a coast guard to interfere and eventually favor some concurrent over others. The boats have to be safe and that's all the coast guard can demand. If a boat was sailed and tested for months without a single accident with conditions similar to the one the protocol how can the Coast guard say it is unsafe?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> You seem not to understand. The protocol has precedence over anything. The protocol are the rules for this AC edition and was published on September 2010 and cannot be changed in the middle unless all agree with that.
> 
> As I said they can modify the boats to be safer. NZ guys says that theirs was designed for the protocol conditions and it is safe with those conditions.
> 
> ...


Paulo,
You do not understand a lot of things.
The Coast Guard does not care about the NZ boat. If all parties do not agree to the what the CG wants, they will not issue a permit to race in the SF Bay. They cup boats might be able to go outside the 12 mile limit and race, but the US CG may still have jurisdiction to stop even that race as they are responsible for any needed rescue.

From:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10885681

"Producing and implementing the safety plan is within the scope of the America's Cup, as the sponsoring organization for this summer's racing," said Stephen Barclay, the CEO of the America's Cup.

"This America's Cup safety plan is a necessary component of the permit application submitted to the Coast Guard for their consideration."


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> and that is what I was talking about:
> 
> "But the issue of reducing the wind limits for the regatta is likely to prove the most divisive for the teams.
> 
> ...


One mans' opinion,

Note they also said this:
"Team New Zealand released a statement this afternoon to announce the team supports the review committee's recommendations in principle.
"They are prudent and reasonable," said Dalton."


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> One mans' opinion,
> 
> Note they also said this:
> "Team New Zealand released a statement this afternoon to announce the team supports the review committee's recommendations in principle.
> "They are prudent and reasonable," said Dalton."


It is not one man, it is the director of NZ team and he speaks for them.

*"in principle"* says it all, not with all recommendations itself but with the principle and that is safety recommendations.

You seem to forget that it is enough one team not to agree for the Protocol to be maintained on that particular point.

What do you have against the boats being modified (if needed) to comply safely with the existent protocol in what regards wind speed?

Do you think it is reasonable to have again (like on the monohulls) sailing boats at the top level champiomship that cannot sail with winds all other racing classes would not find a problem (I mean big boats)?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> It is not one man, it is the director of NZ team and he speaks for them.
> 
> *"in principle"* says it all, not with all recommendations itself but with the principle and that is safety recommendations.
> 
> ...


I don't think any of the current AC 72's can be raced safely in 33 knots of wind and with the contributing sea state on top of the wind speed as the SF Bay has. The NZ team is just posturing for the up coming court hearings concerning of this. In the AC, the lawyers are the major beneficiary.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Say the AC wants to race in 30 knots wind and US CG says we will not issue a permit to conduct the race, what happens then? Is AC cancelled? Seems CG is in charge here.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> I don't think any of the current AC 72's can be raced safely in 33 knots of wind and with the contributing sea state on top of the wind speed as the SF Bay has. The NZ team is just posturing for the up coming court hearings concerning of this. In the AC, the lawyers are the major beneficiary.


As someone had explained the conditions on the S Francisco bay have many times winds over 20K. If the boat is not designed to sail with 30k winds cannot hope to win the cup and all want that. The rules allow them to have smaller wings if they think that the ones they have cannot be safely used with 30k. It is for them to decide or do you think that or should the coast guard telling them what is safe or not when they do not even do that with cruising boats?

Talking about nanny state:



casey1999 said:


> Say the AC wants to race in 30 knots wind and US CG says we will not issue a permit to conduct the race, what happens then? Is AC cancelled? Seems CG is in charge here.


If that happened it would be a major scandal. It is for the defender to assure the conditions for the race to be held according to the protocol. If that is not possible on the S, Francisco bay it would have to be elsewhere, probably in Italy, the house of the Challenger, in Rome. That is a thing for the lawyers to decide but one thing is for sure: The protocol takes precedence and can only be altered if all agree.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> As I have explained the conditions on the S Francisco bay have many times winds over 20K. If the boat is not designed to sail with 30k winds cannot hope to win the cup and all want that. The rules allow them to have smaller wings if they think that the ones they have cannot be safely used with 30k. It is for them to decide or do you think that or should the coast guard telling them what is safe or not when they do not even do that with cruising boats?
> 
> Talking about nanny state:
> 
> ...


Here in the US the CG can declare our voyage manefestly unsafe if our boat is not safe for the conditions. Yes the CG can stop us from sailing, and it can stop the AC if it desires. Our boats however do not require a CG inspection to sail. The CG may stop us any time and perform an inspection. If we do not have the required safety equipment, our boat will be stopped and fined, and may be ordered to return to harbor.

Does your local/country perform required inspections on your boats on a regular basis?

I do not make the rules, the US CG does. I don't have to like or dislike, but if I want to sail in US waters, I need to follow.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> As I have explained the conditions on the S Francisco bay have many times winds over 20K.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Yes, I've sailed in SF bay, I know the conditions.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> ..
> 
> Does your local/country perform required inspections on your boats on a regular basis?
> 
> ..


Yes, like in most other European nanny states

Not only boats, but cars and airplanes too.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> ...
> "This America's Cup safety plan is a necessary component of the permit application submitted to the Coast Guard for their consideration."


The America's cup safety plan has not to do with the boats. The rules for that ones were laid on the Protocol 3 years ago as the wind limits. The safety plan has to do with all the rest; equipment, safety boats , control of the water racing course and other safety measures.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> Yes, like in most other European nanny states
> 
> Not only boats, but cars and airplanes too.
> 
> ...


Wow, what a nanny state, my boat, and car never get inspected. Sorry, I don't own a plane.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> The America's cup safety plan has not to do with the boats. The rules for that ones were laid on the Protocol 3 years ago as the wind limits. The safety plan has to do with all the rest; equipment, safety boats , control of the water racing course and other safety measures.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


The permit issued by the CG to run the race is based on the safety of the boats also, not just safety equipment. Again, the CG will be ultimately responsible for rescue, they are the governing body to issue the use permit.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I don't see the CG preventing boats from racing in over 25kts of wind. The CG issues permits for events that take place both on SF Bay and outside of SF Gate in heavier wind/sea conditions. Usually what happens if the weather is extremely rough is that the Race Committee holds a meeting before the race and everyone is warned about the wind/seas and given the opportunity to scratch from the race; or postpone the race altogether. This gives skippers a chance to assess the seaworthiness of the boat, their sailing skills, and that of their crew. The crew also has the opportunity to decline to sail in the conditions; knowing what they will be going out in.

The CG issues the permit weeks before the race day so they have no jurisdiction on the event's weather conditions. There have been times when USCG did not issue an event permit (following the Low Speed Chase accident); to determine what the cause was and give the racing fleet time to re-assess their internal safety protocols. This did not happen during the Lightship race when Daisy and her crew was lost in heavy conditions a few years back; instead USCG did an escort for the following offshore race to the Farallones. These are offshore events that have had more scrutiny because of the extreme conditions that occur on SF Bar when the wind and swell are up during the winter months. It's not uncommon for the swell to be 12-15' on short period with breakers out on the bar. The races are still permitted and it's not a common occurrence for the racing boats that do go out to be lost.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> I don't see the CG preventing boats from racing in over 25kts of wind. The CG issues permits for events that take place both on SF Bay and outside of SF Gate in heavier wind/sea conditions. Usually what happens if the weather is extremely rough is that the Race Committee holds a meeting before the race and everyone is warned about the wind/seas and given the opportunity to scratch from the race; or postpone the race altogether. This gives skippers a chance to assess the seaworthiness of the boat, their sailing skills, and that of their crew. The crew also has the opportunity to decline to sail in the conditions; knowing what they will be going out in.
> 
> The CG issues the permit weeks before the race day so they have no jurisdiction on the event's weather conditions. There have been times when USCG did not issue an event permit (following the Low Speed Chase accident); to determine what the cause was and give the racing fleet time to re-assess their internal safety protocols. This did not happen during the Lightship race when Daisy and her crew was lost in heavy conditions a few years back; instead USCG did an escort for the following offshore race to the Farallones. These are offshore events that have had more scrutiny because of the extreme conditions that occur on SF Bar when the wind and swell are up during the winter months. It's not uncommon for the swell to be 12-15' on short period with breakers out on the bar. The races are still permitted and it's not a common occurrence for the racing boats that do go out to be lost.


But if the CG wants to stop a race, because of conditions or the boat itself, they could declare the voyage manefestly unsafe. Note I said "could". They do have the jurisdiction to do this.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The do but to my knowledge it has never happened for an inshore race; and the boats racing these events are not as thoroughly prepared, or self scrutinized for safety as much as the AC boats are. If casual crews can race in these conditions that are commonplace where would there be any reason/precedent for the USCG to decline to issue a permit for an AC event? That's not to mention that the accident that occurred was on a non-racing team practice day. In light of that, are we to expect the USCG to start cancelling sailing on SF Bay entirely when the wind hits 22kts? Will I get a ticket if my boat is heeled more than 30 degrees?


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I find it strange that the AC is now suggesting major changes to the parameters of these events 1 month before the LVC. These boats _were specifically designed_ to sail in the conditions that are described for this AC event. If one or more of the boats is designed for heavier conditions than the revised rules; then it's overbuilt now, which deem it obsolete. So say Artemis and Luna Rossa built their boats more lightly to begin with; it would benefit those teams immensely if the conditions of the race were changed to lower the windspeeds. You know Oracle made structural and design changes after their accident; and ETZ is saying they are good to go in 30kts; so why should they put their boats at any disadvantage?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> The do but to my knowledge it has never happened for an inshore race; and the boats racing these events are not as thoroughly prepared, or self scrutinized for safety as much as the AC boats are. If casual crews can race in these conditions that are commonplace where would there be any reason/precedent for the USCG to decline to issue a permit for an AC event? That's not to mention that the accident that occurred was on a non-racing team practice day. In light of that, are we to expect the USCG to start cancelling sailing on SF Bay entirely when the wind hits 22kts? Will I get a ticket if my boat is heeled more than 30 degrees?


The AC 72 sailing in the conditions of SF bay is relatively new and totally different from your typical mono hull racing boat. I could see the CG stopping the race if the AC organization does not adapt the proposed changes. It looks like the AC org however will make the necessary changes to satisfy the CG so all is well, at least until all of this goes to the courts.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> ... It looks like the AC org however will make the necessary changes to satisfy the CG so all is well, at least until all of this goes to the courts.


Are you saying that it is the CG that will say how the boat is built and designed? That makes no sense the CG dos not that function does not have any experience with this types of boats and is not in conditions to know what is safe or not.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

While the AC event committee may THINK they are running the show; it's really just a façade to make the whole deal look more polished and marketable. The real decision power lies with the Defender and to a lesser extent the Challenger of Record (who are Oracle and ETNZ). If they can't hash out an agreement then the whole thing goes to the courts and it falls back to the wording of what was agreed upon several years ago. Hopefully it won't get to that. It could end up that Artemis and Luna Rossa abandon their campaigns and it goes straight to the AC 34 event between Oracle and ETNZ.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> Are you saying that it is the CG that will say how the boat is built and designed? That makes no sense the CG dos not that function does not have any experience with this types of boats and is not in conditions to know what is safe or not.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Read what I write.
The CG can make their decesions on past history of the AC 72's. The CG does review ship stability and design, they do this all the time as a part of their inspection process. Agree they do not know foiling sailboats, but then apparently even some designers do not, we are all learning.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> Are you saying that it is the CG that will say how the boat is built and designed? That makes no sense the CG dos not that function does not have any experience with this types of boats and is not in conditions to know what is safe or not.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Read and Learn:

USCG Office of Design & Engineering Standards (CG-ENG)

Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG)
Formerly (CG-521), (CG-3PSE), and (G-MSE)

Mission:
The Office of Design and Engineering Standards is responsible for developing and promulgating national regulations and standards that govern the safe design and construction of ships and shipboard equipment, including hull structure, stability, electrical & mechanical systems, lifesaving & fire safety equipment, and related equipment approval and laboratory acceptance. Additionally, it establishes policy, provides technical clarifications, and resolves any appeals. Furthermore, it represents the United States on several committees and sub-committees at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and is actively engaged with various standards committees (e.g., ASTM, IEEE, NFPC, etc) as well as classification society rules committees (e.g., ABS, LR, DNV, etc.).

Divisions:
The office is divided into five technical divisions:

Human Element and Ship Design Division (CG-ENG-1) focuses on the human factors and risk management aspects of marine design and operations, including specialized programs in novel ship design, crew endurance management, Prevention Through People, and functions as the administrator of the Alternate Compliance Program. 
Naval Architecture Division (CG-ENG-2) is responsible for policy and standards development in the traditional areas of stability, structures, and load lines and also functions as the administrator of the Ship Structure Committee and of updates to the Assumed Average Weight Per Person (AAWPP). 
Systems Engineering Division (CG-ENG-3) is responsible for policy and standards development in the traditional areas of marine electrical and mechanical systems, including related equipment approvals and laboratory acceptance. 
Lifesaving and Fire Safety Standards Division (CG-ENG-4) is responsible for lifesaving and fire safety standards and regulations, including related equipment approvals and laboratory acceptance. 
Hazardous Materials Division (CG-ENG-5) is responsible for policy and standards development related to transportation, storage, and handling of hazardous materials in the marine environment, including vapor control systems and packaged hazardous materials & solid hazardous materials in bulk. 
Policy Documents:

Lifesaving and Fire-fighting on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. The Coast Guard published a Federal Register Notice of recommended interim voluntary guidance with request for comments on Lifesaving and Fire-fighting Equipment, Training and Drills Onboard Offshore Facilities and Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) Operating on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf ((77 FR 70172), published 23 November 2012). The comment period for this notice ends on February 21, 2013, please see the notice for more information.

Electrical Equipment Certification Guidance for MODUs. The Coast Guard published a Federal Register Notice of policy on Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Electrical Equipment Certification Guidance ((77 FR 71607), published 03 December 2012) regarding electrical equipment installed in hazardous areas on foreign-flagged MODUs that have never operated, but intend to operate, on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

Implementation Date for Carbon Dioxide System Lock-Out Valve and Odorizer Requirements. Coast Guard CG-ENG Policy Letter No. 05-12 (7 September 2012) clarifies the application of the new requirements for lock-out valves and odorizing units contained in the final rule "Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression Systems on Commercial Vessels" ((77 FR 33860) published 7 June 2012).

Equivalency Determination-Design Criteria for Natural Gas Fuel Systems. Coast Guard CG-521 Policy Letter No. 01-12 (19 April 2012) establishes design criteria for natural gas fuel systems that provide a level of safety that is at least equivalent to that provided for traditional fuel systems by existing regulations. International standards for the design of natural gas-fueled ships are currently being developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). In June of 2009, the IMO published interim guidelines on safety for natural gas-fuelled engine installations in ships in Resolution MSC.285(86).

Dynamic Positioning (DP) Guidance for non-MODUs. In May 2012, the Coast Guard published a Federal Register Notice of Recommended Interim Voluntary Guidance for MODU operators on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. The Coast Guard published a companion Federal Register Notice of Recommended Interim Voluntary Dynamic Positioning Guidance for Vessels other than MODUs ((77 FR 62247), published 12 October 2012) for non-MODU vessels operating on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

Dynamic Positioning (DP) Guidance for MODUS. In December 2011, the Coast Guard published a draft policy letter on Dynamic Positioning (DP) Systems, Emergency Disconnect Systems, Blowout Preventers, and related training and emergency procedures on a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit, and requested public comment. Numerous comments were received, both as submissions to the docket and at a public meeting. Upon review of the comments, the Coast Guard published a follow-on Federal Register Notice of Recommended Interim Voluntary Guidance ((77 FR 26562), published 4 May 2012) for MODU operators on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

Acceptance of the 2009 MODU Code. For purposes of foreign MODU compliance with U.S. coastal state regulations, Coast Guard CG-ENG Policy Letter No. 02-12 (7 May 2012) establishes that the design and equipment standards of the 2009 MODU Code are considered to be at least as effective as the design and equipment standards of the 1979 and 1989 MODU Codes. A foreign MODU in compliance with the design and equipment standards of the 2009 MODU Code may be accepted under 33 CFR 143.207(c).

Transportation of Hazardous & Noxious Liquid Substances on OSVs. Coast Guard CG-ENG Policy Letter No. 03-12 (15 May 2012) revises some previous guidance provisions of CG-522 Policy Letter 09-01 Rev. 1 (5 Apr 2010) pertaining to IMO Resolution A.673 (16), "Guidelines for the Transport and Handling of Limited Amounts of Hazardous and Noxious Liquid Substances in bulk on Offshore Supply Vessels." This policy letter implements Resolution A.673 (16) and provides the United States' interpretations for the design, construction, and operation of new and existing U.S. flagged Offshore Supply Vessels (OSVs). The policy letter is intended to guide voluntary compliance until such time as the new international standards are incorporated in the applicable U.S. regulations.

Alternate Pressure Relief Valve Settings on Certain Vessels Carrying Bulk Liquefied Gases. Coast Guard CG-ENG Policy Letter No. 04-12 (8 Aug 2012) provides policy regarding alternate maximum allowable relief valve (MARV) settings for ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk in independent Type B and Type C tanks.

Contact the Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG):
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (CG-ENG)
2100 Second Street, SW -- Mail stop 7126
Washington, DC 20593-7126
202-372-1353


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

These regulations apply to production ships and boats; not one-off craft. I seriously doubt the USCG is going to question the structural design of the AC72 fleet, which are probably the most technically advanced sailing craft on the planet (aside from Hydroptere and other foiling cats). Answers are being sought on the issue of why Artemis had it's failure; which are likely due to robustness of it's design/construction. This is a team problem; not a fleet problem.

If the USCG does a safety check they are looking for lifejackets, flares, and other basic safety and structural flaws. A guy built an all Aluminum trimaran to sail offshore (Circumnav?) a few years ago; the CG stopped him at SF Gate and did a safety check; then let him go. The boat was not built anywhere near the standards for offshore sailing cats. It only made it as far as Santa Cruz before it had major problems IIRC.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> These regulations apply to production ships and boats; not one-off craft. I seriously doubt the USCG is going to question the structural design of the AC72 fleet, which are probably the most technically advanced sailing craft on the planet (aside from Hydroptere and other foiling cats).
> 
> If the USCG does a safety check they are looking for lifejackets, flares, and other basic safety and structural flaws. A guy built an all Aluminum trimaran to sail offshore (Circumnav?) a few years ago; the CG stopped him at SF Gate and did a safety check; then let him go. The boat was not built anywhere near the standards for offshore sailing cats. It only made it as far as Santa Cruz before it had major problems IIRC.


Point is the CG does have the authority.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

They have the authority to do what? Step aboard and 'kick the fenders' and look for minor safety violations (like not having a waste plackard?) In the example I cited they could have easily deemed the craft not seaworthy and towed it in. THEY DIDNT. This boat was probably 100x less seaworthy than an AC72.

It's not gonna happen; so why argue the point? USCG is not going to shut down a multi-billion dollar event/venue just because one person lost their life in an accident. Have they stopped Luna Rossa from testing their boat? Has the AC committee stopped Luna Rossa despite their 'stop practicing for now' request? Every boat has a pretty tight timetable now for getting prepped and as I said before, the USCG is not going to step in and be blamed for causing a multi-billion dollar event to be scratched.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> It's not gonna happen; so why argue the point? USCG is not going to shut down a multi-billion dollar event/venue just because one person lost their life in an accident. Have they stopped Luna Rossa from testing their boat? Has the AC committee stopped Luna Rossa despite their 'stop practicing for now' request? Every boat has a pretty tight timetable now for getting prepped and as I said before, the USCG is not going to step in and be blamed for causing a multi-billion dollar event to be scratched.


Yea, why argue the point...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> They have the authority to do what? Step aboard and 'kick the fenders' and look for minor safety violations (like not having a waste plackard?) In the example I cited they could have easily deemed the craft not seaworthy and towed it in. THEY DIDNT. This boat was probably 100x less seaworthy than an AC72.
> 
> It's not gonna happen; so why argue the point? USCG is not going to shut down a multi-billion dollar event/venue just because one person lost their life in an accident. Have they stopped Luna Rossa from testing their boat? Has the AC committee stopped Luna Rossa despite their 'stop practicing for now' request? Every boat has a pretty tight timetable now for getting prepped and as I said before, the USCG is not going to step in and be blamed for causing a multi-billion dollar event to be scratched.


Exactly... Hell, the CG is not even the lead investigative unit looking into the ARTEMIS accident, that investigation is being handled by the SF Police Department, as was done last year after the Farrallons tragedy...



> San Francisco police will lead the investigation into what happened. This is the same major accident investigations team that investigated an accident during a yacht race off the Farrallon Islands last April that killed several people.
> 
> Training Canceled, Artemis Team Mourns After Death of Olympic Sailor | NBC Bay Area
> 
> ...


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Yea, the CG got nothin to do with it......

Safety ideas become rules for Americas Cup | SBS World News

The US Coast Guard has insisted all America's Cup safety ideas discussed following a training death become rules for the sailing contest.

Safety recommendations made by America's Cup regatta director Iain Murray in the wake of British yachtsman Andrew Simpson's death will be made rules of the event, officials said on Thursday.

Tom Ehman, vice commodore of the host Golden Gate Yacht Club, said the 37 ideas to make the powerful AC72 catamarans safer were part of an overall safety plan submitted to the US Coast Guard.

*"At the end of the day, it's the Coast Guard's call to give us a regatta permit. If we don't get a permit we don't have a race," Ehman said.*
And there was concern the regatta permit might be turned down by the Coast Guard in the wake of Simpson's death and a spectacular capsizing of an Oracle team AC72 on San Francisco Bay last year in which no one was hurt.

"Without some of these things that Iain recommends, yes, there was concern that we would not get the permit, and they told us so," Ehman said.

"It behooves us to be very cautious and the Coast Guard supports that."

Simpson, an Olympic gold medallist and crew member of Swedish team Artemis, died when Artemis' AC72 nose-dived while training on San Francisco Bay on May 9.

He was apparently trapped beneath a solid piece of the boat and could not be revived after being found. The exact cause of the accident is still under review by Artemis and by an America's Cup panel headed by Murray.

Buoyancy aids, body armour and helmet beacon locator devices were among the recommendations announced Wednesday by Murray -- all ideas discussed by teams made more urgent after the death of Simpson two weeks ago.

"A lot of these are things the teams have been discussing implementing on their own. The tragic loss of Andrew Simpson just sped up the process," Ehman said.

The Coast Guard permit is scheduled to be issued next month, a timetable that did not change because of the tragedy.

*Among the changes in rules was a 10-knot lower wind limit, to 20 knots maximum during the Louis Vuitton Cup challenger series in July and August and to 23 knots maximum during the America's Cup proper in September.*
Brief gusts will not wipe out a race but sustained higher winds might, Ehman said.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Well

They have in fact pulled the race permits for ALL events in the recent past EVEN the club with all the really rich lawyers


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JonEisberg said:


> Exactly... Hell, the CG is not even the lead investigative unit looking into the ARTEMIS accident, that investigation is being handled by the SF Police Department, as was done last year after the Farrallons tragedy...


Thanks for posting that Latitude38 article Jon...


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I don't see how they are going to find days where wind does not exceed 20kts during July. So we are looking at the LV Cup being held in October now?  Or will the races be held at night or at 8AM before the wind comes up?


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> Or will the races be held at night


Awesome! Lit by spotlights from Blackhawk helicopters and flares. That'll bring in the TV audience!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> I don't see how they are going to find days where wind does not exceed 20kts during July. So we are looking at the LV Cup being held in October now?  Or will the races be held at night or at 8AM before the wind comes up?


It will be a drag like in Valencia with the boats on the water for hours, with people waiting endlessly for the beginning of a race that after all will not take place. It is bad for the public, for the sport and incredibly bad for TV coverage.

Very bad for business and in the end for sailing.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

If the NOAA report predicts an SCA (25+ kts); and the USCG issued the permit; who's responsible if there is another CATastrophic failure even if the winds were below the 20kt limit. What about apparent wind? Is there a 20kt limit on that too??


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



PCP said:


> It will be a drag like in Valencia with the boats on the water for hours, with people waiting endlessly for the beginning of a race that after all will not take place. It is bad for the public, for the sport and incredibly bad for TV coverage.
> 
> Very bad for business and in the end for sailing.
> 
> ...


Yeah except this could go on for months just to get the LV cup races done. I don't think the people proposing the wind be lower than 20kts understand that it's rare for it to be sub-20 kts during the summer months. When the 45's raced in October here it was 18-20, and that's at the tail end of the summer wind here.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



KeelHaulin said:


> If the NOAA report predicts an SCA (25+ kts); and the USCG issued the permit; who's responsible if there is another CATastrophic failure even if the winds were below the 20kt limit. What about apparent wind? Is there a 20kt limit on that too??


For what I saw in Valencia on the monohull finals, the boat are on the water and the teams and the race director discuss endlessly if there are conditions or not, if the wind is going to increase or lower and only when all are in agreement the race begins.

As in Valencia or S Francisco it is very easy to have winds over the limits those discussions and waiting time can be quite long with many racing days cancelled after spectators being there all day hoping to see a race that never happens.

Quite boring I can tell you.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

If the organizing committee is worried about too much wind, they only have to use the anemometer on GGYC's race deck - that thing never reads over 20kts! But seriously, those of us who regularly race on San Francisco Bay know that the City Front courses rarely exceed 20kts - you have to be in the slot before you get the famous 30kt afternoon winds. I think that the organizing committee has a pretty safe bet of meeting their TV schedule. I say they should race in any wind condition. The venue and wind conditions were well known before the first NA put pen to paper (or is it "mouse to CAD"?). So if a team did a poor job of preparing for the race than they should be willing to suffer the consequences.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Hmm, many times the strongest winds on the bay are shown to be between Alcatraz and the Cityfront (on the wind modeling website); which is right where the 72's will be racing. If there is an ebb it's some of the heaviest chop on the bay too (aside from the east side near Berkeley). But you might be right when you say that the GGYC will proclaim it safe to race based on their race deck amemometer (hope so).


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Not sure what model you are looking at but those of us who race on the Bay know that the City side is where you go for wind relief. The shear line runs from Blackaller to Alcatraz and on to just outside Blossom Rock. If you think it's windy by the City, you ought to try a mark rounding at Harding Rock on the same day!


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> Yea, the CG got nothin to do with it......
> 
> Safety ideas become rules for Americas Cup | SBS World News
> 
> The US Coast Guard has insisted all America's Cup safety ideas discussed following a training death become rules for the sailing contest.


Well, anything's possible, of course... But I simply have a hard time imagining - barring any further tragedy, of course - the CG denying the permit for the AC as things currently stand...

At the 2011 Superboat World Championships in Key West, 2 drivers were killed on the first day of competition, a Wednesday...



















On Friday, a 3rd driver was killed in another crash, the 9th racer to be killed at Key West over the previous 27 years... Nevertheless, the event continued without interruption or modification though the finals on Sunday...

In 2012, the race was back, with the Superboat Unlimited class running faster than ever before...

So, if history is any guide, the USCG doesn't appear to have much of a track record of denying permits to these sorts of events...

Pretty spooky to my untrained eye how close to the exit of that turn some of that spectator fleet is allowed to be, but we have to presume the Coasties know best, I suppose... (grin)


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> But if the CG wants to stop a race, because of conditions or the boat itself, they could declare the voyage manefestly unsafe. Note I said "could". They do have the jurisdiction to do this.


If they really wanted to control all aspects of sports and safety on the water the CG would have banned kite boarding years ago. I am sure some regional CG officer is making the rounds and discussing safety but does not want to be held responsible for canceling the AC.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Lets be honest. The CG knows very little about sailing in the first place, much less sailing these beasts. All they are doing is agreeing with the recommendations presented.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



GeorgeB said:


> Not sure what model you are looking at but those of us who race on the Bay know that the City side is where you go for wind relief. The shear line runs from Blackaller to Alcatraz and on to just outside Blossom Rock. If you think it's windy by the City, you ought to try a mark rounding at Harding Rock on the same day!


SF Ports website that is now at SJSU. It WAS a great resource for wind data both current and archived but now it only has the most current wind data; the archive page has not been working correctly since they moved it from the government website.

While I agree that the Blossom Rock area is lighter, the wind does funnel through at Alcatraz. I'd say the shear runs from Fort Point down to Aquatic Park/Pier 39, but out near Alcatraz is right in the middle of The Slot so I don't understand why you'd say it's much lighter to the south of Alcatraz.

I'm not saying I disagree with you about there being even more wind out near Harding Rock; but to say the east side of Alcatraz is inside of the wind shear line, to me is incorrect (to my experience). The last two times we watched Oracle go by us at 35+kts (within 200 yards) flying both hulls was right between Alcatraz and the Cityfront. Wind was in the low 20s.










I'd show you where I'm referring to if there was access to archives but as of right now there is not; and on the many days I've sailed in heavy wind and later checked the archived data I'd say it was accurate. Often times the heaviest wind vectors are shown just to the SE of Alcatraz with a huge easterly shift compared to the predominant wind direction. Latitude 38 has a saying "counterclockwise for comfort" for times when sailors take guests because tacking through the heavy wind on the south side of the bay is more challenging than tacking up through Raccoon Strait. I don't disagree with that statement.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



casey1999 said:


> Wow, what a nanny state, my boat, and car never get inspected. Sorry, I don't own a plane.


The FAA do not inspect airplanes as much as they have a mechanic that inspects it at least once a year and has to sign for its airworthiness. The pilot vouches it is airworthy each time he flies it.

In commercial operations there are inspections but it is mostly a paperwork thing. There is also random ramp inspections. Basically though the individual pilot or organization are on their own when it comes to airworthiness in the US.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JonEisberg said:


> Well, anything's possible, of course... But I simply have a hard time imagining - barring any further tragedy, of course - the CG denying the permit for the AC as things currently stand...
> 
> At the 2011 Superboat World Championships in Key West, 2 drivers were killed on the first day of competition, a Wednesday...
> 
> ...


The AC has become more high profile than the examples you post, therefore they have become more involved with the AC rules, but your pics are great.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Ah, the SJSU wind model. That model is normalized to a 200 foot altitude. My boat is only 50' tall so my anemometer never records the modeled wind speeds. Yes, there is a wind shadow directly behind Alcatraz but it is well gone before you get to "Red 2". Interestingly, the wind begins to separate from the water at the windward side of the island and it is actually windier mid channel than right at the island. MrsB, not noted for her heavy air sailing, will start making comments around Blossom Rock if we're experiencing a building breeze and that's my cue to go up the City Front and not up the slot proper.

Richard Spindler will tell you that the slot is demarked by a line going from the South Tower and past the north east side of Alcatraz. The other side is the line from the North Tower and past Pt. Blunt. All outside of the race course area. The counter clockwise notion is for sailors to work their way up past Sausalito and cross the slot at Yellow Bluff and then make for Chrissy Field. This is the shortest distance to cross at the slot and wind abates at Chrissy because it's protected by Fort Point. The run down the City Front is all in that same lighter air.

I've must have raced GGYC's City Front Course at least fifty times as well as seeing 45s do their Grand Prix thing and I'm having a hard time remembering a time when the breeze was much over 20kts. Maybe it's just me. If that's the case, the organizing committee ought to put me on one of the boats to ensure that breeze never gets too strong.









Yes, I've enjoyed a certain amount of sucess racing GGYC's City Front courses


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

George if you were not aware; the AC72 course is expanded, it will run to the east end of Alcatraz/Pier 39. I realize that the "citifront race course" is more protected (west of St Francis), I have sailed the area but that's not the area of concern for the AC72 race course. I know by the many times I have sailed up along the city that as soon as you get to Pier 39 and turn to the left towards the bridge by comparison of relative windspeed you're in the slot. The boat takes a strong heel and the windspeeds come up to 20+ right outside the Pier 39 marina entrance. I've seen boats go south of Pier 39 to raise sail; and we usually go south of Pier 39 to Gybe or catch the wind shadow benind Alcatraz. When Oracle is practicing they usually turn around just south of Pier 39 and then go back upwind through this area and then to the NW; areas where the wind is clear and strong. I don't think they are practicing in this zone without knowledge of where the racing course is going to be.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I think it's accepted that people will die in high speed events because the level of risk involved is plainly visible. When a sailing accident like Artemis happens it "should not have caused death" because it is not perceived as something that is life threatening. When a race car driver dies everyone shrugs shoulders and says 'it happens'. When it happens in a sailing event it just is not viewed as taking risks that could result in a death despite the fact that they are pushing the limits of their craft and are surrounded by water.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I think that dude wrecked his boat because that sailboat (right side of picture) pulled in front of him  :


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

It seems that the most probable is that you are going to have wind limits 10K lower than the ones of the protocol, at least this statement from the NZ team seems to indicate so:

*Emirates Team New Zealand welcomes the finding of the committee reviewing the fatal incident involving the Artemis Racing AC72. The committee's recommendations were released today in San Francisco.

Managing director Grant Dalton said the team supports the review committee's recommendations in principle. "They are prudent and reasonable," he said.

"The committee has done some remarkable work in only six days. The details still have to be worked on but we see nothing that will adversely affect the event.

"We have confidence in our boat - design, engineering and construction - and the sailing and support crews. We have invested a lot of time and money on safety."*

News Story

unless max wind speed is a detail and this is only a strategical move kind of: We agree with everything, there is just a little detail about the max wind speed....


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

An interesting article on Yacht de (translated):

*The America's Cup Management has published two weeks after the accidental death of Andrew Simpson, as a result of a crash of Artemis Racing, is a long list of control recommendations, which are now to be evaluated by the ones that can do so, the organizing Golden Gate Yacht Club and the challengers.

In essence, there are calls for a neutral investigation of all AC72 boats and their wing sails, a significant reduction of the wind limits at ten knots (Max: 23 knots) and an extension of the security provisions for the equipment on board the catamaran and on board escort boats.

Especially the demand for the limited wind limit it is likely to have a dramatic effect,on case that should actually be used. The lower limit above which no race can be started, would changed a few weeks before the start of the Louis Vuitton Cup, will change the format drastically, one that the challengers have prepared in different ways. It could punish individual teams that had in the construction of their boats considered the possibility of strong winds and the corresponding trade-offs were part of the design - especially in what regards the Zealander Grant Dalton team. ...

"The proposal covers the dilemma in which the organizers are stuck," says the two-time America's Cup participant Tim Kröger, "they have to react after the deadly accident, but changing halfway rules of the game it is from a sporting perspective questionable decision, unfortunately showing how wrong all this is"...

Another statement of Iain Murray reveals how the teams will still remain focused in their new high-risk sports, against all recommendations and rule changes at: "None of the recommendations can ever eliminate the risk of injury or death, it is a risky by nature activity. and participants must accept full responsibility for all risks involved. "

It is not yet clear whether the team Artemis Racing and Luna Rossa will choose to participate. Both teams have been granted a further reflection. Team New Zealand is considering not only exiting as it is struggling with the new rules. It seems impossible to find a compromise that is fair regarding the desires and needs of all participants.*

America's Cup: Neues Spiel, neues Glück? - Sport*|*YACHT.DE

Troubled waters on the AC, no doubt.

Meanwhile the German kids from the Youth team has already granted permission to participate individually (not supported by Germany). Now they have to found the needed 100 000 euros.

and more:
*
"You may have seen catamarans fly a hull, but during practice, Emirates Team New Zealand can get both hulls out of the water. For just a moment Friday, in a little over 12-knot breeze, the boat was riding on its hydrofoil.

At higher wind speeds, the New Zealand boat can foil downwind giving it a tremendous speed advantage. But on Friday, America's Cup organizers said that to make the racing safer, they're considering moving up the racing time from 1 p.m. to noon, when the winds are not as strong.
"I guess one of the tragedys for us, a little bit, in terms of the wind speed change, is that we've actually simulated those higher wind speeds in our training because that's what we were coming to," said New Zealand Teams Managing Director Grant Dalton. "So, we're having to give up quite a lot to go to a lower wind speed in terms of our training regime and what we've learned and our boat to a certain extent as well."*

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=9115543

*"The four syndicates are now weighing up the 37 safety recommendations made by the America's Cup review committee that were released yesterday."*

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/8714370/Team-NZ-to-increase-speed-after-fruitful-trial

*As the review committee does not have the mandate to make changes to the Protocol which governs the race, most of the recommendations will need mutual agreement from the teams before they can be implemented and Barker expects there will be some interesting discussions at the competitor meetings over the coming week.*

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10886009


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

At least Oracle has until September to make the necessary changes/improvements to their boat IF the 23kt rule goes in effect.  I feel the most sorry for ETNZ because they are the favorite among the challengers and have trained for the 25-30kt winds that would be expected.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

An interesting article:

*"Non-Negotiable? 
According to Ehman all the Recommendations are part of a safety plan for the event, and as such are non-negotiable by the teams, since safety will not be compromised.

Team insiders spoken to by Sail-World don't quite see it that way, splitting the Recommendations into three areas - those that involve modification to the AC72 Class Rule which governs the measurement and design of the 72ft wingsailed catamaran that will be sailed for the first time in the 34th America's Cup. Changes to that AC72 rule can only be done with the consent of all the teams - a simple majority is not enough.

A second group of recommendations are the changes to the Protocol, which governs the rules under which the racing for the America's Cup and Louis Vuitton Cup's will be conducted. Changes to the Protocol can be made by the Regatta Director after a majority vote by the Teams.

The third group is Safety Rules, which can be set arbitrarily by the Regatta Director, and to which his officials and the teams, where they are affected, must comply.

Under Ehman's logic all the 37 Recommendations come under the Safety category, and are not subject to any negotiation or amendment. 'As for whether there will be votes on Class Rule amendments and Protocol Amendments - No. These Recommendations will become Rules.'

'These are Safety Recommendations by the Regatta Director, and they will become part of the regatta permit and therefore Rules.' He adds that until that formal process is concluded by the Coast Guard, the recommendations are just that, and are for the guidance of teams during the training period now under way.

'The Coast Guard needs to ensure that the field of play is safe, that it is safe for the competitors, and also that the event is conducted safely for spectators as well. It is concerned with the overall safe conduct of the event.'

Ehman's view aside, the bulk of the recommendations actually do fall under the Safety category and many don't directly affect the teams at all, such as whether mark boats are used, as currently, or inflatable marks as recommended for race management - evidence that the Review Committee has looked beyond just the Artemis and Oracle incidents.

Ehman says most of the cost of the Recommendations will fall on the Organisers. These include having to devise ways of adopting LiveLine, the GPS based tracking system used for umpiring and television to run off the power available within an inflatable mark for GPS positioning. 'There are requirements of the Organising Committee, that are onerous, but at the end of the day it is safety first,' he adds.

Wind limit reduction no surprise 
The process to be followed by the Coast Guard is to either approve or reject America's Cup Regatta Management's application (through the Golden Gate Yacht Club). 'They don't dictate,' explains Ehman.

Essentially what is being lodged is a Safety Plan, and it is against that laudable backdrop that some of the Recommendations are curious.

The reduction in wind limits will also go through, despite being a 10knot reduction over the ridiculously high figure previously set of 33kts. 'We wondered how it would take them to wake up to that one,' Emirates Team NZ's Grant Dalton remarked in a television news interview.

The new wind limit of 20kts for the Louis Vuitton Cup Round Robins creeping to 23 kts for the America's Cup Match will still need a Protocol change. The new limit is a couple of knots below the international standard used in the Olympics and World Championships. Although it applies before the start only, the racing can still be cancelled after the race has started for safety issues. 
....

Contrary to other reports the lower wind limit for the regatta has not changed - and cannot except by a majority vote of the teams. Of some concern is the ability to have variable start times, possibly based on forecasts but also with the perspective that one team might try an influence the start time to get 'their' conditions.

Ehman points out that if the teams do have concerns in that respect, all they have to do is to get together as sort out a new and stronger lower wind limit. 'It is not a safety issue,' he adds."
*
Sail-World.com : America's Cup: Review Recommendations not expected to be an easy meal

Funny, I thought the protocol could only be changed if all agree. I will have to look better at it.

.....


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Yes, they are right:

*14. PROTOCOL AMENDMENTS
14.1. GGYC and the Challenger of Record may amend this Protocol with the approval of a majority of the Competitor Forum.*

It remains to be known who will have a right to vote since the ones that give up will not have that right. If Luna Rossa and Artemis will go out of the race it will remain on the NZ hands the right to accept any modification.

Anyway, it is clear to me that the boats are incredible but the development and costs are too high to make this one the right format.

I believe the major error was to make two different boats, one for the series, other for the America's cup. That inflated costs. It would have been more interesting in what regards the number of teams to have all, series and AC, raced on the same boat )maybe a 60ft boat) like it used to happen with the mono-hulls.

That way the boats could have a racing future outside the AC cup and be used on other series or types of races, like the previous boats. I can't see what future these AC 72 will have outside the Cup. They are just not in enough number and are too expensive to maintain or repair.

...


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The reason for the 45's was to reduce cost for the AC series races. Since this format was optional I think they wanted cost to be as little as possible and make everything able to fit in shipping containers.

A 10kt reduction in windspeed from 30kts to 20kts is a ~50% reduction in power since sail force on a wing is proportional to the square of velocity. Seems like boats designed to capture up to 30kts of wind will be underpowered now relative to boats that were not or are still under construction.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I love how the Kiwis just stay relatively quiet on the safety issues and keep working. I would give CD's dog's left testicle to sail like those guys.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> I love how the Kiwis just stay relatively quiet on the safety issues and keep working. I would give CD's dog's left testicle to sail like those guys.


I agree they are doggedly tenacious and grind away. I have admired their program for years and its one of my bucket list places to visit someday.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

*"Andrew 'Bart' Simpson's team, the Swedish America's Cup challenger Artemis Racing is to try and take part in the elimination trials which start in San Francisco in four weeks, but they do not expect to be able to race until up to a month after that.*"

Artemis in race to make America?s Cup start line - Sailing - More Sports - The Independent

That is a bit confusing

They explain it better here:

America's Cup: "Eine störende und kolossale Pleite" - Sport*|*YACHT.DE

America's Cup: Artemis macht weiter, doch Chaos droht - Sport*|*YACHT.DE

You guys are going to have the "pleasure" to see ghost races, where a AC72 will have to compete against a non existent boat to qualify

*""We are working around-the-clock to get our new boat ready, in the water and to prepare our team to race" said Paul Cayard, CEO of Artemis Racing. "We still have a mountain to climb, but our plan is to launch our new boat in early July and get ourselves in a position where we can race by the end of the month."

That leaves just Emirates Team New Zealand and the Prada-backed Italian team Luna Rossa to take part in a reduced series of races which will be more like extended training sessions. It is expected that the tem with the most wins would have a direct line to the LV Cup final with, if Artemis makes it, the winner between those two also joining the final.

......

Race programmes for July and August have yet to be announced, hospitality plans are in tatters, and the event, which was billed as a spectacular summer of sailing for citizens of San Francisco and for visitors, needs a major injection of confidence."*

Artemis in race to make America?s Cup start line - Sailing - More Sports - The Independent

How much cost a ticket for a "Ghost" race? It seems some were already sold and are quite expensive. Maybe the sell them at discount prices now


----------



## MrPelicano (Aug 17, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

They wanted a spectacle and they're getting one... though perhaps not the one they intended.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Okay doubters, watch the head-to-head around 5:45 and try to tell me this is not the most incredible thing you've seen:






Holy crap, LR looks rock solid. This AC is going to be awesome.


----------



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Any of you guys going to be in the bay area for the races? my wife and I are thinking about heading up for some of it. Maybe we could plan some kind of get together?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Man I wish we could. Seriously. I'd love to see that live. But I don't think we can swing it schedule-wise.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

It's been a lot of fun watching the 72s practice on the Bay. Their closure speeds on you are incredible. We had one close approach on us at about fifty feet (we were on starboard). The level of seamanship is amazing. We haven't looked closely at the AC race schedule yet so we haven't committed to any specific dates yet but are looking forward to the actual races. (Watching the 45's race was a hoot and a half!)


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The boats look incredibly fast and it is fun to watch.

The crew not so much. I realize these are the best sailors in the world and are probably great athletes off the boat but watching them swaddled in helmets and other protective gear and stumbling across the trampolines and randomly grinding on the coffee grinders, reminded me more of a special needs sporting event. I know most of these sailors have cat like grace, so I wonder what I would look like trying to make the 100 yard dash across the tramp to the other side?


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I think these boats are cool as hell, but can't help but notice a few things that may be problematic going into the AC. Cat's by nature sail fastest when flying a hull. These boats seem to need to be sailed more flat in order to foil. These two opposing concepts seem to make them difficult control.

They have wave piercing hulls (like a high tech Cat) but sail fastest when there hulls are not even touching the water... Makes me question the overall design concept.

With the VERY rapid acceleration that takes place when the boat goes up on foils it seems like its going to be difficult for these boats to sail too closely together while going around the course. That would conflict a bit with the concept behind racing these boats, in a near shore, spectator friendly environment.

Foiling was not in the original plan for these boats and I think it shows. My question is with the above points, is foiling going to make this AC better or worse???


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



T34C said:


> I think these boats are cool as hell, but can't help but notice a few things that may be problematic going into the AC. Cat's by nature sail fastest when flying a hull. These boats seem to need to be sailed more flat in order to foil. These two opposing concepts seem to make them difficult control.


I am thinking the speed advantage from flying a hull is the decreased wetted surface as a result. I think the whole foiling aspect of these boats makes this a mute point. My guess is my 19 foot kayak has more wetted surface than these boats when foiling.

I went back to re-watch this video. It is amazing to watch them scramble back and forth obviously working some sort of lines. But I can't see a single thing moving on the sails. It looks like the jib may be self tacking and I can't detect any movement from the wing. It looks like they just start cranking on the winch and the boat steps up on the foil and takes off. Maybe they are not controlling lines with the coffee grinders maybe they are winding up a huge rubber band.

Even the tactics and the boat movements seem totally foreign to me. The only thing I could tell for sure was when the upwind foil went down they were going to tack.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

The AC race course is pretty narrow and given the tacking angles of the 72s, I think it will be one heck of a tacking duel both windward and leeward. Word on the Bay is Oracle is faster flat out foiling but Emirates is more "nimble", faster in tacking and coming up on foil. Neither boat has a clear cut advantage over the other. Given the number of lead changes during the 45's races, I think this series will be a nail biter up until the final finish.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Prior posts make it apparent we are going to have to learn a whole new lexicon to describe and understand what these boats are doing. It seems to have no similarity to the boats we sail. A primer on the controls and physics of these boats would be helpful. So far have just read brief descriptions in Sail and like rags. ?Can anyone supply a more detailed discussion. I believe all that grinding is to handle the foils and change the conformation of the main wing.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



jephotog said:


> I am thinking the speed advantage from flying a hull is the decreased wetted surface as a result. I think the whole foiling aspect of these boats makes this a mute point.


That is exactly the point. The way you sail a modern Cat seems to be exactly opposite of how you sail a boat on foils. Of course the idea is to decrease the wetted surface. That's the point to both flying a hull and foils. The issue is in how you get there and the two concepts opposing each other appears to make these boats very unwieldy and MAY make this racing less exciting than the 45's were. Either that, or its going to be like a NASCAR race where you just wait to see who's going to crash first.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

I'm an admitted cynic on these 72s. That said, what is so new here? Cats, wings, foils? All been around for some time. It's only the boat on steroids that seems new.

Also, what controls pitch on these things when they're doing 40 kts?


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

They are only catamarans for a short while then they become an airplane in ground effect. Its been done before.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

These boats are awesome. It's a real tragedy that someone drowned but they are all big boys and know what the risks are.

This is essentially a new sport with little comparison to the old 12 meters which were mostly IN the water. These guys are connected mostly to the sky with just enough graphite in the water to call it "boating."


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Minnewaska said:


> I'm an admitted cynic on these 72s. That said, what is so new here? Cats, wings, foils? All been around for some time. It's only the boat on steroids that seems new.
> 
> Also, what controls pitch on these things when they're doing 40 kts?


What's new is that all 3 of those things are combined on one boat, and then super sized.

The rules prohibit moveable control surfaces on the dagger boards and rudders, so instead the entire dagger board can be moved side to side and fore and aft.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Man, those guys are doing a lot of running. Almost seems like it would be worth the weight to have port crew and starboard crew. They would all stay fresher for grinding (which would happen faster as well) and be less likely to trip or go overboard.


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

From the "Rich but Clueless" files....

According to Lat38, the Americas Cup Concert Series at the AC Pavillion kicks off with ... wait for it ... The Steve Miller Band!!! With special guests The Doobie Brothers!!!!! Ja man -- what better way to drive home the radical, cutting-edge nature of the New AC, freshen up the brand, and turn the heads of the Facebook Generation than to enlist two bands whose last contribution to music was, oh, about 1979?

So lucky they were available -- Mall of America gig must have fallen thru.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



bobmcgov said:


> ...two bands whose last contribution to music was, oh, about 1979?
> 
> So lucky they were available -- Mall of America gig must have fallen thru.


Get a lot of top-of-the-line acts out in Bumfuck, Wyoming, do ya?


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Fstbttms said:


> Get a lot of top-of-the-line acts out in Bumfuck, Wyoming, do ya?


Better than you might think. I ain't a fan of the genre, but Cheyenne Frontier Days delivers top country acts that are topping the Nashville scene & CMAs _right now_. (Plus some crap old rock bands, to make up the numbers.)

But crucially, we aren't selling fart gas to the taxpayers of San Francisco for $22 million, failing to honor agreements re: waterfront restoration & public spaces, then delivering acts like Steve Miller. Geezus, can't you even reach as far as Arcade Fire? Still yesterday, but a yesterday within the lifespan of a valuable sponsor demographic.

Ooh, they're playing "Jungle Love" -- where's my BIC lighter?:laugher


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



bobmcgov said:


> Better than you might think.


I seriously doubt it.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



bobmcgov said:


> Better than you might think. I ain't a fan of the genre, but Cheyenne Frontier Days delivers top country acts that are topping the Nashville scene & CMAs _right now_. (Plus some crap old rock bands, to make up the numbers.)
> 
> But crucially, we aren't selling fart gas to the taxpayers of San Francisco for $22 million, failing to honor agreements re: waterfront restoration & public spaces, then delivering acts like Steve Miller. Geezus, can't you even reach as far as Arcade Fire? Still yesterday, but a yesterday within the lifespan of a valuable sponsor demographic.
> 
> Ooh, they're playing "Jungle Love" -- where's my BIC lighter?:laugher


The key demographic here are wealthy middle-aged guys who grew up thinking the Doobie Bros and Steve Miller were cool. They don't want to hear Coldplay, Jay Z, or even Hootie and the Blowfish. These rich guys are the ones who pay to go the dockside parties, not the hipper, younger crowd.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



mstern said:


> The key demographic here are wealthy middle-aged guys who grew up thinking the Doobie Bros and Steve Miller were cool.


Not to mention that both bands are Bay Area local acts.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



Fstbttms said:


> Get a lot of top-of-the-line acts out in Bumfuck, Wyoming, do ya?


I had more fun seeing shows in Wyoming than when I grew up in the Bay Area. It does help that Jackson Hole draws some major mid level talent and I got to watch it in small intimate bars where I knew a lot of the other concert goers.

It is nice the bands share a bay area home town. Maybe the bands can carpool to the show in the retirement home van.

I am hoping to get up to see some of the races. I won't be attending the concert though I will just wait for the bands to play at my local county fair one of these days.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



mstern said:


> The key demographic here are wealthy middle-aged guys who grew up thinking the Doobie Bros and Steve Miller were cool. They don't want to hear Coldplay, Jay Z, or even Hootie and the Blowfish. These rich guys are the ones who pay to go the dockside parties, not the hipper, younger crowd.


Yeah, but the hipper, younger crowd is the growth demographic. Bad move on the music.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???

A little upset that the AC Event Authority is making a little money besides selling tickets on race day? No doubt there is a thriving performing arts scene out there in Cow Pie, Wyoming. Here is the list of acts performing at the AC Pavilion this summer:

Sting
Imagine Dragons
Steve Miller Band and The Doobie Brothers
Counting Crows and The Wallflowers
San Francisco Symphony
Weezer
311
Sublime
Cheech & Chong with WAR
Train
The Jonas Brothers
Steely Dan
Heart
Jason Mraz
Sammy Hagar
Fall Out Boy with Panic! At The Disco
The Lumineers with Dr. Dog and Nathaniel Rateliff

Would you rather they book these acts in the AT&T ballpark? HP Pavilion? Shoreline? Paul Mason? Stern Grove? (Just to mention a few of the local venues.) With the per-race ticket prices going from $50 to $600+, I think the target demographic is a little on the upscale than your average cow-chip thrower. Have fun sailing in your cattle pond this year!


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



GeorgeB said:


> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???


Haters gonna hate.



GeorgeB said:


> Have fun sailing in your cattle pond this year!


:laugher


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



GeorgeB said:


> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???
> 
> A little upset that the AC Event Authority is making a little money besides selling tickets on race day? No doubt there is a thriving performing arts scene out there in Cow Pie, Wyoming. Here is the list of acts performing at the AC Pavilion this summer:
> 
> ...


Wow - what's not to like about that lineup? I'd say that covers the gamut pretty nicely...especially if Sammy H sits in with the Jonas Brothers.

BobM, you were holding out my friend.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, but the hipper, younger crowd is the growth demographic. Bad move on the music.


"Hipper, younger crowd...?" Wait a sec, I thought it was _NASCAR Nation _this AC series was trying to attract... (grin)












> On a sun-kissed afternoon in the Bay Area last week, Larry Olson, a 39-year-old from San Francisco, backed his car into a parking space next to Marina Green, flipped up the hatch to create a viewing platform and watched with his young children as Artemis Racing's America's Cup catamaran sped by in the stiff breeze on San Francisco Bay.
> 
> "My daughter's preschool is near here, so we always come and sit and watch them practice," Olson said. *"These are amazing boats, and we're kind of hoping they'll flip one. It happened once before. It's kind of like watching a Nascar race." *
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/s...-risks-enter-americas-cup.html?pagewanted=all


I once shot an IndyCar race where the National Anthem was performed by the country trio SHEDAISY...

I swear, they had to mop up the drool from pit lane before they could start the race...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Check out the gybe around 1:40. Freakin' epic.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Pop a brewski and enjoy:


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smackdaddy said:


> Pop a brewski and enjoy:


*Holy Ship!* Makes the "good ol' days" look like watching school buses race! We were considering making the trip out to watch but the things are so damned fast the only way to catch more than a quick glimpse will be on the screen.

Down


----------



## happy_sailor (Jun 20, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Fybe Ho!


----------



## JulieMor (Sep 5, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



smurphny said:


> This is essentially a new sport with little comparison to the old 12 meters which were mostly IN the water.


You mean like this:









Ooops, sorry. This was pre-12-meter.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*



JulieMor said:


> You mean like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I might Endeavor to think that boat was a 30s vintage Cup boat. Beautiful. I wonder who got the job of walking out to tend the jib!


----------



## shadowraiths (Nov 2, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

For those in the bay area, the California Academy of Sciences (_in Golden Gate Park_) has an AC exhibit, which includes ORACLE's AC45 hanging from the ceiling, as well as miniature models of their AC45 & AC72, along with information wrt the quite impressive wings. Here's a pic from their page.


----------



## cutterdad (Apr 10, 2013)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

Nobody wanted to see Andrew Simpson or any other sailor die.
Hopefully it never happens again.
That said racing is racing and America's Cup has always been a teckno / courtroom sport.
It has never been one design racing.
Traditionalist will disagree but I for one am glad to have a venue that pushes the limit of the sport. 
Just like F1 racing safety will follow.
Perhaps the name of my vessel gives it all away.
MS Bombay 31 Still Crazy


----------



## shadowraiths (Nov 2, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

America's Cup park almost ready for Thurday's festivities, Friday's boat parade, and Sunday's first race.


















​


----------



## shadowraiths (Nov 2, 2011)

*Re: Another America's Cup entry destroyed*

*Director threatens to scuttle America's Cup*








In the latest twist to the contentious America's Cup, regatta director Iain Murray threatened Wednesday to scuttle the competition unless his safety recommendations are upheld by the Cup's international jury.

The five-member jury is scheduled to meet Monday to hear a protest by Emirates Team New Zealand and Italy's Luna Rossa Challenge over Murray's recommendation to require larger, heavier rudder elevators.

Rudder elevators are the winglets on the base of the rudder blades that help control the pitch of the boat. The configuration of the elevators is the only unresolved part of 37 recommendations Murray made after the death of British sailor Andrew "Bart" Simpson when the Artemis Racing boat capsized May 9.

[...]

If the jury agrees with New Zealand and Luna Rossa and allows their original, smaller elevators, Murray said, he'll go back to the Coast Guard, which issued a racing permit this week, and say he doesn't think the racing would be safe.

In that case, the Coast Guard would almost certainly withdraw its permit. "Without a permit to race on San Francisco Bay, there will be no regatta," Murray said.

A Coast Guard spokesman confirmed that a new safety plan would have to be formulated for the event to go on.

"We would have to talk to the America's Cup officials, but they would need a new plan," Chief Petty Officer Mike Lutz said.

[...]

Dalton said larger elevators are not "necessary or safe at all." In Murray's recommended changes, the elevators would extend beyond the width of the boat, Dalton said. If a crew member fell over the side, he said, the elevator could cut him in half.​
link


----------

