This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
(above, with the Mighty Mary crew), only winning one race... by 3 seconds. If that result now seems obvious, bear in mind that, even after New Zealand’s narrower boats of 1995, ACC design only reached its final pencil-thin iteration many more years later


Left: in the 1992 America’s Cup Paul Cayard’s wide (the design consensus) Il Moro failed to make much of a dent in the slimmer America3


early 1990s moved through the natural phase of evolution to a point where all teams arrived at very similar, highly refined solutions; the effort spent on the less obvi- ous details rather than the fundamentals. The Deed of Gift match in 2010 was


another non-event albeit with very impres- sive machinery. Once Oracle had un- stalled herself on the startline, caught up with Alinghi and finished 3km ahead in race one it was clear what the result would be. As in 1988 this DOG match resulted in a resetting of the rules and for 2013 the AC72 yachts (with AC45s supporting) were introduced.


Even my wife was impressed by the racing in the 34th America’s Cup in San Francisco and it was a hot topic in the coffee bar here at work every morning. It was obvious for all to see the progress being made on the water race on race as Oracle clawed back what seemed a safe New Zealand victory. Gripping stuff. And so to the AC50 – the eventual length, after talk of AC62 and AC48, of a largely/visibly one-design catamaran for the 35th Cup. To me the 35th edition is so complex and confusing I’ve not really tried to unravel it all – and I’m a keen observer. I’ve no doubt the yachts, racing and venue will be incredible… we’ll see.


Rules and regulations For many Formula 1 engineers a good


rehash of the relevant rules and regulations re-establishes a level playing field, where expertise in a particular class or formula is reset. There are respected F1 cars that have made the most of new rules – the 1998 McLaren MP4/13 drawn by Adrian Newey to new regulations (narrow track, grooved tyres and so on), winning McLaren’s last Constructor’s Championship – almost 20 years ago now(!).


The 2009 Brawn BGP001 was another such car, designed to revised regulations (slick tyres, wide front wing, narrow rear wing) and sporting the controversial ‘double diffuser’. Brawn went on to win drivers’ and constructors’ championships – chased all the way by the Red Bull RB5, which, retro-fitted with a double diffuser, finished only 18.5pt behind. The RB5 formed the basis for Red Bull’s four double championships 2010/11/12/13 (RB6-RB9). There have also been cars that have been so successful that regulations have been changed to curb their performance; the 1983 ban on ground effect and the 1994 ban on driver aids, the latter as a reaction to highly sophisticated cars such as the Williams FW15.


Often these regulation changes play to the skills of those who really understand what it


is they’re designing rather than relying on existing examples to use as inspiration (copying). We’ll see who really knows what they’re doing next year when


the AC50s are launched… and when the F1 cars designed to the heavily revised 2017 regulations are rolled out. Often real innovation in established classes is almost impossible but where the rules are left open just enough to allow some lateral thought, it is still possible; three that spring to mind are the bendy rig on Lionheart in 1980, Australia II’s winged keel and the composite construc- tion of the three NZ 12 Metres in 1987 – I seem to remember Dennis Conner had something choice to say about all those yachts, their novel features and sometimes the people involved!


The 12 Metre rule, although ultimately typeforming and antiquated long before 1987, did seem to allow some degree of innovation, although any innovation on a 12 Metre probably only manifested itself in a certain wind speed or point of sail – it was all subtle stuff. In the years I’ve been involved in F1 regulations have changed significantly, often year on year – there’s always some new challenge thrown our way. Sometimes regulation changes are wide ranging, including fundamental car architecture, aerodynamics, power units and so on, but often it’s just a new chassis ‘squeeze’ load test, or perhaps a clampdown on skid plate materials or a tweak to a crash test requirement. However wide ranging the regulation changes are, the format of the


SEAHORSE 45


w


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88