Fifty-footers to the fore as the 1993 Admiral’s Cup fleet line up for the start of the Fastnet – historically the event’s biggest draw. This was the curtain call for the IOR 50s and for IOR itself, the boats’ incredible refinement (and cost) by now far outweighing their pedestrian performance. Yet after 25+ years of IOR success, the IMS rule that replaced it flickered and died within barely five years
rule remains fairly similar; although there was much written about the 2014 F1 regu- lation changes being ‘the biggest since ground effect was banned in 1983’, in reality to the punter the cars looked pretty similar, albeit with a very efficient and very complex hybrid power unit. There’s always a danger that a break- through design will only be competitive for one season with the loopholes closed down for the next cycle. Usually only the bigger, more financially endowed teams can afford even to investigate these poten- tial game-changers; the reason why these innovations are often nipped in the bud – which is a shame. In F1 there’s a long list of intriguing but latterly banned ideas – here are some of the more significant: l Moveable Aerodynamics – banned in 1970 l Fan Car (Brabham) – raced once in 1978 then withdrawn (interesting story) l Six wheels (Tyrrell/Williams) – banned in 1983 l Four-wheel drive (Ferguson, Lotus, McLaren, Matra and Williams) – banned in 1983 l Ground Effect – fully banned in 1983 l Active Suspension (Williams and Lotus) – banned in 1994 l ABS brakes – banned in 1994 l Brake Steer (McLaren) – banned in 1998 l Mass Dampers – banned in 2006 l Traction Controls – on/off bans, currently banned l Double Diffuser (Brawn initiated) – banned in 2011 l F-Duct – banned in 2011
Many of these were banned due to 46 SEAHORSE
protests from other teams, infringement of regulations, obvious safety or practicality issues, perceived cost issues and so on. In essence the F1 regulations have reached the point where there is very little wriggle room for engineers, hence the cars appear to be almost identical.
In sailing I suspect ‘the fan’ until recently hasn’t really been considered. In F1 the spectating public is crucial to the sport and therefore their view on their sport should be respected – but do the current very efficient (and on trend) but rather quiet cars represent progress? If you ask many F1 fans more noise would represent progress but the engineer would recognise all that extra noise was largely wasted energy. The Ultra 30 circuit in the 1990s made an effort to attract the masses (with a rea- sonably radical for the time but one-design boat) but the 34th and certainly the cur- rent America’s Cup have made real efforts, in many ways, to engage with the public. Is this progress? Many would say so, making the AC more attractive to ‘investors’, more accessible to the public and so on, but the purists would probably still be happy watching relatively heavy monohulls slog it out for hours far out to sea.
For me, though, the AC50 isn’t as inter- esting as it could be. It’s a bit like a modern F1 car where all the teams have gravitated to the same fundamental architecture and the differentiating features are all but hidden. In F1 some of it might be the in - visible (internal suspension components), and with the AC50 it’s going to be the appendage tips, the control systems, the clever structures and so on – a more open
rule would in my opinion result in more diverse solutions and design teams could make their mark in a more visible manner. To me the AC has always been a tech - nical challenge first and foremost so it’s a shame to hide all the ‘trick’ stuff away. Although not necessarily readily visible, I of course realise the areas that are left open to development by the AC50 rule are far from trivial and influence overall perfor- mance enormously and as such will require the very best technical efforts available! Good rule and regulation management is crucial and it’s important for those involved to understand what it is that they’re trying to achieve. I don’t have the answers but is it important to make F1 cars go faster in 2017? Arguably the current F1 cars should be the fastest and most physically/mentally challenging possible and the same should be true
for the
America’s Cup – perhaps I shouldn’t imag- ine myself being able to sail or drive one. As Dennis Conner is often quoted as saying, ‘Bet on self-interest, it’s always running’. It’s often hard to arrive at regula- tion changes where your current level of performance is threatened. If you’re win- ning why would you want to change the game? But if you’re not winning and you’re in a position where you could steal the lead on the opposition by clever inter- pretation of new regulations, you may well be in favour of a shake-up – naming no names here, of course.
One-design or development? Progress or stagnation?
When classes become overly developed, when the engineers are finding it more
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