Above: he would have absolutely loved the challenge set by the new AC75 class – remember that Ben Lexcen (right), the man behind 1983 America’s Cup winner Australia II was the same designer who was putting foils and wings on his skiff rudders in the 1950s. However, while he admits to being excited by the technology the man Lexcen once relieved of the Cup, Dennis Conner, seen here with his long time tactician Tom Whidden, remains concerned about the budgets required to optimise such a radical new concept
very high speed. That is where the wing had a real advantage.’ So the efficiency of the new sailplan looks set to determine the top-end performance of the new AC75. The boat does seem likely to be able to foil
adjustments and not using autopilots. ‘Whether it is powered by guys grinding a
hydraulic pump or from the battery is the issue. At some point you will not have enough energy to cant the boards and adjust the flaps and do all the sail functions…’ Regarding campaign costs, this brand
new genre of boat will require a substantial R&D investment by all the teams, although costly aspects such as tank and wind tunnel testing have already been prohibited. Sailing crews are larger than last time and the cost of team bases in downtown Auckland is not sounding cheap. Boat and R&D costs will be directly
affected by how many parts are one-design. Barker’s view is that one-design parts should be those that are most likely to affect relia- bility and safety. ‘Those key areas should be taken out of the equation. When you start sailing these high-speed boats it can get dangerous. You really want this first cycle to be “proof of concept” to get them reliable.’ Simmer’s understanding is that Emirates Team New Zealand’s wish is to make
52 SEAHORSE
several of the key components one-design, such as the structure within the boards, the hydraulics and perhaps the mechanical detail of the rig. Another view is that any elements that are hidden might as well be one-design. The rulemakers have already stated that the hulls will not be one-design (as they were for the AC50s), so it seems likely there will be a box rule for this, includ- ing a maximum beam at the sheer of 5.4m. The AC75 seems set to be impossibly
light – vital for a flying boat: just seven tonnes, comprising three tonnes for the appendages, 800kg for the rig, one tonne for the crew and two for the hull. But Cammas observes this is already two tonnes more than the AC50 weighed, so even if the AC75 has comparable righting moment, due to it being heavier, it is likely it would be chasing the AC50 around the racetrack in all but stronger conditions. However, all agree it will be quick, espe-
cially for a boat that is technically a mono- hull. As Simmer says: ‘It will be frighteningly fast – if we can reduce aero-drag enough at
upwind as well as down and, just like the AC50s, a decisive difference will be in time lost during manoeuvres. Traditionally cata- marans are not good corner-turners, except that we witnessed the Kiwis in particular pulling off some amazing foiling stunts even in very light winds aboard their AC50. It is hard to imagine that with two canting
keels to move manoeuvres will be as quick on the AC75. As Cammas says: ‘You have to move the foils, the sails and trim tabs at the same time and you’ll need someone just to operate those tabs if it is not the helmsman.’ In terms of training to sail the AC75,
options are clearly limited. The Protocol specifically allows teams to train on TP52s as they require similar crew numbers. Land Rover BAR are heading this way, joining forces with Tony Langley’s Gladiator team. Emirates Team New Zealand are also expected to be crewing a TP52 during 2018. However, Franck Cammas is returning to the GC32 Racing Tour for some more foil- ing catamaran racing which he believes is as appropriate as the TP52 for crew training. Full details of the AC75 will become
available at the end of March when the finalised class rule is currently scheduled to be published.
q
GILLES MARTIN-RAGET
PAUL MELLO/OUTSIDE
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 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
