Cup heritage – Part III


In 1987 Dennis Conner and Stars & Stripes showed the world how to mount a successful America’s Cup challenge built on a combination of boldness and ability. After that things did not go quite so smoothly... Eric Hall tells the tale


Lightness to lead When Dennis Conner made his historic comeback winning back the Cup in 1987 after ignominiously losing it in 1983, he made the mistake of not immediately specifying how the next Cup races would be run and in what type of yacht. As history recorded, Kiwi Michael Fay


tired of waiting for San Diego Yacht Club to define the next Cup’s protocol and the yachts to be sailed. He joined the tiny Mercury Bay Boating Club and issued a challenge on its behalf consistent with the America’s Cup Deed of Gift, a best two-of- three races sailed in the maximum size (90ft


44 SEAHORSE


waterline) of yachts that the Deed allows. This was the first time such a Deed of Gift challenge was made and, not surprisingly, it caught San Diego Yacht Club off-guard. The uproar that followed had two


phases. First San Diego Yacht Club dis- puted the validity of Fay’s challenge, main- taining the next Cup should and would be held again in 12 Metre yachts. Fay stood his ground and San Diego sued in the State Supreme Court in New York City, which decided all matters of the Deed of Gift. San Diego lost and Fay’s challenge was allowed. Fay challenged for the year 1988 and was well along with his carbon fibre ‘Big Boat’, KZ-1, leaving San Diego the impossible prospect of building their own 130-footer to defend. There just was not enough time. But Conner with his no-excuse-to-lose


attitude had his own rogue response: a 70ft catamaran Defender that he and San Diego Yacht Club maintained fitted within the rules. After all, the Deed of Gift limited the hull waterlines to 90ft, but made no notice- able comment on the number of hulls. Of course, now it was Fay’s chance to


squeal like a stuck pig. But the court in New York told the litigants to go racing and a decision would be made after the match was over. All this set up a preposterous (and fascinating) race between a sailboat the size and speed of which hadn’t been seen in


decades and a 70ft paper glider of a cata - maran. Even though the catamaran easily won the match 2-0 in 1988, in early 1989 the court named New Zealand as winner of the match, because, in the court’s words, it was a ‘gross mismatch, not in the spirit of friendly competition between countries’. Not much later the decision was reversed


on appeal to the Appellate Court who judged that the Deed of Gift had no stipula- tions as to number of hulls. Conner’s on- the-water victory was upheld. The Bruce Farr-designed KZ-1 was


advanced in many ways. Both her hull and rig were built at Marten Marine. She was light and wide, for her 40+ crew induced stability, and built completely of carbon. She sported a huge carbon mast, itself a gamble because there were very few carbon masts – of any size – around in 1988. I remember only thinking ‘wow’. I could not yet visualise making one that big. But Marten were clearly up to the job. As mentioned, NZ-1 was wide and with


short overlap jibs. The staying base took full advantage of the large beam, allowing far smaller shroud sizes than might have been expected in a boat that size. When the boat was displayed in Newport a year after the match, I was impressed with the small shroud sizes. Until that point virtually all racing yachts had overlapping genoas and


BOB GRIESER/OUTSIDE IMAGES


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