For the first America’s Cup Match in the new IACC designs in 1992 the Il Moro di Venezia syndicate built no fewer than five new yachts at the Tencara facility in Venice – also owned by Il Moro syndicate head Raul Gardini. German Frers and German Frers Jnr were the lead designers and, like almost every other syndicate, they followed the path indicated by IOR designs of the previous era, incorporating generous topside flare to maximise the additional righting moment available through crew hiking on the rail. This was the wrong decision – just how wrong can be gauged by comparing Il Moro V (above) with Jason Ker’s very fast final-generation ACC design (left) for the Shosholoza team at Valencia in 2007. In terms of how the new rule was approached, it’s important not to overlook that the IACC rule dictated a long, heavy, generously canvassed design with a deep bulb keel; the same balance of parameters as the top-level 10-Rater and Marblehead R/C and vane model yachting classes. The best Marbleheads and 10-Raters were long known to be slab-sided with maximum weight bulbs, at least a decade before the IACC America’s Cup rule had ever even been thought about
for new syndicates contemplating a Chal- lenge, which again means larger entries. And however you look at it, the 1987
Cup in Fremantle was great. It attracted large television audiences and very much put sailing on the map. It was avidly watched and by some of the most unlikely people. For instance, it was watched widely by the F1 community – so what does that say about ultimate speed being required to make sailing watchable? At the time we were collaborating with
Williams F1 (then at their zenith) with the idea that they might be able to help with the organisational aspect of running and getting the best out of an AC technical programme. I remember my friend, William’s technical director Patrick Head, remonstrating how the AC community were nuts to try to change a format and boat type that had conspired to finally make a success of the America’s Cup! ‘If you had stuck with that boat and format the America’s Cup would
now be big business,’ he remarked a few years later. Which just proves that old saying ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.’ I’m pretty sure that Graham himself
would not have pulled out of the event if it had remained in 12s. He had two competi- tive boats, an excellent base to build on and remember, an aluminium 12 Metre ex-rig and fittings cost in the region of $150,000. Although then a not inconsider- able sum of money it was peanuts com- pared to the cost of an AC boat today, so it was not too difficult for a wealthy – as opposed to billionaire – owner to mount a Challenge. I think, like Patrick, that the America’s Cup would be in a much better place now if the Twelves had been retained for a little longer at least. Anyway we digress. A new America’s
Cup class was, after a number of itera- tions, agreed upon. It incorporated a clever formula, devised by Derek Clark, that effectively reduced the area over which
trades of length, sail area and displacement could be made, with soft rather than hard walls and had a rating target of 42. This confused some – though not all –
of the non-British designers; however, those of us who watched or read Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy will realise that after millions of years of calculating and brooding over the problem, Deep Thought, the book’s fic- tional supercomputer came to the conclu- sion that the number 42 is the ‘meaning of life, the universe and everything’. Prior to the 1988 match the Peter de
Savary Blue Arrow syndicate had also gone on to build their revolutionary foiling boat, but as expected the two players in the match, Dennis Conner and Michael Fay, would not countenance an intrusion by a third party. So it was all to no avail. The boat, however, was a partial success in that it foiled successfully on occasions (before eventually breaking up).
SEAHORSE 55
HENRI THIBAULT/DPPI
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 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114
