search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Paul Cayar


Rob Weiland


A bean counter’s perspective


The America’s Cup and Vendée Globe keep us captivated but the ‘budget debate’ is never far away. General opinion is that the AC has a limited number of participants because it is outrageously expensive, which it is, and the Vendée is at risk of diminishing interest if costs carry on spiralling upwards, which they will continue to do at the


top end (although the pace of it might be controlled once the Imoca class agrees on how it should be done). Similar debates are never far away in every class and at every


level, just as there always will be punters who claim they design lighter and faster boats and build them better for substantially less money. In the end a winning boat almost always seems good value but typically that is just one boat and attractive competition requires a healthy number of boats of pretty equal performance potential. For most classes this number can be defined with some accuracy.


Maybe the ideal number of competitors is hardest to define for the AC? With all boats in it for one reason only, the 36th Cup is one of the most brutal ever. On top of that it is particularly difficult to see its ‘value for money’ this time because of the cancellation of the pre-events till all boats were in Auckland and facing each other for the first time very close to the Cup itself. It seems a poor concept that the second Team New Zealand boat has only raced six times in the Prada World Series in Auckland before going into the AC itself. And, worse, that their first boat never raced at all. Win or lose, the ETNZ AC75 will never complete more than 19 races in anger. Even less racing for Patriot of course and just a few handful of


races more for either Luna Rossa or Ineos. Following a tradition set by a good number of Cup contenders over past decades. The AC should really come up with a concept that produces boats with a potential racing afterlife. A circular business model might be a bit ambitious, but ‘build to scrap’ is not really trendy any more. Trying to pin down budgets might help to understand the variables;


some guesstimates in euros: l America’s Cup AC75: two boats, 200,000+ design and construction hours. Estimated cost €40-50 million, €25 million per boat. Just the boat, not the organisation and running costs.


Each campaign will easily stretch to well over €100 million. l Vendée Globe: Imoca, 60ft, up to 40,000 design and


construction hours. Total build cost €5-6 million. I fear Hugo Boss might be well over this. l 100ft canting-keel maxi racer, a Comanche-type concept: total design and build cost €20-25 million.


38 SEAHORSE l 72ft fixed-keel maxi racer, like a Maxi72: total design and


build costs €7-8 million. l 52ft fixed-keel racer, like a TP52: total design and build cost


€2.5-3 million. Straight away it becomes clear that the ambition as voiced by


the New York Yacht Club to aim for a more traditional 100ft maxi racer for the next AC, as well as to set budget limits as voiced by


several people in AC circles, some as low as €50 million, is not realistic. Certainly not if two-boat campaigns are to be permitted. Without going more extreme than Comanche the total campaign


budget would already be blown on building your two boats. Even with a more or less ‘traditional’ Maxi72 concept it will be hard to


keep a two-boat campaign within the €50 million limit and impos- sible as soon as semi-Archimedean concepts are considered. We already know the budgets required for full Archimedean designs. The first size that becomes close to realistic in combination with


a €50 million budget limit is really 60-62ft – and only if one stays well clear of employing over 100 staff permanently and makes a


serious attempt to campaign at half that number. Just the design departments of the AC teams are staggering in


terms of staff numbers. From their websites: 53 Ineos, 48 American Magic, 37 Luna Rossa and 30 ETNZ. A total staff anywhere between 105 and 160. I fear nearly half the design hours were spent on how to replace human functions by computer-controlled actions. Well on our way from team sport to a robot game featuring a pilot and a couple of trimmers/controllers. Plus a very large shore crew. What most separates the AC from all other types of yacht racing


is the incredibly short racing life of its boats. No matter the size and cost of the boats, the lack of a racing afterlife does not feel right and will continue to bog this type of racing down if not addressed. Ten million euros per 30-minute race was a statement quoted quite a bit in relation to Patriot. Pricing in that none of the first-generation 36th AC boats will ever race at all! Of course all this could be much easier to accept if there were


a return on investment through sponsorship and publicity and the boats were disposed of in a responsible manner. That nut so far has not been cracked and seems a long way off from being cracked, certainly for the challengers. Meantime, as always, custom-built racing yachts score high for


inflation on the luxury goods index, and much higher still if compared with everyday items… An IMS 50 just before the turn of the century, say 1998/1999,


and the first TP52s (2001-2003) would cost about €650,000 or


INGRID ABERY


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