Your feedback

On the America's Cup negotiations

In reaction to the latest America's Cup news...

Cat guru Mitch Booth writes:

Bring it on.

The first hint of a multi challenger event on Multihull has now been made and in my view its about time. Sorry to all the traditionalist that would like to sail classic boats in the cup. I think the true meaning of why the cup was created in the first place was to challenge in the state of the art sailing machines of the day and multihulls are the best showcase of our sport and technology right now.

I know there are many that are skeptical about a match race on fast boats but think of how this played out all those years ago on J class for example, which were at the cutting edge at the time.

There could also be a fleet race format on 90 ft Multis that would really be a show.

I say, don't be afraid of change and lets move to the next exciting era in our sport..


Matthew Armstrong writes:

The Deed of Gift for the Americas Cup states that ‘This Cup is donated upon the conditions that it shall be preserved as a perpetual Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries’. The word Friendly is described in the Oxford dictionary as, 1 kind and pleasant; of or like a friend. 2 in combination not harmful to a specified thing:

Messrs Ellison and Bertarelli are certainly not being kind or pleasant to each other, and they are certainly being harmful to a specified thing, namely the cup itself.

I say that both parties have failed to behave in a friendly manner, are not abiding by the terms of the deed of gift, and therefore should both be lobbed out.

Phil Laurence writes:

On the basis the both parties have never yet missed an opportunity, to miss an opportunity to settle this - I only see one outcome:

Many more months and months of pointless litigation over date, venue, boat eligibility, boat measurement, crew eligibility and anything else they can dream up.

Plus a steady stream of those pathetic press releases, saying how they want to get the event back on the water, whilst their actions do everything to stop that.

It’s just obscene that millions of dollars and euros have been squandered on this petty squabble, when there are desperate needy children in the world

ISAF should Rule 69 the pair of them for bringing the sport into disrepute.

Not impressed



In response to our query about what to do if the America's Cup competition has indeed been skewed in favour of the challengers over recent years. Readers have sent the following:

Charles Apthorp writes:

The obvious advantage gained by Alinghi in building two boats is that then second boat can be built later in the cycle when the challengers are committed to the Louis Vuitton series. This would enable them to compare the CFD results - which apparently can vary as much as 5% from predictions with the actual performance of the boat. Teams will probably be limited to 1/3rd scale tank testing models, so there is a real advantage in using a full size boat as a 'test' model then building the race boat afterwards. The half percent advantage you need to be unbeatable appears to be less than the variation in testing the same model in the same tank at different times - so computers and models are an aide rather than the full solution, particularly where the rule is new.

NB Liberty wasn't tank tested at all (but they had tanked lot of other boats before) and Australia II was the product of a careful tank testing program - at the end when 3-3 the difference was tiny and came down to Conner not covering properly on the last run.

On the other hand it is also obvious that Alinghi needs two boats, if they are excluded from the challenger series, to enable them to practice matching racing prior to the event.

One way forward is to require them to build two identical boats from one mould and complete the hulls as a pair prior to launching either of them. I assume the teams will be restricted in the surface area of modifications permitted to the hulls as in the previous Cup.

To prevent Alinghi modifying one and then the other in a development program they would a) have to elect which boat was at the outset their race boat and
b) be restricted to carrying out modifications soley to that boat. The second boat would be limited to being used as a trial horse.

Alinghi would be permitted to take part in the 'Acts' as before.

Alinghi already has a substantial advantage, I assume they have been hard at work designing their new boat [the smaller box design]. They received 45% of the surplus from the previous Cup - so the €45m they received will have been put to good use while the haggling in New York went on. If the Cup is in 2011, there may not be enough time for other teams to play catch up before they have to commit to building.

The question from Alinghi's perspective is whether this scenario gives them sufficient advantage to outweigh the disadvantage of the challengers building multiple designs and picking the best - delaying the event gives the challengers longer to design better boats and I wouldn't fancy their chances in the multihull because BMW Oracle's one has had a major advantage in being on the water and being fully worked up.

I suspect Alinghi are regretting setting up the Spanish challenge post AC33
- perhaps from their perspective as of today Origin would have been a more flexible Challenger of Record compared to Larry 'God' Ellison all fired up with the New York Court of Appeals solidly behind him.

Sail designer Chris Williams writes:

Here is a thought RE the single boat / Alinghi racing in the LVC:

Alinghi does not race in the Challenger races - that is totally against tradition and the mystique of the Cup. Alinghi should be allowed to build two boats, but must declare which boat they race in the AC six months prior to the event. Also, to prevent them from benefiting from more two boat experience than the challengers will get in the races, they should be allowed the same number of sails as the challengers.

Ross Bateson writes:

If I have got this straight, BO have said:

1. We'll use whatever type of boat you like.
2. We'll use the competition rules of the last cup
3. . . . but no we won't, we'll move back to the 2000 cup organisational structure while we are at it.

Or am I missing something? For me, this is at best crazed logic or at worst the clearest sign yet that Oracle have no interest in coming to any kind of agreement.

For me, the only chance of a multi-challenger cup is to move back to a 2-boats each rule for AC33 - and all other rules of AC32 bar the design - and agree to a one-new-boat rule for AC34. I would be amazed if Alinghi would concede that ACM was a failure and should be ditched. This has been the constant centrepiece of their argument: that AC32 was a success. Oracle are - without a shadow of doubt - well aware of that.

So, this is either a bargaining chip which will rapidly be cashed in, or BO want a DoG match.

1. BMW Oracle said in their letter last night that they would be interested in competing in a multi-challenger America's Cup in the AC33, smaller box rule boat.
2. Exactly
3. That was offered as an unattractive alternative

Bill Tucker sends this solution:

I'm still hacked off by squillionaires reducing our sport to a playground squabble. So my solution is to allow Messrs Bertarelli and Ellison to compete in 2.4mRs somewhere in the Pacific whilst secret nuclear tests are conducted. In the meantime all others can congregate somewhere pleasant (like Valencia) and compete for a new pot never to allow the auld mug to see the light of day again using rules that don't include any 'deeds'

Graeme Sutherland reckons:

Is a multiple challenger mutual consent regatta really in BMW Oracle Racing's interests? I'd argue that it isn't.

They are ahead of Alinghi in preparing for a Deed of Gift match. Their boat is in the water, being worked up, and they have the top Breton sailing and design talent on their payroll. Furthermore they eliminate the other challengers.

In contrast, a multiple challenger regatta would mean that they're playing catch-up on the design side, having not been a party to the discussion of the new rule. And they would face several equally strong teams in the selection series.

The question is whether BMW Oracle are willing to give up this advantage?

There are rumours that a second trimaran is under construction in Anacortes.
If true then it suggests that BMW Oracle aren't interested in a multiple challenger regatta.

My guess? Negotiations will break down, and BMW Oracle's superior PR machine will pin the blame on Alinghi.

Agree or disagree? Have your say here