America’s Cup Update
by Jake on Nov.02, 2007, under America's Cup
It’s been a while since we talked about this here, but the case was heard on Oct. 22nd by the New York Court. While this could drag out if the court decides that any of the facts are in dispute between the parties…but if the facts are not disputed and it’s simply a matter of deciding the meaning of the wording, Justice Cahn could give a ruling in a week or two.
So what’s happened since then? GGYC/Oracle has said that they would rather have an agreeable match in 2010 rather than race on mega multihulls and if they win the court case, they intend to attempt to arrive at a negotiated protocol with Alinghi. There is still some scoffing on the part of the Alinghi camp at the notion – but time will tell.
On the other side of things, the design rule that was apparently achieved collectively through Alinghi and the other registered competitors has been released to the public. The 90′ monohull rule is a bit of a change going to more of a “box rule” rather than a complicated set of stability vs sail power relationships. Before, draft and weight were a function of sail area and water line. This time, very similar to the US One Meter we designed here and the Formula 18 catamaran we race on, the new AC90 rule is defined by clear definitions on displacement, length, width, draft, mast height, and sail area. Of this it is notable that the upwind sail area does have a maximum but spinnaker area is unlimited.
Bruce Farr (Farr Yacht Design) provides some interesting insight to the rule on Sailing Scuttle Butt HERE. The current ACM provides the following image that shows what the difference between the new AC90 and AC70 might look like.
GGYC / Oracle are still concerned that Alinghi may have had a jump on development of this platform depending on how much of the new rule was actually worked out with the competitors. Alinghi is boisterously claiming that this is not true and GGYC has asked to see the original draft of the rule to show that the parameters have changed significantly enough to preclude any early development. However, all of this could be erased if/when the courts decide that the CNEV challenge was invalid….we should know soon.
