It all started when a syndicate of New York Yacht Club members, headed by NYYC charter member Commodore John Cox Stevens, with members Edwin A. Stevens, George Schuyler, Hamilton Wilkes, and J. Beekman Finley, had a schooner built to sail to England for showing off the quality of US shipbuilding and make money through competing in yachting regattas (while betting on the result of races, of course). Stevens employed the services of the William H. Brown shipyard and his chief designer, George Steers. America was launched on May 3, 1851 and cost $30,000.

Supervised by Queen Victoria herself, the 'R.Y.S. £100 Cup' was organised on August 20, 1851 by the Royal Yacht Squadron for a race around the Isle of Wight, UK. The race was won handsomely by Commodore John Cox Stevens' schooner America. The famous line : "Ma'am, there is no second" has stuck...

The trophy was renamed the 'America's Cup' after the schooner and was donated to the New York Yacht Club (NYYC) under the terms of a Deed of Gift, which made the cup available for perpetual international competition. It is considered to be the oldest sport competition in the world... and possibly the most singularly expensive for competitors, sponsors and spectators...

Below is a 1980s cartoon by Gus Leonisky for a satirical book (unpublished yet) on the America's Cup depicting Commodore John Cox Stevens kissing the cup... as you do... 

See also:

More to come...

Read from top... 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!

Imagine sailing at 46.7 knots (86.5 Km/h) in a 12 knot (22.22 km/h) breeze… This is nearly going at FOUR times the wind speed. So, how can you do it? 

For many years, sailors understood the value of apparent wind especially when sailing against the wind. It was mostly an empirical understanding in which the resistance of the boat being pushed sideways and even backwards as common sense would have it, was converted into a forward motion. In order to achieve this, sails had to be designed to capture the wind and accelerate it while sailing into it. Old windjammers were pretty inefficient at this caper. Meanwhile, many boats from antiquity to feluccas on the Nile were using this principle by trial and error, albeit not efficiently. New sailing boats and techniques were designed in the 19th century to achieve better “sailing against the wind”. There were some adjustment to the shape of sails and hulls that saw the rise of the faster “cutter” and “schooner”, as well as the Yawl and the Ketch… 

The transfer of energy from the wind into a forward motion at an angle “into the wind” is a marvel of using different density of medium — air and water. As the boat moves forward, the motion creates an APPARENT wind speed that is more than that of the wind — and the angle of the boat and sails into the wind have to be adjusted to suit the APPARENT wind.

Most traditional boats "on a reach” (with the wind coming square into the sails) can move at their best speed. The wind is caught by the sails, then deflected aft, a bit like the exhaust of a plane engine, somewhat accelerated in the narrowing space between jib and the main sail, while the hull provides resistance to sliding off, thus having to moving forward in the energy transfer.

If you have watched 18 footers on Sydney Harbour on a sunny day, you would have seen them “gybing” while going downwind. Going down with the wind directly behind and you cannot go faster than the wind. You will actually go slower because of hull drag. Sailing downwind at an angle to the wind from behind increases the apparent windspeed. Thus sailors prefer “tacking” (gybing) downwind for better speed, despite having to travel more than 1.5 times the distance (roughly the direct distance multiplied by the square root of 2, to the next mark… So, one can see 18 footers go nearly at twice the speed of the wind in this fashion — getting a time advantage on the direct route… At this point we have to remember that this is achieved by the apparent wind speed through the air, working against the resistance of the centreboard in the water. 

For the last 20 years, a new device has also come into play: a foil system which acts like a wing under water, raising the hull above water by converting fast water-flow into an uplift — reducing drag CONSIDERABLY...

Pushing this observation to the max and one can develop the amazing AC75, presently at the limit of weight/power/cost ratio (thank you sponsors)… In order to get massive power out of these, one has to get a large sail plan designed like a plane wing, a light boat that sails with the mast always vertical (no heeling) and a system of outrigged foils that keeps the hull above the water while balancing the lot, plus a thin rudder that is thinner at the bottom, itself equipped with a small foil that act like an elevator aileron on a plane. This is simple enough but far more complex than wind-jamming… Wind-shifts and changing wind strength (real and apparent) have to be instantly counteracted by directional adjustment and sail trim, otherwise the boat can tip over as seen when the US boat “flew” in the air and cracked when hard landing on the water. 

By now, AC75 sailors become divided into two camps: the brawn and the super-fast brains.

The mast and the outrigger system were provided equally to all teams. Hydraulics rams inside the boats to control the outrigger foils were able to push 300 tonnes by 2 feet, in less than 3 seconds. Rules said that main sails could not be tampered with above certain levels, though jib sizes were graded specifically for the wind strength of the day, in 2 knots of real wind speed increments. 

Foiling was the key to being fast against the wind by removing hull drag and increasing APPARENT wind by a factor of nearly 5. As well in order to maximise speed, most of the systems are computerised with memory of fastest settings (angles of foils and of sails in various conditions, while providing real-time measurements, including position. The POWER for the electric/electronic systems and the hydraulic pumps had to be provided by HUMAN EFFORT: the grinders (the brawn)… A brainy team member is in charge of foil angle control, another trims the sails using powered winches and another brain keeps an eye of the position of the boat in relation to the course plan and the number of tacks and gybes to the next gate. With another boat on the same course, the encounters  and crosses could seriously be dangerous with boats going at each other with a combined speed of more than 170 km/h… This demands extreme control from the skipper (the main brain) who also gives orders to change sails and trims settings while controlling rudder, speed and understand overall wind shifts which can make one gain or loose a few hundred metres in a few seconds. Tacking and gybing are critical as one cannot go below 20 knots to avoid a boat belly flop. Simple...

In order to be super-fast, the equation of sail plan, foil design and hull shape is, not-surprisingly, amazingly complex. One could already see differences from various teams of engineers and computer experts, searching for the best solutions in various winds. Nothing is left to chance, nor luck. Luck is creating a faster boat. Nothing much else apart from having the best crew in the world.

The Americans went for a slick smooth rounded hull profile. This provided a very fast but somewhat unstable boat — difficult to control. Their unfortunate capsize and near sinking at 47 knots showed this “instability”. American Magic registered the fastest speed of the races at 53.7 knots (99.42 km/h). 

The English had a good boat, but it was not competitive in the lower range of wind speed allowed for the races (6.5 to 23 knots). It won the semi-finals, but flummoxed in the finals before the cup, because of light air and an improved Italian boat.

Note: because "most of the charged” power by the mob of grinders to the foiling system is used in a single tack, re-tacking too soon is not possible or likely to lead to a boat belly-flop… As well, tacking reduce boat speed and tacking AC75s loose about 50 metres to a non-tacking competitor. thus minimising the number of tacks and gybes is very important.

The Kiwis had a home advantage but the competitors were also well versed in the local conditions. The American boat was skippered by a Kiwi, while the Italian’s Luna Rossa was skippered by “aggressive” Spithill — an Australian who already has TWO America’s Cup wins under his belt (In 2017, Spithill skippered LDV Comanche to win Line Honours in the Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race, after winning their protest against Wild Oats XI) — and an Italian Olympic competitor, with 20 years experience in America’s Cup sailing, Francesco Bruni. The dual helm was not a problem per se as it seems they also switched the role of foil controlling when not at the wheel on different tack. Luna Rossa proved to be good in all conditions, with a far less rounded hull than the Americans. Spithill won more starts for Luna Rossa than any other boats, thus could control the race from the front, until a bad tack or a wind shift let the “faster/luckier” competitor pass. 

The Kiwi boat looked “flat”, especially at the back, and aerodynamically streamlined with boxes protecting the crew, but overall it had an underneath profile from a narrow entry like a navy cruiser to a mid-width like a “flying seagull”. This would have provided a tiny extra lift while moving forward. The designers also took a major gamble with small narrow foils that could be problematic in light breeze by not supporting the weight of the boat (about 7 tonnes). This, I think, was compensated by the small extra lift from the hull-shape. The thinner foils would provide less resistance in the water, increasing the possibility of faster speed.

"Falling off the foils" made these boats behave like bricks with sails. In light breeze, going back “on the foils” meant having to sail in the wrong direction, sometimes get out of the course (incurring official penalties) to gain enough momentum, usually above 15 knots for full foiling, from 20 knots onwards.

All these design adjustments and choices would have been computed to the finest details, using complex equations of Lagrangian choices on fluid (air and water) dynamics. Overall, the Kiwi boat was about 3 knots faster than the Italians, in most conditions. At the post press conference, Ashby was somewhat cagey about the maximum speed of the Kiwi boat. My estimate in the best windy condition, as Gus clocked when the boat was training and videoed by bystanders on the shore, was that it registered quite above 55 knots (102 km/h)…

All this is a far cry from the days of Australia II winning against Dennis Connor at a full 8 knots flat out, or so… What would Ben Lexen (the designer of Australia II and its nifty winged keel) think of the AC75? My guess is that he would love them and find ways to make them go FASTER still, by skimping on strength here and there…

Now, my own design for the next boats: monohulls with two gliding sails and a couple of vertical “toes” (centreboard and rudder) in the water to provide the necessary resistance to sliding off and converting this resistance into a forward momentum which would be about 6 to 7 times the speed of the real wind. No need for changing foils, no need for heavy oil-powered rams. All done by delicate adjustment of wing trims (distortion or flaps) and rudder foil. The gliding sails angle to each other to be about 125 degrees, like the wings of pigeons about to land… Why? This angle would be needed to “go downwind” and gybe.

What has all this funny stuff got to do with democracy? Good question…

Democracy is not just a choice between which moron is going to lead us into the future. It has to do with understanding the dynamics of human competition and cooperation — with hopefully value-added to our addiction for improvements on a limited planet we need to protect. Humans can plod along, but most of us are searching for better ways to do things. This has been the case since we fell from our tree — possibly pushed by nature for being an “inferior unfinished product". Some cultures have arrested this improvement with religious dictums, while mixing a few "temporal" improvements, as not to appear backwards.

Unfortunately for us, the greater morons in charge are still in the groove of let’s have biffo/war with anyone who disagrees to solve shit and burn the planet down while paying lip service to the hopes of the unwashed morons we are.

At the level of the AC75, these invention show off the technology of carbon fibre, also used in modern aeroplanes. This technology could be as well used to manufacture other objects — from packaging to electric cars and large shipping containers — eventually replacing PLASTICS and their nasty chemicals mimicking oestrogen's… It’s a thought. And we have to think fast. I hope there are some better brains than me out there, otherwise we’re in trouble.

Electric cars and trucks from renewable energy will have to replace fossil fuels guzzlers. The coal and hydrocarbon industries have to reinvent themselves to carbon fibre products with a small indulgence to manufacture resins. No more CO2, no more plastics. End of the Plasticeocene.

This would provide for innovative industries, reduce pollution and with some political luck we might also control human population numbers below a critical point. And I mean WAY BELOW this critical point which could appear at anytime with the quality of the surface parameters of the planet going into a deep negative dive suddenly… This would be the “oh shit moment”… At present, Gus has penned (not pencilled) this moment in his diary for June 2032. 

Meanwhile we need to be smarter. Old Joe and Scomo are not going to cut it. Both are conflict and idiocy merchants. We have to do better.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PICTURES ABOVE THAT DISAPPEARED:

luna rossa

stephens