Apparently, there are different versions at different sites on the internet, because the version I read said that the British invited the Americans to send a boat to the race, not that the Americans challenged the British to a race. I suppose it depends on whether it is an American or a Brit writing the history, eh?

Anyway, I think everyone agrees that the Cup was named after the boat that won it, not after a specific country. And probably a lot of people don't realize that -- I didn't know it until sometime within the last 10 years. I had always assumed that America must have started the event and that is why it was called that.

My mistake then, I thought, as many probably do, that the AC was named after the country that had won it convincingly several times in a row, as Mark says, for 182 years !
It matters not what the ICCT/LAC is called, But I`d still go with the C-class as being the class that should contest the event. For me, it`s a pity that the ICCT trustees has reduced the event to a semi-production class event, but at least they have ressurrected the event, and if, in doing so, it has prompted the C-class guys to respond, then we now have 2 great events to look forward to !

Cheers
Steve

That is a very good point, which I just brought up in my household the other night. The sailors in the ICCT championship are well known, by name and by reputation. Whereas many of the C-Class sailors are not as well known.
The sailors in the small boats are racing constantly. We have not heard anything about Duncan MacLane for the past eight years. And are we familiar with the names of the British and Australian sailors, except for Gavin Colby?

So is the Little America's Cup (C-Class version) more about the boat than about the sailors?

And is the ICCT version more about the sailors than about the boat?

As others have said, I think they are both great events, but maybe for different reasons.

IIRC

This is correct :



as is this :



and this :



this is not correct :



this is correct :



Check out this link to the BBC

Quoting from the above :



This is correct, It will always be so :







Link to the BBC pages on the cup

One day we might win it back

Would you believe this is me accepting for Team Goose?...

Here is clarification of this from W.F. Oliver:

Mary,
At the conclusion of the 2003 LAC, ICCT trustees and the 18HT Class officers agreed that the event would be opened up for any brand (or custom)18HT to be allowed to participate in the future. This measure was taken to encourage further participation and encourage development of boats and equipment for the LAC. Several sailors have expressed their opinions that the developmental nature of the 18HT rule (as opposed to one-design Jav 2s), as an open class, was better suited to the event and would help the class grow.

I have been told that the ICCT trustees are happy with the efforts of the F-18HT class (as an open formula class) and feel no need to change boats, at least at this time.

In my opinion, they do not feel that the C-Class is viable and the extreme costs to build/campaign the C-Cats could reduce and discourage participation in the LAC by top teams. The ICCT "mission statement" reads something like- "The ICCT is intended to establish/encourage international match racing in catamarans." There is no mention of the type of boat or of a desire to encourage development of equipment. I think that our event has drawn a much higher level of sailing/match racing talent than the C-Class event. I would characterize the ICCT as more about the sailors and match racing and less about the boats.

The choice of the 18HT has resulted in participation by some top international racing teams, which is the apparent intent of the ICCT. Furthermore, at least three different brands of 18HTs are going to be represented at the event. Of the four Bimare 18HTs racing, at least three are highly modified for the event. The class is benefiting from the sail, rig, and platform development by these top teams!

I look forward to the event!

One idea floated by 18HT several members is to have the winner of this year's ICCT to challenge the winning team from the C-Class event to a match race, at the conclusion of the 2004 LAC. The race would be held in the two most closely matched 18HTs from the event. What do you think? Perhaps, the level of talent in our event would discourage the acceptance challenge?

Got to go for now...........
Regards,
W.F.

(Comment from Mary: So there are three brands of F-18HT in this year's ICCT event. Mitch Booth is sailing a Marstrom, and British team is sailing a Stealth, and the rest of the sailors will be on Bimare Jav 2's. And if you want to build an F-18HT in your garage, it would be welcome, too.)

This proposal is only a talent check and we all know what would be the result, so it's simply not interesting. However, there is a way to race a truly interesting "final challenge".

It would be a match between the C-Class winning crew+boat racing against the 18HT winning crew on board the second placed C-Class boat.

Then we would have the best boat racing against the best talent and would be able to check how the lower speed of the second place C-Class weights against the lower level of talent of the first C-Class crew.

The result is totally unpredictable and, unlike the original proposal, will depend on the mix of talent AND boat. I'd like to see that.

Cheers,

Luiz: I think having a 18HT team racing an C-Class aganst the C-Class winner would be just as un-even an match, as if the C-Class winners was put on an 18HT..
The team who knows the platform best, would have a clear advantage. All the C-Class sailors knows a thing or two about match racing as well, so I think the results are quite predictable witchever way they swap boats.


Btw: the LAC is synonoymous with the C-class in my opinion..

I think it would be much closer when the C class boys were racing the F18HTs then when the F18HT boys were racing C class boats.

I just wondered about the following things :

>>In my opinion, they do not feel that the C-Class is viable and the extreme costs to build/campaign the C-Cats could reduce and discourage participation in the LAC by top teams.


Has the solid wingsail been banned from the F18HT yet ? If not than I predict we'll see the same cost development in the ICCT challenge as we did with the C-class catamarans. Those 7 foot of extra hull length are not really why these boat are so expensive. It is all about the development and building costs of the wingsail.



>>>(Comment from Mary: So there are three brands of F-18HT in this year's ICCT event. Mitch Booth is sailing a Marstrom, and British team is sailing a Stealth, and the rest of the sailors will be on Bimare Jav 2's. And if you want to build an F-18HT in your garage, it would be welcome, too.)


Did marstrom build a F18HT ?

For about 10 years now I've read and heared rumours claiming Marstrom would build a F18HT but he never did. HE did make the M18 (a widened A-cat that would not measure in as a F18HT) and the M20 (also wouldn't measure in). Are you sure Mary that it is a Marstrom and not a Ventilo or Eagle F18HT ? I think it really hard to believe that Booth would order a custom boat with Marstrom just for this event or that Marstrom would build and design a boat that is a direct competitor to its M20 after not having done so for 10 years.

I also wonder if there are any other Top teams to this event besides the Olympic training group of Lovel, Booth and McMillan. I think here is the reason why these 3 are attending. This is not a put down, I'm just wondering if the ICCT committee could not have attracted about 15 international top teams if they had decided to go for the Tornado class over the relatively new class of the F18HT. If the event is far more about the sailors then the boats then a decision for the F18 class would have garanteed some 30+ participants with a factory teams from each brand. I just wonder why the ICCT decided on the F18HT class if the design of the boats is not that important, if they want good international participation and when wingsails are likely to be disallowed anyway.

Wouter

Here's a thought.....

Have the winners match race in spinnaker/jib powered Hobie Waves. That will really test their skills!!

Bob

I doubt it, they would all fall asleep

W.F. said it is a Marstrom.

According to W.F., the Tornado was the first choice of the ICCT Trustees. Other boats considered were the Formula 18 and the Formula 40. I do not have information as to why those other boats were not chosen.

Ah Ha! We have discovered another Wave Snob. Don't knock 'em unless you've tried them!
Rick

You missed the most important bit of my post




I believe you can (in the right wind/company) have a blast sailing just about anything.

I've had a scream sailing toppers in Surf and Dart 15's in a hooly....

Wouter,
The HT class has already banned the use of wing sails, mainly due to cost and practicality issues.

I don't think this event is strictly about the sailors or strictly about the boats. I think the HT offered a good compromise for the trustees, able to attract talent and still open for development. The F18 development rules are too limited, especially with the high minimum weight. Aside from the hard wing restriction, the HT rule is almost as wide open as the C class rule. Since there is a hard wing restriction, the cost of development will be greatly reduced. Additionally, much of the development will be able to trickle down to the common sailor, unlike the C class development. If the trustees stick with the HT, we'll see a lot of interesting, useful development and a lot of talent sailing the boats. What could be better?

Would like to see some pics of that Marstrom !

Wouter

Moxie,

>>The HT class has already banned the use of wing sails, mainly due to cost and practicality issues.

Well, that was a smart move. That will definately help the 18HT class in the long run.

>>The F18 development rules are too limited, especially with the high minimum weight. Aside from the hard wing restriction, the HT rule is almost as wide open as the C class rule. ... If the trustees stick with the HT, we'll see a lot of interesting, useful development and a lot of talent sailing the boats. What could be better?

There are only three points I'm not convinced about

-1- HT rule is as wide open as the c-class rule.

I've been looking at the lastest F18HT rules set (source : http://www.f18htclass.com/n_rules.html) And BOY, it is no shorter or less restrictinve then the F18 rules. a few examples :

It limits the height of the hound fitting to 6.88 m. and 7.28 m.
It limits the height of the boom to no more than 2 times its average width.
Each hull shall be symmetric around its own centerplane, which centerplane may not be vertical when the boat is level.
Foils designed to lift the boat clear of the water are prohibited. The thickness of the section of hull appendages shall not exceed 50.0 mm. Appendages shall be straight or of constant radius.

It even specifies the maximum weight and thickness of the boards and the dimensions of T-foils rudders. Among an assorted array of other small limits.

I don't really understand why the 18HT class tries to keep up the myth that is an open development class just like the A's or C's. The update HT rules have pretty much put the HT together with the F18, F20, F16 and Tornado's. Welcome !

-2- The only minor developement we can expect are planing hulls although the required "symmetrical hull rule" will hamper this development as well as a good planing surface will almost certainly require assymetic hulls. Having said this; the planing hull development is open onder the "restrictive" (?) F18 rules as well. In case of the rig ; you have limited it to the same rig as the other formula classes. the rules are almost identical.

-3- "a lot of talent sailing the boats"; we've been hearing this more often ; but simply put mr Brown, mr Cogan and mr whatever do not qualify as "alot of talent". Anybody who is somebody at the HT events is a visitor. Pretty much all "talent" is Tornado grown and now out for a holliday. Don't get me wrong this is all great fun but if the trustees would choose any other class they could easily get double the talent if not 10 fold more.

However, I am surely watching this years ICCT challenge as cat sailing is cat sailing and it shapes up to be a fun event. Just like the C-class challenge. Drama there already. Team Australia broke their wing !

That is all

Wouter

The 18HT is an open class of high performance catamaran carrying a Mainsail and Spinnaker, and sailed by two persons. 18HT class rules are open class rules: what is not expressly prohibited is permitted.

18HT Fundamental Rules:

The platform shall consist of two mirror image hulls rigidly fixed together in parallel
Maximum Platform Length: 5.50 m
Maximum Platform Beam: 2.50 m
Minimum Weight: 130.0 kg
Maximum Mainsail Area (including mast): 20.00 m2
Maximum Spinnaker Area: 20.00 m2
Maximum Mast Height: 10.50 m
Maximum Spinnaker Pole Length: 0.80 m beyond bows
The crew shall be two persons
Part I - Administration

A. General

A.1. Language.

A.1.1. The official language of the class is English and in cases of dispute over translations the English text shall prevail.

A.1.2. The word “shall” is mandatory and the word “may” is permissive

A.2. Abbreviations:

A.2.1. ISAF - International Sailing Federation

A.2.2. MNA - ISAF Member National Authority

A.2.3. ICA - International 18HT Class Association

A.2.4. NCA - National 18HT Class Association

A.2.5. ERS - Equipment Rules of Sailing

A.2.6. RRS - Racing Rules of Sailing

A.3. Authorities And Responsibilities

A.3.1. The international authority of the class is the ISAF which shall cooperate with the ICA in all matters concerning these class rules.

A.3.2. No legal responsibility with respect to these class rules, or accuracy of measurement, rests with: the ISAF; the MNA; the ICA; the NCA, the certification authority or an official measurer. No claim arising from these class rules can be entertained.

A.3.3. Notwithstanding anything contained herein, the certification authority has the authority to withdraw a certificate and shall do so on the request of the ISAF.

A.4. Administration of the class

A.4.1. ISAF has delegated its administrative functions of the class to the MNAs. The MNA may delegate part or all of its functions as stated in these class rules to an NCA

A.4.2. In countries where there is no MNA, or where the MNA does not wish to administrate the class, its administrative functions as stated in these class rules shall be carried out by the ICA which may delegate the administration to an NCA

A.5. Spirit of the Rule

A.5.1. In the case of doubt, the spirit of the rule shall take precedence over the letter of the rule.

A.6. ISAF Rules

A.6.1. These class rules shall be read in conjunction with the ERS and the RRS.

A.7. Advertising

A.7.1. The 18 HT class adopts ISAF Category C

A.8. Notice of Race and Sailing Instructions.

A.8.1. These class rules shall not be varied by Notice of race or sailing instructions except as provided by Articles B.3.5.4; B.4.1.5; B.5.3.

A.9. Amendments to these Class Rules

A.9.1. Amendments to these class rules shall be proposed by the ICA and are required to be approved by the ISAF in accordance with ISAF regulations.

Note: The procedure for proposing amendments to these class rules is incorporated in the constitution of the ICA

A.10. Interpretations of these Class Rules

A.10.1. Interpretations of these class rules, except as provided by A.10.1.1shall be made in accordance with ISAF Regulations.

A.10.1.1. Any interpretation of these class rules required at an event may be made by an international jury constituted in accordance with the RRS. Such interpretation shall only be valid during the event and the organizing authority shall, as soon as practical after the event, inform ISAF, the MNA and the ICA.

A.11. Sail Numbers

A.11.1. Sail numbers shall be issued by the MNAs

A.11.2. A building permit issued by the ICA shall be submitted to the MNA prior to sail numbers being issued for all boats registered after January 1, 2004.

A.12. Class Fees and Building Permits

A.12.1. For all boats to be registered after January 1, 2004, builders shall be required to pay a fee to the ICA (the Class Fee) before being issued a building permit.

A.12.2. It is the builder’s responsibility that the completed platform complies with theses class rules.

A.12.3. The Class Fee shall be set from time to time by the ICA, and different fees and fee structures may be charged for different levels of production.

A.12.4. The Class Fee may be collected by the MNA on behalf of the ICA.

A.13. Measurement and Certificates

A.13.1. As of January 1, 2004, all 18HTs shall require a valid measurement certificates for the platform, each mast, and each sail. Measurement certificates shall be issued by the MNA.

A.13.2. Sails. Each sail shall carry a measurement sticker or stamp issued by the MNA or the NCA, signed and dated by the sailmaker or a class measurer. The sticker shall clearly indicate the measured area of the sail. The sticker shall be on the starboard side of the sail, within 300 mm of the tack point.

A.13.2.1. A sailmaker may perform a provisional measurement and certify the sail, however, a complete measurement form including all measurements and calculations must be submitted and certified by the sailmaker to the MNA

A.13.2.2. The MNA may revoke this measurement privilege if it finds a consistent pattern of abuse or errors in excess of 2% of stated area.

A.13.3. Each mast shall carry a measurement sticker issued by the MNA, signed and dated by the mast builder or a class measurer. The sticker shall clearly indicate the measured area of the mast. The sticker shall be on the starboard side of the mast at approximately the height of the Mainsail tack.

A.13.3.1. A mast builder may perform the initial measurement and certify the mast, however, a complete measurement form including all measurements and calculations must be submitted and certified by the mast builder.

A.13.3.2. The MNA may revoke this measurement privilege if it finds a consistent pattern of abuse or errors in excess of 2% of stated area.

A.13.4. All boats, including sails and masts shall be measured prior to the start of National, Regional or World Championship Events, or as provided in the Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions for other class events.

A.13.5. It is the responsibility of the Skipper to ensure that the boat shall comply with these class rules for all events. Compliance shall be subject to protest.

Part II – Requirements & Limitations

B. Requirements & Limitations

B.1. General

B.2. Crew

B.2.1. The Crew shall consist of 2 persons

B.3. Boat

B.3.1. Platform

B.3.1.1. The Platform shall consist of 2 mirror image hulls permanently joined together when racing

B.3.1.2. Each hull shall be symmetric around its own centerplane, which centerplane may not be vertical when the boat is level.

B.3.1.3. The hulls shall be substantially parallel.

B.3.1.3.1. The minimum distance between the hulls shall not be less than the maximum width of the platform less the combined maximum beam of the hulls.

B.3.1.3.2. The beam of the hulls shall be the horizontal distance between the vertical falls passing through the widest point of the hull measured with the cross beams level.

B.3.2. Dimensions

B.3.2.1. The hull length of each hull shall not be greater than 5.50 m excluding fittings. (See ERS D.3.1).

B.3.2.1.1. For purposes of measuring the hull length, the boat shall be resting with the bottoms of the fore and aft cross beams level with each other.

B.3.2.2. The width of the platform shall not be greater than 2.50 m.

B.3.2.2.1. The width of the platform shall be measured between the vertical falls passing through the widest point of the platform measured with the cross beams level, including equipment in its normal sailing position

B.3.2.2.1.1. The following shall be excluded from the measurement of the maximum width: Trapeze gear, footstraps, and Daggerboards or Bilgeboards in their retracted position.

B.3.3. Weight

B.3.3.1. The weight of the boat in dry conditions shall not be less than 130 kg. The weight shall be taken including all equipment used in sail racing, including sails and battens, and excluding personal equipment.

B.3.3.2. Ballast shall be prohibited.
Note: Ballast is defined in ERS C.2.5. as weight installed to influence the stability, flotation, or total weight of the boat.

B.3.4. Corrector Weights

B.3.4.1. Corrector weights shall be fixed to the outside of the forward cross beam.

B.3.4.2. Corrector weights shall not exceed 4.0 Kg

B.3.5. Hull Appendages

B.3.5.1. Foils designed to lift the boat clear of the water are prohibited. The thickness of the section of hull appendages shall not exceed 50.0 mm. Appendages shall be straight or of constant radius.

B.3.5.2. “T-Foils” shall be permitted for the rudder only. A T-Foil is defined as a vertical rudder foil with a horizontal “T” at its lower extremity.

B.3.5.2.1. The width of the horizontal “T” shall not exceed 35.0 cm

B.3.5.2.2. The horizontal “T” must be rigidly fixed to the vertical rudder surface and the angle of the horizontal “T” shall not be adjustable in any way while sailing.

B.3.5.2.3. The thickness of the section of the vertical rudder foil shall not exceed 50.0 mm

B.3.5.3. Each Daggerboard or Bilgeboard or Centerboard shall weigh not more than 6.0 Kg. Distribution of material in the Daggerboard or Bilgeboard or Centerboard shall be homogeneous. Ballast or mass use of whatever nature shall be prohibited.

B.3.5.4. Only one complete set of hull appendages shall be used in any Class Event, except when a hull appendage has been lost or damaged beyond repair, unless explicitly permitted by the Organizing Authority in the Notice of Race. A complete set of hull appendages for a platform shall include one set of appendages for each hull.

B.4. RIG

B.4.1. Mast

B.4.1.1. The Mast Length shall not exceed 10.50 m (See ERS F.7.1)

B.4.1.2. The circumference of the mast shall not exceed 500.0 mm

B.4.1.3. The Area of the mast shall be ½ times the circumference times the Mast Length. For tapered sections, the average circumference shall be used. (See Measurement Form).

B.4.1.4. The distance from the top of the beam to the Rigging Point where the forestay and/or shrouds are attached (the highest Rigging Point) shall be between 6.88 m. and 7.28 m. (See ERS F.7.4)

B.4.1.5. Only one mast shall be used in any class event, except when a mast has been lost or damaged beyond repair, unless explicitly permitted by the Organizing Authority in the Notice of Race.

B.4.2. Boom

B.4.2.1. The maximum height of the boom shall not exceed 2 times its average width.

B.4.3. Bowsprit

B.4.3.1. The boat may carry a single bowsprit for purposes of attaching the tack of the spinnaker.

B.4.3.2. The length of the bowsprit measured to the tack point shall not be greater than the distance from its attachment point on the mast or cross beam to the upper leading edge of the bows, plus an additional 0.80 m.

B.5. Sails

B.5.1. The sailplan shall include one Mainsail and one Spinnaker.

B.5.2. Boats shall carry only one Spinnaker and one Mainsail while racing.

B.5.3. Only one mainsail and one spinnaker shall be used in any class event, except when a sail has been lost or damaged beyond repair, unless explicitly permitted by the Organizing Authority in the Notice of Race.

B.5.4. Mainsail

B.5.4.1. The combined area of the Mainsail and of the Mast shall not exceed 20.00 m2. The area of the Mainsail shall be calculated in accordance with the latest ISAF sail measurement guidelines (See Measurement Form).

B.5.4.2. Mainsail shall be a Soft Sail.

B.5.5. Spinnaker

B.5.5.1. The Area of the Spinnaker shall not exceed 20.00 m2. Spinnaker sail area shall be measured in accordance with the latest ISAF Sail Measurement Calculation
[CPSI = SF * (SL1 +SL2) / 4 + (SMG – SF/2) * (SL1 + SL2)/3]

B.5.5.2. The Half Width of the Spinnaker shall be greater than 75% of the Foot Length (SMG>75%*SF)

B.5.5.3. The distance from the top of the main beam to the highest point to which the spinnaker can be effectively hoisted shall not be greater than 8.60 m.

B.6. Sail Numbers and Class Symbol

B.6.1. The Sail Number, National or Regional letters and Class Emblem shall be placed on both sides of the mainsail at approximately 2/3 of the height of the sail above the boom.

B.6.2. Sail numbers, national or regional letters and class emblem shall sharply contrast in color with the sail

B.6.3. The sail numbers, and national or regional letters shall be placed at different heights on the two sides of the sail, with those on the starboard side being uppermost.

B.6.4. The Class Emblem shall be “18HT“ (double underlined)

B.6.5. Class emblems may be placed at different heights or back to back.

B.6.6. Letters and numbers on the sail shall be at least 300 mm high and 200 mm wide (except for figure 1 and letter l)

B.6.7. Sailmakers’ emblems if any shall be placed within 355 mm of the tack of the sail, and shall not exceed 150 mm x 150 mm.

B.7. Crew Equipment

B.7.1. While racing, the crew shall wear personal buoyancy device

B.7.2. The crew shall not wear or carry clothing or equipment for the purpose of increasing their weight

B.7.3. Trapeze Harnesses shall have positive buoyancy, and shall not weigh more than 2 kg.

B.7.4. A competitor’s clothing and equipment shall not exceed 10kg.

B.7.4.1. Crew Gear and Equipment shall be weighted in accordance with RRS Appendix H.

B.7.5. Each crew may carry up to 2.1 liters (~70 oz) of drinking water in a bladder system worn on their torso. Water bladders for drinking shall be weighed full, and included in the 10Kg limit.

Wouter,
The HT rules were modeled after the A Class rules. We wrote the rules with existing boats already in production in mind and with the input of manufacturers and sailors.

The intent of the HT rules was to include existing HT's and to encourage development within reason. We didnt want to immediately obsolete a boat or force a team to spend unreasonable amounts of money to be competitive. We are however, reviewing and discussing changes to the rules set to encourage more development over time. One such discussion involves increasing the corrector weights, and over time, lowering the minimum weight. While nothing has been decided, several manufacturers and HT class memebers feel that the HT class picked a too high minumum weight. We feel that we should be flexible and make changes to the rule set carefully and over time to give everyone a chance to plan their investments over time, and not be locked in so that new models can embrace new technologies and materials as they become more mainstream.

The spirit of the rules is "anything that is not specifically prohibited is allowed" - so for example curved lifting daggerboards like the 60Tri's are not specifically prohibited. Use your imagination and most likely it is allowed. Changes to the spinnaker and spin pole produced significant increases in speed this year and every US team that I know of is not at the max hoist height, so more spin development (more speed) is likely. Also, most of the Bim HT's are heavy and could go on diet and still be over the min weight. So, the development aspect is alive in the HT class, just not as extreme or expensive as the C Class.

Yet, even as I write this,I know that you will argue, "So what, its all been done before." Yes, you are right, it has all been done before, but it hasnt been done before in a 2 man, lightweight, development class way.

Your statement that the A class being as open as the C class is misleading, the A class is not nearly as open as the C class. The A class rule set is open within limits, while the C Class is wide open. For example, the A Class has prohibited foiling.

If you had to rank the different classes from more open to less open, I would rank the C Class most open, the A Class and the HT in the middle and the F18, Tornado, etc. the least open.

Bill Vining