Which is the REAL Little America's Cup?

We have a thread for the International Catamaran Challenge Trophy and a thread for the International C-Class Catamaran Championship.

Both are claiming to be the "Little America's Cup."

If you have an opinion either way, please put it here so it does not interfere with their coverage of their respective events in their separate threads.

Both of them are great events, deserving of great publicity.

But the "Little America's Cup" nickname is a separate issue, in my opinion.

Mary, Since you are going to open this can of worms. Here goes.
Neither should have any claim to the Nickname!

Why, because in a sport as small as ours, it only confuses those outside the sport of catamaran racing.
This type of stuff is one reason why we are and will always remain the redheaded step child of sailing, we can't even agree on who get's the nickname.
Both set's of organizers need to set thier respective ego's aside and just run with the name's they have chosen.
If the racing on either side is good, over time, no one is going to care what the nickname is or was.

Good Luck to both groups, what ever name you chose to use.

CO

Great answer, because that is exactly what I think. But the problem is that both events are using that nickname, and it definitely does confuse things for the public.

It's sort of like the media giving a nickname to a professional basketball player. Does that nickname then belong to the player? Like "Air" or "Earl the Pearl"?

c class as it has been is what i think of as the lil am cup just because they did it first. nobody who spills paint on canvas today is a great artist tho jackson pollock is immortal for originating the idea. the lil am cup belongs in spirit with the original concept in my opinion. the c class challenge is also more similar to the original concept of the americas cup.

C Class

Both should be great sailing events, but I agree that the C Class is the closest to the spirit and concept of the original.
I also see that WF heads his post: "2004 International Catamaran Challenge Trophy", so he is not getting into the controversy.
I hope that both events are a sucess and help to promote cat sailing.

-1- Past winners of LAC were sailing C-class
-2- The history of LAC is linked to C-class
-3- C-class is the pinnacle of multihull sailing development just like new AC boat designs
-4- There is true development in the C-class even thought most of it will never be used in normal classes

Wouter

C Class

Maybe W.F. is not getting into it, but the ICCT Trustees apparently are. This is from their press release about the ICCT event:

The International Catamaran Challenge Trophy was created by a deed of gift given by Seacliff Yacht Club (Long Island) in 1961, as an international match-racing trophy for catamarans. The ICCT has been contested 22 times since 1961. From the beginning, the press used the nickname the “Little America’s Cup” in reference to the trophy and it continues to be known by that name today. The 2004 ICCT will be raced using the 18HT’s and the boats will be governed by the 18HT development class rules.

This is Steve Clark's comment on this subject:

As to the LAC moniker, it is really up to the court of public opinion to decide where that belongs. Is it a trophy, a race, a contest in a class of boat, who knows? Neither the C Class nor Sea Cliff can enforce any rights, so what both parties are doing is just not ceding anything to which they have a legitimate right. Messy and hard for people to keep straight, but that's the way the worlds is.
I don't think this should cloud the issue, fact is that for the first time in 6 years we are racing C Cats again, and man are they great boats!

I'm not sure why either of these events wants to be associated with the Americas Cup.
Maybe the event that is first to be decided by a "little law suit" should get the title.

I wonder what this debate would be like if the ICCT trustees, instead of going to a smaller cat like the F-18HT, had decided to go to a bigger boat, like the Formula 40.

It seems to me that the ICCT being sailed on F18HT's is just a "Worlds" competition. The "C" class boats are such that you will not see one racing in just any regatta, just as you will not see any of the AC boats in just any race. They all have their plusses (we won't talk about the minuses)and the racing is all great but if you use a standard class to do the race it becomes just another "worlds", "continentals", "european championship" or what ever you want to call it.

JMO...

Its all sailing to me.

Clayton

If I remember correctly, the ICCT only agreed to use the Bimare F18HT for two years and this is the second year. I assume that the motivation for the original switch was because of a lack of activity in the C-class catamarans (which is probably debateable). Switching to the F18HT has definitely brought about a new era with a challenge every year and tons of talent (which I like) but we did certainly loose an aspect of the development that takes place with the C-class boats. I assume that the intention of the ICCT may be to open up the competition to full 18HT rules which does allow a bit of development. Perhaps their intention might be to switch back to a c-class format now that the c-class cats are visibly active again and attention surrounding the ICCT is relatively high.

I'm only guessing and proposing possibilities but I could argue either way regarding who should keep the nickname and as such I agree that nobody should use it!

My understanding was that they were going to use F-18HT's for an indefinite period into the future but they were going to limit it to the Bimare brand for the first year or maybe two until it got off the ground. I did not see "Bimare" mentioned in the press release for this year's event, so maybe they have already opened it up to all F-18HT's. I will try to get that clarified.

May be the C Class should adopt the name...... The Fast America's Cup

Now I`m confused, and can only assume the nickname was given to the event some time after 1976, and then probably by an American journalist, since it took the US 13 attempts to win it from the Australians, who held the Cup for 3 years after beating Denmark.
So my thinking is that it should have been called the Little British Cup, since they were the longest continuous holders of the cup, and have to this date held the Cup more times than any other team, at 8 in a row.
The Auzzies & the US have held it 6 times each, so perhaps the ICCT is a much better name for it.
I don`t think a comparison can even be made as to which class is the pinnacle of catamaran design.

To me, the LAC/ICCT lost it`s spark when it became a one-design match-racing regatta, and I`m glad the C-class guys have stepped up to the plate again. I think both are great for cat-sailing, the newer format seems to attract world-class sailors whose names we all seem to know, the only disadvantage of the C-class event is that, outside of C-class themselves, most I`ve not heard of with the exception of Gavin Colby. The other sailors may be top-class sailors, but they seem so involved in developing the boats that we don`t see their names at other class events ie Worlds / Olympics, so it`s hard to guage the level of competition.

Either way, in a perfect world, I`d get to be on a spectator boat for both.

Cheers
Steve

The nickname "Little America's Cup" was attached to the event from the very first race in 1961. One story is that it was actually the suggestion of Rodney MacAlpine-Downey, designer of the British C-Class entry, Hellcat.

In the case of the big America's Cup, it is not named for a country. The first race was held in Great Britain as part of a World's Fair. It was a 15-boat race around the Isle of Wight and was called the "Hundred-Pound Cup." The British later renamed it in honor of the winner, which was the schooner "America." If the boat had been named "Emerald," I suppose it would be the "Emerald Cup"?

Mary, I believe you mean the 100 Guinea cup.

Mary and all:

The cup was actually known as the 100 Guinea Cup....

In 1848, Queen Victoria authorized the creation of a "One Hundred Guinea Cup" of solid silver (134oz), 27" tall for a yacht race "open to all nations."
In 1851 one American boat challenged 16 English ships. The Royal Yacht "Squadron" of Cowes, England was the host. The New York Yacht Club entry was the schooner "America." W.H. Brown, the designer, was so confident of his design that he refused payment if "America" did not win. The oft-quoted remark by the Queen was sparked by a great lead and victory around the Isle of Wight over the 16 other yachts. She asked, "Who is first?" "America" has won, she was told. "Who was second," asked the Queen? The reply still echoes - "Your Majesty, there is no second."

In 30 defenses since then, the interplay of national pride, giant egos, wide-ranging brilliant designs, and now modern technology, have kept the cup very much alive. The 132 years of successful defense by the New York Yacht Club remains the longest record in sports history. Sir Thomas Lipton tried for 31 years to win The Cup, commencing in 1899. From schooners, to J-boats, to 12 meters to the current IOAC designs, men's brains, wits, skills and money have been locked in sea-swept combat.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical Chronology 1851 "America"
1870 "Cambria, the British challenger loses against 14 New York Yacht Club yachts in New York Harbor
1871 New York Yacht Club used two yachts (allowed for the last time) & defeated the English boat "Livonia"
1876 Madeleine defeats the Countess of Dufferin
1877 Canada joins battle, loses 2-0
1881 Canada encore loses 2-0
1885 Centerboard cutter "Puritan" wins over England's "Genesta" 2-0
1886 Another "Burgess" design for the New York Yacht Club "Mayflower" bests England's "Galatea" 2-0
1887 A "hat trick" for "Burgess"; his third win, "Volunteer" wins over Scotland's "Thistle" 2-0
1893 A truly great design, Nat Herreshoft creates "Viligant" and wins 3-0 against "Valkyrie"
1895 "Defender," another Herreshoft, defeats the Earl of Danraven again
1899 Sir Thomas Lipton's "Shamrock" loses to "Columbia" 3-0
1901 "Columbia" 3-0 over "Shamrock II"
1903 16,000 sq.ft. of sail on the Herreshoft designed "Reliance" triumphs over Lipton's "Shamrock III"
1920 The First World War and other events left a gap in challenges until Lipton, on "Shamrock IV" raced against Herreshoft's last Cup boat "Resolute", losing 3-0
1930 The great boats of the J-Class series debut with masts as tall as 165 ft. and over 80 ft. in length. Vanderbilt's "Enterprise" meets Lipton's "Shamrock V" in Newport, R.I., winning 4-0
1937 Ranger beats Endeavour II
1958 - 1987 The 12 meter boats dominate
1958 "Columbia" over England's "Sceptre" 4-0
1962 Australia challenges with Alan Payne's "Gretel" losing 4-1 to Weatherly
1964 "Constellation" swamps England 4-0
1967 Australia's "Dame Pattie" loses to Sparkman's and Stephen's "Intrepid" 4-0
1970 The introduction of the multiple challenger concept. "Gretel II" defeats "France I," and Sweden's "Sveridge" to challenge
1974 Dennis Conner as helmsman on "Courageous" beats "Intrepid" to defend. "Courageous" defeats Alan Bond's Australian boat "Southern Cross" 4-0
1977 Ted Turner's "Courageous" 4-0 over "Australia" that had defeated "Gretel II," "France I," and Sweden's "Sveridge" to challenge
1980 "Freedom" with Conner defeats Turner and Russell Long, then historic win over Bond's "Australia" 4-1
1983 The stage was set. The "winged keel" helped Australia to wrest The Cup from the New York Yacht Club after 132 years as "Australia II" won 4-3 over the New York Yacht Club's "Liberty". The Cup goes to Perth
1987 A true world match: 13 challengers, six from the United States. "Stars and Stripes" from the San Diego Yacht Club with a Conner-Burnham team slamming the "Kookaburra", Australia's defender, in four straight
1991
1992

1995
The Cup resides in New Zealand after 1991
The Cup comes back to the United States with Bill Koch aboard America 3.

Peter Blake and company out sailed all in 1995 returning The Cup to New Zealand.

The rest of the story is current news and most of you probably know it

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

The whole point of the "C" class being the class for "the little America's cup" seems to have been missed completely! The "little Americans cup" is a challenge more for exploring the cutting edge, the outer limits, the "what is impossible then making it possible" of catamaran sailing. It is a challenge of innovation, invention, and exploration, bounded only by the minimum of requirements of length, beam, and sail area, all the rest is only bounded by the imagination, skill, available technical knowledge, and finances. Its more like the boundary's of "Star Treck" than of competitive "class" racing - "To boldly go where no man has gone before".
To bring it down to the level of "ordinary" "class" racing between sailors on relatively "equal" catamarans demeans the whole concept of the, so called "Little America's Cup"
Darryl

Bill,

Allow me to react to your comments point by point :

You wrote : 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.


If I were to rank it, honestly, it would run like : C-class, A-class, F16 class, F18 HT class, F18/F20, Tornado, etc

The reasons for it will be clear later on :


>>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.


This is a irrelevant point by now. I agree that it may have started out like but by now it has transformed itself way beyond the origins.


>>The intent of the HT rules was to include existing HT's and to encourage development within reason.

That sounds like a formula concept to me and not like "development class" concept. Development classes in basis do not occupy themselds with "development within reason. I give as examples A-cat (flyer does outdating all others over night), Moth (foiler outdating all others over night); 18 foot skiff (bethwait 18's outdating all others over night).

Limiting development to maintain the class or slowly outdate older designs in a controlled way is very much a formula concept. In this is differs from a class like A-cats. But then again the name is FORMULA 18HT class.


>>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.


Lowerin minimum weight over time would be such a encouragement of (some) development; raising the corrector weight limit is not. As it stands now the 4 kg allowed under HT rule is only a portion of the 7 kg allowed under F18/F20 and F16 rules. So if going to say 7 kg allowed corrector weights makes HT a development class than F18/F20/F16 have already been development classes for years by the same criterium.

Besides, it is not considered any development to build HT's lighter athan 130 kg afterall not having a jib allows you to take out weight from the hulls. They have been building 18 squares at 80 kgs during the 80's already so the development has already been done. It is now a question wether HT as a class is going to incorporate the available knowledge. This may be a development for the HT sailor but is not a development for the larger catamaran scene. For that we must look at Marstrom and his M20 at 115 kg's. That was a true trailblazer.


>>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.


Yes, a true statement in itself; however, as you did guess already, other classes have already gone before you. F18 allows carbon boards and rudders. F16 allows carbon everywhere and here it has been used everywhere already as well. A-cat alot new stuff was pioneered here. The only new thing about the HT was the carbon mast but then again the I-20 had that for many years now as well. I'm not looking to diss the HT class but we have heard alot of talk of development but haven't seen anything yet that was pioneered in the HT class. Pretty much all has been copied from other classes. Now your statements are not at all bad in themself but if they are true then we must quite calling it a development class and admit to the reality.



>>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.


Actually they are :

Rule B.3.5.1. Foils designed to lift the boat clear of the water are prohibited

Bans full foiling

AND

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

Disallows any angled or curved boards as you can't a symmetrical hull with these no matter how you lay the centreplane through the hull. I also don't understand how this rule allows canted hulls. Afterall the beamlandings of a canted hull will never be symmetrical for any centreplane that divides the remainder of the hull in two symmetrical halves.

I just wonder why the HT rules fret about having hulls that are symmetrical. It serves no purpose forcing this and besides the rule disallows nice features like integrated tramp tracks. It complicates things unnecessarily. Why disallow assymetrical hulls at all ? If anything development is to be found in asymmetric designs as symmetric design have pretty much been fully developped by now.

But to keep with my point : Either the HT rule contradict one another or angled or curved daggerboard wells are disallowed. The wells are ofcourse part of the hulls.



>>Use your imagination and most likely it is allowed.


I can think of several development paths that are all disallowed by the current rules. To name a few :

-1- Lightweight rudders and board by altering the make-up along the baords :

= banned by rule B.3.5.3. Each Daggerboard or .... Distribution of material in the Daggerboard ... shall be homogeneous

-2- Sailforce increase by induced stern downforce. By having the T-foils rotated downwards the stern is pulled in allowing more saildrive on reaches before dippign bows in. Each kg additional drag could theoretically add 5 kg extra thrust a net gain of 4 kg or 10 % on most cats.

= 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.

-3- Advanced Toe-in of hulls

= banned by rule B.3.1.3. The hulls shall be substantially parallel.

-4- Hooter like sails or screachers.

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

-5- mast top spinnakers

= banned by rule 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.


The F18/F20 and F16 classes use relatively more extreme hoist heights than the HT class. The HT's just found out that increasing the luff of the spinnaker makes speed gains. Well, welcome to the club; the other F sailors knew this already and had more relatively longer luffs for some years already. I think it was even discussed in a HT related thread some two years ago.



>>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.


Bill, pardon my French here, I'm trully happy for you but the HT's are not even running the full ISAF pole length yet. F18 poles are longer and F18 hoist height is about what you are using now. This may be spin development for you guys but thus far you are only catching up to the others. With respect to spi shapes and cut the developement is wholely copied from the F18's and Tornado's


>>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.


Call my a sour old git but living up to your own (very modest) minimum weight is not what the larger cat sailing scene understands as development. Afterall in 1993 a 19 foot sloop rigged 2.5 mtr wide catamaran was developped that featured a spinnaker on a aluminium mast. It was 135 kg. 10 years later some builder designed a shorter hulled cat and replaced the alu mast for a carbon one, removed the jib and the related hull reinforcements and still made it 135 kg.

How can I put this gently. You guys think and talk more about development than actually doing it. Right now you have yet the pass the markers that were put in the ground by other classes and designers. This is all still catching up. In this respect development is NOT alive in the HT class it has not even been born yet.

Sorry.


>>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.

Talk Taipan 5.7 with me please
Talk Marstrom M20 with me please
Talk Eagle carbon 20 with me please
Even Formula 16 class has a head start on you by now

To name but a few.

Sure you can remove three in the above listing by adjusting your defination to :

2 man, lightweight, uni-rigged, development class

And you can go one further by claiming :

2 man, 18 foot, lightweight, uni-rigged, development class

But who are we kidding here ? I don't believe you are fooling any significant amount of the catsailors.

Sure I think the F18 class is adding to many rules to their framework and the Tornado guys are growing to a OD class if not SMOD class status. So in that respect yes you guys have a place and a interesting setup. But you are a far cry from a development class as long as FOR EXAMPLE a non development class like the F16 class.

allows any shape hulls symmetrical or asymmetrical
allows T-foils of any size and shape
allows the hound or hounds to be fitted anywhere you want
allows any alignment of the hulls, parallel , toe-in or toe-out
allows any material distribution in any part of the design
has no minimum or maximum weights for boards or rudders
does not rule in any way on the shape, dimensions or make-up of any individual component.
does not include any rule like :

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.

Can anybody explain this rule to me and then give me the reason why it is part of the ruleset ?

To name but 8 points.

Now lets be perfectly clear I don;t consider the F16 class to be a development class. So this is not a pissing contest. It is just an example that 18HT is not even located between the A-cats and the more normal formula classes any more. Right now it is difficult to see any more difference between the HT and the F18 class except for the use of the carbon mast. That in itself is not enough.

So please proof me wrong. Do something interesting. REALLY interesting not some inflated yesterdays news. I'm hoping that this secret Marstrom design will be the start of it.

Trully with regards,

Wouter

exactly!