Hill 33

Supported by the great majority of potential Cup challengers the America’s Cup holder has taken the initiative in an effort to get the next Cup rolling again...

Relaunch

America’s Cup defending yacht club Société Nautique de Genève (SNG), the Defender Alinghi and their event organising body AC Management are taking steps to get the 33rd America’s Cup back on track in partnership with the Challenger of Record Club Náutico Español de Vela (CNEV) and the entered challengers. An initial get-together in Geneva, which included 12 entered teams, was a healthy first step towards getting the Cup back on the water.

At the top of the agenda was the need for a financially sustainable event model that includes cost-containment measures, such as a one-boat campaign, but that also maintains the excitement for fans, designers and sailors with the joint creation of a new class of race yacht; faster and more spectacular than the ACC Version 5, but less costly than the AC90 originally intended for the 33rd Cup.

At the end of the meeting 10 of the 11 challengers present and the Defender signed a joint request addressed to BMW Oracle Racing and the Golden Gate YC asking them to ‘drop their lawsuit and join the fair and constructive process... that will allow the competition to return to the water as soon as possible’.

Brad Butterworth is chairing these Competitor Meetings and Tom Schnackenberg is co-ordinating the design of the new class. We talked to both at the conclusion of the first sessions in Geneva.

Seahorse: Alinghi has recently relaunched the 33rd America’s Cup and the process of creating a new class with support from 11 challengers... might the event at last be moving forward again?
Brad Butterworth: I’m optimistic! We have to plan for the future. There are still two scenarios on the table but we have got to prepare for the multi-challenger event and move it forward and 11 of the entered teams are happy to get involved with the planning and the future.

SH: With their ongoing lawsuit is BMW Oracle running the risk of being shut out after the 15 December entry deadline...
BB: I am sure that they are running the risk but it is one they have been running from the beginning. They understand the situation and have said publicly that they won’t enter under the current rules. They have to do what they have to do and we have to do what we have to do. They don’t have to enter if they don’t want to and I can understand that.

SH: But if they want to influence the process...
BB: If they want to be involved in shaping the 33rd Cup, then they need to enter; but if they don’t want to be involved in the event as it is planned then they don’t have to.

SH: A few weeks back there was hope of Ernesto [Bertarelli] and Larry [Ellison] coming to an arrangement; do you think this could still happen?
BB: I think there is always a possibility and there is always a will to get things sorted, but at the moment it doesn’t seem to have gone very far. We are locked in the same old argument. Sadly I think it will go to the end of the court process...

SH: It is all very well relaunching the 33rd AC, but isn’t the reality that there is a 50/50 chance of having to race a DoG Match against BOR?
BB: We have to plan for the future, the court has already ruled CNEV valid as Challenger of Record, and we have an obligation to move forward with the 33rd America’s Cup and to get it back on the water as soon as possible. That is what we are doing and, while I don’t have a crystal ball, we hope to use the planning underway at the moment with the 11 entered teams to get on with the competition. If we just sit back and wait and don’t get on with this planning and design process now, who knows when the next Cup would be?

SH: In a recent interview with Radio New Zealand you mentioned that this new class might stand alone and so it could potentially be raced at other events...
BB: We are trying to achieve a boat that doesn’t just get locked into the Cup cycle; the group wants a new class of boat that has a use outside Cup competition. The aim could be to use it in Porto Cervo or at the King’s Cup or at some east coast events in the States if that is what the team owners want to do.

SH: And what do you think the chances are of teams making the commitment to build...
BB: Well, it’s the teams’ decision. They will decide whether to build or not. It would be great if they did and that we also commit to building a boat, then we could sail them in these other regattas around the Med next year.

SH: How many entries can sign up for the next Cup?
BB: The entry is open until 15 December 2008 and I don’t think there is any limit on it. There are only so many bases, so there will be as many teams as the venue can support; if the venue is Valencia (subject to an agreement with the Spanish authorities), we’ll only be restricted by the space available.

SH: What if an entered team wanted to withdraw its entry?
BB: This hasn’t happened to date, but I’m sure that a team could, yes.

SH: Mascalzone did not attend the first meeting in Geneva...
BB: They obviously have a strong opinion of how they want to see things done. Saying that, however, they are only one of 12 other entered teams and 11 of those support this move forward.

SH: The letter to BOR was signed by 11 of the 12 teams in Geneva, but Victory did not sign...
BB: They couldn’t get the go-ahead from the commodore of their yacht club and I think they didn’t want to sign something that the commodore hadn’t been involved in; that’s fair enough by me. Each challenging club needs to stand on its own two feet.

SH: Will there be discussions with the challengers on the rules for the next match?
BB: We plan to talk about the competition regulations as well, but that’s more about the schedule and what’s going to happen and how we fit it in. But, yes, the rules will be in there...

SH: Bottom line, are SNG and CNEV prepared to amend the 33rd Protocol?
BB: God, I get sick of answering this question, yes. For a year I’ve been answering this question with the same answer; it has been amended five times already. I’ll tell you this straight: yes of course they will amend it if there is a good reason to do so. The last protocol was amended 14 times through its life!

SH: A recurring point of criticism in the Protocol has been the selection of race officials and jury members...
BB: At the latest Competitor Meeting in Geneva the 10 entered challengers present and Alinghi agreed that the Arbitration Panel be expanded to five members, with the two additional members being appointed by all the entered competitors through a democratic process. The current members consist of Professor Henry Peter (Switzerland), Graham McKenzie (New Zealand) and Luis María Cazorla Prieto (Spain). Both McKenzie and Peter served on the Jury of the 32nd America’s Cup, agreed back then with BMW Oracle! Peter was also a member of the 31st America’s Cup Arbitration Panel in New Zealand and Luis María Cazorla Prieto was nominated together with the CNEV.

The group also selected the Race Committee during the meeting, and the other America’s Cup race officials, the Technical Director and the umpires will be selected following a similar process from among ISAF officials. The process of selection could not be more democratic.

SH: Why must the Defender sail in the Challenger series?
BB: The reason... If you want to limit the size of the budgets, then you limit the teams to one boat. For the Defender to have any chance whatsoever, it needs to be able to sail with the other teams, as much as the other teams get to sail with each other.

If you look at it from a sporting point of view, in the end the best team is going to win and that’s what you want from the outset. And for the best teams to win, why shouldn’t they all sail together? This is nothing new. Teams have sailed with each other in all the modern-day Cups. Even in 2000 Team New Zealand had an event that a lot of the teams participated in just before the Challenger series started.

The best team needs to be able to win the Cup and for that to happen all teams should be able to sail together. If there is a two-boat programme again, then the teams will buy or build another boat and we will get into the arms race that we had in the last few Cups where teams have two, three or even four boats, with huge teams and huge infrastructures.

SH: You’ve been quoted saying that it’s ‘unfounded to claim the Defender may influence the Challenger selection process...’
BB: It’s a bit like last time, we sailed in the Acts and they had points attributed. They had a points factor that went towards the Louis Vuitton Cup. Did Alinghi impact the outcome of that event? I don’t think so. The points factor of the Acts encouraged everybody to sail strongly in each regatta. Obviously this time – as before – we will talk to the challengers to have some sense of comfort between them and us. Whatever happens we don’t want to influence the outcome of the challenger event, just like last time we didn’t want that. We want to sail the best team possible in the Cup Match.

SH: Could a key to resolving the BOR deadlock be to ‘offer’ a trial format where the Defender sails in the Challenger series, but implementing a scoring system that keeps the Defender honest in terms of always sailing their best...
BB: For sure, definitely. As long as all the teams – the Defender and the challengers – are sailing their best we have no problem with that.

SH: So would this scoring system be something that would be discussed during the meetings with the challengers?
BB: I would say so.

SH: Why change the AC class rule again?
BB: To reduce costs and facilitate new entries without compromising the excitement. In today’s economic climate cost containment remains a priority to everyone – even more so than when the AC90 was designed last year – and the concept being worked on with entered challengers is the design of a boat that is faster and more spectacular than the old V5 ACC but significantly less expensive than the AC90 defined in 2007 under very different economic circumstances.

SH: Where will the 2009 pre-regattas be, and the Cup Match in 2010?
BB: We’re currently trying to secure the venue as being Valencia.

SH: What about entered teams that don’t have a Version 5 boat for the pre-regattas?
BB: We will have to try to organise charters, or borrowing of boats. The intention is to get everybody sailing.

SH: Radical steps for radical times – is there any scope for asking all competing teams to agree a schedule and venue for the 33rd and the 34th Cups to make a dent in event costs, perhaps Valencia in 2010 and 2012 to offer continuity for sponsors?
BB: Well, it’s a great idea, but the problem is that the Deed of Gift says whoever wins it controls it; that’s the beauty of the America’s Cup. When you win it you get to take it to your venue, to your yacht club, to the piece of water that you want to defend it on. That’s the whole beauty of it.

So that would have to be a change in the Deed.

If ever there were scope for this, it would be now; the only venue where we’ve had any payback for the teams on a reasonable scale has been Valencia. Over the years it has always cost the teams; they’ve paid dearly for venue changes, but as I say it’s stuck in the Deed of Gift, which is why each event has only got one life. That life ends with the trustee.

SH: And what about the Louis Vuitton Pacific Series...
BB: Alinghi has entered the regatta. Entered and we’re going down there. We can’t wait.

SH: What do you personally feel about developing a new class for the 33rd AC?
BB: If you think back to four years ago, when we announced that we were going to use the Version 5 boats for the 32nd AC, there was a lot of complaining and criticism. Now, another Cup cycle down the line, and the change of class is supported by all entered teams bar Mascalzone. As one of the end users – being a sailor – I’m happy to sail in a more modern boat, for sure, but I sail in classics too which I also enjoy, but it would be good to have the Cup at the forefront of design and technology; where it should be and has always been in the past.

SH: So what do you say to Onorato’s latest suggestion that ‘given the economic climate why not stick to AC Version 5...’
BB: You would have to build a new boat for this next regatta anyway. New teams might not have a Version 5 boat. For us a Version 5 boat would be just fine... we’ve got one of the fastest [SUI 100] sitting in the shed downstairs. We’d be happy to get going, but the fact is I don’t think that it would be fair for all teams. So given that you would have to build a new boat anyway, why not just decide a new rule together and get a boat that’s going to cost you probably the same as a Version 5 would and move on?

SH: Finally, if the court ruling is overturned and the DoG match goes ahead, what will be the longterm effect of holding a Cup match in multihulls?
BB: I think if that happens we’ll stay in multihulls, because far too much money has been invested to just have it as a one-hit wonder. I would say that if the guys who are actually paying for this are forced to race these big multihulls, then they might decide that they want to keep them. I think that they’ll be in for at least another session.

Tom Schnackenberg

SH: What does ‘consensus’ rule design mean in practice?
Tom Schnackenberg: We started by presenting a very basic concept of the sort of boat we were thinking about and raised several subjects for discussion. What tends to happen in many cases is that someone in the room offers an opinion and if people agree there is a murmur of accord and this gets recorded as a decision. Other matters are left until there is wider consultation within each team, or until people in the room have had more time to think and to do numerical studies. Often items are revisited as time goes on.

After the initial gathering of opinions we produce a draft document, which can then be analysed and discussed as above. The process is repeated using emails and further group meetings until the date of publishing is reached. It gets quite frenzied towards the end...

SH: How savage are you prepared to be to try to create a less costly America’s Cup for the tougher years ahead?
TS: We think we should make the boat smaller and lighter and keep it fairly simple, at least for the first Cup, but without dumbing it down. Having one boat per team is another important step in cost saving for the campaign.

SH: Are you starting with the bones of the AC90 or something altogether newer, less prescriptive? Smaller even?
TS: We are still working on that. A lot of good work went into the details of the AC90 and it would be a pity to throw that away.

SH: Will the new class be as spectacular and demanding as the originally proposed AC90?
TS: Well, it will be smaller and lighter, but it will look and go great, and will be similarly demanding and responsive to race, while much easier to handle away from the racecourse.

SH: How advanced is this ‘new rule’?
TS: As of mid-November it is at the stage where we can start introducing suggested hard numbers for further study...

SH: Brad has talked about the class perhaps being destined for wider use...
TS: People are keen that the boats have a life outside the AC. This certainly helps teams to amortise the cost and enjoy the boats over a wide range of events rather than the boat being useful only for the AC.

SH: What do you currently plan as the timeline for the rule?
TS: We are planning to publish the rule in January allowing just enough time to study it, design and build a boat, and work it up to race in 2010 in the trials and Match. I am hoping we can produce the final draft before Christmas.

SH: On the other hand, were the DoG match to go ahead, what do you think the longterm effect would be?
TS: That I can’t predict. For one thing, it depends on how much goodwill there is around the issues that might still be in dispute...

Below: Just like your average Laser... fast-creases across the lower third of SUI 100’s mainsail as the Alinghi crew wind on the height during the CNEV regatta in Valencia. The pace of Alinghi’s 2007 Cup Defender provided a wake-up call to competing syndicates about the scale of the advantage the Swiss team had acquired during the last Cup, and also about the high state of race-readiness of their sailing team following an active 2008 programme – albeit mostly on two hulls. Alinghi skipper in Spain was regular race strategist Murray Jones (inset)