Isn't the STAR-class about 100-years old ?

[Susanne@PB&F]

Isn't the STAR just about 100 ?

Notice the evolution of America's Cuppers towards arc-bottoms, de facto chines, matching bottom and bow-profiles, and with those massive head-boards (or whatever they call them in Techno-speak?!) aiming 'squarely' at four-sided sail-advantages - to perhaps arrive back at the STAR in short order ??

[Mark Van]

I did notice that the Cup boats seemed very similar to Bolger's wall sided sharpies, but with rounded chines.

[fair&fair]

Americas cup class boats (which probably will not be sailed in the IACC 95 class rule ever again) are defined by a formula which is, like all rules and formulas, type forming. To say that Americas Cup boats have evolved into the most efficient shape possible exclusive of the rule is a big misnomer, but one many make given the status of the cup and the cost of these boats. There are many faster boats on the water than AC boats that cost less. Also, to say that an IACC boat resembles a Star in any way misses the mark. AC boats do not have chines, though they have evolved to have slab sides with a sharp turn of the bilge. The Square top maine that you are referring to looks nothing like a Star sail, and doesn't function the same way that a "four sided sail" does. Also, a Star has been sans gaff for many years now, at least from the 1940's.

[Todd Bradshaw]

The Star was designed in late 1910 and first hit the water in 1911. The original rig (used through the '20s) was either a Marconi or very high-peaked gaff, depending on which spars you had (the mainsail would work on either - that's how high the peak was). The current, taller rig was adopted in 1929.

[aldebaran]

I have sailed Starboats... very funny and..... wet.

[Susanne@PB&F]

As I was saying "de facto chines" and "aiming" at foursided sail advantages.

I don't think anybody would ever say that the America's Cup types were 'rational' developments - most surely not. They were expressions of Club-generalissimos' sea-lawyering and designers' interests to keep the jobs-flow going with just enough tweaks to make the last model too slow by many many nano-seconds.

As Phil said a few times, America's Cuppers did not offer much to learn from since - the latest - around the 30s.

Today's equivalents/competitors are primarily material-science exercises with equally limited relevance to designs that must perform daily, across the year, and in a broad range of conditions. Of course that does not keep some folks from imitating the 'secret' dingus this and advanced appendix that on next years 'family cruiser-racer'. By all means - usually not extraordinarily rational though.

As to the STAR, key-attributes are intriguing in their 100th year as they preceeded current 'State of the Art'...

[rbgarr]

The flexible rig pretty much pioneered by the Star class is a feature of the monohull AC class that's more noteworthy and significant than things mentioned above.

[johnw]

The flexible rig pretty much pioneered by the Star class is a feature of the monohull AC class that's more noteworthy and significant than things mentioned above.
Although sharpies were using bendy rigs from the late 1840s on, Stars certainly are the class that showed they could be fast.

[Andy Bangs]

Stars were originally called "Nahant Bugs" if I recall correctly.

[bamamick]

I haved owned six of them over the years. I have two now. They are wonderful boats but have little to do with the ACC class as we know it other than the fact that they are both boats and from the side the bows look somewhat alike.

If you want to look at a small boat that HAS had a a direct impact on the ACC design, look at the International 5.5 metre class. You will see very many similiarities there. Far more than anything you will find by looking at a Star.

jmo Mickey Lake

[five guys named moe]

Americas cup class boats (which probably will not be sailed in the IACC 95 class rule ever again) are defined by a formula which is, like all rules and formulas, type forming. To say that Americas Cup boats have evolved into the most efficient shape possible exclusive of the rule is a big misnomer, but one many make given the status of the cup and the cost of these boats. There are many faster boats on the water than AC boats that cost less. Also, to say that an IACC boat resembles a Star in any way misses the mark. AC boats do not have chines, though they have evolved to have slab sides with a sharp turn of the bilge. The Square top maine that you are referring to looks nothing like a Star sail, and doesn't function the same way that a "four sided sail" does. Also, a Star has been sans gaff for many years now, at least from the 1940's.

Agreed. IACC is very type forming and the boats (while fast) are not as fast as they could be.

[bamamick]

Any rule is going to be type-forming, and of course they could be faster, but I just don't see the need to change the rule. Then again, I actually LIKE close racing where tactics and crew work make a real difference.

Mickey Lake

[johnw]

In match racing, having boats evenly matched is more important than having boats objectively fast. If fast was the object, you wouldn't even be racing sailboats.

[rbgarr]

The sharpie and other unstayed masts aren't flexible rigs in the sense I'm talking about. Star masts are so flexible that they can invert and collapse if not adjusted with their stays and shrouds continually. It may have been hard to see on the television but the AC boats raked their masts forward dramatically on the downwind legs. A sharpie couldn't do that.

[johnw]

I was thinking in terms of the mast bending enough to depower the rig, which sharpies do. Hadn't thought of the inverting as a feature rather than a defect. Don't know about Stars, but on Snipes a little too much enthusiasm for the mast lever usually plays a role in masts inverting. I guess the sharpie rig is in that sense more like the Laser rig, which is generally regarded as belonging to the 'bendy' category.

Star sailors have taken credit for inventing the bendy rig, and in terms of racing, they are right.

[rbgarr]

Of course inverting isn't a 'feature'. :rolleyes: It's a liability that comes with the extremely small cross section of the spar. Note how flexible and dependant on adjustable staying and multiple moveable spreaders the AC rigs have become, even in the new multis which cant to weather. (The mast partners and steps on the monos adjusted underway, to boot.)

[johnw]

My tongue was firmly in my cheek. At least on the Snipes, we can usually bend the spar back, but boy, when the mast gets a negative bend in it, you sure can't go to windward.

[bamamick]

If you look at photos of Stars sailing on the run in heavy air it is not unusual to see the tip of the mast close to being even with the nose of the bow. The latest boat that I bought the rig was so loose with that rolling foot and the large deck exit that it actually kind of scared me for a minute or two :).

In Miami we lose a lot of rigs when people dip the pole while on runs. The pressure on the pole will invert the mast and cause it to crumble up like a beer can. When that happens your first reaction is usually just 'well, damn' or something a little more harsh, because you are continually skimming the top of the waves by heeling the boat to weather downwind.

Mickey Lake

[fair&fair]

Raking the mast forward off the wind is always fast in any boat, and is something that is taken to an extreme in the Star. I remember being pretty nervous about breaking my mast on my Star more than a few times on some downwind legs....usually after gybing in heavy air and not getting the running backs on quickly enough. Great boats.

As far as the below quoted comment goes, I think it shows a distinct lack of respect and understanding for what has been learned over the years from the Americas Cup and other high level racing endeavors. To simply say that nothing has been learned since the 1930's is ridiculous beyond comprehension. Foil design, sail design, sail material technology, mast design, model testing and its limits, vpp, rigging, CFD, finite element analysis etc etc have all been areas that have seen real development over the years, and in many cases this has been the direct result of trickle down from the Americas cup. Suggesting that there is some kind of conspiracy amongst designers and laughable. If you were to try racing an IACC boat of say generation 2 vs one of generation 4, you would see that the latter has a distinct speed edge. Boats and yachts are fascinating, and this is largely because of the variation amongst them. A cruising boat designed to sail across oceans is probably not going to compete so well on a closed race course and conversely, a purpose built racing boat is probably not going to be a competent sea going boat, not was it designed to be. Neither case is any more or less relevant as a design case. The looming match Alinghi and Oracle should prove to be a fantastic thing to watch. The regrettable court wrangling is no doubt low point in AC history, but the boats themselves are pretty cool. You think there could have been anything like BOR 90 in the 30's? Impossible....that kind of boat was inconceivable 10 years ago.


I don't think anybody would ever say that the America's Cup types were 'rational' developments - most surely not. They were expressions of Club-generalissimos' sea-lawyering and designers' interests to keep the jobs-flow going with just enough tweaks to make the last model too slow by many many nano-seconds.

As Phil said a few times, America's Cuppers did not offer much to learn from since - the latest - around the 30s.

Today's equivalents/competitors are primarily material-science exercises with equally limited relevance to designs that must perform daily, across the year, and in a broad range of conditions. Of course that does not keep some folks from imitating the 'secret' dingus this and advanced appendix that on next years 'family cruiser-racer'.

[johnw]

I don't think Phil was saying the boats weren't getting faster. He was talking about what designers of other types of boats could learn from America's Cup boats.

[Jay Greer]

The old Transpac sled "Rag Time" is nothing more than an elongated blown up Star.
Jay

[Susanne@PB&F]

Greer is in the spirit of my original post.

And Phil would broadly smile at the 'outrage' by some as to his remarks.

On a serious note, 'our' Cup-Challenge would require
- a good offshore leg,
- shooting a bridge with rig lowered,
- going over a 4-foot bar under sail-power,
- a maximum amount of fuel allowed to be used to do the tidal/estuary leg of the course,
- and a dash by a designated runner of the crew up the beach to the judges' finish-line after a controlled/no-hull-damage beaching.
Now that would teach everybody something we can go to sea and up estuaries with, alone or with our friends and families...

Defining your priorities as to their real-world relevance is part of charm of this Cup-Challenge. And this would indeed challenge sailors in ways quite a few offshore sleigh-riders might dread, hence the term 'Challenge'.

And yes, it might have familiarity to STAR except for that stubborn rigid draft-business...

See Thread on 'Reasonable Saling Cup Challenge'...